Science and Religion

[jts963]

Atheism:

The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything suddenly rearranged for no reason into self-replicating bits that then turned into living beings.

Seriously, I find both creationists and atheists equally childish. I mean, sure, there might be a god and maybe not, why argue about it?

Were here, some are queer, just live with it, god dammit.

Seriously I find your definition of atheism to be childish. Your attempt to tie atheism to a gross distortion of the Big Bang Theory shows a profound ignorance of the fact that atheism goes back to prehistoric times, long before anything like the BBT was even dreamed of. And if you can't figure out why people argue about religion, you clearly need a history class to bring you up to date.

 

[Deadly Ticklish1]

You're telling me that Albert Einstein didn't believe in gravity? The force that Isaac Newton discovered in the 1700's?

Planets are formed when particles of dust and debris begin to clump together in space due to the gravitational force that these particles exhibit on each other. Eventually these clumps of particles begin to grow, becoming larger and larger. As these clumps of dust get larger, their gravitational force grows with them, thanks to their newly increased mass.

The Earth is approximately 4 billion years old, while the known Universe is approximately 13 billion years old, give or take a few million. When the Earth formed, there wasn't 'absolutely nothing'; the Universe had been in existence for a very long time.

If there is no matter then there is no dust particles. Particles are still a form of matter. In fact the base form of matter is energy, which makes the theory of particles moving together insignificant, because even if it is true that planets are created this way you'd be left with the question of how particles were made or where they came from. Not to mention that if there is no matter there's nothing for gravity to exert force onto. If I misunderstood your point in any way forgive me.

 

[Mash]

If there is no matter then there is no dust particles. Particles are still a form of matter. In fact the base form of matter is energy, which makes the theory of particles moving together insignificant, because even if it is true that planets are created this way you'd be left with the question of how particles were made or where they came from. Not to mention that if there is no matter there's nothing for gravity to exert force onto. If I misunderstood your point in any way forgive me.

Well, the argument wasn't, 'Where did the matter come from?' so much as it is, "What is the matter doing now that it's here?"

We are well aware of how planets form. There are some aspects of it that are still rolling about in the dark, but we have the general idea, which I described in that quote. Basically, Misterpedi's argument is that particles of matter are 'self-aware' and have some greater agenda for us, and THAT is why planets formed. Matter is not self-aware. He's basing his argument off the double-slit experiment, where a fired electron acted differently based on whether or not it was being observed. However, it wasn't really acting different based on that. It was acting different randomly.

Now, before you reply, I want to remind you that the person you are arguing with openly declared that there is no such thing as organic or inorganic material. If you want to get down to the bare roots of technicalities, then YES, all matter came from the same stuff; however that does not mean it is STILL the same stuff. Matter changes, and as matter changes we give it little names like organic; or inorganic.

 

[Bator]

No, no, no, step back for a second. You can,t just pick your own personal preference of questions conveniently leaving out all the rest and deciding what the argument is. If there was nothing, where did it come from and how did it get here and materialize? There are 5 w,s that are the basis of questioning, who, what, where, when and why, throw in how and we,re on our way. We need have answers to them all.

 

[Mash]

No, no, no, step back for a second. You can,t just pick your own personal preference of questions conveniently leaving out all the rest and deciding what the argument is. If there was nothing, where did it come from and how did it get here and materialize? There are 5 w,s that are the basis of questioning, who, what, where, when and why, throw in how and we,re on our way. We need have answers to them all.

Actually I can. Religion does it all the time. Religion answers none of those questions in a plausible manner.

Again though, the argument I was having with misterpedi was not about religion, so I fail to see where this came in at all. It was about the behavior of particles.

This is religion's answer to those five w's: Who: Unprovable man in the sky What: Unprovable man in the sky Where: Everywhere and nowhere When: 6000 years ago Why: Because we fucking say so.

Science has always been about using facts. Religion doesn't have a shred of factual information to back up their claims. It is all based on faith, which has no scientific standing.

 

[Bator]

Evasive as usual and they are not facts they are theories

 

[Mash]

Evasive as usual and they are not facts they are theories

I'm being evasive? Not nearly as much as you are. You totally blew off the entire point of my last post.

Yes, the creation of the Universe is a theory. We do not currently have the technology or the means to see 100% how it happened. However, religion isn't even a theory. A theory is an idea based off of scientific or mathematical evidence. Religion is based off of a book, or maybe a slate, and has literally ZERO factual evidence or scientific proof to back up any of it.

Evolution is no longer a theory. It is a fact. Evolution has had innumerable instances where it has been observed. One species of animal or plant changing into another to adapt to it's environment. That is what evolution is, and it HAS been proven. That is no longer up for debate.

That proof right there completely debunks Christianity. End of story. Christianity, or any religion for that matter, has no proof in any sense of the word to disprove any scientific discoveries.

 

[sadi]

Evolution is no longer a theory. It is a fact.

:lol Sorry, just, hearing that statement immediately made me think of this scene from 'The big bang theory'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 0XhUubEFl3s (remove the space)

:smilielol5:

Funny, no? :stickout - Well, even if none of you find it funny, 'I' do, and I wanted to share it with you so... great if you liked it and if you didn't, screw you. >_< :lol

 

[Deadly Ticklish1]

I understand what you mean now. Your simply speaking of particle behavior. As far as whether god exists or doesn't it is impossible to completely prove one or the other. The truth is that all things are possible. The whole world could be a dream for all we know. All we can judge things on is probability and evidence. Now to say everything came from nothing is not scientific at all, because science is basically the study of how and why things happen. I have come to the simplest conclusion, that god exists. It seems the most logical way of explaining everything. How things are oddly connected and intricate. The problem is when you get to the question, "How can god have no begging?" I personally feel that he is like a perfect circle. He's just there, no begging or end. An entity or natural factor composed of spirit energy. To our logic if we go back in time everything has to have a start. The truth of the matter is that time is simply a measurement we make up to classify event into periods. There is no time. And even if there was a time of nothing how far could you truly back in time to see when nothing started? It's impossible. Saying nothingness is all there ever was at a point is just as crazy if not crazier then saying something has lived forever without begging or end. I accept that I may never know the truth and that the complete truth is most likely beyond comprehension.
As far as proof there's more leaning toward the existence of god than any else. For instance there has definitely been some proof of demons. If demons can exist why not god. The bible, yes it is a book written by men, but it has historical significance and truth. The world it self has proof of some form of intelligence in its creation. If you choose to believe that it's some force of nature that guides all this, well then nature might as well be god.

 

[Mash]

The world it self has proof of some form of intelligence in its creation. If you choose to believe that it's some force of nature that guides all this, well then nature might as well be god.

Well, here's the thing; it's not so much 'intelligence' as it is chance. When you try something for 8.5 billion years, eventually you are going to get it right.

The Universe has been putting together planets and solar systems LONG before the Earth formed, so it's not like the earth was it's first shot at making a habitable planet.

Our planet's formation admittedly is a one in a trillion chance, however, let's look at it this way; there are trillions upon trillions of planets in our Galaxy, and there are trillions of Galaxies in the Universe. Even if the Planet's formation was a one in 500 trillion chance, there would statistically still be thousands of habitable planets floating around in the Universe.

The thing that most creationists can't wrap their head around is the enormity of the Universe. They think that since the Earth is so perfect, that it is the ONLY perfect planet. I can guarantee you that it isn't. The variables that coincided to make our planet habitable have undoubtedly happened in other Galaxies.

 

[Bator]

My you are so much fun to argue with. You go on and on quoting others theories, showing charts, sending links to youtube, throwing out numbers like 8.5 trillion or 1 in a trillion, dropping names of scientists as if you actually know them and have studied their complete works. You should be working for NASA, 'just kidding', you know full well that for every scientists theory there is an opposing one from another scientist, just like for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction which is the basic law of physics, so if their is nothing to act, there is no reaction, we are left with nothing, ziltch, nada, 0+0=0.

 

[Mash]

My you are so much fun to argue with. You go on and on quoting others theories, showing charts, sending links to youtube, throwing out numbers like 8.5 trillion or 1 in a trillion, dropping names of scientists as if you actually know them and have studied their complete works. You should be working for NASA, 'just kidding', you know full well that for every scientists theory there is an opposing one from another scientist, just like for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction which is a basic law of physics, so if their is nothing to act and nothing to react against, we have nothing, 0-0=0.

Oh yeah, you are fun to argue with too. Disagreeing with proven facts and making me seem smarter by the hour.

Nobody aside from religious nutjobs is disputing the age of the Earth or the age of the Universe.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a theory and a fact.

There are no religions based around science. Scientists contradict other scientists with other scientific theories, yes; but these other scientific theories are backed up with factual information.
Religion has no factual information, and so the religious fantasies that people like to worship cannot be considered 'theories', as there is no evidence to support them.

 

[PurpleStyle]

My you are so much fun to argue with. You go on and on quoting others theories, showing charts, sending links to youtube, throwing out numbers like 8.5 trillion or 1 in a trillion, dropping names of scientists as if you actually know them and have studied their complete works. You should be working for NASA, 'just kidding', you know full well that for every scientists theory there is an opposing one from another scientist, just like for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction which is the basic law of physics, so if their is nothing to act, there is no reaction, we are left with nothing, ziltch, nada, 0+0=0.

LOL. Pot calling the kettle black, much? Telling Mash he quotes others' theories and then throwing Isaac Newton "as if you actually know him and studied his complete works". Once again, you display how little you actually know about the universe.

For the record, you can get something from nothing. Not only that, but something from nothing is created all the time, without violating any physical laws.

Why don't you learn physics before you go preaching it to others? I lol'd.

BTW, did you forget about my challenge?

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

The trouble with claiming that something is being created from nothing is that you are using incomplete models, laws and theories to make that statement. You are only making the assumption as far as the science has progressed. One can say that there is a probability of these 'particles' existing in order to make a theory work, but down on the quantum level we really don't know what is actually going on.

 

[PurpleStyle]

The trouble with claiming that something is being created from nothing is that you are using incomplete models, laws and theories to make that statement. You are only making the assumption as far as the science has progressed. One can say that there is a probability of these 'particles' existing in order to make a theory work, but down on the quantum level we really don't know what is actually going on.

I don't mean to sound mean since you haven't said anything insane, but you didn't bother to read any of the articles I posted, did you? :lol

 

[Mash]

The trouble with claiming that something is being created from nothing is that you are using incomplete models, laws and theories to make that statement. You are only making the assumption as far as the science has progressed. One can say that there is a probability of these 'particles' existing in order to make a theory work, but down on the quantum level we really don't know what is actually going on.

True, we don't have a full understanding of what's going on, but at least we're trying, damnit.

Unlike some people, we're not so lazy/stupid/blind as to claim that a mythical bearded man made it poof into existence from nothing; well except him, apparently he can exist in nothing.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

I don't mean to sound mean since you haven't said anything insane, but you didn't bother to read any of the articles I posted, did you? :lol

I did and from those articles I read on zero-point energy there is energy fluctuating in and out of existence. The point that I am taking issue with is the whole point of energy just spontaneous coming into existence from nothing. My assertion is that it is coming from somewhere we just don't have it explained yet.

 

[FeatherDaemon1]

True, we don't have a full understanding of what's going on, but at least we're trying, damnit.

Unlike some people, we're not so lazy/stupid/blind as to claim that a mythical bearded man made it poof into existence from nothing; well except him, apparently he can exist in nothing.

What annoys me about this argument is that both sides operate from the point that they are absolutely correct and that everybody else is wrong. I don't think that it is lazy to assume that some higher power created the universe. A great deal of scientists out there are religious. I've always felt that God wants us to figure out how everything was done. One can still be religious while pursing scientific knowledge. The pursuit of science doesn't necessarily have to take God out of the picture. Yes, there are religious people out there who won't listen to reason. Unfortunately, there are some out there who try to be more close-minded than those they attack. It's sad.

 

[PurpleStyle]

I did and from those articles I read on zero-point energy there is energy fluctuating in and out of existence. The point that I am taking issue with is the whole point of energy just spontaneous coming into existence from nothing. My assertion is that it is coming from somewhere we just don't have it explained yet.

That's a fair assumption, (since you yourself say it's unexplained), but if we're following that context, it still doesn't draw any validity away from my posts.

 

[Mash]

What annoys me about this argument is that both sides operate from the point that they are absolutely correct and that everybody else is wrong. I don't think that it is lazy to assume that some higher power created the universe. A great deal of scientists out there are religious. I've always felt that God wants us to figure out how everything was done. One can still be religious while pursing scientific knowledge. The pursuit of science doesn't necessarily have to take God out of the picture. Yes, there are religious people out there who won't listen to reason. Unfortunately, there are some out there who try to be more close-minded than those they attack. It's sad.

Well, the thing is, that IS being lazy. You are making an assumption based on absolutely no scientific evidence. You are not trying to look at all possible avenues.
Let's take Christianity as an easy example: They believe that a man in the sky called everything into existence about 6000 years ago, and REFUSE to look at any of the evidence that contradicts that assumption back and forth.

I'm not trying to disprove the existence of a deity. Trying to do such a thing is about as pointless as trying to disprove Gravity. I'm trying to disprove the religions surrounding the belief of a deity. Why? Because they like to make up their own little versions of what was, and what is. They are spreading false information and get very angry when they are told that.

Now, a scientist can believe in a deity. A scientist can not be worth his salt and believe in all the aspects of Christianity. The two things contradict eachother too violently.

 

[Deadly Ticklish1]

Well, here's the thing; it's not so much 'intelligence' as it is chance. When you try something for 8.5 trillion years, eventually you are going to get it right.

Yes, but that would be saying that the universe is self conscious. Or is governed by a law. If that's the case, you have to wonder why these laws exist. Are they set into place or do they just exist? If the universe can learn from mistakes is that not being self-aware?

 

[Deadly Ticklish1]

Well, the thing is, that IS being lazy. You are making an assumption based on absolutely no scientific evidence. You are not trying to look at all possible avenues.
Let's take Christianity as an easy example: They believe that a man in the sky called everything into existence about 6000 years ago, and REFUSE to look at any of the evidence that contradicts that assumption back and forth.

I'm not trying to disprove the existence of a deity. Trying to do such a thing is about as pointless as trying to disprove Gravity. I'm trying to disprove the religions surrounding the belief of a deity. Why? Because they like to make up their own little versions of what was, and what is. They are spreading false information and get very angry when they are told that.

Now, a scientist can believe in a deity. A scientist can not be worth his salt and believe in all the aspects of Christianity. The two things contradict eachother too violently.

I have had people bring up facts to me which do give some significant proof to the bible. I'll try to find them. There are things that have also been mistranslated and interpreted do to language, cultural, and historical differences. It's also full of symbolism and can mean different things depending on how you read it. But one thing to keep in mind is that the bible is not a science book. Nor do the two necessarily disprove each other. As far as religion goes, there's many of them. So you can't expect them to all be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean they're completely wrong. I stated earlier all things are possible.

 

[Mash]

Yes, but that would be saying that the universe is self conscious. Or is governed by a law. If that's the case, you have to wonder why these laws exist. Are they set into place or do they just exist? If the universe can learn from mistakes is that not being self-aware?

Yes, the Universe is governed by a law. Several laws in fact; these laws are called the laws of physics. I'm sorry if I implied that the Universe had some form of intelligence; it doesn't. The Universe has been pulling planets and stars together via the force of gravity, and if the circumstances aren't near perfect, then the planet will not be habitable.

That being said, the Universe has had quadrillions of chances to make a perfect planet. I say quadrillions due to the fact that there are trillions of planets in our galaxy, and trillions of galaxies in the Universe. There ARE other 'perfect' planets out there. I think a proper analogy would be like trying to find 5 randomly dropped needles in a haystack the size of Manhattan; and that in itself is a severely down-sized analogy.

The Universe does not learn from it's mistakes, simply because the Universe does not make any mistakes. Do you think Jupiter was a mistake? Or Saturn? Those aren't habitable planets, but they certainly aren't mistakes. I think it would be a little arrogant of us to call every non-habitable planet a mistake.

And lets say, for the sake of the discussion, that we ARE arrogant, and that we consider every non-habitable planet a mistake. The Universe still isn't 'learning', it is still making habitable planets at the rate/chance it always has. If the proper conditions aren't met by a stroke of chance or luck, then the planet will not be habitable.

Again, I am ONLY personifying the Universe for the ease of the discussion. I do not believe it to possess any intelligence of any form, or behave in a way that isn't in correlation to the laws of physics.

 

[Deadly Ticklish1]

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
This is an interesting sight that I felt would be appropriate for the discussion.

 

[Spawn190]

Ok people, lets agree to disagree with each other and move on, i don't see the point of arguing back and forth trying to disprove each others facts.