A question I notice doesn't get enough attention (perhaps for a lack of answer); how did we get here? I know the religious reason, God and Eden and all that jazz. But for the non believers, any explanation? Should make for some interesting debate.
What could be scientifically incorrect? I'm talking about, Newton's laws and stuff; the setting in motion buisness. There would have to be a first object, and that object would have to have been around forever to set things into motion. Give it a name and write the big book of a thousand contradictions, call it the Bible, and you have religion.
What could be scientifically incorrect? I'm talking about, Newton's laws and stuff; the setting in motion buisness. There would have to be a first object, and that object would have to have been around forever to set things into motion. Give it a name and write the big book of a thousand contradictions, call it the Bible, and you have religion.
I call it a singularity, with near infinite density of an unknown size. It was also pretty hot. Time is theorized to move extremely slow to it, do to its high gravity and such, just for the record. Then the expansion and we all know what happened...
You can call it "god" all you want, it won't answer you as the Christian riligion claims...
Why do you continue to put "god" in everything we are not currently sure about? "How do the stars hang up?" "Well God must have put them on pillars..." Putting in a false answer isn't an answer. If you take a test, witch is worse, leaving it blank or getting a completely false answer?
Why do you continue to put "god" in everything we are not currently sure about? "How do the stars hang up?" "Well God must have put them on pillars..." Putting in a false answer isn't an answer. If you take a test, witch is worse, leaving it blank or getting a completely false answer?
I'm theorizing and suggesting, to the seemed dismay of you and others. If you have a group that can reach singularity, but falls short at that point, and a group that can give a an answer much more credible than the rest of their faith, then which is better? This is no matter of God or not, just what got us here. I don't believe in God; don't labor under that delusion.
I am so sick of this type of remark. No, not everything in the universe is known to have or even need a cause. Extensive study into quantum physics will reveal that there are many events which arise seemingly without cause. And since quantum mechanics are what would have been at work in the event of a singularity prior to the existence of the universe as we now know it then it is a fairly safe bet that an expansion of that singularity would be the result of quantum reactions and the laws under which such a singularity would have existed and by that then no external cause or 'immovable mover' would be required.
But at what point does Evolution collapse on itself, as your theory suggests?
Firstly, evolution doesn't collapse. I think you may be trying to refer to an older cosmological hypothesis called the big crunch theory, in which the universe expands until it reaches a critical point, then collapses upon itself. We already have overwhelming scientific evidence which suggests that this will never happen, so that is a moot argument.
Would you care if someone killed you? Surely there would be some reason or something!
No, I wouldn't care because I would be dead. End of story. And your attempt at a legitimate contention is entirely laughable and doesn't even have any bearing on the topic at hand.
You ask us to view it from your perspective constantly, and yet it seems that you are refuse to view it from ours
Yeah, pretty much. But that is because we can prove evolution. It is a fact which can be and has been observed, tested, verified, monitored, and proven to be a fact. Your theological arguments have absolutely zero supporting evidence. That is the fundamental difference.
Would you care if someone killed you? Surely there would be some reason or something!
Why try to use such a vastly disproportionate comparison?
So wouldn't it be possible that we have made false answers?
If you really must doubt science, then pick up a text book. Learn the subject before putting it down. I'm pretty sure many scientists love to be proven wrong, because it means they have gained new knowledge! Scientists don't like making up answers because it gets them nowhere. At the same time scientists won't accept "the bible says its wrong therefore it is wrong" as a reasonable argument to doubt their research. Is this hard-headedness? NO! Scientific models laws and theories have to go through a very harsh critique and confirm with all relevant fields of science and have to be verifyable and be usable to make accurate predictions. What is accepted in science today have gone through a lot of obstacles and came out on top, I don't understand why many theists think they can just easily bash on it by throwing a few sentiments and bible verses without even knowing about the subject they are talking about. Plus atheists don't even have to defend science to support their lack of belief, the burden of proof lies on theists. Saying something like, "science might be made up therefore the bible is just as accurate" gets you nowhere.
Sort of, you're correct, because God created the universe, so he must have created gravity.
You made the assertion that God created the universe, then you model prior beliefs around your assertion. You can keep going and make your own fantasy land based on your initial assertion, oh wait you already have.
Oh another thing: the Bible might be scientifically correct because it doesn't defy gravity.
The bible isn't scientifically correct at all because it has not gone through scientific method. Can't you get it in your head that simply something not going against standard models does not mean that that something is scientifically correct? I say the sasquatch exists out in the middle of nowhere where no human can see it, that isn't scientifically correct. And I'm pretty sure the miracles described in the bible is anything but scientifically correct.
Like, Evolution. It gives a complete view with some holes, but gives those who believe it a false sense of confidence.
The evolution can't be expected to explain everything, but there is no outstanding 'holes' in evolution that is detrimental to its validity. I'm sorry but there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution from numerous independent studies, it can be and has been observed in laboratories contrary to many theists assumptions, and has been used to predict the location, age and bone structure of numerous transitional fossils. Feel free to take learn about evolution BEFORE claiming that it is full of holes.
You ask us to view it from your perspective constantly, and yet it seems that you are refuse to view it from ours
I have yet to see a theistic argument based on true empirical evidence supporting a valid conclusion. You can't possibly expect an atheist to look at your perspective centered around faith, by definition atheists lack faith. At the same time, theists can't be expected to accept empirical evidence because they have faith. So trying to have a reasonable argument between an atheist and a theist is very difficult and would often result in ridicule. It all boils down to, "Can an atheist think of the possibility of a spirituality beyond our naturalistic universe?" and "Can theists see that faith could be merely mistaken belief based on lack of evidence supporting the negative?".
PS if you are a theist by faith, please don't bash science and just leave. It makes no sense why you would do this and it achieves nothing. If you are a theist by evidence, then wtf? Do more research and if you still think theism is valid by empirical evidence then you could be the next big thing on the news and have thousands of converts quickly.
Personally I think it is a mix of Creationism and Evolution.
In the beginning there was god, or the god, or a creator.
He created the universe and simple one celled creatures, he built into them the ability to grow,evolve and mature thus eventually becoming the animals we see today and the humans we are now.
Well, I was thinking, that if both, the religous, and the science could make the whole thing all together, or something like that. Maybe. We don't know, we're just humans D:
Nope - I'm assuming you're Christian and so when your God says he created the world and all it's creatures in 6 days then you should probably believe Him - he never says 'and then He played pokemon and got an awesome idea for His single-celled organisms'.
He created the universe and simple one celled creatures, he built into them the ability to grow,evolve and mature thus eventually becoming the animals we see today and the humans we are now.
At what point in the process was God needed though? The formation of self replicating molecules is nothing more then a chemical process that given the environment and materials available on early Earth would have been very likely to have occurred.
We already have a very well worked out model on how the universe began from a singularity, this had nothing to do with a God. Perhaps God created the singularity? Well at this point you've argued for at least the deistic God at best, but we must ask then what created God? If the answer is nothing then why not just save the step and say this singularity didn't need something to create it?
Sure if there is a God he could have had some hand in all this but really if that is the case it would be akin to someone opening an automatic door, we can get the same results without him.
Perhaps irrelevant, but I shall throw it up for discussion anyway. We all know the universe exists, we of course cannot determine the size, but I've always wondered, what lies beyond our universe? I've always thought of the universe as a kind of bubble, so what's beyond the bubble?
