Is the God concept illogical?, Not at all. Can we understand it?. Nope. Is that logical?, Yes.
You have it reversed. Here's the correct answer: Is the god concept illogical? Yes. Can we use science to to understand the universe? Yes. Is it logical to use science? Yes.
They have no proof, nothing testable or solid, nothing. Neither will they ever find proof against an intelligent creator, as some other alternative or anything because all theories eventually fall back as being nonsensical, untestable, and unfalsifiable/illogical claims.
Sigh...
You still don't grasp an understanding of science. The process of science is to find evidence to support your hypothesis and applying statistics to your hypothesis. If new and more evidence consistently supports a hypothesis, it becomes theory. If a hypothesis, lacks evidence it remains speculation. I'll teach you how it works: Your hypothesis that your god created humans lacks evidence, therefore it has low probability of being true, so it remains a speculation. The hypothesis that evolution acts on humans is consistently supported by evidence (such as DNA, skeletal structure, fossils, etc), therefore it has high probability of being true, so it is a theory.
Stopped reading there(actually I read more, but I should have stopped as Ive read this before). Here`s a thought, Is that truth?, Is that science?. Or are we again throwing random ideas into the hat?. I was actually again looking for something solid that I thought you would present, but big crunch, big bounce, big `easter bunny` etc are all just dodgy pseudo science of trying to evade the real truth.
Sigh...again...
Did you even bother to look at the additional sources of information? They were listed on the same site as http://sciencefocus.com/feature/space/have-we-all-been-here . If you know how to use the Internet, you should be able to find them.
The Endless Universe - Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007)
Three Roads to Quantum Gravity - Lee Smolin (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000)
Time was created at the big. The God existed in an eternal state of being. God created everything. End of story. <-That is the only real science and where science originates from.
That's incorrect. I'll teach you the correct statements: "Time existed before the Big Bang; humans have not yet found a method to record/measure time independent of motions in space." "It is a speculation/hypothesis that a god existed in an eternal state of being and a god created everything." "Speculations lack verifiable evidence." I'll reiterate this again: "Real science originates from forming a hypothesis based on observation of phenomenon, and gathering of evidence to support hypothesis. When evidence does not support hypothesis of god, it remains a speculation."
But if the cyclic universe theory is correct, the textbooks will have to be re-written
If you remotely understood science, you would have known that's how information about new discoveries are disseminated (i.e. passing on knowledge, teaching/learning). I guess you didn't understand why all those biblical fairytales aren't used to teach science.
You`re not posting anything solid. In the mean time, I`ll stick to what I know, and rather you stick to what you hope for(And show me the results if it ever comes to pass).
"Testing the theories
Two ways to investigate the truth about cyclic universes
Planck
Due for launch onboard an Ariane 5 rocket in October, the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite is designed to observe the background heat left over from the Big Bang in unprecedented detail. Some theories of cyclic universes predict the appearance of patterns in this background heat caused by so-called quantum gravity effects triggered at and before the Big Bang. Hints of these effects have already been seen with ground-based observatories, but Planck is needed to confirm them.
The radiation released in the Big Bang is ‘stretched’ by billions of years of cosmic expansion until it turns into microwaves. Parked at a gravitationally stable point 1.6 million kilometres from the Earth, Planck will study these microwaves, which are predicted to interact with gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space-time – causing them to vibrate in certain directions, an effect called polarisation. Analysis of the polarisation signal gathered over the duration of Planck’s 21-month mission will allow theorists to check competing theories of what happened at and before the Big Bang.
Big Bang Observer
Predicted by Einstein’s theory of gravity but never directly observed, gravitational waves are undulations in the fabric of space and time with characteristics capable of giving insights into events at and before the Big Bang. Ground-based gravitational wave detectors have already been built, but theory suggests that the waves created by the Big Bang will only be detectable using vast space-based observatories such as the Big Bang Observer (BBO) which NASA hopes to build some time in the “coming decades”.
The BBO will consist of three sets of three satellites arranged in equilateral triangles. The sides will stretch 50,000km long, each set forming a triangle in solar orbit. Gravitational waves generated by cosmic events pass through the Solar System, altering space-time – and thus altering the distance between the satellites. The laser beams passing between the sets of satellites detect gravitational waves through the effects of interference, which shifts the light waves relative to one another. Data collected during the mission is analysed to see which explanation of the Big Bang gives the best fit."
Doesn't natural selection mean that the way nature is formed, in order to provide suitable conditions, must first presuppose an outcome in order to predict that the initial law and subsequent laws that function along the initial law and all prior laws such that the process would create the exact process (as a whole) so that the earth would become as it is and was and all subsequent ages of the earth?
Doesn't this then have to extend towards the entire cosmos so that what the laws operate on must always be there in the first place and must exactly be at an exact amount, so that the law itself will not break any subsequent forms the law itself should assemble?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem with persistent laws/Preexisting laws either hierarchical or communal, or both and the big bang:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that laws existed as eternal when the universe was still a small compact sphere or something like that, is that the laws cannot be there because it cannot operate. Laws are laws because they are observed through the operation of things (or how things are going). And this is only true if the said operations are operating as they are (or in this case, should).
Therefore, the laws must have "evolved" as well, so that at every generation of the universe, the laws operating in those spans were supporting the stages and subsequent stages after them, where every subsequent form comes along a new law or another form of the previous law.
If the laws then are seen to be taking in functions as variables, then we must say that the fundamental law must create these functions so that it can take them and process them.
In other words, either I am terrible at speaking mathematically, or there's something I want you to know...
No. Natural selection means that due to natural events (such as disease outbreak), certain individuals with certain traits have higher probability of producing successful offspring. For example, let's say the population is 50% trait A and 50% trait B. Let's say that trait A helps individuals fight off/survive infectious diseases better. Now, let's say a disease outbreak occurred in the population. The individuals with trait A have higher probability of surviving than individuals with trait B. After the outbreak, the trait distribution among the survivors might resemble 80% trait A, 20% trait B. Those survivors pass their traits to offspring, so the trait distribution among the offspring might be 80% trait A, 20% B (assuming A, B don't affect meiosis).
There's nothing about a constraint that natural selection has to provide a suitable condition. If the individuals didn't possess the necessary traits (by random chance), they have lower probability to survive and have viable offspring.
In any case, whatever you do, do not permit the UN to pass the anti-blasphemy bullshit. Or is it too late?
And please, defend the constitution of the USA. Your heroes have aided us in the past because of what you guys stand for back then. Do not allow it to go into the drain.
Thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Anti-blasphemy doesn't even work on principle. Most religions offend eachother by their very nature. Islam rejects the holy trinity and it's a point of contention between the two religions, for example. As is "God does not have children".
Secondly, muslims mock jews and depict them in various... "ways" almost constantly.
It won't pass. It doesn't even work. And even if it did, it'll just provoke people to break it even more often, en masse.
An entity that can create universes must be complex. Complexity requires
an explanation. You are simply deferring the question from "Where did
the universe come from?" to "Where did the creator of the universe come
from?".
You do not get a free pass to skip this question with some "it was
always there" nonsense. If you are satisfied with that answer, then why
bother with gods at all and just proclaim the universe "was always
there"?
You are at best delaying the question, and at worst special pleading.
Until we observe an instance of spontaneous generation, the existence of life necessitates a living creator.
So essentially what you're saying is "Until I see it, I get to make shit
up"?
No. I'm saying when you've got zillions of known lifeforms that were birthed from progenitors vs. zero known life forms that were created without progenitors, it's a matter of basic arithmetic which is the more logical position.
Quote:
Also, how many creators have you observed recently?
I can't personally verify the numbers but on the human side I'm told 7+ billion. Non-human creators (approximately 1.7 million different species) are almost certainly in the trillions.
Interesting theories, and I particularly like Darwin's imagery. But, there's been ample time to reproduce these sterile conditions. Show me the money, as they say.
No. I'm saying when you've got zillions of known lifeforms that were birthed from progenitors vs. zero known life forms that were created without progenitors, it's a matter of basic arithmetic which is the more logical position.
You realise that the fact every known life-form can be traced via it's progenitors CONFLICTS with the bible's view of literal creation of all species, right?
I can't personally verify the numbers but on the human side I'm told 7+ billion. Non-human creators (approximately 1.7 million different species) are almost certainly in the trillions.
I presume your choice to dodge the question via semantics means that you've seen 0. With that in mind, don't bother using "I've never seen abiogenesis, so it can't happen" when you've not seen the alternative happen either. "I don't know" is a perfectly respectable stance to take. Making shit up, less so.
So you're saying that in the past 50-60ish years since the discovery of DNA, and the past few decades of incorporating electron microscopy and computational analysis to study cells and genetic material were more than enough time to prove abiogenesis?
So, how long did it take for humans to discover that the earth wasn't the center of the universe? Let's arbitrarily count time from 0 BC (you could start counting from 3000 BC or even 10000 BC), well, in 50 AD, humans still thought the earth was the center of the universe, so I guess 50 years was long enough to show otherwise? I guess all the discoveries made some 1500 years later was all a bunch of BS? :\
Human knowledge is not a linear graph. If we took electricity or computers as an example you would find that we figured that out pretty fast compared to the heliocentric view of the universe. However your point is still pretty valid.
You realise that the fact every known life-form can be traced via it's
progenitors CONFLICTS with the bible's view of literal creation of all
species, right?
??? The first bloody sentence speaks of an original progenitor...
Quote:
I presume your choice to dodge the question via semantics means that
you've seen 0. With that in mind, don't bother using "I've never seen
abiogenesis, so it can't happen" when you've not seen the alternative
happen either. "I don't know" is a perfectly respectable stance to take.
Making shit up, less so.
It's more about answering a disingenuous question in kind.
But I'm not dodging anything. I'm answering your question, repeatedly. Until we ascertain an exception to the "golden rule," our current understanding of life necessitates original life, everywhere, always. I'm invoking the collective public understanding of biology, stop accusing me of "making shit up."
So you're saying that in the past 50-60ish years since the discovery of
DNA, and the past few decades of incorporating electron microscopy and
computational analysis to study cells and genetic material were more
than enough time to prove abiogenesis?
So, how long did it take for humans to discover that the earth wasn't
the center of the universe? Let's arbitrarily count time from 0 BC (you
could start counting from 3000 BC or even 10000 BC), well, in 50 AD,
humans still thought the earth was the center of the universe, so I
guess 50 years was long enough to show otherwise? I guess all the
discoveries made some 1500 years later was all a bunch of BS? :\
Nonetheless, the burden of proof lies with the abiogenesists. I thought for sure I was being quite diplomatic this time in welcoming their efforts!
I think we've finally reached some kind of breakthrough. Cookie to
Eiviyn and Gradius, a silent-but-smelly fart to EW and TheZizz.
Round two, commence!
Just noticed this. WTF?
When I stop talking to someone it isn't an admission of defeat. It means they're either resorting to useless sarcasm/double-talk, or our arguments are one-and-the-same and thus irreconcilable (ie. How is invoking the universal order anything but a point for theism?).
Or is the scoreboard factoring in posters' entertainment value? I tell you one thing, the only losers are the ones who aren't taking the topic seriously.
EDIT: Yeah, no cookie for FDFederation, who makes the most intelligent and relevant points out of any of the atheists (and probably theists but I only skim those, sorry my bros much love <3), and pretty much the only one who seems to understand the nuances of the theist position. What a wash. Your metric is what smells.
So? Perhaps the Do, Or did at one time. A horse with a horn in its skull.. I mean, Its defiantly possible that one lived at one time.
and if Evolution Was correct, then Unicorns would defiantly exist anyways, due to "Mother Nature" Testing what works and doesnt work for battle of the fittest, so a failed species of Unicorns could happen... So suck that logic.
@Taintedwisp: Go
You know that Unicorns have nothing to do with that logic? I could have say Santa or Flying Spaghetti Monster. (I just like Unicorns)
Actually Rhinoceros is kind of a Unicorn.
Is it possible to break down a hydrogen atom without causing nasty things? I'm asking to understand if it's possible to collapse the universe and still preserve the laws we have now.
Also, the Higgs field, I've always felt there has to be this kind of "sea" where everything "floats". But can you guys explain what this is in a "for dummies" kind of way?
@FDFederation: Go
Miracles are phenomena you don't understand. Science is the process for understanding "miracles".
You have it reversed. Here's the correct answer: Is the god concept illogical? Yes. Can we use science to to understand the universe? Yes. Is it logical to use science? Yes.
Sigh...
You still don't grasp an understanding of science. The process of science is to find evidence to support your hypothesis and applying statistics to your hypothesis. If new and more evidence consistently supports a hypothesis, it becomes theory. If a hypothesis, lacks evidence it remains speculation. I'll teach you how it works: Your hypothesis that your god created humans lacks evidence, therefore it has low probability of being true, so it remains a speculation. The hypothesis that evolution acts on humans is consistently supported by evidence (such as DNA, skeletal structure, fossils, etc), therefore it has high probability of being true, so it is a theory.
Which question? You asked several and I'm too lazy to search for it.
Sigh...again...
Did you even bother to look at the additional sources of information? They were listed on the same site as http://sciencefocus.com/feature/space/have-we-all-been-here . If you know how to use the Internet, you should be able to find them.
That's incorrect. I'll teach you the correct statements: "Time existed before the Big Bang; humans have not yet found a method to record/measure time independent of motions in space." "It is a speculation/hypothesis that a god existed in an eternal state of being and a god created everything." "Speculations lack verifiable evidence." I'll reiterate this again: "Real science originates from forming a hypothesis based on observation of phenomenon, and gathering of evidence to support hypothesis. When evidence does not support hypothesis of god, it remains a speculation."
If you remotely understood science, you would have known that's how information about new discoveries are disseminated (i.e. passing on knowledge, teaching/learning). I guess you didn't understand why all those biblical fairytales aren't used to teach science.
See the additional resources that I already mentioned. If you read http://sciencefocus.com/feature/space/have-we-all-been-here, you should have also read the part explaining the process of gathering evidence:
"Testing the theories Two ways to investigate the truth about cyclic universes
Planck Due for launch onboard an Ariane 5 rocket in October, the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite is designed to observe the background heat left over from the Big Bang in unprecedented detail. Some theories of cyclic universes predict the appearance of patterns in this background heat caused by so-called quantum gravity effects triggered at and before the Big Bang. Hints of these effects have already been seen with ground-based observatories, but Planck is needed to confirm them.
The radiation released in the Big Bang is ‘stretched’ by billions of years of cosmic expansion until it turns into microwaves. Parked at a gravitationally stable point 1.6 million kilometres from the Earth, Planck will study these microwaves, which are predicted to interact with gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space-time – causing them to vibrate in certain directions, an effect called polarisation. Analysis of the polarisation signal gathered over the duration of Planck’s 21-month mission will allow theorists to check competing theories of what happened at and before the Big Bang.
Big Bang Observer Predicted by Einstein’s theory of gravity but never directly observed, gravitational waves are undulations in the fabric of space and time with characteristics capable of giving insights into events at and before the Big Bang. Ground-based gravitational wave detectors have already been built, but theory suggests that the waves created by the Big Bang will only be detectable using vast space-based observatories such as the Big Bang Observer (BBO) which NASA hopes to build some time in the “coming decades”.
The BBO will consist of three sets of three satellites arranged in equilateral triangles. The sides will stretch 50,000km long, each set forming a triangle in solar orbit. Gravitational waves generated by cosmic events pass through the Solar System, altering space-time – and thus altering the distance between the satellites. The laser beams passing between the sets of satellites detect gravitational waves through the effects of interference, which shifts the light waves relative to one another. Data collected during the mission is analysed to see which explanation of the Big Bang gives the best fit."
Doesn't natural selection mean that the way nature is formed, in order to provide suitable conditions, must first presuppose an outcome in order to predict that the initial law and subsequent laws that function along the initial law and all prior laws such that the process would create the exact process (as a whole) so that the earth would become as it is and was and all subsequent ages of the earth?
Doesn't this then have to extend towards the entire cosmos so that what the laws operate on must always be there in the first place and must exactly be at an exact amount, so that the law itself will not break any subsequent forms the law itself should assemble?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem with persistent laws/Preexisting laws either hierarchical or communal, or both and the big bang:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that laws existed as eternal when the universe was still a small compact sphere or something like that, is that the laws cannot be there because it cannot operate. Laws are laws because they are observed through the operation of things (or how things are going). And this is only true if the said operations are operating as they are (or in this case, should).
Therefore, the laws must have "evolved" as well, so that at every generation of the universe, the laws operating in those spans were supporting the stages and subsequent stages after them, where every subsequent form comes along a new law or another form of the previous law.
If the laws then are seen to be taking in functions as variables, then we must say that the fundamental law must create these functions so that it can take them and process them.
In other words, either I am terrible at speaking mathematically, or there's something I want you to know...
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
No. Natural selection means that due to natural events (such as disease outbreak), certain individuals with certain traits have higher probability of producing successful offspring. For example, let's say the population is 50% trait A and 50% trait B. Let's say that trait A helps individuals fight off/survive infectious diseases better. Now, let's say a disease outbreak occurred in the population. The individuals with trait A have higher probability of surviving than individuals with trait B. After the outbreak, the trait distribution among the survivors might resemble 80% trait A, 20% trait B. Those survivors pass their traits to offspring, so the trait distribution among the offspring might be 80% trait A, 20% B (assuming A, B don't affect meiosis).
There's nothing about a constraint that natural selection has to provide a suitable condition. If the individuals didn't possess the necessary traits (by random chance), they have lower probability to survive and have viable offspring.
?
In any case, whatever you do, do not permit the UN to pass the anti-blasphemy bullshit. Or is it too late?
And please, defend the constitution of the USA. Your heroes have aided us in the past because of what you guys stand for back then. Do not allow it to go into the drain.
Thanks.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Anti-blasphemy doesn't even work on principle. Most religions offend eachother by their very nature. Islam rejects the holy trinity and it's a point of contention between the two religions, for example. As is "God does not have children".
Secondly, muslims mock jews and depict them in various... "ways" almost constantly.
It won't pass. It doesn't even work. And even if it did, it'll just provoke people to break it even more often, en masse.
Until we observe an instance of spontaneous generation, the existence of life necessitates a living creator.
So essentially what you're saying is "Until I see it, I get to make shit up"?
Also, how many creators have you observed recently?
@TheZizz: Go
Interesting reading material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
No. I'm saying when you've got zillions of known lifeforms that were birthed from progenitors vs. zero known life forms that were created without progenitors, it's a matter of basic arithmetic which is the more logical position.
I can't personally verify the numbers but on the human side I'm told 7+ billion. Non-human creators (approximately 1.7 million different species) are almost certainly in the trillions.
Interesting theories, and I particularly like Darwin's imagery. But, there's been ample time to reproduce these sterile conditions. Show me the money, as they say.
You realise that the fact every known life-form can be traced via it's progenitors CONFLICTS with the bible's view of literal creation of all species, right?
I presume your choice to dodge the question via semantics means that you've seen 0. With that in mind, don't bother using "I've never seen abiogenesis, so it can't happen" when you've not seen the alternative happen either. "I don't know" is a perfectly respectable stance to take. Making shit up, less so.
@TheZizz: Go
So you're saying that in the past 50-60ish years since the discovery of DNA, and the past few decades of incorporating electron microscopy and computational analysis to study cells and genetic material were more than enough time to prove abiogenesis?
So, how long did it take for humans to discover that the earth wasn't the center of the universe? Let's arbitrarily count time from 0 BC (you could start counting from 3000 BC or even 10000 BC), well, in 50 AD, humans still thought the earth was the center of the universe, so I guess 50 years was long enough to show otherwise? I guess all the discoveries made some 1500 years later was all a bunch of BS? :\
@FDFederation: Go
Human knowledge is not a linear graph. If we took electricity or computers as an example you would find that we figured that out pretty fast compared to the heliocentric view of the universe. However your point is still pretty valid.
@SheogorathSC: Go
I think you missed my point: Discoveries aren't made because someone said the research took long enough or it's about time.
I wasn't trying to say the rate of discoveries is linearly related to time.
??? The first bloody sentence speaks of an original progenitor...
It's more about answering a disingenuous question in kind.
But I'm not dodging anything. I'm answering your question, repeatedly. Until we ascertain an exception to the "golden rule," our current understanding of life necessitates original life, everywhere, always. I'm invoking the collective public understanding of biology, stop accusing me of "making shit up."
Nonetheless, the burden of proof lies with the abiogenesists. I thought for sure I was being quite diplomatic this time in welcoming their efforts!
Just noticed this. WTF?
When I stop talking to someone it isn't an admission of defeat. It means they're either resorting to useless sarcasm/double-talk, or our arguments are one-and-the-same and thus irreconcilable (ie. How is invoking the universal order anything but a point for theism?).
Or is the scoreboard factoring in posters' entertainment value? I tell you one thing, the only losers are the ones who aren't taking the topic seriously.
EDIT: Yeah, no cookie for FDFederation, who makes the most intelligent and relevant points out of any of the atheists (and probably theists but I only skim those, sorry my bros much love <3), and pretty much the only one who seems to understand the nuances of the theist position. What a wash. Your metric is what smells.
You speak like a true politician:D
So God created a simple cell organism, knowing that billions years after it would evolve into humans? That seems a "risky" creation.
Also we always get back to that Unicorns exists as you cant prove they dont exists.
@Hookah604: Go
So? Perhaps the Do, Or did at one time. A horse with a horn in its skull.. I mean, Its defiantly possible that one lived at one time.
and if Evolution Was correct, then Unicorns would defiantly exist anyways, due to "Mother Nature" Testing what works and doesnt work for battle of the fittest, so a failed species of Unicorns could happen... So suck that logic.
@Taintedwisp: Go You know that Unicorns have nothing to do with that logic? I could have say Santa or Flying Spaghetti Monster. (I just like Unicorns)
Actually Rhinoceros is kind of a Unicorn.
Is it possible to break down a hydrogen atom without causing nasty things? I'm asking to understand if it's possible to collapse the universe and still preserve the laws we have now.
Also, the Higgs field, I've always felt there has to be this kind of "sea" where everything "floats". But can you guys explain what this is in a "for dummies" kind of way?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@Hookah604: Go
Your just mad because you were proved that there is a higher probability for unicorns, just like their is a higher probability for GOD... So suck it.