Stop what you're doing and laugh at the U.S.

[Mangled*]

Not at all.  Religion changes, and can change quite drastically.  Yes, the texts of various religions don't change, but religion itself is a very personal thing.  My Christianity today is not what it was five years ago, and that wasn't anything like my Christianity five years before that.  You read, you study, you learn, and you draw your own conclusions with the guidance of others.

I do see where you're coming from, people do change and it's the texts that are rigid. I suppose that's more my argument, the foundation is a rigid basis. Science isn't rigid in the same sense because it's 'texts' change dramatically over decades as they're updated.

That's a little unfair, I didn't expect him to explicitly state "My argument was wrong." Rather, he admitted his facts were wrong about entropy and hasn't brought it up again.
A fundie I was talking with IRL brought up some bs about how if the Earth was that old the moon would have had to have left it less than a million years ago based on how fast it was moving away. I actually did the calculation in front of him using very liberal figures and showed him why, with numbers, it didn't work. He said "oh." That night he used the same argument against some other people I was with.
When I'm used to that sort of reaction to arguments, Gamer_2k4 seems quite reasonable in his willingness to admit wrongness.

In reflection yes I think it was a little unfair of me, you are right. What I'm really interested to know is how the new understanding of Entropy reflects on the standpoint that Gamer_2k4 holds, he has learned a new piece of information which is a complete U-turn in his previous understanding of what entropy is.

I've said this before but I do have respect for people who can admit they have been wrong about something. Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to have a sudden change of theology or anything, I'm interested to know how it stands with your perspective on the Big Bang.

[ds dude]

I just wanted to pop in and say that while I'm a Christian and all, these guys are a bunch of idiots, and you have every right to hate them, Mangled.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363837/Doomsday-campers-Project-Caravan-say-world-end-May-21.html

I don't hate religious people, I hate the religions they devote their lives to and the clergy that take every advantage of their followers.

You're right, they are idiots, just like the Westboro Baptist Church are idiots... but they are just different interpretations of the same thing that you believe. Sure, they might be more stupid or more twisted or more absurd. At the end of the day they are just like you, they are just like all religious people, there doesn't have to be any logic behind their beliefs, regardless of what anyone else says they believe what they want to believe.

It's exactly what's wrong with religion. Remember all those people who committed suicide in 1999 because they thought the world would end in 2000? No doubt there are people stupid enough out there who think the world will end on May 21st or in 2012 or any other arbitrary date. Yes people are deluded and will take their lives because they have faith in an absolute truth.

All religious interpretations of all religions are equally incorrect. Yours isn't special or unique or perfect, it's just as crazy as theirs, the only difference is YOU believe it.

Oh man... don't remind me. The people in the Westboro Baptist Church are inhuman, I can't believe they have the balls to picket a soldier's funerals and to call homosexuals the word faggot.

What bothers me is that if there was a God why would be need to create a Universe and Earth. Since he is God why isn't he satisfied with himself? I don't think religion was suppose to be used in a way to make people believe in a superior being. I'm led to believe that in the beginning they were simple rules to help people become cleaner and overall better human beings. You know, stuff like "wash your hands before eating" and "love your neighbor", but where I was throne off is when the word God came a long and how he supposedly made everything and how there are all these rules. Rules, rules, rules and all these rules state what is sin and what isn't, the bible wasn't made by God, it was made by a group of people. They priests or bishops.. I don't know, what matter is that they were people. These rules are all artificial, it's not like God came down and said "These are the official Rules of Christianity and you must obey and follow them."

Also the Church tries to counter science but if I'm correct when Galileo found out that the goddamn Earth revolves around the sun and not the sun revolving around the Earth then the Church couldn't find a response to this because the proof was in their face and so how could they go against it? Instead they got pissed off and imprisoned him or exiled him, forgot which one.

Since we are trying to prove God doesn't exist, there is some gap between the argument that allows the Church to keep combating our arguments because we don't have a piece of paper that says "God doesn't exist, and here is the proof."

[Mangled*]

Since we are trying to prove God doesn't exist, there is some gap between the argument that allows the Church to keep combating our arguments because we don't have a piece of paper that says "God doesn't exist, and here is the proof."

There is no way to prove God doesn't exist. Even as extreme an atheist as I am, I will not deny the truth. There is also no way to prove unicorns don't exist, or ghosts, or leprechauns, vampires, the tooth fairy etc... It's simply the nature of things that don't exist.

If something exists, you can prove it with evidence. If something doesn't exist there no evidence for or against it simply because there is no such thing as negative evidence. (See: Russell's Teapot)

What we can do is debunk falsifiable claims that religious texts make that are testable.

[ds dude]

Since we are trying to prove God doesn't exist, there is some gap between the argument that allows the Church to keep combating our arguments because we don't have a piece of paper that says "God doesn't exist, and here is the proof."

There is no way to prove God doesn't exist. Even as extreme an atheist as I am, I will not deny the truth. There is also no way to prove unicorns don't exist, or ghosts, or leprechauns, vampires, the tooth fairy etc... It's simply the nature of things that don't exist.

If something exists, you can prove it with evidence. If something doesn't exist there no evidence for or against it simply because there is no such thing as negative evidence. (See: Russell's Teapot)

What we can do is debunk falsifiable claims that religious texts make that are testable.

Ok I see, thanks for the Russell's Teapot link, I found that really interesting.

[demoniac93]

I just wanted to say (since demoniac93 wanted to know where the universe came from) that Stewen Hawkin sais in his newest book «The Grand Design» that since the law of gravitation exist, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason for the existence of something rather than nothing. There is no reason to call upon God to create the universe.
I have that book on my shelf, just waiting to be read

I'd love to see what evidence he has to prove that.
And how can gravity exist if there is no such thing as mass?
As I said before, there was NOTHING before the big bang occurred, and whatever caused that big bang could not have come out of nowhere. (Read: E=MC^2)

@Mangled: Talking about being graceful while at the same time stating that someone does not deserve to be educated.
Don't bother anymore because I gave up on this crap fest as soon as I read that line.

[Blacksheepboy]

OH NO, RELIGION HAS ENTERED THE THREAD.

[Mangled*]

I'd love to see what evidence he has to prove that.
And how can gravity exist if there is no such thing as mass?
As I said before, there was NOTHING before the big bang occurred, and whatever caused that big bang could not have come out of nowhere. (Read: E=MC^2)

@Mangled: Talking about being graceful while at the same time stating that someone does not deserve to be educated.
Don't bother anymore because I gave up on this crap fest as soon as I read that line.

Using E=mc2 to argue against a misinterpretation of Big Bang theory as if it is Big Bang theory: -1000pts

Failing to recognise irony or sarcasm: -250pts

Why does someone back out of a debate? I can think of two reasons: medical emergency or lack of anything to back up their arguments. I think you see this as a 'crap fest' because you're afraid of looking any deeper into any of this. In order to stay comfortable you have to dismiss any ideas before you even finish reading them.

Take a walk on the wild side and read up on something you're interested in from a non-biased source. I can't teach you to teach yourself.

OH NO, RELIGION HAS ENTERED THE THREAD.

A wild religion appeared.

[Blacksheepboy]

hahahaha, ah, pretty much "This is the way of SOLDAT FORUMS! Like it, or get out"

[Horve]

Imaginary friends and imaginary companions are a psychological and social phenomenon where a friendship or other interpersonal relationship takes place in the imagination rather than external physical reality. Imaginary friends are fictional characters created for improvisational role-playing. They often have elaborate personalities and behaviors. They may seem real to their creators, though they are ultimately unreal

[DarkCrusade]

Wiki-style

[homerofgods]

I just wanted to say (since demoniac93 wanted to know where the universe came from) that Stewen Hawkin sais in his newest book «The Grand Design» that since the law of gravitation exist, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason for the existence of something rather than nothing. There is no reason to call upon God to create the universe.
I have that book on my shelf, just waiting to be read

I'd love to see what evidence he has to prove that.
And how can gravity exist if there is no such thing as mass?
As I said before, there was NOTHING before the big bang occurred, and whatever caused that big bang could not have come out of nowhere. (Read: E=MC^2)

@Mangled: Talking about being graceful while at the same time stating that someone does not deserve to be educated.
Don't bother anymore because I gave up on this crap fest as soon as I read that line.

It is not 'proven' yet but it's called the M theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb7LCau_Z_Y&feature=related

[demoniac93]

I'd love to see what evidence he has to prove that.
And how can gravity exist if there is no such thing as mass?
As I said before, there was NOTHING before the big bang occurred, and whatever caused that big bang could not have come out of nowhere. (Read: E=MC^2)

@Mangled: Talking about being graceful while at the same time stating that someone does not deserve to be educated.
Don't bother anymore because I gave up on this crap fest as soon as I read that line.

Using E=mc2 to argue against a misinterpretation of Big Bang theory as if it is Big Bang theory: -1000pts

Failing to recognise irony or sarcasm: -250pts

Why does someone back out of a debate? I can think of two reasons: medical emergency or lack of anything to back up their arguments. I think you see this as a 'crap fest' because you're afraid of looking any deeper into any of this. In order to stay comfortable you have to dismiss any ideas before you even finish reading them.

Take a walk on the wild side and read up on something you're interested in from a non-biased source. I can't teach you to teach yourself.

OH NO, RELIGION HAS ENTERED THE THREAD.

A wild religion appeared.

Not the big bang, but your whole concept of how the universe came to be.
Matter and energy are constant, they can only change forms, they cannot be renewed nor annihilated, and they can't come out of nowhere, according to the current limitations of science.

[DarkCrusade]

... except there is a God? Our existence is not proof for the existence of God.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

What I'm really interested to know is how the new understanding of Entropy reflects on the standpoint that Gamer_2k4 holds, he has learned a new piece of information which is a complete U-turn in his previous understanding of what entropy is.

It doesn't change much.  The question "Where did the original energy come from?" remains, and remains unanswerable.  A solution to that question would have to be outside the laws of reality, and my only description of such a thing would be "God."

[Dusty]

ITT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

[Mangled*]

It doesn't change much.  The question "Where did the original energy come from?" remains, and remains unanswerable.  A solution to that question would have to be outside the laws of reality, and my only description of such a thing would be "God."

That's a totally valid question, it's one that nobody can answer scientifically yet because we don't know what the universe was like before the Big Bang. I think people find the idea of the universe having existed for an infinite amount of time very hard to wrap their head arounds, because it's counter-intuitive. We can't pretend to know the laws of the universe precisely, so to say that something like an eternal universe is outside of the laws of the universe is very silly.

You don't think there are millions of paticles passing through your body at the speed of light because you percieve yourself to be 'solid' but you're not, if atomic theory is correct then your body volume is 99.9% nothing. Is that intuitive? No, we behave as if we are solid because of electro-magnetic force.

But doesn't God raise the exact same questions? Where did God come from? And why can God have existed for an eternity but the universe can't? Also why would God create a universe so ridiculously vast where Earth, where humans and human religion takes up less than: ~0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% percent of it?

Not the big bang, but your whole concept of how the universe came to be.
Matter and energy are constant, they can only change forms, they cannot be renewed nor annihilated, and they can't come out of nowhere, according to the current limitations of science.

I LOVE how you are now quoting ME in order to continue an argument against YOUR misunderstanding of Big Bang theory!!!!!!

Remember when I said this 5 pages ago?:

We are used to seeing everything around us having a beginning and an end, a finite existance. But if you really look beyond that, nothing has really begun or ended, it has simply changed states.

A building is constructed, used for decades, falls into disrepair and is finally demolished. But everything that made up that building still exists, and existed before it was constructed. It has just changed states. Mortar and bricks were once clay and water and sand, they were mixed and hardened, used to build walls and eventually they are broken down into rubble and debris, but they still exist. Their atoms still exist.

We just don't think about things in this way because it's needlessly complicated for our perception. We see our existance as birth to death. But the cells of our embryos that divided and formed us did not do so out of nothing, they fed on nutrients consumed by our mothers, and when we die our bodies are consumed by bacteria, they feed off it and divide themselves.

When it boils down to it, the argument of why the Universe can't be eternal but God can be is simply: Bible says so.

Here's a nice analogy: Science is a train carrying knowledge towards the city of Your Brain, it's a downhill journey and the train is picking up speed gradually. You percieve the train as a threat to Your Brain so you are deperately trying to unload it's cargo and then throw that in front of the train to try and slow it down. But it's not working, in order to stop the train you would have to exert an equal force against it, but you can't because Science is growing, every day a new carriage full of knowledge is constructed and connected onto the back of the train.

When you are exhausted, you can just stick with 'faith' and lie down in front of the train and hope it stops. But you know what's going to happen really.

[demoniac93]

OK, so it changed states, but how can it not have begun?
Now you're the one contradicting yourself.
You are implying again that the universe is infinite, or that time doesn't exist.
And both of those are false statements.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I think people find the idea of the universe having existed for an infinite amount of time very hard to wrap their head arounds, because it's counter-intuitive.

The issue of whether or not something is intuitive is a trivial one.  I readily accept that there are things that I don't understand, and quantum mechanics is one of them.  However, at least those remain in the observable universe.  On the other hand, if a big bang did happen, whatever preceded it is total guesswork from a scientific perspective.  An infinitely old (or young) universe is just another guess that's a complete shot in the dark, and saying, "Well, it doesn't HAVE to make sense," doesn't really lend it any validity.  It's just another perspective that can't really be disproved.

We can't pretend to know the laws of the universe precisely, so to say that something like an eternal universe is outside of the laws of the universe is very silly.

I would argue just the opposite, that it's silly to assume that nothing exists outside of what we can observe and scientifically quantify.  Everything has its limitations; you can't study desert climates in an aquarium, you can't examine light waves with a hammer, you can't paint a picture with a piano, and you can't analyze religion with science.  That doesn't mean that deserts don't exist, that light doesn't exist, that paintings don't exist, or that religion is false.

Furthermore (and I believed I used this argument with you before, but I'll bring it up for old time's sake), trying to understand religion while remaining outside of religion is impossible, just like trying to understand color can't be done if you're blind.  How can you comprehend red if you haven't seen it?

I have a certainty in my faith that you won't ever understand as an atheist.  It's like explaining proprioception to someone without it.  I don't know why or how I know where my feet are without seeing or feeling them.  I just KNOW.  They're a part of me, just like religion is a part of me.

Also why would God create a universe so ridiculously vast where Earth, where humans and human religion takes an infinitesimal percent of it?

Would you really expect anything less from a true God? If, say, the universe was just our solar system, and we reached the edge of it, wouldn't we kind of think, "Well this is pretty weak...I expected it to be bigger"?

When it boils down to it, the argument of why the Universe can't be eternal but God can be is simply: Bible says so.

Well, not quite.  It's more a matter of, "What else would you expect God to be?"  He's not much of a God if he is trapped in time like the rest of us.  And it's only as a result of being trapped in time that we have the concept of beginnings and ends.  Once you're outside of time, you don't need a beginning, because the concept is meaningless.

It's like asking what point on a graph a line is at.  Well, it's NOT at a single point...it's a LINE.  You can say different points that the line intersects, just as you can say different points in history where God was present (all of them), but there is no distinct start or end of a line, because that's just not how lines work.

[dnmr]

Mangled, all your arguments are rejected and substituted with supernatural alternative to reality because people are afraid to think they do not understand how some things work. It seems like you won't take that away from a believer no matter how much scientific proof you show, people will still find something that the current theories are unable to explain. And then they will start whining that those are only theories and that someone can still disprove them -.-

It's the feeling of comfort which keeps you sleeping at night. And people like comfort.

[Mangled*]

OK, so it changed states, but how can it not have begun?
Now you're the one contradicting yourself.
You are implying again that the universe is infinite, or that time doesn't exist.
And both of those are false statements.

I'm implying neither of those things. The universe is most likely eternal (infinite in sense of time) because like we both pointed out: matter cannot be created or destroyed so it can have existed for an infinite amount of time in different states. The reason is we have a concept of time, atoms don't. The mass and energy of the universe is the same as it was before the Big Bang, it's just in a state where it is spread out over an infinitely vast 'space' which we call... space.

You are thinking about existance and time in an entirely human perspective which is why you fail to recognise the meaning in what I'm talking about.

I'm not even going to begin going into spacetime 'fabric' and gravitational influence on time and extra dimensions because that took me a while to wrap my head around.

The issue of whether or not something is intuitive is a trivial one.  I readily accept that there are things that I don't understand, and quantum mechanics is one of them.  However, at least those remain in the observable universe.  On the other hand, if a big bang did happen, whatever preceded it is total guesswork from a scientific perspective.  An infinitely old (or young) universe is just another guess that's a complete shot in the dark, and saying, "Well, it doesn't HAVE to make sense," doesn't really lend it any validity.  It's just another perspective that can't really be disproved.

It's not trivial at all, it's massively important. In order to theorize about anything legitimately you first need to try to understand it as much as possible. People who know nothing about science like demoniac make guesswork based off their perception that the universe is intuitive and mechanically simple like a clock. It's not.

Things fall because of gravity = intuitive and simplistic but lacking explanation.
Gravity may actually be an energetic particle that transfers an attractive force between masses = unintuitive and complicated but explanatory.

What happened before the Big Bang can be theorized about legitimately by observing the current universe and working backwards. That's exactly how they know there was a Big Bang.

We can't pretend to know the laws of the universe precisely, so to say that something like an eternal universe is outside of the laws of the universe is very silly.

I would argue just the opposite, that it's silly to assume that nothing exists outside of what we can observe and scientifically quantify.  Everything has its limitations; you can't study desert climates in an aquarium, you can't examine light waves with a hammer, you can't paint a picture with a piano, and you can't analyze religion with science.  That doesn't mean that deserts don't exist, that light doesn't exist, that paintings don't exist, or that religion is false.

Furthermore (and I believed I used this argument with you before, but I'll bring it up for old time's sake), trying to understand religion while remaining outside of religion is impossible, just like trying to understand color can't be done if you're blind.  How can you comprehend red if you haven't seen it?

I have a certainty in my faith that you won't ever understand as an atheist.  It's like explaining proprioception to someone without it.  I don't know why or how I know where my feet are without seeing or feeling them.  I just KNOW.  They're a part of me, just like religion is a part of me.

That analogy doesn't work. You're making the comparrison of comparing two differing physical things from limited perspectives to analysing religion with science. You can't argue against unicorns with science or logic because they are unscientific and illogical. Same applies to religion. - There, that was a valid comparison.

Would you really expect anything less from a true God? If, say, the universe was just our solar system, and we reached the edge of it, wouldn't we kind of think, "Well this is pretty weak...I expected it to be bigger"?

I don't know what to expect from something that can't be understood by any means of logic. Why can you? Why does faith give you an insight into what God is thinking?

INTERESTING: Did you know they've done experiments with MRI machines and asked religious people what God wants whilst scanning their brains? They used the same part of their brains as they use when they talk about what they themselves want, which is an entirely different part of the brain than that is used when you think about other people and what they want.

When it boils down to it, the argument of why the Universe can't be eternal but God can be is simply: Bible says so.

Well, not quite.  It's more a matter of, "What else would you expect God to be?"  He's not much of a God if he is trapped in time like the rest of us.  And it's only as a result of being trapped in time that we have the concept of beginnings and ends.  Once you're outside of time, you don't need a beginning, because the concept is meaningless.

It's like asking what point on a graph a line is at.  Well, it's NOT at a single point...it's a LINE.  You can say different points that the line intersects, just as you can say different points in history where God was present (all of them), but there is no distinct start or end of a line, because that's just not how lines work.

That's a pretty long winded version of: Bible says so.

Mangled, all your arguments are rejected and substituted with supernatural alternative to reality because people are afraid to think they do not understand how some things work. It seems like you won't take that away from a believer no matter how much scientific proof you show, people will still find something that the current theories are unable to explain. And then they will start whining that those are only theories and that someone can still disprove them -.-

It's the feeling of comfort which keeps you sleeping at night. And people like comfort.

You're right. But I enjoy flexing my intellectual muscles. It's good mental excersize with me. I'm an intellectual athlete!

I'm comfortable being highly educated and understanding more than some people can bear to think about. I'm comfortable knowing that when I die it will be just the same as before I was born. I'm comfortable knowing that the closest to an afterlife in paradise is simply leaving a positive legacy. True hell is being remembered for being a cunt. Heaven is being missed and loved.