Fallacies in Christianity

[LordoftheMorning]

Yeah. Your courtesy makes you a fun opponent for debate btw. I can't resist injecting my own viewpoint into things, though, so I'll be around. That's why I applied for this room in the first place: I can't shut up.

 

[Reaver197]

Thank you, I always try to be. It's quite funny, actually. If you met me in real life, you'd probably think I'm one of the least assertive and argumentative people around, but when I write, I'm suddenly like an argument-spewing machine, lol.

I actually joined here because I got so used to debating people over Brawl/Melee stuff that when they banned all discussion over it, it felt like I had nothing to post about or do anymore on the forums. So, I figured I'd go into the debate hall to fill the void, ha ha.

 

[Zero Beat]

I believe I am done debating with Lordofthemorning for the time being. He quotes me and all of a sudden it feels as if he's narrating me a cute little fantasy story where there is this magical secret which cannot be revealed, otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

This is NOT why I joined this room.

Don't preach, debate.

 

[RDK]

Just for the record, I think I was in a bad mood yesterday because I just skimmed the last few pages or so of discussion and I pretty much all but brow-beat some of you. Forgive me for injecting flames into my arguments, but I'm positive some of the other senior debaters know exactly how I feel.

In any case, on with the topic.

It was more than slight changes in gravity first of all. It was about the slightest change in any of the forces. I'll tell you why it defames it. Evolution depends on organisms adapting, living organisms. Without something as simple as basic elements (like hydrogen) your organisms can't adapt. Are you telling me in a hydrogenless universe organisms can adapt. Hydrogen is roughly 70 percent of the universe, without that you got nothing basically. And guess what, some of the changes that i mentioned such as the slight difference of 2 percent in the strong force say that either hydrogen wouldn't exist (if 2 percent stronger) or that the heavier elements wouldn't (if 2 percent weaker). Is your argument now that the forces may have adapted to support life? lol.

The forces didn't adapt at all, as that's theoretically impossible. My point was regarding the creationist standpoint that radiometric dating is bunk because daters don't take into account the fact that the rate of decay might have been variable in the past 4,000 + years (if you're a creationist). I'm saying that this is ridiculous, and anyone who knows anything about radiometric dating knows it.

The key is that life adapted to the forces. The very first life that came about probably didn't resemble anything close to what we would consider life today. This means that primordial life could have survived conditions that modern life wouldn't last 5 seconds in, and evolution explains this. Since the formation of the earth, the whole planet has been in a state of constant turmoil, and life has had to adapt accordingly.

Second i'm not evading your point. Because the physics I mentioned was math and thats the physics I was talking about when I asked if you are saying evo is more reliable than math. That stuff wasn't theoretical buddy.

Evolution is indeed not more reliable than math, but if you consider the axioms math is based upon, one could have the viewpoint that evolution has much more physical evidence. Much of physics is theoretical.

And yes evo does attempt to explain where life came from. If you are talking about asteroids being the source of amino acid (i'm not necessarily disputing that) then yes you are attempting to say where life "came from". lol and please oh please don't school me lol.

Again, evolution doesn't explain how life started; that's abiogenesis. Amino acids from asteroids explains how life could have come about; evolution explains the abundance and diversity of different life forms that we see today.

Oh and to one more time clarify that you can believe in micro evo and not macro is what I once overheard a biology teacher in highschool say who believed and taught evolution. A student was stating her reason for not believing in evolution. The teacher said (not the exact words but the general idea) " You need to be specific. Are you saying that you don't believe in micro evolution or macro evolution. Because micro evolution has been proven..." So you can believe that small changes happen and not believe that these changes culminate into a completely different and or more complex species.

It's simple logic; you have to actually look into how microevolution works, and its logical conclusion is transitional forms. And I wouldn't believe everything your high school biology teacher says; his / her word is not an end-all be-all for science. My bio teacher in high school was a creationist and was staunchly against evolution, so you can only imagine that I would consider her a complete ****** when it comes to actual biology.

And I don't really like the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution. I've never even heard of them outside of creation-evolution debates, and I think that they're completely made-up terms used by creationists to confuse the issue.

The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[3]

 

[mc4]

Just for the record, I think I was in a bad mood yesterday because I just skimmed the last few pages or so of discussion and I pretty much all but brow-beat some of you. Forgive me for injecting flames into my arguments, but I'm positive some of the other senior debaters know exactly how I feel.

In any case, on with the topic.



The forces didn't adapt at all, as that's theoretically impossible. My point was regarding the creationist standpoint that radiometric dating is bunk because daters don't take into account the fact that the rate of decay might have been variable in the past 4,000 + years (if you're a creationist). I'm saying that this is ridiculous, and anyone who knows anything about radiometric dating knows it.

The key is that life adapted to the forces. The very first life that came about probably didn't resemble anything close to what we would consider life today. This means that primordial life could have survived conditions that modern life wouldn't last 5 seconds in, and evolution explains this. Since the formation of the earth, the whole planet has been in a state of constant turmoil, and life has had to adapt accordingly.



Evolution is indeed not more reliable than math, but if you consider the axioms math is based upon, one could have the viewpoint that evolution has much more physical evidence. Much of physics is theoretical.



Again, evolution doesn't explain how life started; that's abiogenesis. Amino acids from asteroids explains how life could have come about; evolution explains the abundance and diversity of different life forms that we see today.



It's simple logic; you have to actually look into how microevolution works, and its logical conclusion is transitional forms. And I wouldn't believe everything your high school biology teacher says; his / her word is not an end-all be-all for science. My bio teacher in high school was a creationist and was staunchly against evolution, so you can only imagine that I would consider her a complete ****** when it comes to actual biology.

And I don't really like the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution. I've never even heard of them outside of creation-evolution debates, and I think that they're completely made-up terms used by creationists to confuse the issue.

First statement, the frustration can be on both sides so I know how you feel. To you it only makes sense that life came on its own, based on what you've learned thats what you accept and it seems 100 percent logical to believe that because well you know how you think because you are you (i'm sure that sounds incredibly redundant but you get the point.)
Same here based on what i've learned well it only seems logical to me that there is a creator so yeah the frustration is understandable I'm just used to it and it doesn't bother me.

I wasn't suggesting that the forces would have had to adapt for evolution but that well the probability is highly unlikely imo that the forces would have gotten it just right. Yes i do see the argument that things adapt but these "single celled organisms" that are proposed to have adapt are made of elements. Before these single celled organisms came into existence elements were created from atoms and atoms from particles (as the big bang suggests) without perfect proportion and strength of the forces the elements to create the single celled organisms wouldn't exist. and hence there are no organisms to adapt.

It is true that much of physics is theoretical but much of many sciences are including evolution. I believe there is more proven physics whether normal applied (here on earth) astro, quantum etc, than evolution especially because there is so much math involved.

And true obviously my highschool bio teacher isn't the say all for evolution but i was simply using that as an example to show that even evolutionists believe in a difference between micro and macro even tho micro is said to lead to macro.

And logically i don't think micro evolution and macro are made up. They are two specific terms. micro is simply said to be the small changes, and if you believe in evolution then you believe in the culmination of these small changes which would be a new creature and usually more complex creature. Who ever separated the terms I believe was simply attempting to be more specific instead of blending it all into one word.

I understand that It only makes sense to you that a number of small changes lead to one big change, but since i believe in the bible the bible makes it very specific that creatures are bound to their kinds. In physical and scientific supplement to what the bible says i explore different sciences to prove to myself that God exists instead of just relying on faith alone. God created us as intelligent creatures (obviously from a creationists pov) and if he wanted to force us to believe in him he could but instead he allows us to choose. The bible tells believers to go on proving to themselves that what is written in the bible is true etc so I do. Obviously everything can't be proven like the many miracles that happened but if i believe God created the universe then its no problem for me to believe in miracles that weren't bound to the many rules of physics and other sciences. I realize that humans can't know or understand everything and that is where faith comes in. When you can't prove something but you still know it's there and that it exists based on what you already know. 1 example i already used was Einstein. He believed and knew relativity was true, but he couldn't prove it immediately, so he had to have faith that it was indeed a rule of our universe. And we already discussed that the word faith can apply to anything and not just belief in something religious.

 

[RDK]

Ah! And this is what the debate always comes down to, at least over at EvC.

If you're going to use the term "kinds", then please defind just exactly what this means, in terms of taxonomy. Since we apparently can't use speciation, it'd be nice if you could let us know what your idea of "kinds" is.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Just a couple things I feel like pointing out:

Free will is called having agency, the ability to choose right from wrong. That is the only thing that God cannot take from us IF he exists. We are free to make our own decisions, end of story. I'm quite certain you all would agree with me on that, because you do it everyday.

All this argument about creationism and where everything came from hurts my head. If God created everything then we know where it all came from, but we don't know where he came from. As far as I know, science does not know where EVERYTHING came from either. Why do these laws of nature exist? You can't tell me that those laws just 'existed,' because that is a sad argument indeed(your empirical evidence is naught). Don't...intelligent things create laws and show how they work? Someone or something must have set them, right? And before human life existed on Earth, where did all that matter come from to create...EVERYTHING? It did not simply exist. Again, if you attempt to explain its existence through the use of these natural laws and how everything evolved, then I will again ask you where did these laws come from? Just because someone discovered how these laws work does not mean that that person created them.

Seriously, I want to hear the reasoning behind this. I've always been curious and I've never understood how one of these things can be explained with the other when neither are certain.

 

[Reaver197]

The issue with the line of inquiry that "we don't know where it came from or how, therefore it had to be made, therefore there was a god to make it" is that it tries to supply an answer to a question that still is subject to that very question. Ok, so we don't know where matter originally came from, so god had to have made it. Where did god come from then? Well, if you carry out the reasoning behind the inquiry, then something else had to have made god, but then what made that something else? It just goes on forever, in an infinite regress, thus showing it can't really answer anything.

 

[manhunter098]

Just a couple things I feel like pointing out:

Free will is called having agency, the ability to choose right from wrong. That is the only thing that God cannot take from us IF he exists. We are free to make our own decisions, end of story. I'm quite certain you all would agree with me on that, because you do it everyday.

All this argument about creationism and where everything came from hurts my head. If God created everything then we know where it all came from, but we don't know where he came from. As far as I know, science does not know where EVERYTHING came from either. Why do these laws of nature exist? You can't tell me that those laws just 'existed,' because that is a sad argument indeed(your empirical evidence is naught). Don't...intelligent things create laws and show how they work? Someone or something must have set them, right? And before human life existed on Earth, where did all that matter come from to create...EVERYTHING? It did not simply exist. Again, if you attempt to explain its existence through the use of these natural laws and how everything evolved, then I will again ask you where did these laws come from? Just because someone discovered how these laws work does not mean that that person created them.

Seriously, I want to hear the reasoning behind this. I've always been curious and I've never understood how one of these things can be explained with the other when neither are certain.

Do intelligent things actually create stuff? What is intelligence? Do we as humans create natural laws or have we just evolved to be able to somewhat explain them (we are "intelligent" after all)? How do you know that its in the nature of a being you cannot understand to create universal laws?


Oh and the possibility that all the matter in the universe has always existed is still there, not to mention that it could be in the nature of the universe to explode and then condense over and over again. But really we cant prove any of that just like god cannot be proven.

 

[Zero Beat]

Ok, so we don't know where matter originally came from, so god had to have made it.

But we sure as hell know where Earth and the rest of the planets within our solar system came from. Which in turn destroys the whole idea of a spooky creator, because according to the fairy tale, "God" created the Earth in 6 days, around 5700 years ago.

CELESTIAL MECHANICS
A GREAT landmark was reached when Pierre Laplace, in 1796, published his Systeme du Monde. In this he set forth his famous nebular hypothesis, in which the birth of stars and planets was traced to a rotating nebula -- an hypothesis, by the way, which entirely dispensed with God.

The nebular hypothesis of Laplace has been largely augmented or modified, rather than entirely superseded, by subsequent observation; yet to the great French astronomer is due the formation of a theory which still holds good in part, and which accounts for the formation of stars. "Apart from minor details," writes Jeans, [The Universe Around Us. p. 231.] "the process imagined by Laplace explains the birth of suns out of nebulae; it cannot explain the birth of planets out of suns." This is because the sequence of events in the development of planets is distinct from that formulated by Laplace in respect to suns. Nevertheless, he was the Darwin of the skies, who first, in a masterly way and with a grasp of mathematics which far transcended that of many of his contemporaries, traced the evolution of heavenly bodies from a simple and widely-diffused mist, or nebula, in a state of rotation, up to the giant constellations and colossal star systems we see today. His theory, which still forms the basic outline of present- day cosmological development, falls short of explaining the origin of planets from a sun, and here we come to the tidal theory postulated by Jeans, which will be considered in due course.

Whatever particular process heavenly bodies pursued in their evolution from nebulae up to mighty constellations, one thing is tolerably certain. Stars came into existence, not at the command of a ghost, nor by a few words spoken in Hebrew, but by a process of slow condensation in the primeval chaos, consuming many billions of years. The same process may be witnessed today in what are called rotating nebulae, of which many millions exist, and is recorded on photographic plates. "These photographs," says Jeans, [The Universe Around Us, p. 230.] "exhibit a process taking place before our eyes, which is essentially identical with that imagined by Laplace, except for a colossal difference of scale. Everything happens qualitatively as Laplace imagined, but on a scale incomparably grander than he ever dreamed of. In these photographs the primitive nebula is not a single sun in the making; it contains substance sufficient to form hundreds of millions of suns; the condensations do not form puny planets the size of our earth, but are themselves suns." This is what we witness today, and it is in deadly conflict with the theory of creation as pictured in the Bible.

Nor is there, in any concept of cosmic evolution, any need of postulating a ghostly finger twirling the stars, or starting them spinning in their orbits. No initial push, no divine "shove" is required even in the earliest stages of stellar evolution. As Jeans points out, [The Universe Around Us, p. 214.] "Stars, as soon as they come into being, are endowed with rotations transmitted to them by their parent nebula, in addition to the rotations resulting from the currents set up in the process of condensation."

From chaos to nebulae, from nebulae to stars, and from stars to planets and satellites, a steady procession of natural events occurs, unattended by deities or demons. Stars move, not because of some heavenly hand, but because of what is known as the "conservation of angular momentum." This means, as Jeans explains, [Ibid., p. 214.] that "rotation, like energy, cannot entirely disappear. Its total amount is conserved, so that when a nebulae breaks up into stars, the original rotation of the nebula must be conserved in the rotations of the stars." And this rotary movement is traceable to nothing more supernatural than "the existence of currents in the primordial medium" which "endow the resulting nebulae with varying amounts of rotation." Hence, by the inherent properties of motion, with which matter is endowed, the entire fabric of the universe is woven, and continues in a state of motion. There is no time thinkable when matter was at rest, or without the property of motion or of changing its position in space, whether in the form of giant stars whirling through space at a thousand times the speed of an express train or of a molecule of air traversing a tiny space at 500 yards a second, the approximate speed of a rifle bullet. Matter in motion is eternal: the vision of "dead," inert, or motionless matter stirred to sudden activity by a ghost belongs to the age of fables.

Citation: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/woolsey_teller/atheism_of_astronomy.html#3.3

 

[cman]

Free will is called having agency, the ability to choose right from wrong. That is the only thing that God cannot take from us IF he exists. We are free to make our own decisions, end of story. I'm quite certain you all would agree with me on that, because you do it everyday.

Don't be certain anyone agrees with you, haha.

This comes down to a debate over influence genetics has over thoughts and actions (if you assume no omniscient god, or ignore the problems associated). Since the influence of genetics hasn't fully been determined, its impossible to say for sure that free will exists. If your inherent traits determine the likelyhood that you would make any given decision, and the environment determining the circumstances, then it could be possible that no decision is ever really a free choice.

 

[Mewter]

So for the first statement If I believe that God created the universe than I certainly believe that he can bend the rules as he sees fit. No I don't believe miracles happen all the time, I believe they happened in the Bible for a purpose. The bible also says that christians would no longer prophesying etc to supplement their faith basically in 1Corinthians chapter 13. So while i believe God did it with a purpose back then he doesn't need to do it (at least to the same degree ) as frequently now.

Here is the "Godidit" argument again.
Also, according to some people, "miracles" happen whenever a baby is born, and God did it. Science can explain the birthing process quite thoroughly. This goes to show how quickly people will jump to the conclusion that anything can be a miracle. 2 or 3 people escaping an earthquake and babies being born are both not miracles. They can be explained in natural ways. No need to throw a god in there, yet. Wait for something totally unexplicable(such as someone shooting fireballs from nowhere but their actual fingers) until you deem it a miracle or a work of god. Accidents have been known to happen.

Also for the second statement it is assumed there are infinite other dimensions so to use that in a discussion about our Universe being the lucky one to get it right isn't enough because that is currently a theory that can't be proven. Also if there are infinite other universes there is nothing to say that there isn't life in those infinite other universes because we can't explore these universe. In other words perhaps God may have indeed created infinite other universes (or just several) and also created life in them. The point is you can't get around the math done showing that without a fine tuning of these 4 forces well we wouldn't have what we need to live. And if we have no hydrogen or heavier elements then all the things claimed to adapt can't adapt because well they wouldn't be in existence.

You misinterpreted what I said. I saiduniverses, and not "dimensions".
But if we were "fine tuned" as you say, then evolution would have happened anyways, because you're saying that without it, we couldn't adapt, but we do have it, so I'm inferring that you are saying it allows adaptation? That is the idea behind evolution.... Anyways, THIS is life as we know it, here in this universe. It could have just happened through unguided accident, and things would have arranged themselves over time. Why stick God everywhere where you do not have an answer for things?

I'm not dismissing Amino Acids coming from asteroids as a possibility. I'm simply saying that it wasn't enough to start life. The amino acids even with a reducing atmosphere (much less oxygen than it has now) wouldn't have been able to allow for the conversion from amino acid to RNA or Protein. So if it were evolution on it's own it seems pretty likely that evolution would have died with the amino acids.

But oxygen would have hindered polymerization, so lots of oxygen would have been a bad thing. It would have poisoned the early life on earth. How would the amino acids have died off, though? Tell me, and I will listen. Also, how would it(low oxygen levels) not allow for conversion from amino acids to other structures such as RNA or proteins?

And as far as other religions besides christianity, well i don't think any of them have sources for their beliefs as credible as the bible. Which has a lot of secular proof. Obviously not necessarily the miracles but the archeology, history etc.

But does having a majority of something being true make everything else in it(God, miracles) true, anyways? No, things that are false are false, and things that are true are true, in their respective manner.

 

[aeghrur]

Just a couple things I feel like pointing out:

Free will is called having agency, the ability to choose right from wrong. That is the only thing that God cannot take from us IF he exists. We are free to make our own decisions, end of story. I'm quite certain you all would agree with me on that, because you do it everyday.

Well, since God doesn't exist in my belief, he obviously can't take it away. xD Lol.

All this argument about creationism and where everything came from hurts my head. If God created everything then we know where it all came from, but we don't know where he came from.

Okay, so doesn't that mean God had to have been created? And then, it goes on like Reaver said, in an endless chain. That kinda sucks. =/

As far as I know, science does not know where EVERYTHING came from either. Why do these laws of nature exist? You can't tell me that those laws just 'existed,' because that is a sad argument indeed(your empirical evidence is naught).

You do know the laws of nature weren't made to explain why these things work as they do but rather how right? Sure, science hasn't figured out why EVERYTHING works right now, but we're getting closer. =/ When we find the theorized Higgs Boson, we can find out why the property of mass exists. Gravitons->gravity, etc. There are endless whys and you can take the easy way out if you want and just say, oh, God created it and he's been there forever. Or you can actually try and inquire logically. Why does gravity exist? Because there might be gravitons that give the property of gravity. Besides, while science doesn't know everything, it knows more than Religion. It's also MUCH more logical considering the ideas behind religion/stories behind religion contradict logic.

Don't...intelligent things create laws and show how they work? Someone or something must have set them, right?

What? Yeah, we create laws to show how they work, but that doesn't mean someone must have set them... o_O Nothing HAS to be "created" by something. That's just stupid. Energy exists, does that mean someone must have created it? Well... no because that kind of contradicts the "energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only changed."

And before human life existed on Earth, where did all that matter come from to create...EVERYTHING? It did not simply exist.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html
Read.

Again, if you attempt to explain its existence through the use of these natural laws and how everything evolved, then I will again ask you where did these laws come from? Just because someone discovered how these laws work does not mean that that person created them.

2 things:
1. We're no longer using "natural laws" or"laws of nature." We're now into Quantum Mechanics. xD
2. Answered above. These laws don't have to be "created" okay? They can be PROPERTIES, like, Inertia is a property of matter(Bill Nye, lol). Mass could be a property of Higgs. Gravity could be a property of Gravitons. Happy?

Seriously, I want to hear the reasoning behind this. I've always been curious and I've never understood how one of these things can be explained with the other when neither are certain.

Because logically, analytically, and empirically, they make much more than your "God."
And your "God created the universe because everything must come from something" is just a crappy slippery slope argument that in the end results to nothing.

 

[Hive]

Okay, so doesn't that mean God had to have been created? And then, it goes on like Reaver said, in an endless chain. That kinda sucks. =/


You do know the laws of nature weren't made to explain why these things work as they do but rather how right? Sure, science hasn't figured out why EVERYTHING works right now, but we're getting closer. =/ :

No, it doesn't mean god had to have been created bc the purpose of god is specifically that he has no cause, if you change this then what you are talking about isn't god since god is uncreated by his very nature. God is a specific concept in this case to show a being that won't be effected by this cause effect process.... so saying "what created god?" completely defies the definition of god. However, whether you believe in god or not or whether you think such a state is possible...now THAT is up for opinion.
also endless chains exist everywhere-> example zeno's paradox... just bc something is infinite though doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The cause effect thing I don't think proves anything either way...

as for science knowing everything... Science I don't think will every know everything .... or even very close to it... we are already closing in on the bounds of what we can know according to most physicists (Brian Greene I'm quoting specifically)
Understand that science tries to explain what we can know rather than what definitely exists.
There are problems with String Theory (M theory) as well that might make this happen sooner than later... as it turns out current estimates show that the theory might explain too much... i.e. it is very likely it will prove that there are an infinite ways the universe existing could be possible... if this happens it is basically useless because it doesn't narrow down our understanding of the universe.
Also things like what happens inside of singualarities and what exists outside of this universe or 3-brane or whatever you believe in, or things like "why do particles pick a certain direction at a quantum level" are unlikely to EVER be known....
It is VERY VERY possible even most likely that there will be a million different ways the universe can exist... when this happens you can't say one is more than another, all you can say is that there are MANY valid beliefs.
Its even more possible that this isn't even the real world but a simulation, I'm not going to explain the specifics of it though right now, but many physicists are starting to think this is a likely result, even more likely than it being a real world actually.
If this is true, or even possibly true, we are even more hindered by what we can know.
Science doesn't narrow down all possibilities... the idea that there can only be one answer is a human fallacy...

 

[manhunter098]

Thus the possibility of the universe need not having a cause is just as valid as believing in god (who also doesnt need a cause) as long as science cannot disprove that the universe needs a cause/point of creation/etc.

We simply assume that the universe needs a creator because we create things. In other words we are really applying our own standards as humans to god.

 

[Hive]

i still like erich's reasoning in some things though ^^
it doesn't apply to the infinite regress of the universe... but it can still be applied to other things (well in my opinion like free will, and identity but not to argue that again lol...) in which they don't rely on infinites...
these things pretty much do require an act of "faith" or "trust" whichever you prefer for a cause...


also if you believe in big bang it requires a miracle as well... because initially if all the matter were compressed it would have resulted in a singualarity... and while it is in a singularity there is absolutely NOTHING that could have caused it to start up...
however it should also be noted most physicists don't believe in the big bang, but rather the cyclic theory of the universe.

 

[Mewter]

If there is a god, or even multiple, I would think that they wouldn't really care about us....
Maybe a god existing as a non-sentient force of nature? How would a god work? What could they manipulate? Is it possible to live outside of all dimensions and yet still influence them? Are our lives meaningless? What's our fate? Will a god bail us out? What will happen if the universe ends? Can we transfer ourselves into higher dimensions? Are all the M theory calculations false? Do the laws of our physics break down when making things larger as well as when we enter quantum mechanics? Is our current universe just but a stage in its quest for the lowest energy state?
Scary thoughts.
As for science knowing everything, we will know as much as we are able to know, when we reach the limit. Who cares about what we can't know? Concentrate on what you can know and will learn. It's possible quantum mechanics is just that way just because it can be, and is, by nature. And on the subject of branes, I'm still not thoroughly read on the subject, so I can't say much about it. Anyways, the universe happened, somehow. It is likely that something so huge as the universe doesn't need a cause for beginning, or a beginning at all. Although, we can't tell past the big bang what came before, because physics fails, there. As for a consciousness ruling the universe, I think it's more likely that the universe is non-sentient, and intelligence is just a by-product of its factors.

 

[manhunter098]

i still like erich's reasoning in some things though ^^
it doesn't apply to the infinite regress of the universe... but it can still be applied to other things (well in my opinion like free will, and identity but not to argue that again lol...) in which they don't rely on infinites...
these things pretty much do require an act of "faith" or "trust" whichever you prefer for a cause...


also if you believe in big bang it requires a miracle as well... because initially if all the matter were compressed it would have resulted in a singualarity... and while it is in a singularity there is absolutely NOTHING that could have caused it to start up...
however it should also be noted most physicists don't believe in the big bang, but rather the cyclic theory of the universe.

Well the big bang would be an recurring event in that view wouldnt it? But really we at least with current theory know anything about the universe prior to the big bang. So we will never know if it really is cyclical.

 

[Reaver197]

I just want to quickly say that, in regards to my earlier post, the issue wasn't so much the fact that it was an infinite regress, but the question never gets answered, it just sort of, in a sense, "moves" the question to somewhere/something else. It's sort of the same thing with the theory of panspermia trying to act as an answer to abiogenesis. "How did life start on Earth? Maybe it came from somewhere else." It doesn't actually answer how life actually gets started, it just moves the problem to somewhere else.

I also generally use that argument because theists who try to invoke god as a reason that the universe/life got started. They usually argue that everything has to have a beginning, so where did it come from, it came from a god. Well, if they believe that everything needs a beginning, and they have to employ the existence of a god to explain the start of the universe, then why does their initial belief that everything needs a beginning suddenly not apply to their god? But, if they feel that it's possible for something to have always existed, and doesn't necessarily need a distinct beginning, then why couldn't the universe simply have existed forever also? It's just sort of way to catch them in a logical quandary.

Also, Zeno's paradox isn't really so much of a paradox, since it's the earliest formations of calculus. An infinite amount of subdivisions that brings it closer and closer to a finite answer that can happen within a finite time period. That's if you take it as a mathematical conundrum, as some people seem to think it an issue if taken as a philosophical problem (which, frankly, I don't understand how that changes it from being solved).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Proposed_solutions

By the way, I'm still working on that PM, Hive, sorry it's taking so long, lol. I've been doing work.

 

[Hive]

@manhunter-the big bang and cyclic theory are actually opposing viewpoints of how the universe started... if it is the big bang it almost certainly doesn't cycle though because it would expand collapse and then create a singularity that can't do anything again... cylic is sort of the same but in that theory the collapse isn't actually enough to create a singularity so it can keep repeating... and... I'm pretty sure this is caused by 3 branes connected with strings crashing into each other...^^
However by testing background radiation and red shifts in far away objects (i'm pretty sure) physcists can get an idea of which was more likely...
and so far it looks like cyclic...

edit: sorry if that was confusing... or if i mis said or was wrong about anything, or if i misunderstood you as well lol just trying to clarify..@.@

edit2: also reaver is that sort of like Gabriel's Horn? 0.0
also.. I still believe in god i just don't think that the infinite nature of the universe supports either side though ^^
actually none of my beliefs really do lol
plus believing in free will already means I believe things can happen randomly and w/o cause.... if you take that definition of it ^^

 

[RDK]

Where do the creationists get the silly idea that the structure that became the big bang was a singularity at one point; that couldn't be farther from the truth.

If the no-boundary condition is taken into account, then there's absolutely no need for a singularity whatsoever. You're strawmanning.

And I'd also like an answer to the "kinds" reply.

 

[Hive]

@RDK- than it wouldn't be the big bang theory... and its THEORISTS who had the idea that it came out of a singularity... there IS a need for a singularity in that theory because if all the matter was compressed like that initially it would have existed as one
and its also the physcicists that were involved that said it would have been a miracle to get it started, not creationists..

however the big bang is not the accepted definition today like I said.

also it isn't an arguement against either belief system lol no need to be so defensive

edit: and if you still don't believe me here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
and look at the big bang timeline... it will tell you specifically it started as a singularity

 

[Deleted member]

sighduck at this thread.

yes that's right i said sighduck. what are you gonna do about it

 

[Hive]

sighduck at this thread.

yes that's right i said sighduck. what are you gonna do about it

only a fight to the death can decide this delorted1 <.<

 

[Mewter]

@RDK- than it wouldn't be the big bang theory... and its THEORISTS who had the idea that it came out of a singularity... there IS a need for a singularity in that theory because if all the matter was compressed like that initially it would have existed as one
and its also the physcicists that were involved that said it would have been a miracle to get it started, not creationists..

however the big bang is not the accepted definition today like I said.

also it isn't an arguement against either belief system lol no need to be so defensive

Given an infinite amount of "time", anything can happen. If something, however unlikely, was going to happen sometime, it would have happened.
Whatever happened to the original topic: Fallacies in Christianity? Not that I prefer it to how the conversation is going now, but that is the title of the thread. We should just create a thread and name it "The Universe: Physics at Work" if we're going to continue this.
Would that be a good idea? I don't see a problem with it, considering one thread, if I remember correctly, was about school lunches.

 

[Hive]

Given an infinite amount of "time", anything can happen. If something, however unlikely, was going to happen sometime, it would have happened.
Whatever happened to the original topic: Fallacies in Christianity? Not that I prefer it to how the conversation is going now, but that is the title of the thread. We should just create a thread and name it "The Universe: Physics at Work" if we're going to continue this.
Would that be a good idea? I don't see a problem with it, considering one thread, if I remember correctly, was about school lunches.

lol sorry for going a bit off topic then lol i didn't intend to at least ^^
and school lunches sounds good btw....
I will argue ANYONE that roast beef sucks! :0 jk

 

[Zero Beat]

You guys keep overlooking one simple fact.

The bible was made by primitive men in primitive times, and it's been edited/manipulated throughout time into what it is today.

God is a man made idea. Here is a good example of this man-made idea concept I'm trying to describe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE

There is no need to complicate things, that's the bottom line. Stop overlooking simplicity just because it makes sense right away. Analyze it.

 

[Hive]

You guys keep overlooking one simple fact.

The bible was made by primitive men in primitive times, and it's been edited/manipulated throughout time into what it is today.

God is a man made idea. Here is a good example of this man-made idea concept I'm trying to describe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE

There is no need to complicate things, that's the bottom line. Stop overlooking simplicity just because it makes sense right away. Analyze it.

its not simple at all...
you can't just say "god is a man made idea" because that's a circular arguement for atheism,
you can't say god doens't exist because god is a man made idea is what i am saying.... @.@
its the same as when people say the bible is true because its god's word....
you can't discredit something with the assumption that its already false

 

[Mewter]

You guys keep overlooking one simple fact.
The bible was made by primitive men in primitive times, and it's been edited/manipulated throughout time into what it is today.
God is a man made idea. Here is a good example of this man-made idea concept I'm trying to describe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE
There is no need to complicate things, that's the bottom line. Stop overlooking simplicity just because it makes sense right away. Analyze it.

The only reason we "overlook" it, as you put it, is because we assume everybody already knows this. However, the more we argue, the more in-depth things go. It becomes a "i hauv mor pruuf than u!!!11!!!11!11!!!1!!" argument based around semantics and significs, and not to mention misconceptions, rather than outright face value. What we are doing is analyzing it. We are just going into detail.
Although it would be a lot easier just to put it that way, yes.
Edit:
Also, Hive, what you said is true, but, going in-depth is what makes that argument non-circular anymore. It's the logic within the logic that counts.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Free will is called having agency, the ability to choose right from wrong. That is the only thing that God cannot take from us IF he exists. We are free to make our own decisions, end of story. I'm quite certain you all would agree with me on that, because you do it everyday.

I do not agree with you that free will exists, and even if it did, an omnimax God would certainly preclude it from existing. Your definition of free will isn't quite right either, I wouldn't call it the ability to choose between right and wrong because that assumes that right and wrong are objective things when they aren't.

All this argument about creationism and where everything came from hurts my head. If God created everything then we know where it all came from, but we don't know where he came from. As far as I know, science does not know where EVERYTHING came from either. Why do these laws of nature exist? You can't tell me that those laws just 'existed,' because that is a sad argument indeed(your empirical evidence is naught). Don't...intelligent things create laws and show how they work? Someone or something must have set them, right? And before human life existed on Earth, where did all that matter come from to create...EVERYTHING? It did not simply exist. Again, if you attempt to explain its existence through the use of these natural laws and how everything evolved, then I will again ask you where did these laws come from? Just because someone discovered how these laws work does not mean that that person created them.

Seriously, I want to hear the reasoning behind this. I've always been curious and I've never understood how one of these things can be explained with the other when neither are certain.

The "infinite regress" problem, or Aquinas' "prime mover" proof of God is guilty of "begging the question" in the sense that the first cause, or mover, or whatever, is just declared by absolute fiat to be exempt from the principle that supposedly necessitates it in the first place. This is a logical fallacy. One might also argue that, even forgetting about that, "God" is just a label for the "first mover/cause/etc" and thus there is no reason to say "God" is anything more than the incipient quantum fluctuation of the universe. That is to say, Aquinas' proof can be said to DEFINE "God" as EXACTLY "the laws of nature," no more and no less. Furthermore, things like Hawking's "No Boundary Proposal" attack the notion of "first mover." You can read more about that here: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
So I ask you, why can't "God" just be "Nature"? Why does there have to be some incorporeal intelligence to it, let alone ones with the specific qualities and tendencies of and of the specific faiths we have on earth?

There are problems with String Theory (M theory) as well that might make this happen sooner than later... as it turns out current estimates show that the theory might explain too much... i.e. it is very likely it will prove that there are an infinite ways the universe existing could be possible... if this happens it is basically useless because it doesn't narrow down our understanding of the universe.

Incidentally, one of my professors last year was Tom Banks, who was one of the 4 people that authored the original paper on "M(atrix) theory," which is a novel formulation of M-theory.

also if you believe in big bang it requires a miracle as well... because initially if all the matter were compressed it would have resulted in a singualarity... and while it is in a singularity there is absolutely NOTHING that could have caused it to start up...

I wouldn't say that means it requires a miracle, that just means that (assuming what you say about the singularity is true, I don't know) the model currently has no way to explain the expansion, so the model is incomplete or not the full story. Maybe that's just semantics, but physicists are very picky about words like that =P

however it should also be noted most physicists don't believe in the big bang, but rather the cyclic theory of the universe.

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. I think it's more accurate to say that the big bang theory is kind of the "basic" theory that everyone agrees is a very good model except for a few problems, and most physicists have their own preferences about what theory best solves these problems, and there are a lot of them. Hawking's idea that I linked above has received a lot of publicity, it's worth checking it out.

 

[Zero Beat]

its not simple at all...
you can't just say "god is a man made idea" because that's a circular arguement for atheism,
you can't say god doens't exist because god is a man made idea is what i am saying.... @.@
its the same as when people say the bible is true because its god's word....
you can't discredit something with the assumption that its already false

Very well then, prove to me in a step by step process how "god" is NOT a man-made idea.

Also, explain how it is a circular argument for atheism. Just want to make sure you're not just spewing out "pretty" assertions and hoping that its "prettyness" makes it unquestionable.

Obviously I know you're TRYING to go in depth, otherwise the urge of me typing words like "simplicity" and "overlooking" would have never crossed my head. <_< Come on guys.

 

[Hive]

I'm not arguing either way whether god exists or not, zero beat, in my above post...
I'm saying that the assumption you're putting out doesn't prove either way...
also, as for him being a man made idea has been discussed thouroughly on all the previous pages, so I'm not going to argue that again here, that would be tedious...


as for a circular argument
saying that god is non existant, because he is a man made idea IS one...
simply because you are basically saying that god is false because he is a false idea.
You are ALREADY assuming he is a man made idea, you see?
This is why i brought in the example of
the bible is true because its the word of god.
basically that it is the word of god because god said it @.@
They are already assuming it was said by god...

 

[DuskMarthWater]

I do not agree with you that free will exists, and even if it did, an omnimax God would certainly preclude it from existing. Your definition of free will isn't quite right either, I wouldn't call it the ability to choose between right and wrong because that assumes that right and wrong are objective things when they aren't.

Meh...disregarding the definition of free will, you don't think you have the ability to choose whatever you want? YOU chose to respond to me. YOU chose to read this response. YOU chose to feel however you felt in response to me, etc. I'm not sure I follow you there, because everyone in here gets to choose whatever they want. You may argue that something may prevent you from choosing something, but in reality that is just an influence on YOUR decision. You cannot choose the consequences of an action, but you can choose the action itself. Not sure how you can argue against being able to make your own decision.

Hmmm...you know, only two or three people actually answered the question that I proposed. The rest of you kinda extrapolated something from my post that I did not intend to exist.

Science and religion have no explanation for the beginning of matter. Religion does in a sense, I guess, but it's not a provable thing. It believes a God created everything, but that still doesn't answer where God came from. Science, as yet, offers no explanation to why things existed in the first place. It wouldn't matter, because both things are unprovable at this point. I still don't see how something could have existed in the void of nothingness. There is no explanation for that.

 

[pockyD]

Meh...disregarding the definition of free will, you don't think you have the ability to choose whatever you want? YOU chose to respond to me. YOU chose to read this response. YOU chose to feel however you felt in response to me, etc. I'm not sure I follow you there, because everyone in here gets to choose whatever they want. You may argue that something may prevent you from choosing something, but in reality that is just an influence on YOUR decision. You cannot choose the consequences of an action, but you can choose the action itself. Not sure how you can argue against being able to make your own decision.

maybe you're just a puppet acting as a higher power directs you... Do you not understand the free will argument or what?

 

[RDK]

Meh...disregarding the definition of free will, you don't think you have the ability to choose whatever you want? YOU chose to respond to me. YOU chose to read this response. YOU chose to feel however you felt in response to me, etc. I'm not sure I follow you there, because everyone in here gets to choose whatever they want. You may argue that something may prevent you from choosing something, but in reality that is just an influence on YOUR decision. You cannot choose the consequences of an action, but you can choose the action itself. Not sure how you can argue against being able to make your own decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Science and religion have no explanation for the beginning of matter. Religion does in a sense, I guess, but it's not a provable thing. It believes a God created everything, but that still doesn't answer where God came from. Science, as yet, offers no explanation to why things existed in the first place. It wouldn't matter, because both things are unprovable at this point. I still don't see how something could have existed in the void of nothingness. There is no explanation for that.

Check the link Hyuga posted about Hawking's No Boundary theory.

 

[Hive]

I am familiar with the No boundary theory... and I already know that the universe can exist w/o a singularity.
what I was saying is that the traditional notion of the big bang is that it depends on a singularity...
hawking's theory is true, but wouldn't that be a theory apart from the big bang?

@hyuga- i think you are right, less people believe in cyclic theory than i had thought ^^ sorry about that.

however I DO believe in free will, its scientifically impossible, but it also makes no sense not to believe in it...
without free will it wouldn't matter if you believed in free will or not, so only believing in free will can ever be relevant and correct.
It IS possible in my opinion to sort of switch modes of thinking though concerning different situations...
in a physics class or something I wouldn't talk about free will at all and would talk about things that could even conflict with this...
however when I'm talking to people I sort of switch thinking and treat them like they do have free will, and that their lives and choices actually mean something. It sort of conflicts in a way, I know, but we can believe in free will....

also http://www.integrativespirituality....e=article&sid=373&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
talks about a poll of physicists and religion... the numbers are actually fairly even... i think mathematicians having the highest rate of religion and political scientists having the lowest...
once again I'm not trying to show either side is better either ^^, what I'm trying to show is that differences of belief can exist.... there doesn't need to be only one way of thinking...

 

[Zero Beat]

I am familiar with the No boundary theory... and I already know that the universe can exist w/o a singularity.
what I was saying is that the traditional notion of the big bang is that it depends on a singularity...
hawking's theory is true, but wouldn't that be a theory apart from the big bang?

Our "universe" cannot exist without a singularity, IT comes from A singularity(within this singularity exists the fundamental forces: gravity, strong and weak force, and electromagnetism). SPACE is the one that can exist without the singularity, or so modern astrophysics says on the topic of multi-universes.

Multi-universes is gaining some good ground based on one of the following facts:

Photons MUST BE observed in more than once place at once.

 

[RDK]

I am familiar with the No boundary theory... and I already know that the universe can exist w/o a singularity.
what I was saying is that the traditional notion of the big bang is that it depends on a singularity...
hawking's theory is true, but wouldn't that be a theory apart from the big bang?

@hyuga- i think you are right, less people believe in cyclic theory than i had thought ^^ sorry about that.

however I DO believe in free will, its scientifically impossible, but it also makes no sense not to believe in it...
without free will it wouldn't matter if you believed in free will or not, so only believing in free will can ever be relevant and correct.
It IS possible in my opinion to sort of switch modes of thinking though concerning different situations...
in a physics class or something I wouldn't talk about free will at all and would talk about things that could even conflict with this...
however when I'm talking to people I sort of switch thinking and treat them like they do have free will, and that their lives and choices actually mean something. It sort of conflicts in a way, but I think we are kind of forced to do that from time to time....

also http://www.integrativespirituality....e=article&sid=373&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
talks about a poll of physicists and religion... the numbers are actually fairly even... i think mathematicians having the highest rate of religion and political scientists having the lowest...
once again I'm not trying to show either side is better either ^^, what I'm trying to show is that no one has to be tied to either...

I don't like how you impose your viewpoints and values in every single post you make. Stop saying that if free will doesn't exist then nothing really matters, people have no values, and everything reverts to nihilism. It's not true. It's just your viewpoint.

And I don't know where you got that poll; seeing as how it seems to be from an incredibly biased Christian website, I'd tend not to give it the time of day. When the NAS was polled a few years back, I believe physicists were actually the group that had the highest tendencies to be atheists, and mathematicians tended to be the group most likely to contain the most theists (although remember that theists are still in the minority in any branch of science; and when I say minority I mean like less than 5%, if that).

 

[Hive]

RDK for like the 1 millionth time IM NOT IMPOSING MY BELIEFS ON OTHER PEOPLE, i don't want everyone to think like i do not nearly like you are...
i respect diversity, and I think that there are many ways of thinking about an issue that can create good people...
and the poll (which had more people than nasa's) was taken by a unbiased group, so it doesn't matter what website talks about it.
So what if theism isn't a majority? That's not my point at all, you keep assuming I'm trying to show theism is better, and so you keep strawmanning me because of it. In mathematics and physics they were both 40%, I wasn't saying theism is better i was saying BOTH can be believed and you don't have to only stick one belief system on people.
I'm not even ****ing saying theism doesn't go down either as iqs go up, another of you jumping to conclusions, i don't doubt it it does... I'm saying both can still be believed. and tolerated.... and both can still exist because both DO exist at those levels...
you need to calm down and listen

edit: I stopped caring about whether people believed in god or not years ago... one day I had a personal realization that it wasn't whether god existed or not that was bugging me... the question that really mattered to me was whether people had empathy or not and were good to each other.. and to me at least this is more meaningful than the former...

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Determinism eh? I don't really agree with the concept myself, as I don't feel as if I'm being pulled and controlled by a higher power. The only thing that I feel when I make a decision is my own brain working and that's all. I feel no higher power controlling me. Regardless if it does control me or not, I still choose what I want to choose. It's not like my brain thinks something and I am forced to choose something else, and I am quite certain that if there is a God he doesn't take the time to run each and every individual's brain and make us think what he wants us to. What a waste of effort. Besides, if that were the case, then individuality would not be nearly so varied as it is in the world today. After all, it makes perfect sense for a God who wants everyone to believe in and return to him to make some people think that he doesn't exist. Unquestionably intelligent.

Holy crap, there are a lot of variations to this determinism concept. Huh.

As for the no boundary theory...I'm tired right now, so I'll have to investigate that later. It's late anyways.