Author Topic: You definition of god(at Chairboy's request) (Read 1912 times)

AKcurly · « **Reply #45 on:** July 11, 2004, 06:04:40 AM »

Not that it's important or particularly relevant, but contrary to popular opinion, many of the founders of our country were deists.

deist
One who believes in the existence of a God,
but denies revealed religion; a freethinker.

deist
a person who believes that God created
the universe and then abandoned it

Atheism is a tough sell, even to crusty old scientists like me. OTOH, revealed religion is an even tougher sell.

curly

Shuckins · « **Reply #46 on:** July 11, 2004, 07:11:29 AM »

Religion is a crutch for the weak? That statement is so egotistical it staggers the imagination.

The life-span of the universe may be measured in hundreds of billions of years. Astronomers and physicists have developed several new theories in recent years, based on the latest data, that there is a never ending cycle of universe creation. In other words, our universe is not unique. There has been an unimaginable number of previous universes before our own, and there will be an unimaginable number of them after ours has ceased to exist.

If the life of our universe may be represented by a drop of water, then it is a single drop in an endless ocean of time and existence. Given that human civilization has only existed for 7,000 years how can man so cavalierly dismiss the possibility that a higher life form capable of shaping creation has evolved?

If such a life-form exists, with the benefit of almost limitless knowledge, why should it become more involved in mankind's affairs, other than to provide a modicum of moral and spiritual direction? The Ten Commandments are a pretty good guide for the development of an orderly society, if one is completely honest about it. One doesn't have to live a life of sexual restraint, devoted to a single mate, but it IS definitely safer to do so. There are consequences to the breaking of these guidelines that have nothing to do with a vengeful God.

Some of you guys want proof. I don't think the Creator is going to stop by your local bar, quaff an alcoholic beverage, play a game of pool, and laugh at your sexist jokes. Nor would He interfere in every single aspect of your life. You would resent the attempt anyway.

beet1e · « **Reply #47 on:** July 11, 2004, 07:24:00 AM »

"Religion is the opiate of the people" - Karl Marx.

I tend to agree.

Shuckins · « **Reply #48 on:** July 11, 2004, 07:26:59 AM »

Karl Marx. The father of political philosophies that led to the rise of some of the bloodiest regimes in world history.

He definitely has a lot to offer on this subject.

Bluedog · « **Reply #49 on:** July 11, 2004, 08:21:56 AM »

As opposed to the regimes brought about and centred upon the beliefs in ones God or religion?
They are allways the most harmless and passive ones after all.

storch · « **Reply #50 on:** July 11, 2004, 08:37:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tuomio
Copy & paste

1.2: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe is constant. Big Bang theory, on the other hand, states that all of the energy of the universe came from nothing. Therefore, Big Bang cosmology violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

(ii) For a theory to violate the lst law of thermodynamics, the theory must predict two points in time T and T', such that the total energy of the universe at T, and the total energy of the universe at T', do not match one another. The creationist argument hinges on Big Bang theory stipulating a time t < 0, prior to the initial singularity of the universe, at which there was no energy at all (because the universe did not exist). However, if the origin of the universe is the origin of time (see 1.1), then the idea of such a time t < 0 actually contradicts standard Big Bang theory, and draws no support from any possible theory of quantum cosmology. Therefore, there can be no violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics in the origin of the universe.

(iii) If one supposes that there was in fact a preexisting spacetime from which the universe came, it still may be possible to resolve any violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics if the negative gravitational energy of the universe balances the positive energy, leaving the universe with a net balance of zero energy (or close enough for quantum uncertainty to allow a long time for "payback" of the energy).

As previously stated. Science has no explaination for the question of origin. Therefore it takes more faith to believe in the darwinist model than it does to believe in intelligent design. There is manifold evidence which hints at intelligent design but that also is a matter of faith. What has and will always annoys/amuses me is the sheer pomposity of the scientific community.

myelo · « **Reply #51 on:** July 11, 2004, 09:14:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
As previously stated. Science has no explaination for the question of origin. Therefore it takes more faith to believe in the darwinist model than it does to believe in intelligent design.

Hey Strorch,

Darwin's theory does not address the orgins of life or the origins of the universe. It's incorrect and confusing to refer to this as a "darwinist model".

OIO · « **Reply #52 on:** July 11, 2004, 09:18:36 AM »

there is no god. There's only an idea spread around by people who realized that they could control the blithering masses by telling them that if they didnt do this or that then this superbeing thingy would do horrible things to them.

Always using things that cannot be proven at the time.. drought,rain, thunder, plagues, etc etc in the old days.. or threatening this magicked up concept of the soul being thrown into a really nasty place after you die where you'll suffer until the end of time if you dont follow the dicta set forth by them.

definition: world's oldest scam.

Tuomio · « **Reply #53 on:** July 11, 2004, 09:26:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
... Astronomers and physicists have developed several new theories in recent years, based on the latest data, that there is a never ending cycle of universe creation. ...

They proved few years back that universe is expanding at accelerated rate. It might never come together again, instead scatter and cool down completely.

Quote

In other words, our universe is not unique. There has been an unimaginable number of previous universes before our own, and there will be an unimaginable number of them after ours has ceased to exist.

Perhaps perhaps..But they are completely irrelevant as long as they cannot share information between them.

Quote

Given that human civilization has only existed for 7,000 years how can man so cavalierly dismiss the possibility that a higher life form capable of shaping creation has evolved?

Who has dismissed such possibility? Or do you mean that such higher lifeform has created us?

Quote

If such a life-form exists, with the benefit of almost limitless knowledge, why should it become more involved in mankind's affairs, other than to provide a modicum of moral and spiritual direction?

Now wait a minute, if he doesent care about our affairs, why would he care about our mental issues? What is the reasoning behind that? What kind of knowledge you mean, ie. knowing where each atom of the universe is located?

Tuomio · « **Reply #54 on:** July 11, 2004, 09:30:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
As previously stated. Science has no explaination for the question of origin. Therefore it takes more faith to believe in the darwinist model than it does to believe in intelligent design.

You do realize the difference between Evolution and Big Bang right? ....right?

Tuomio · « **Reply #55 on:** July 11, 2004, 09:30:55 AM »

Shuckins · « **Reply #56 on:** July 11, 2004, 01:40:37 PM »

Tuomio,

Allen Guth, the world's most prominent physicist, developed his inflationary theory some years back to explain some of the conundrums associated with the Big Bang. This was the subject of an article in Discover magazine back in 2002. Guth states that the Big Bang was a singular event (that is, only occurring once) was ludicrous. He also speculated that, since the universe sprang into existence from a point in space one-billionth the size of an electron, that it might be possible for an "advanced civilization" to recreate the conditions.

As I implied in the previous post, life evolves upward. Who are we to say what is possible or impossible, if time does not, indeed begin and end with the present universe.

Recently two cosmologists, whose names escape me, have proposed a theory that suggests that the Big Bang was the result of the interaction of our own universe with a "shadow universe" separated from our own by the distance of a single electron. In other words, a parallel dimension that whose branes, or planes of existence, occasionally touch our own producing titanic explosions of energy that create, or recreate if you will, our universe.

The accelerated expansion of our universe has no effect on the interaction between our universe and the shadow universe. This theory postulates that this cycle of creation is never ending. You can find this article in the February edition of Discover magazine.

As you can see, the only thing permanent about astronomical physics is its impermanence.

AKIron · « **Reply #57 on:** July 11, 2004, 04:00:26 PM »

Do we really know anything? One of you guys might be a butterfly dreaming all this up. Faith is all that anyone has.

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #58 on:** July 11, 2004, 04:34:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Do we really know anything? One of you guys might be a butterfly dreaming all this up. Faith is all that anyone has.

I've often thought of myself as a butterfly... Other times, more of a chipmunk. Occasionally though, I'm pretty sure I'm patio furniture.

Chairboy · « **Reply #59 on:** July 11, 2004, 04:39:42 PM »

As long as we're not in a snowglobe being examined by an autistic child, I'm ok.