Armor Games

PanzerTank

• Member since: 2/25/2010
• SteamID: PanzerTank

"If God created us perfect, how could we have possibly sinned? If God intended to create us perfectly, but failed, how is he perfect? If God intended to create us imperfectly, how is it our fault for sinning?"-skembree
______________________________________________

1. Kasic says:

   Posted at 6:34pm on 4/28/2012

   "What you said and I quote is "I don't know enough about quantum physics to being to say whether what is says is plausible for myself". I copied and pasted that from a message you sent me."

   Yes, but I didn't make myself very clear it would appear (I'm not very good at communicating my ideas exactly) and I would like to point to the phrase, "for myself." By which I meant independently test or think about with my own knowledge and not read other people's explanations on it.

   " you could see my confusion right?"

   Yes.

   "Well some people do find the bible as evidence, although it is refutable."

   Using the Bible as evidence for God is like using your own hand to pick yourself up by the hair. You can't do it no matter how strong you are. Using the Bible as evidence for God is also circular reasoning, the Bible is true because it's the word of God, we know it's the word of God because it says so, and we know God is right because he is all powerful, and we know he's all powerful because the Bible tells us so.

   "Just to let you know there is no such thing as a problem with a question as you said there was with my question. There is sometimes a problem with the phrasing though. Also you can't say we can't (a double negative, ironic no?) even include this question into our conversation because I didn't, I said out of curiousity, it was just a question not to be related into our original conversation."

   Most likely my poor communication skills again. By "problem" I mean the question is inherently pointless. We can discuss it all we want, but it will never go anywhere because we cannot fully disprove God because as a supernatural figure he is above natural means.

   ""Second, I didn't say I didn't know if it's possible or not (did I? Maybe I said something close to it)" Actually you said exactly that lol, if you want you can check out the part you said that, it's the very first or second thing posted from you, maybe third."

   I said I don't know for -myself- (by which I meant by my own knowledge alone) whether or not it is -plausible- (by which I meant a rational conclusion to make based on quantum theory). By which I meant that I can only look at other people's data, explanations, and conclusions and decide whether those are good explanations within themselves.

2. MageGrayWolf says:

   Posted at 5:12pm on 4/28/2012

   1) First off there may have been time "before" the Big Bang, but it was not in the sense that we know it. Time and space are unified. Since we didn't have space "before" the Big Bang, we couldn't have had time as we know it. The Big Bang was the point where the universe started having space, thus also started having time.
   Now if we exist in a sort of multiverse, other universes could have existed with time of there own.

   2) It would convert matter back to energy "destroying" matter. This is why we could get so much energy out of an antimatter reaction. Because the matter that it once was is converted back into energy and the amount of energy it takes to make up even a small amount of matter is immense. Everything we think of as being created or destroyed is simply changes in states. When you get down to it all matter really is, is energy, made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.

   3) No the Bible is not evidence, it's a book of claims that requires evidence to support it.

   4)Yes it may be wrong, however the point is to go where the evidence leads and right now the evidence leads us to matter/energy not being able to be created or destroyed. If in 1000 years we find evidence that it can we then take that new piece of information and revise our conclusion. This is the strength of science to be able to find the most true things and eliminate the most false things. Just jumping to conclusion and saying "god did it" does not do this for us.
   Also the flat Earth concept came from religion. So just another thing religion got wrong.

   "Out of curiousity what percentage if any do you think that there is a god or God."

   0.000000000 etc. etc. etc....1%
   "In credible claims require incredible evidence" -Carl Sagan
   I can't think of anything more incredible then the existence of a god so such a being will require the most incredible evidence.

   "P.S. When I said stars I didn't literally mean stars, I meant matter in general."

   Still wouldn't have been an implosion of matter, it would have been more like a chain reaction.

   Ever play one of those games where you have like balls that you blow up and you just blow up one ball and that one ball causes all the balls around it to blow up and those balls cause all the balls around them to blow up etc.? It would have been like that but with energy and the fundamental forces of the universe.

3. Kasic says:

   Posted at 8:19pm on 4/27/2012

   "I find it a tad bit ironic that you believe in the Big Bang theory without ever having researched it enough to say if it's plausible or not."

   I have researched it and looked into it. From what I understand of it, it's plausible.

   What I said is that I do not have the education in quantum physics to test the rational behind a good chunk of it on my own, and instead have to rely on other people's conclusions and propositions. I'm not uninformed as to what it says or anything like that.

   "I'm just curious as I ask this; do you think it's just as likely a god created the Universe as the Big Bang Theory, considering that you don't know if it's plausible or not?"

   There's two problems with your question.

   First, we cannot find any evidence for God, thus there is no reason to assume he exists. While there is also no reason to flat out say he doesn't exist, he shouldn't even be included in discussions until such a time as someone can find some evidence for his existence. It's like talking about building a wooden bridge across a forest with the ability to hold Bigfoot "just in case" he walks across it.

   Second, I didn't say I didn't know if it's possible or not (did I? Maybe I said something close to it) I said there were parts that I don't have the education in quantum physics to understand for myself and know whether, without asking anyone else, to reach those same conclusions.

4. MageGrayWolf says:

   Posted at 7:25pm on 4/27/2012

   I have an affinity for science, not necessarily for specific theories. As I said I accept the Big Bang model as it best fits with observations. Though there are competing theories that deserve closer inspection that are currently not getting it. If at some point we find one of those theories better fits the models we observe I would be forced to abandon my acceptance of the Big Bang model for the competing theory.

   The Big Bang only covers the universe expanding from a singularity, which contained all the energy that is in the universe. It does not cover how that energy got there in the first place, a subject that we have hypotheses for but no working theory.

   I do not accept the claim of god's existence since we have no evidence for one existing. We do have evidence for the existence of matter/energy and based on our observations of it, it can not be created or destroyed. So it would stand to reason that it's possible that such a thing could have always existed. Further more time itself as we understand it began with the Big Bang. So by that reference the energy did always exist, as there was no "before" the Big Bang.

   Stars did not form the Big Bang. The Big Bang does not cover stars imploding or any other reaction that occurred within the universe once it formed. As for the destruction of stars we have a pretty good grasp on how and why they are destroyed.

   As for nothingness, we actually have no example of true nothing. Even what we might consider as nothing is something on a quantum level. We see something called virtual particles that seem to pop in and out of existence. In fact one hypothesis states that this effect is how the Big Bang was kick started in the first place.

5. Kasic says:

   Posted at 12:36am on 4/27/2012

   Scratch "allowing crimes to take place" and replace with "crimes occuring." A bit confusing otherwise.