so a 3rd of america is profoundly retarded? your just now learning this?
Btw shitty poll, Who where they asking, wheres the Researches statistics, They said 46 million, well thats much less then a 3rd.... Get a legitimate source next time. Not Democratic Political agenda site.
A good example would be the relationship between you and your parents (assuming a traditional family). As a child, your parents expect you to obey them and not your neighbor’s/friend’s parents because they are responsible for you. In this way, we “have no other Gods before him.”
So this is basically polytheism, just that God the father is superior?
There is nothing "basically" about it. It's a complex answer to which Mormon's would say no while others say everything from yes to no. I answered this in the same post you pulled this quote from. I'd encourage you to go back and read it again so that I don't have to quote myself.
I think it’s a mistake to assume all science is humble considering how egotistical people can be about it. New discoveries are usually named after the people who discover them or at the very least BY the people who discover them. It seems to me like attaching your name to science is an effort to immortalize yourself. The term “mad scientist” didn’t spring up out of nothing. Science is but a tool as is Religion. Both are fully capable of being corrupted by the men that use it.
There are arrogant scientists that have the “hubris” to assume they know how reality works just like there are arrogant religious figures that have the “hubris” to assume they know what God is thinking. A religious man is JUST as capable of humble discourse as a scientific man. I am willing to admit that men acting on behalf of religion can make mistakes. I’d hope you’d be willing to do the same for science.
The one difference I can agree on, however, is that even if a corrupt scientist makes a discovery, it is still a discovery (assuming it’s not false). When a corrupt religious leader acts corruptly, there is no benefit. Here I can concede that a discovery made through corrupt science can still be used for good while a corrupt act by religion can’t really be retooled. An example being Nuclear Physics as a method for destruction or energy compared to a religious war.
I wasn't talking about the people behind science or religion. Clearly they can all be evil and egotistical. I'm referring more to the philosophies themselves. I find the scientific method to be humble. And indeed, there is no sign of arrogance or hubris in any science textbook I've ever read. I cannot say the same for all religious texts.
Guess which one the church says is more harmful for children:
In this frame I still disagree because humility requires a certain aspect of humanity that what you're describing doesn't have. Humility is often associated with being respectfully modest or lacking a prideful ego. You can't really say science falls under this definition because it doesn't respect anything. In fact it is often viewed as a VERY disrespectful philosophy because it only cares about the truth. A simple example would be how scientists would like to "farm" embryos for stem cell research. The motivation for doing so isn't necessarily good or evil, but it doesn't respect the sacredness that some people have for these "unborn children." I think a better term that I would agree with is indiscriminate. Science doesn't care who you are, only that what remains at the end is truth. Religion is admittedly more discriminate with regards to the choices people make.
As for "arrogance" or "hubris" in religious texts, I feel that you are being far too biased. Religion, at it's core, is about spiritual salvation through humility and service. This contradicts what you constantly label religion as being. I believe that what you are talking about has more to do with the people than the philosophy itself. I also don't care what "the church" (Catholic in your case) says is more harmful for children because it is not what I believe in. Mormonism does NOT advocate that science is harmful for children. We openly embrace it and accept that we are entirely capable of getting things wrong.
If science contradicts what we believe, we are strongly encouraged to seek out the answer for ourselves. At the end of the day, we believe that God operates according to certain laws that men use science to understand. If there are things God does that are not supported by science, we believe that science hasn't yet come to understand how it works. We do not assume that the science is simply wrong. If we are careful to keep separate the principles of science and religion, we believe both can give us a greater understanding of the world God has created for us.
I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this. This is consistently cited in criticism against us, but I have never found the evidence reliable.
Neither banking nor fraud are mentioned anywhere in the link you provided. It even states that some of the reports are contradictory. The only thing this is evident of is that Joseph Smith was arrested for "Glass Looking". That is, the act of looking for "treasures" which some might construed as fraudulent behavior. The problem is that the article closes with the following statement:
"However, the fact is that Rev. Walters broke the chain of custody of evidence. He had a vested interest in making Joseph Smith look as bad as possible. He did, in fact, use some of these records for that purpose. His conduct therefore gives rise to not-untenable suspicions about whether the complete body of evidence made it through his hands."
The problem that I frequently encounter is that evidence surfaces that claims against Joseph Smith were made, but not that the claims themselves had any validity. I am fully aware that many, many efforts have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of these to be objectively sound in their documentation. The link you provided is no different.
What you’re asking for defeats the entire purpose of what many believe to be the point of our existence. If we are here to make choices but God steps in to take care of everything, he is depriving us of the ability to choose. This was Lucifer/Satan’s plan and was rejected. God allows us to act as we desire so that we can be judged us by our actions. This is also discussed in The Plan of Salvation under “agency and theodicy.”
So do you agree with me then that God does not care what protocols/religion you follow? Or is it just that 2/3 of the planet is getting screwed over? Furthermore, would it not be of benefit to be a nonbeliever and a good person, that way you can't say you did any of the things you did hoping for reward?
My perspective on this is that it's just another one of religion's mental traps to keep believers complicit. There will always be an excuse for why there can be no evidence or why God can't provide any. You can't tempt god, etc. etc.
Yes and no. I believe that he DOES care, but that he will not force you one way or another. I also don't believe that 2/3 of the planet is getting screwed over. I covered this in my reply to Eiviyn (also in the same post), but to quickly recap, everyone will have the opportunity to decide whether it be here on Earth or the afterlife. I would agree that is beneficial to be a good person, but I would say being a good person and not believing just to be safe is silly. Either you believe and act accordingly, you're still deciding or you don't and care not. The idea of "hoping for a reward" is also not the focus of this process. It is to become a better person/spirit/being. That, in itself, is the reward.
What I stated doesn't constitute a mental trap because it's a widely used practice in the modern world. Why is it bad when bosses micromanage their employees? Why is it bad when parents baby their children? Why is it bad when governments forcefully rule their subjects? I view God's interaction the same way. It has nothing to do with tempting God and everything to do with allowing us to act precisely as we see fit.
As a Mormon I am especially aware of how WRONG observers get things. I have “outside observers” ask me if I really can’t have sugar! Of course religion is going to look crazy if you don’t have an actual understanding of what it entails. I addressed your points because, to me, they are false observations of what I believe. By correcting the observations it is my way of demonstrating that you should take more time to understand something before you reject it as “childish.” You might think that Catholicism is childish based on these points, but you can’t blanket everyone with the same points.
"I don't take the silly parts of the bible literally" is not exactly the greatest defense. But that aside I've already admitted that Catholics are the flavor of the month, so what's the problem? When you understand why you reject Zeus, Thor and Vishnu, you'll understand why I reject your God.
I don't take anything in the bible literally unless other interpretations don't make sense; "Thou shalt not kill" being a pretty clear statement. Why would Jesus speak in parables if the Bible was meant to be taken literally? I think you misunderstand me by believing I'm trying to defend my religion. It doesn't need me to defend it. I am only interested in making sure it is understood properly so that you can make a properly informed decision. I don't care what you decide so long as you do so fairly. In this way, I completely understand why you reject "my God." I am not asking you to accept him, merely that you make sure that you didn't do so before properly understanding what you considered "silly fairy tales."
Jacob's parable about the tame and wild olive trees.
This is the longest and most boring chapter in the most boring book ever written (The Book of Mormon). Thirty-one times it came to pass that the trees were cumbered, grafted, pruned, plucked, dunged, and digged about for no apparent purpose, except to waste 3733 words. 5:1-77
I'll give it a look. I'm not particularly impressed by what I've read so far, but I'm willing to see if it has anything worth discussing.
You should go watch the 'It's all about the Mormons' South Park episode (free to watch on the South Park site), then find the creators' commentary to that on Youtube.
I've actually seen this and think that their commentary is pretty accurate in terms of an outside observer. The broadway musical The Book of Mormon is another interesting take on Mormonism by outsiders that does well to make fun of it while still representing it in a positive light. Mormons definitely emphasize "good living" and it's not uncommon to hear that even if we end up being completely wrong in our beliefs, we feel good about the lives we're living. We care less about what other people think and more about what we think of ourselves.
so a 3rd of america is profoundly retarded? your just now learning this?
Btw shitty poll, Who where they asking, wheres the Researches statistics, They said 46 million, well thats much less then a 3rd.... Get a legitimate source next time. Not Democratic Political agenda site.
Do you have troubles with reading?: ‘A Third of Adults Under 30 Have No Religious Affiliation’
1.The universe had a beginning
Nothing scientific here. This is the creationist's account of how the universe began.
2.The universe was created from the invisible
Atoms aren't invisible. Spray some deoderant infront of your face. Oh look, atoms!
3.The universe is expanding
Very generous translation of "he stretches out the heavens". This is much more likely to apply to the creation of the heavens.
4.Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe
"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array."
Again, very loose translation.
5.A god violates thermodynamics, as does the genesis account.
6.If the First Law is correct, which every scientific measurement ever made has confirmed, then the universe could not have created itself
Pardon me for saying this, but I love it when creationists try to use science to prove their claims, and end up getting the science completely wrong.
The total energy of the universe is 0. That is, for every positive particle, there is a negative one. 1+(-1) = 0. You don't understand thermodynamics, and you don't understand big bang theory.
We see this happen all around us. Two particles pop into existance, one an anti- of the other, then annihilate eachother.
Funny that.
7.The universe is winding down and will "wear out"
It's been long-held that the Earth is in an "end times" by Christians. For the past 1950 years, infact.
8.Number of stars
"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore."
This really says nothing.
"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured"
This also says nothing. Wrong verses?
9.Every star is different
It also says the Sun is not a star, which is false.
10.Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups
Orion is not a star cluster. It's a constellation. Yes, there's a difference.
Gravity holds them together, not God. Unless you're claiming that gravity is God.
Thirdly in 1/4 billion years, they will unbind.
11.Light is in motion
"What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
This passage is not dealing with the motion of light. It is dealing with the question the ancient Hebrews asked regarding where light and darkness reside. They thought that light and darkness were two independent entities that dwell in different locations. This interpretation is further supported by the next verse, Job 38:20, which reads, "That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths [to] the house thereof?"
So you misinterpretted it, basically.
12.Stars emit radio waves
It says "the morning stars sing". You're stretching this too thin.
13.The earth is controlled by the heavens
Wait, wait. This is the bible. From a biblical perspective, God controls Earth. In addition, it specifically states "God's dominion", reinforcing that it is talking about Heaven's lordship over the Earth.
14.Earth is a sphere
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
I was looking forward to this one.
Firstly, it says "circle". Circles are flat. Secondly, the church opposed a spherical Earth for hundreds of years. I'm surprised you included this one.
15.At any time, there is day and night on the Earth
"I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left"
Again, not really sure how you reached this conclusion.
16.Earth is suspended in space
Firstly, it's not. Earth moves. Fast. It spins, it rotates, it is in an orbit around an orbit around an orbit. It is the very definition of "not suspended".
Secondly, it was (as you pointed out) believed the Earth was set up upon pillars. This would be a suspended Earth.
17.That Hole In The North
Sounds taken out of context. What verse?
20.The fact of the matter is that none of these things were discovered by studying the bible.
Any comparison that you, or a muslim with his quran, or whoever else makes these claims, is made in hindsight. If there were truly science in either, why has nothing been discovered though them?
1. Its science proving the bible. Get it?.
2. The atomic structure is invisible to the naked eye. Its there like the bible says, but only science can detect it(again to prove the bible)
3. It does have to do with the creation of the heavens(obviously). But there are verses indicating present and continual stretching/expanding of the universe http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/stretch.html
4. Loose translation?. Heavens and earth were completed. Nothing more, nothing less.
5. A god violates thermodynamics, as does the genesis account.
Genesis does not violate thermodynamics. Where do you get that?. Also, thermodynamics only helps to prove God as the logical answer because energy cannot naturally be created or destroyed by any means
6. Pardon me for saying this, but I love it when creationists try to use science to prove their claims, and end up getting the science completely wrong
Creationists can look retarded when they get their facts wrong. The same can be said about atheists. Like the guy you are quoting.
So then, How does Zero energy universe = the universe can create itself?. You dont read what you are copying/pasting, do you?. Neither does the atheist guy know what he thinks he is talking about.
What is meant by a Zero energy universe, is nothing more than the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation. In simple terms, this means that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another(You know this). The net energy always remains the same(negative energy of a gravitational field balances it out). There is no gain or loss and so the sum of the two energies remains zero. As the article states, when the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, Zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.
Fact is , there is energy in the universe, not undefined , but it cant be anything more or less than what it is. But technically the equation of net energy in a system balances out to 0. At any given time is the total net energy of the universe zero?(aka unchanged), when you think about it, yeeeeees technically we can assume that.
Now, Why some obscure state of `Zero energy` before the big bang would not have made the universe possible:
Back to the big bang: The laws of nature require that matter and antimatter be created in pairs. But within a millifraction of a second of the Big Bang, matter somehow outnumbered its particulate opposite by a hair, so that for every billion antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles. Within a second of the creation of the universe, all the antimatter was destroyed, leaving behind only matter. So far, physicists have not been able to identify the exact mechanism that would produce this apparent "asymmetry," or difference, between matter and antimatter to explain why all the matter wasn't also
destroyed.
What should clear things up for you
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question
The hypothesis does not do away with God(If thats what you were mistakenly thinking?).
How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?
Physicists aren't exactly sure, but their best guess is that the extreme positive and negative quantities of energy randomly fluctuated into existence.
From Wiki: A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat.[not in citation given] In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.
I mentioned the Asymptotically flat spacetime above with the link. The universe being made of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter,( 5% normal matter) and with the Un-accounted for mechanism driving/expanding the universe and what the initial energy was, we still have much to learn before making the above claim from wiki(that the universe can last forever).
7. *Face palm*. Stupid excuse to dodge. This is why I have a hard time taking atheists seriously.
8. Innumerable stars.
9. Where?
10. I used the term star cluster(thanks for correcting me, but its still not the point), the bible does not say star group/constellation/cluster etc , those words and definitions were only invented much later on.
The bible verse is simply: "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?Job 38:31
The claims for that stand which science has discovered. Point is, no bronze age priest could have guessed that. And yea, gravity, go figure who created that and set it over for as a mechanism of control.
11. What?. Do you even understand what you typed there?. No you dont. I also dont. The verse is pretty clear in that the abode of light `has a way`, and darkness simply resides(absence of light).
12. Its sound waves. Regardless. God is poetic like that. Some people think Justin bieber is `singing` in his music.
For instance, this is what a Pulsar would sound like:
13. Wtf?
14. The word rendered 'circle' denotes "a circle, sphere, or arch". There wasn`t really a hebrew word for Sphere at the time. Its a technicality. Just like we can say the earth is technically not `really` a sphere but is an oblate spheroid.
15. When it happens(the day the Son of Man is revealed) People will be sleeping(at night). Others will be working in the fields, grinding grain etc, which obviously does not occur at night. Showing at any given time there is night and..day.
16. Where did I say this?
17.Death is naked before God; Destruction lies uncovered. He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. Job 26:6-8
The size of the void is too large for it to have formed as a result of natural galactic rearrangement from gravitational factors. It had to have been “set up” to be a void from the beginning of the universe.
18. I already read that. Im not desperate to stretch out biblical truths and facts. I only posted definite things that makes you think.
I also know you copied/pasted all that info, because I read the anti-arguments(the so called `debunking`) prior to posting. But I posted anyway because that guy obviously does not know the word `debunking` and all his arguments fall horribly short. tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks. To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of Verb 1. debunk - expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas; "The physicist debunked the psychic's claims"
Sorry but every claim I posted was correct and the science confirms it(You can technically take a point for the circle/sphere if you want). The atheist guy you copied the info from only debunked himself, I guess?. Not a very intelligent guy.
20. The fact of the matter is that none of these things were discovered by studying the bible.
Any comparison that you, or a muslim with his quran, or whoever else makes these claims, is made in hindsight. If there were truly science in either, why has nothing been discovered though them?
Fact of the matter is, thats not the point. The bible is not a science book, its not there to teach you science and equations. The bible is not there to prove science, science is there to prove the bible. You have it mixed up.
No one else can make these claims. (You have failed to show that by only listing the Quran)
I will state again that the Quran has its origin and teachings from the bible. Anything it gets right proven by science, is copied directly from the bible.
You already expressed a fundamental misunderstanding of big bang cosmology and thermodynamics. I'd wager you don't understand evolution too well either (though this is a guess, feel free to prove me wrong). There really aren't many other fields of science relevant to this debate.
Do point out my error when you make those claims. I am always showing you your mistakes and explaining it. If you cant do the same, why should anyone take your statements seriously or add credibility to it?
On the human evolution theory. Too many broken holes in that theory. Its not a fact at all. Just thinking about it gives me a headache from the depths of the core of hell. I know enough about the theory, thanks. You dont , thats the problem. Too many gaps, flaws, and impossibilities that you dont know exist in it. If you did, you would have addressed atleast some of my arguments on it in that huge wall of text I wrote. But you cant.
You can say, "Yea I believe in evolution, I think it may be plausible"
But you cant say "Human evolution is 100% truth and fact and testable science" without being a liar and hypocrite, to also say it was an unguided process, makes it and you more ridiculous.
Go do critical research for your own sake. I dont post anything on the bible without cross referencing criticism and arguments against it. Pity you dont do the same for what you `believe`.
It is a question of who is more admirable. Judgment and good sense is not universal when applied, but certain universal human aspects can be used to determine whether a certain activity or state of affair can be called admirable when applied to said universal human stuff.
---------------------------
About the big bang:
Is there really proof that our universe came from that single point? Is it not possible that say an area is energized and from certain points come pop things which then from those points expanded to some degree, which then at a certain point in the future will stabilize?
I mean, how far have we really detected the said thing that is used as proof of expansion? The entirety of the vastness of the universe which we cannot yet explore entirely proposes that we cannot hold this assumption as true, since our observation is not simultaneously from different points in that vastness in its entirety.
Therefore, there is a huge possibility that simultaneous bursts happened or perhaps in some areas sequential ones being consequence of a certain mechanism we yet have to understand like stuff in a quantum level.
Regardless it be a single point origin of everything or simultaneous, it's quite astounding that what is proposed to us now is accepted as valid and true without considering that there might be certain things we don't know yet.
What happens to the God argument if there was multiple bursts or simultaneous emergence of mechanics and dynamics under totally different yet reconcilable laws? What happens to the Atheist argument then?
6. Pardon me for saying this, but I love it when creationists try to use science to prove their claims, and end up getting the science completely wrong
Creationists can look retarded when they get their facts wrong. The same can be said about atheists. Like the guy you are quoting.
So then, How does Zero energy universe = the universe can create itself?. You dont read what you are copying/pasting, do you?. Neither does the atheist guy know what he thinks he is talking about.
What is meant by a Zero energy universe, is nothing more than the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation. In simple terms, this means that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another(You know this). The net energy always remains the same(negative energy of a gravitational field balances it out). There is no gain or loss and so the sum of the two energies remains zero. As the article states, when the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, Zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.
Fact is , there is energy in the universe, not undefined , but it cant be anything more or less than what it is. But technically the equation of net energy in a system balances out to 0. At any given time is the total net energy of the universe zero?(aka unchanged), when you think about it, yeeeeees technically we can assume that.
Now, Why some obscure state of `Zero energy` before the big bang would not have made the universe possible:
Back to the big bang:
The laws of nature require that matter and antimatter be created in pairs. But within a millifraction of a second of the Big Bang, matter somehow outnumbered its particulate opposite by a hair, so that for every billion antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles. Within a second of the creation of the universe, all the antimatter was destroyed, leaving behind only matter. So far, physicists have not been able to identify the exact mechanism that would produce this apparent "asymmetry," or difference, between matter and antimatter to explain why all the matter wasn't also
destroyed.
What should clear things up for you
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question
The hypothesis does not do away with God(If thats what you were mistakenly thinking?).
How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?
Physicists aren't exactly sure, but their best guess is that the extreme positive and negative quantities of energy randomly fluctuated into existence.
While I'll get back to the rest of your post in future, I want to call you out on this, because it's waffle and wrong.
The total net energy of the universe is not Zero and if that were the case we would not exist.
Non-sequitur.
Notice the word hypothesis by the way
The hypothesis is recent. You realise God is a hypothesis too, right?
But technically the equation of net energy in a system balances out to 0. At any given time is the total net energy of the universe zero?(aka unchanged), when you think about it, yeeeeees technically we can assume that.
So you agree with the zero-energy universe hypothesis then?
What should clear things up for you
You've not really said anything. The two prior paragraphs were merely a demonstration that you know what the hypothesis represents.
The hypothesis does not do away with God(If thats what you were mistakenly thinking?).
Science is neutral regarding the God hypothesis. However we're discussing science in the bible, and I maintain that there isn't any.
How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?
I don't know, but we can observe it. You don't get to invoke a creator just because a question is unanswered.
So then, How does Zero energy universe = the universe can create itself?
Focus; I won't participate in a Gish gallop. You said the creation of the universe violates thermodynamics. It doesn't.
We also have this: The laws of nature require that matter and antimatter be created in pairs. But within a millifraction of a second of the Big Bang, matter somehow outnumbered its particulate opposite by a hair, so that for every billion antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles. Within a second of the creation of the universe, all the antimatter was destroyed, leaving behind only matter. So far, physicists have not been able to identify the exact mechanism that would produce this apparent "asymmetry," or difference, between matter and antimatter to explain why all the matter wasn't also
destroyed.
The hypothesis is recent. You realise God is a hypothesis too, right?
God is not a hypothesis. Its a logical answer of which the definition fulfills the equation. You do not know the definition. Science will never solve the equation unless they understand the definition. You will be stuck in chain logic and come to a stumbling block unless you understand it.
I don't know, but we can observe it. You don't get to invoke a creator just because a question is unanswered.
That was not a question I asked you. I was quoting it from the science site. No we cant observe `it`, but only the effects of it.
Focus; I won't participate in a Gish gallop. You said the creation of the universe violates thermodynamics. It doesn't.
The creation of the universe does not violate thermodynamics. The initial energy does. But as I mentioned in my other post, God is not separate from creation. We exist in his power/energy.
There is no Sodom & Gomorah, only ruined & unrelated cities. There is no science in the bible, only vague verses that can mean anything. All there is is creationists looking for & twisting anything they can find to try to support their pre-determined conclusion that "gawd did it". So long as you continue to subscribe to religion, you will never ever ever reach a conclusion based on evidence. What science does, you literally do the opposite. It's why religion has contributed jack-crap to humanity.
So far, physicists have not been able to identify the exact mechanism that would produce this apparent "asymmetry," or difference, between matter and antimatter to explain why all the matter wasn't also destroyed.
It could have been a quantum fluctuation or a brane collision. As I've said multiple times, the reason scientists don't know is because it's impossible to tell what happened before the planck time since QM & uncertainty takes over. This does not mean it's time for god mode. It means we need a grand unified theory to fill the gap with facts instead of wishful thinking. Once again, you are trying to fill the last gap in human ignorance (cosmology) with your God instead of the myriad more rational options that are out there.
The problem with you religious people is that you read a sentence like "scientists are unable..." or "we do not know...", etc. and you mistake it for ignorance instead of humility, knowing full well that if the situations were reversed your priests would have no problem filling the gaps with nonsense, while maintaining your all-around pretensions to knowledge.
Quote:
God is not a hypothesis. Its a logical answer of which the definition fulfills the equation. You do not know the definition. Science will never solve the equation unless they understand the definition. You will be stuck in chain logic and come to a stumbling block unless you understand it.
You're right, God does not ever deserve to be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on limited evidence. God is nothing more than wishful thinking. If you still consider "goddidit" as a valid answer for anything, then there's nothing more I can say.
1.There is no Sodom Gomorah, only ruined unrelated cities. 2.There is no science in the bible, only vague verses that can mean anything. 3.All there is is creationists looking for twisting anything they can find to try to support their pre-determined conclusion that "gawd did it". 4.So long as you continue to subscribe to religion, you will never ever ever reach a conclusion based on evidence. What science does, you literally do the opposite. It's why religion has contributed jack-crap to humanity.
1. Yea, there is no Sodom and Gomorrah. There WAS a Sodom and Gomorrah. There is also lots of evidence for it, whatever remains that is.
2. Yea its not a science book, you`re not going to find E=MC squared. Science proves bible. Thats the point.
3. What twisting?. Really, what nonsense is that. You cant twist anything. You dont know the scriptures and you dont know how stupid you sound saying that. Why dont you show me what Im twisting O enlightened one?. There is only one context, one truth, one definition. Everything I listed correlates to science(aka science proves it true)
4. Biased atheist attack. Hi.
It could have been a quantum fluctuation or a brane collision
Those pesky branes! lol
The problem with you religious people is that you read a sentence like "scientists are unable..." or "we do not know...", etc. and you mistake it for ignorance instead of humility, knowing full well that if the situations were reversed your priests would have no problem filling the gaps with nonsense, while maintaining your all-around pretensions to knowledge.
Totally not true. Seek the truth, Seek the truth, Seek the truth. Test all things, Test all things, Test all things. Seek wisdom and knowledge, Seek wisdom and knowlege, Seek wisdom and knowledge. The God of the bible encourages this.
@EternalWraith: Go
Rofl, Pulsar emit sound waves, epic facepalm!
Bible talk as much about science as Nostradamus Prophecies. (Probably less)
Science for me is something which have proven by the scientific method, only few done things close to that in the Roman times and in Bible I can find none.
In other words, I could write random words and probably you could say that science proves it and you might be even right.
Bible talk as much about science as Nostradamus Prophecies. (Probably less)
No.
Science for me is something which have proven by the scientific method, only few done things close to that in the Roman times and in Bible I can find none.
Eh. Im sure you have, and thats nice for you. Im truly exhilarated.
You never know, one day we might. Heard a great talk from Neil deGrasse about E.T life where he pointed out that it is less than 1% genetic material seperating us from Chimps, what if aliens or an AI were 1% smarter than us, would we be Chimps to them?
I wrote a reply to this, but it crashed:/. I must finish it again. The topic of AI specifically actually makes for some interesting discussions.
Thanks for proving my point for me beautifully. What you posted here is a picture of Bryant G. Wood:
"Bryant G. Wood is a biblical archaeologist and Research Director of the inerrantist Associates for Biblical Research."
The linked image's source is "http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/" which like most creationist sites is full of nonsense including anti-evolution propaganda. It is at this point at which I cannot these joke images seriously. Do you not get tired of getting all your "evidence" from these stupid, biased sites? But even so, let's look at it anyway. In a typical reversal of the scientific process, this creationist has come here to fabricate evidence to support his pre-determined conclusion that the bible isn't a fairy-tale. He finds some sulfur, connects it to a vague biblical reference, and ignores everything else that points to the fact that this isn't the city:
Quote:
Christian scholars argue that this was the site of the biblical "Sodom", but archaeologists disagree as the village is too small, not in the designated geographical area and was not destroyed in the appropriate time frame. There are various hypothesis put forward to explain the causes of its downfall. Bitumen and petroleum deposits have been found in the area, which contain sulfur and natural gas (as such deposits normally do), and one theory suggests that a pocket of natural gas led to the incineration of the city.
Bryant G. Wood does not deserve to be called a scientist. He molests the scientific process. When he can't find a sign which says "Welcome to Gomorrah," he just makes shit up instead.
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find as per step 1.
Now Mr. Wood here is a "biblical archaeologist". Get it yet? It's literally his job to go out and look for "evidence" to support his pre-determined conclusion. This isn't meant to be insulting. It's just how religion works, which is, again, why religion has contributed nothing to our understanding of the universe. It is literally the exact opposite of the scientific process.
If all our knowledge was obliterated and we had to start from scratch, science and its laws would be reinvented the same way they are now. Your talking snake story however would be lost, I assure you.
Quote:
Totally not true. Seek the truth, Seek the truth, Seek the truth. Test all things, Test all things, Test all things. Seek wisdom and knowledge, Seek wisdom and knowlege, Seek wisdom and knowledge. The God of the bible encourages this.
Oh yeah, question & seek the truth all day long.....as long as it leads you back to Jesus. I've read enough of the bible's circular mental traps & guilt trips to know that you get sent straight to hell if your "conclusion" isn't the correct one (Christianity). Even so, I think hell would be preferable to the jealous & petty maniac god of the bible. The death tolls speak for themselves:
Either way, if Satan punishes bad people, that makes him the good guy, right?! ;D
Christianity is such a flawed myth it's ridiculous.
but archaeologists disagree as the village is too small, not in the designated geographical area and was not destroyed in the appropriate time frame.
Yep maybe. Im not saying that is the 100% site of it. All evidence for this is minimal at best given how hard the task of proving it existed is. I dont see why I must immediately jump to the conclusion it never existed?.
Do you not get tired of getting all your "evidence" from these stupid, biased sites?
I dont really visit creationist sites like that or see it as 100% evidence. I only posted the link because it was different than the previous. I could not find some of the more neutral links I found. There are a lot of biased creationist(and atheist) websites, and their stupidity is apparent to me. I dont copy and paste without referencing other sources, and there is always science and evidence in it.
I think hell would be preferable to the jealous & petty maniac of the bible. The death tolls speak for themselves:
Why?. Sin brings death. Even that small lie you told someone will have repercussions. This is all cause and effect, on a much higher level.
You will die one day, and be judged. Science cant condemn you of your sins thats why you think its some sort of obscure refuge for you. If you love science, you would love God because he is perfect and just and holy. You just got the wrong of the stick, on what to believe about that.
Either way, if Satan punishes bad people, that makes him the good guy, right?! ;D
Satan stands day and night before God condemning each and every one of us. Then when righteous judgement befalls us, we blame and run away from God. When in fact only his mercy can save us. In that way, Satan continually oppresses us.
I've read enough of the bible's circular mental traps & guilt trips to know that you get sent straight to hell if your "conclusion" isn't the correct one (Christianity)
Yea, I know how it looks. I can understand your point of view. If I say Satan blinds you, you think Im on a mental trap. Fair enough. One of us is right though, either you or I.
I have a really strong conviction on the God of the bible. Not just an inner/personal conviction, but enough real evidences that warrants my belief. I really dont have blind faith and I could never be religious on blind faith. 100% truth, I shalt not lie.
We all have a common origin and history. You believe it is human evolution. I believe it is the bible. Neither of us can validate that 100% with certainty(especially human evolution;p).
Who`s problem is it if we dont know the truth?. Our problem.
Christianity is such a flawed myth it's ridiculous.
The greatest flawed myth or the greatest truth. If the latter, you can expect it to look like the former from the outside. If the former, it would be obvious(Like Zeus, etc), but its not.
I told you. Write a paper, show how evolution is wrong, collect your irl-fame, instant nobel prize and enough money from grateful religious folk to last you a lifetime. "Oh I don't need the money!" then donate it.
Fact is; you can't.
"Yeah well you can't prove religion wrong either!"
Religion, like my pet invisible unicorn Eric, isn't falsifiable. And that's also a dodge.
I told you. Write a paper, show how evolution is wrong, collect your irl-fame, instant nobel prize and enough money from grateful religious folk to last you a lifetime. "Oh I don't need the money!" then donate it.
Fact is; you can't.
"Yeah well you can't prove religion wrong either!"
Religion, like my pet invisible unicorn Eric, isn't falsifiable. And that's also a dodge.
There`s enough papers and scientific evidence why its wrong and broken. No one is going to be collecting nobel prizes for that. Easy to prove. Science already nails that bs.
Bible, yea, you cant prove its wrong like some sort of science, but enough supporting evidence adds weight to its truth and claims. Which no other religion really has.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Hookah604: Go
so a 3rd of america is profoundly retarded? your just now learning this?
Btw shitty poll, Who where they asking, wheres the Researches statistics, They said 46 million, well thats much less then a 3rd.... Get a legitimate source next time. Not Democratic Political agenda site.
There is nothing "basically" about it. It's a complex answer to which Mormon's would say no while others say everything from yes to no. I answered this in the same post you pulled this quote from. I'd encourage you to go back and read it again so that I don't have to quote myself.
In this frame I still disagree because humility requires a certain aspect of humanity that what you're describing doesn't have. Humility is often associated with being respectfully modest or lacking a prideful ego. You can't really say science falls under this definition because it doesn't respect anything. In fact it is often viewed as a VERY disrespectful philosophy because it only cares about the truth. A simple example would be how scientists would like to "farm" embryos for stem cell research. The motivation for doing so isn't necessarily good or evil, but it doesn't respect the sacredness that some people have for these "unborn children." I think a better term that I would agree with is indiscriminate. Science doesn't care who you are, only that what remains at the end is truth. Religion is admittedly more discriminate with regards to the choices people make.
As for "arrogance" or "hubris" in religious texts, I feel that you are being far too biased. Religion, at it's core, is about spiritual salvation through humility and service. This contradicts what you constantly label religion as being. I believe that what you are talking about has more to do with the people than the philosophy itself. I also don't care what "the church" (Catholic in your case) says is more harmful for children because it is not what I believe in. Mormonism does NOT advocate that science is harmful for children. We openly embrace it and accept that we are entirely capable of getting things wrong.
If science contradicts what we believe, we are strongly encouraged to seek out the answer for ourselves. At the end of the day, we believe that God operates according to certain laws that men use science to understand. If there are things God does that are not supported by science, we believe that science hasn't yet come to understand how it works. We do not assume that the science is simply wrong. If we are careful to keep separate the principles of science and religion, we believe both can give us a greater understanding of the world God has created for us.
Neither banking nor fraud are mentioned anywhere in the link you provided. It even states that some of the reports are contradictory. The only thing this is evident of is that Joseph Smith was arrested for "Glass Looking". That is, the act of looking for "treasures" which some might construed as fraudulent behavior. The problem is that the article closes with the following statement:
"However, the fact is that Rev. Walters broke the chain of custody of evidence. He had a vested interest in making Joseph Smith look as bad as possible. He did, in fact, use some of these records for that purpose. His conduct therefore gives rise to not-untenable suspicions about whether the complete body of evidence made it through his hands."
The problem that I frequently encounter is that evidence surfaces that claims against Joseph Smith were made, but not that the claims themselves had any validity. I am fully aware that many, many efforts have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of these to be objectively sound in their documentation. The link you provided is no different.
Yes and no. I believe that he DOES care, but that he will not force you one way or another. I also don't believe that 2/3 of the planet is getting screwed over. I covered this in my reply to Eiviyn (also in the same post), but to quickly recap, everyone will have the opportunity to decide whether it be here on Earth or the afterlife. I would agree that is beneficial to be a good person, but I would say being a good person and not believing just to be safe is silly. Either you believe and act accordingly, you're still deciding or you don't and care not. The idea of "hoping for a reward" is also not the focus of this process. It is to become a better person/spirit/being. That, in itself, is the reward.
What I stated doesn't constitute a mental trap because it's a widely used practice in the modern world. Why is it bad when bosses micromanage their employees? Why is it bad when parents baby their children? Why is it bad when governments forcefully rule their subjects? I view God's interaction the same way. It has nothing to do with tempting God and everything to do with allowing us to act precisely as we see fit.
I don't take anything in the bible literally unless other interpretations don't make sense; "Thou shalt not kill" being a pretty clear statement. Why would Jesus speak in parables if the Bible was meant to be taken literally? I think you misunderstand me by believing I'm trying to defend my religion. It doesn't need me to defend it. I am only interested in making sure it is understood properly so that you can make a properly informed decision. I don't care what you decide so long as you do so fairly. In this way, I completely understand why you reject "my God." I am not asking you to accept him, merely that you make sure that you didn't do so before properly understanding what you considered "silly fairy tales."
I'll give it a look. I'm not particularly impressed by what I've read so far, but I'm willing to see if it has anything worth discussing.
I've actually seen this and think that their commentary is pretty accurate in terms of an outside observer. The broadway musical The Book of Mormon is another interesting take on Mormonism by outsiders that does well to make fun of it while still representing it in a positive light. Mormons definitely emphasize "good living" and it's not uncommon to hear that even if we end up being completely wrong in our beliefs, we feel good about the lives we're living. We care less about what other people think and more about what we think of ourselves.
Do you have troubles with reading?: ‘A Third of Adults Under 30 Have No Religious Affiliation’
(32% is pretty close to 33.3´%)
The source was linked in the first line in the link that I posted: http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Unaffiliated/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf
I didnt want to post that because its 80 pages. They used many surveys for most of the graphs. (some of it was pretty big surveys)
93% of the National Academy of Science (America's best scientists) are agnostic/atheist.
Your brightest minds are "retarded"? I'm not sure you thought that through.
@Eiviyn: Go
1. Its science proving the bible. Get it?.
2. The atomic structure is invisible to the naked eye. Its there like the bible says, but only science can detect it(again to prove the bible)
3. It does have to do with the creation of the heavens(obviously). But there are verses indicating present and continual stretching/expanding of the universe
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/stretch.html
4. Loose translation?. Heavens and earth were completed. Nothing more, nothing less.
5. A god violates thermodynamics, as does the genesis account.
Genesis does not violate thermodynamics. Where do you get that?. Also, thermodynamics only helps to prove God as the logical answer because energy cannot naturally be created or destroyed by any means
6. Pardon me for saying this, but I love it when creationists try to use science to prove their claims, and end up getting the science completely wrong
Creationists can look retarded when they get their facts wrong. The same can be said about atheists. Like the guy you are quoting.
So then, How does Zero energy universe = the universe can create itself?. You dont read what you are copying/pasting, do you?. Neither does the atheist guy know what he thinks he is talking about.
Let me correct you on a few points that I dont know what you are bringing up for, The total net energy of the universe is not Zero(as you understand it, or rather dont understand) and if that were the case we would not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe (Notice the word hypothesis by the way)
Refer to this after : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotically_flat_spacetime#Criticism
What is meant by a Zero energy universe, is nothing more than the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation. In simple terms, this means that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another(You know this). The net energy always remains the same(negative energy of a gravitational field balances it out). There is no gain or loss and so the sum of the two energies remains zero. As the article states, when the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, Zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.
Fact is , there is energy in the universe, not undefined , but it cant be anything more or less than what it is. But technically the equation of net energy in a system balances out to 0. At any given time is the total net energy of the universe zero?(aka unchanged), when you think about it, yeeeeees technically we can assume that.
Now, Why some obscure state of `Zero energy` before the big bang would not have made the universe possible:
Back to the big bang:
The laws of nature require that matter and antimatter be created in pairs. But within a millifraction of a second of the Big Bang, matter somehow outnumbered its particulate opposite by a hair, so that for every billion antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles. Within a second of the creation of the universe, all the antimatter was destroyed, leaving behind only matter. So far, physicists have not been able to identify the exact mechanism that would produce this apparent "asymmetry," or difference, between matter and antimatter to explain why all the matter wasn't also
destroyed.
What should clear things up for you
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question
The hypothesis does not do away with God(If thats what you were mistakenly thinking?).
How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?
Physicists aren't exactly sure, but their best guess is that the extreme positive and negative quantities of energy randomly fluctuated into existence.
From Wiki:
A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat.[not in citation given] In that case the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.
I mentioned the Asymptotically flat spacetime above with the link. The universe being made of 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter,( 5% normal matter) and with the Un-accounted for mechanism driving/expanding the universe and what the initial energy was, we still have much to learn before making the above claim from wiki(that the universe can last forever).
7. *Face palm*. Stupid excuse to dodge. This is why I have a hard time taking atheists seriously.
8. Innumerable stars.
9. Where?
10. I used the term star cluster(thanks for correcting me, but its still not the point), the bible does not say star group/constellation/cluster etc , those words and definitions were only invented much later on.
The bible verse is simply:
"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? Job 38:31
The claims for that stand which science has discovered. Point is, no bronze age priest could have guessed that. And yea, gravity, go figure who created that and set it over for as a mechanism of control.
11. What?. Do you even understand what you typed there?. No you dont. I also dont. The verse is pretty clear in that the abode of light `has a way`, and darkness simply resides(absence of light).
12. Its sound waves. Regardless. God is poetic like that. Some people think Justin bieber is `singing` in his music.
For instance, this is what a Pulsar would sound like:
13. Wtf?
14. The word rendered 'circle' denotes "a circle, sphere, or arch". There wasn`t really a hebrew word for Sphere at the time. Its a technicality. Just like we can say the earth is technically not `really` a sphere but is an oblate spheroid.
15. When it happens(the day the Son of Man is revealed) People will be sleeping(at night). Others will be working in the fields, grinding grain etc, which obviously does not occur at night. Showing at any given time there is night and..day.
16. Where did I say this?
17.Death is naked before God; Destruction lies uncovered.
He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.
He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
Job 26:6-8
Not out of context. The book of Job is more a treatise of God`s power, and there`s also sorts of interesting things there. Again, impossible for a bronze age priest to know this.
Boötes constellation lies in the northern hemisphere/Northern sky.
http://www.constellation-guide.com/constellation-list/bootes-constellation/
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-bootes-void.htm
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/04/the-bootes-void/
The size of the void is too large for it to have formed as a result of natural galactic rearrangement from gravitational factors. It had to have been “set up” to be a void from the beginning of the universe.
18. I already read that. Im not desperate to stretch out biblical truths and facts. I only posted definite things that makes you think.
I also know you copied/pasted all that info, because I read the anti-arguments(the so called `debunking`) prior to posting. But I posted anyway because that guy obviously does not know the word `debunking` and all his arguments fall horribly short.
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks. To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of
Verb 1. debunk - expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas; "The physicist debunked the psychic's claims"
Sorry but every claim I posted was correct and the science confirms it(You can technically take a point for the circle/sphere if you want). The atheist guy you copied the info from only debunked himself, I guess?. Not a very intelligent guy.
20. The fact of the matter is that none of these things were discovered by studying the bible.
Any comparison that you, or a muslim with his quran, or whoever else makes these claims, is made in hindsight. If there were truly science in either, why has nothing been discovered though them?
Fact of the matter is, thats not the point. The bible is not a science book, its not there to teach you science and equations. The bible is not there to prove science, science is there to prove the bible. You have it mixed up.
No one else can make these claims. (You have failed to show that by only listing the Quran)
I will state again that the Quran has its origin and teachings from the bible. Anything it gets right proven by science, is copied directly from the bible.
The bible is the only book that can do this.
Do point out my error when you make those claims. I am always showing you your mistakes and explaining it. If you cant do the same, why should anyone take your statements seriously or add credibility to it?
On the human evolution theory. Too many broken holes in that theory. Its not a fact at all. Just thinking about it gives me a headache from the depths of the core of hell. I know enough about the theory, thanks. You dont , thats the problem. Too many gaps, flaws, and impossibilities that you dont know exist in it. If you did, you would have addressed atleast some of my arguments on it in that huge wall of text I wrote. But you cant.
You can say, "Yea I believe in evolution, I think it may be plausible"
But you cant say "Human evolution is 100% truth and fact and testable science" without being a liar and hypocrite, to also say it was an unguided process, makes it and you more ridiculous.
Go do critical research for your own sake. I dont post anything on the bible without cross referencing criticism and arguments against it. Pity you dont do the same for what you `believe`.
It is a question of who is more admirable. Judgment and good sense is not universal when applied, but certain universal human aspects can be used to determine whether a certain activity or state of affair can be called admirable when applied to said universal human stuff.
---------------------------
About the big bang:
Is there really proof that our universe came from that single point? Is it not possible that say an area is energized and from certain points come pop things which then from those points expanded to some degree, which then at a certain point in the future will stabilize?
I mean, how far have we really detected the said thing that is used as proof of expansion? The entirety of the vastness of the universe which we cannot yet explore entirely proposes that we cannot hold this assumption as true, since our observation is not simultaneously from different points in that vastness in its entirety.
Therefore, there is a huge possibility that simultaneous bursts happened or perhaps in some areas sequential ones being consequence of a certain mechanism we yet have to understand like stuff in a quantum level.
Regardless it be a single point origin of everything or simultaneous, it's quite astounding that what is proposed to us now is accepted as valid and true without considering that there might be certain things we don't know yet.
What happens to the God argument if there was multiple bursts or simultaneous emergence of mechanics and dynamics under totally different yet reconcilable laws? What happens to the Atheist argument then?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
While I'll get back to the rest of your post in future, I want to call you out on this, because it's waffle and wrong.
The total net energy of the universe is not Zero and if that were the case we would not exist.
Non-sequitur.
Notice the word hypothesis by the way
The hypothesis is recent. You realise God is a hypothesis too, right?
But technically the equation of net energy in a system balances out to 0. At any given time is the total net energy of the universe zero?(aka unchanged), when you think about it, yeeeeees technically we can assume that.
So you agree with the zero-energy universe hypothesis then?
What should clear things up for you
You've not really said anything. The two prior paragraphs were merely a demonstration that you know what the hypothesis represents.
The hypothesis does not do away with God(If thats what you were mistakenly thinking?).
Science is neutral regarding the God hypothesis. However we're discussing science in the bible, and I maintain that there isn't any.
How did something – composed of equal positive and negative parts, mind you – come from nothing?
I don't know, but we can observe it. You don't get to invoke a creator just because a question is unanswered.
So then, How does Zero energy universe = the universe can create itself?
Focus; I won't participate in a Gish gallop. You said the creation of the universe violates thermodynamics. It doesn't.
@Eiviyn: Go
So you agree with the zero-energy universe hypothesis then?
Yes I do. There are a few "but`s" to this however.
I already linked this to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotically_flat_spacetime#Criticism
And discussing the other stuff about it is mostly irrelevant.
We also have this:
The laws of nature require that matter and antimatter be created in pairs. But within a millifraction of a second of the Big Bang, matter somehow outnumbered its particulate opposite by a hair, so that for every billion antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles. Within a second of the creation of the universe, all the antimatter was destroyed, leaving behind only matter. So far, physicists have not been able to identify the exact mechanism that would produce this apparent "asymmetry," or difference, between matter and antimatter to explain why all the matter wasn't also
destroyed.
The hypothesis is recent. You realise God is a hypothesis too, right?
God is not a hypothesis. Its a logical answer of which the definition fulfills the equation. You do not know the definition. Science will never solve the equation unless they understand the definition. You will be stuck in chain logic and come to a stumbling block unless you understand it.
I don't know, but we can observe it. You don't get to invoke a creator just because a question is unanswered.
That was not a question I asked you. I was quoting it from the science site. No we cant observe `it`, but only the effects of it.
Focus; I won't participate in a Gish gallop. You said the creation of the universe violates thermodynamics. It doesn't.
The creation of the universe does not violate thermodynamics. The initial energy does. But as I mentioned in my other post, God is not separate from creation. We exist in his power/energy.
@Eiviyn: Go
Actually a lot of them are autistic... Meaning they can only understand one side of the coin.
There is no Sodom & Gomorah, only ruined & unrelated cities. There is no science in the bible, only vague verses that can mean anything. All there is is creationists looking for & twisting anything they can find to try to support their pre-determined conclusion that "gawd did it". So long as you continue to subscribe to religion, you will never ever ever reach a conclusion based on evidence. What science does, you literally do the opposite. It's why religion has contributed jack-crap to humanity.
It could have been a quantum fluctuation or a brane collision. As I've said multiple times, the reason scientists don't know is because it's impossible to tell what happened before the planck time since QM & uncertainty takes over. This does not mean it's time for god mode. It means we need a grand unified theory to fill the gap with facts instead of wishful thinking. Once again, you are trying to fill the last gap in human ignorance (cosmology) with your God instead of the myriad more rational options that are out there.
The problem with you religious people is that you read a sentence like "scientists are unable..." or "we do not know...", etc. and you mistake it for ignorance instead of humility, knowing full well that if the situations were reversed your priests would have no problem filling the gaps with nonsense, while maintaining your all-around pretensions to knowledge.
You're right, God does not ever deserve to be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on limited evidence. God is nothing more than wishful thinking. If you still consider "goddidit" as a valid answer for anything, then there's nothing more I can say.
1. Yea, there is no Sodom and Gomorrah. There WAS a Sodom and Gomorrah. There is also lots of evidence for it, whatever remains that is.
2. Yea its not a science book, you`re not going to find E=MC squared. Science proves bible. Thats the point.
3. What twisting?. Really, what nonsense is that. You cant twist anything. You dont know the scriptures and you dont know how stupid you sound saying that. Why dont you show me what Im twisting O enlightened one?. There is only one context, one truth, one definition. Everything I listed correlates to science(aka science proves it true)
4. Biased atheist attack. Hi.
It could have been a quantum fluctuation or a brane collision
Those pesky branes! lol
The problem with you religious people is that you read a sentence like "scientists are unable..." or "we do not know...", etc. and you mistake it for ignorance instead of humility, knowing full well that if the situations were reversed your priests would have no problem filling the gaps with nonsense, while maintaining your all-around pretensions to knowledge.
Totally not true. Seek the truth, Seek the truth, Seek the truth. Test all things, Test all things, Test all things. Seek wisdom and knowledge, Seek wisdom and knowlege, Seek wisdom and knowledge. The God of the bible encourages this.
God is nothing more than wishful thinking
:-)
then there's nothing more I can say.
Ok.
@EternalWraith: Go Rofl, Pulsar emit sound waves, epic facepalm!
Bible talk as much about science as Nostradamus Prophecies. (Probably less)
Science for me is something which have proven by the scientific method, only few done things close to that in the Roman times and in Bible I can find none.
In other words, I could write random words and probably you could say that science proves it and you might be even right.
I said thats what a pulsar sounds like. Whats so funny?. You do know it emits radio waves right?(I mentioned that in the first point to Eviyn) And we transfer it into sound on Earth(the above post with the embed, Granted it can be seen out of context and incorrect if you missed the first post), and thats what we`re listening to.
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/Pulsars.html
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/degeneracy/NeutronStarPulsarLight.html
Bible talk as much about science as Nostradamus Prophecies. (Probably less)
No.
Science for me is something which have proven by the scientific method, only few done things close to that in the Roman times and in Bible I can find none.
Eh. Im sure you have, and thats nice for you. Im truly exhilarated.
I wrote a reply to this, but it crashed:/. I must finish it again. The topic of AI specifically actually makes for some interesting discussions.
Thanks for proving my point for me beautifully. What you posted here is a picture of Bryant G. Wood:
"Bryant G. Wood is a biblical archaeologist and Research Director of the inerrantist Associates for Biblical Research."
The linked image's source is "http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/" which like most creationist sites is full of nonsense including anti-evolution propaganda. It is at this point at which I cannot these joke images seriously. Do you not get tired of getting all your "evidence" from these stupid, biased sites? But even so, let's look at it anyway. In a typical reversal of the scientific process, this creationist has come here to fabricate evidence to support his pre-determined conclusion that the bible isn't a fairy-tale. He finds some sulfur, connects it to a vague biblical reference, and ignores everything else that points to the fact that this isn't the city:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab_edh-Dhra
Bryant G. Wood does not deserve to be called a scientist. He molests the scientific process. When he can't find a sign which says "Welcome to Gomorrah," he just makes shit up instead.
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find as per step 1.
Now Mr. Wood here is a "biblical archaeologist". Get it yet? It's literally his job to go out and look for "evidence" to support his pre-determined conclusion. This isn't meant to be insulting. It's just how religion works, which is, again, why religion has contributed nothing to our understanding of the universe. It is literally the exact opposite of the scientific process.
If all our knowledge was obliterated and we had to start from scratch, science and its laws would be reinvented the same way they are now. Your talking snake story however would be lost, I assure you.
Oh yeah, question & seek the truth all day long.....as long as it leads you back to Jesus. I've read enough of the bible's circular mental traps & guilt trips to know that you get sent straight to hell if your "conclusion" isn't the correct one (Christianity). Even so, I think hell would be preferable to the jealous & petty maniac god of the bible. The death tolls speak for themselves:
Either way, if Satan punishes bad people, that makes him the good guy, right?! ;D
Christianity is such a flawed myth it's ridiculous.
@Gradius12: Go
So the fox news link was biased and lying, this guy is fabricating evidence(Like evolutionists), ugh. Ok maybe he is. Lol, that last pic of him pointing at the rock does look funny and suspicious in my mind;p. So ok, Lets say he is or maybe he got his facts wrong or whatever. It would be nice to find a sign or something saying`Sodom and gomorrah was here`, but we dont have such concrete evidence.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:jzsc1gaR6jMJ:qjegh.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/4/349.full.pdf+&hl=en&gl=za&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESikOr20kb0mJfQDf88EQPkdtowJgJUsVLxcPFshGYutbttHuCtUXHZ3GArX3HslbkX_1VKgubike5J9PjPhAYc9e5NX5QbK2Ij0-f-jzSQZYhe7zmFR752IAUxWKXr94d3WYleU&sig=AHIEtbS1IElStDYnm0YkbFx5TMkxwA6FnA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1497476.stm
http://people.virginia.edu/~pm9k/Writings/sodom.html
but archaeologists disagree as the village is too small, not in the designated geographical area and was not destroyed in the appropriate time frame.
Yep maybe. Im not saying that is the 100% site of it. All evidence for this is minimal at best given how hard the task of proving it existed is. I dont see why I must immediately jump to the conclusion it never existed?.
Do you not get tired of getting all your "evidence" from these stupid, biased sites?
I dont really visit creationist sites like that or see it as 100% evidence. I only posted the link because it was different than the previous. I could not find some of the more neutral links I found. There are a lot of biased creationist(and atheist) websites, and their stupidity is apparent to me. I dont copy and paste without referencing other sources, and there is always science and evidence in it.
I think hell would be preferable to the jealous & petty maniac of the bible. The death tolls speak for themselves:
Why?. Sin brings death. Even that small lie you told someone will have repercussions. This is all cause and effect, on a much higher level.
You will die one day, and be judged. Science cant condemn you of your sins thats why you think its some sort of obscure refuge for you. If you love science, you would love God because he is perfect and just and holy. You just got the wrong of the stick, on what to believe about that.
Either way, if Satan punishes bad people, that makes him the good guy, right?! ;D
Satan stands day and night before God condemning each and every one of us. Then when righteous judgement befalls us, we blame and run away from God. When in fact only his mercy can save us. In that way, Satan continually oppresses us.
I've read enough of the bible's circular mental traps & guilt trips to know that you get sent straight to hell if your "conclusion" isn't the correct one (Christianity)
Yea, I know how it looks. I can understand your point of view. If I say Satan blinds you, you think Im on a mental trap. Fair enough. One of us is right though, either you or I.
I have a really strong conviction on the God of the bible. Not just an inner/personal conviction, but enough real evidences that warrants my belief. I really dont have blind faith and I could never be religious on blind faith. 100% truth, I shalt not lie.
We all have a common origin and history. You believe it is human evolution. I believe it is the bible. Neither of us can validate that 100% with certainty(especially human evolution;p).
Who`s problem is it if we dont know the truth?. Our problem.
Christianity is such a flawed myth it's ridiculous.
The greatest flawed myth or the greatest truth. If the latter, you can expect it to look like the former from the outside. If the former, it would be obvious(Like Zeus, etc), but its not.
@EternalWraith: Go
Yup, christianity is an extremely flawed fairy tale like all the other myths out there.
Even math shows that your god doesn't exist: G0D = G*0*D = 0
Fix`d.
I told you. Write a paper, show how evolution is wrong, collect your irl-fame, instant nobel prize and enough money from grateful religious folk to last you a lifetime. "Oh I don't need the money!" then donate it.
Fact is; you can't.
"Yeah well you can't prove religion wrong either!"
Religion, like my pet invisible unicorn Eric, isn't falsifiable. And that's also a dodge.
There`s enough papers and scientific evidence why its wrong and broken. No one is going to be collecting nobel prizes for that. Easy to prove. Science already nails that bs.
Bible, yea, you cant prove its wrong like some sort of science, but enough supporting evidence adds weight to its truth and claims. Which no other religion really has.