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

[demoniac93]

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.

Actually, my faith in the existence of a God is what makes me sleep with a shiver every single night, it's because I know that no matter how much I make of myself, God will always be stronger, wiser, more patient, and definitely more influential than I will ever be in this world.

The few atheists I've known in person in my area have all shown the exact same reactions towards this subject as each other, and they all showed that the idea that there is no God is the bigger comfort, it means we are fre to do whatever we want and when we end, we just end.
And it no longer matters because if we don't exist, we can't regret dying/ending. Also, it's their ego that doesn't allow them to believe in the existence of a higher being, a god, because they cannot accept the fact that someone who is almighty and powerful beyond our grasp, either that, or they just fear the idea.

@Mangled: Ugh, just give it up already, sayign that infinity is possible is all the further proof that God DOES exist...

Edit: OK, I think I've contradicted myself so hard it hurts, I shouldn't be saying God exists, because existence ends, to exist is a finite state. So I'll be saying God IS from now on.

[dnmr]

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

you.. pervert...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EphcacBt-Mk

Actually, my faith in the existence of a God is what makes me sleep with a shiver every single night, it's because I know that no matter how much I make of myself, God will always be stronger, wiser, more patient, and definitely more influential than I will ever be in this world.

fascinating. So you actually need to acknowledge that there is someone/something superior to yourself? Do you like to feel inferior or do you like to know that there is always room for improvement?

[demoniac93]

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

you.. pervert...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EphcacBt-Mk

Actually, my faith in the existence of a God is what makes me sleep with a shiver every single night, it's because I know that no matter how much I make of myself, God will always be stronger, wiser, more patient, and definitely more influential than I will ever be in this world.

fascinating. So you actually need to acknowledge that there is someone/something superior to yourself? Do you like to feel inferior or do you like to know that there is always room for improvement?

It's not like I love the feeling of fear, but God simply induces awe, imagine a being so powerful it could play with time and space like it was a piece of cloth.
And I always try to improve myself, that's a given.

[Mittsu]

imagine

/religion

[dnmr]

It's not like I love the feeling of fear, but God simply induces awe, imagine a being so powerful it could play with time and space like it was a piece of cloth.

well, i get the same kind of a rush from understanding how nature works. And that mother is pretty damn fascinating when you see it in detail. Similar to your case, except that i don't have to imagine it, it's all observable.

And I always try to improve myself, that's a given.

yeah, that's something you can do either way

[homerofgods]

The Bible dates the earth to be 6000 years, but no christian that I know of is stupid enough to believe that the earth is that young. What do you christian guys think about believing only in SOME parts of the bible?

Code: [Select]

Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically-based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.

The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

The issue of whether or not something is intuitive is a trivial one.

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.

Then it remains trivial.  Regardless of how intuitive or unintuitive something is, all that matters is whether or not an explanation exists.

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.

Unfortunately, that logic only extends to the Big Bang itself, not before.  Consider this machine:


If you stumbled upon it after it had been used, it would be elementary to work backwards and determine the sequence of events that popped the balloon.  But that doesn't help one bit once you get to the beginning.  You can't go past that, because it's outside the system.  There's nothing to base assumptions on at that point.

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?

I don't know if it's faith as much as it is an expectation that God wouldn't do things halfway.  I don't think that's unreasonable.

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.

I didn't, but I could hazard a guess as to why that is.  Part of becoming a Christian is the concept of being "born again."  In other words, you reject the person you are and the desires you have and choose to let God work in you instead.  There are all sorts of references to that sort of thing in the Bible, and it's really the essence of Christianity.

In that light, it makes sense that the people should talk about God's will as though it's their will.  Being a Christian means turning away from the will of the world and accepting the will of God as your own.  It's rare that you believe you should be doing exactly what everyone else expects of you, but if you're a Christian, it should be the norm to believe that you should be doing exactly what God wants you to.

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

Not really.  I was basing my argument on a logical interpretation of what a God would have to be; not necessarily on who the Bible says he is.  That's not to say the two don't intersect in places, of course...

Are you really a christian if you just believe in SOME parts of the bible?

There are two sides to that answer.  The first half is that yes, of course you can still be a Christian even if you don't believe all of the Bible.  Knowledge and belief in the entire Bible isn't a prerequisite.

On the other hand, if you're just picking and choosing what you think is true and what isn't, then there's no reason to believe that the description of Christianity given in the Bible is the right one.  So no, if that's your belief system, you might very well not be a Christian at all, since who can say if you're doing it right?

[Veritas]

before the Big Bang

The accepted model is that time began at the Big Bang, making this statement entirely nonsensical.

[Mangled*]

Then it remains trivial.  Regardless of how intuitive or unintuitive something is, all that matters is whether or not an explanation exists.

No, you simply class it as trivial because if it was important to you it would interfere with your currently rather low standards of perception.

It's important to astronomers and it's important to chemists, and it's important to physicists. It's important to me because I want to understand as much as I possibly can about the world.

It's funny when religious people say there are in awe of the beauty and intricate detail of the universe that God made, because when you ask them to look at it in any other context you realise they aren't genuinely interested in the detail and the elegance, they are just spouting a soundbyte that they've heard hundreds of other religious people use.

Consider this machine:
http://www.walterwick.com/books_pics/ispy_pics/ISPY_SD_balloon_no_text.jpg

If you stumbled upon it after it had been used, it would be elementary to work backwards and determine the sequence of events that popped the balloon.  But that doesn't help one bit once you get to the beginning.  You can't go past that, because it's outside the system.  There's nothing to base assumptions on at that point.

That is a machine built and set up by a human, we know this because there is evidence. There is no evidence that God built and set up the universe. So there is nothing to consider here, only another terrible analogy that doesn't work.

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.

I didn't, but I could hazard a guess as to why that is.  Part of becoming a Christian is the concept of being "born again."  In other words, you reject the person you are and the desires you have and choose to let God work in you instead.  There are all sorts of references to that sort of thing in the Bible, and it's really the essence of Christianity.

In that light, it makes sense that the people should talk about God's will as though it's their will.  Being a Christian means turning away from the will of the world and accepting the will of God as your own.  It's rare that you believe you should be doing exactly what everyone else expects of you, but if you're a Christian, it should be the norm to believe that you should be doing exactly what God wants you to.

I have an explanation which is consistent with the observed phenomina. God is just an ego-extention much like an imaginary friend.

Not really.  I was basing my argument on a logical interpretation of what a God would have to be; not necessarily on who the Bible says he is.  That's not to say the two don't intersect in places, of course...

I have a logical interpretation of God too.

before the Big Bang

The accepted model is that time began at the Big Bang, making this statement entirely nonsensical.

Nope. The accepted model is that it's yet to be determined what the universe was like before the Big Bang. Time is intimately linked with gravity, in fact it's very possible that time IS gravity (brainfart, right? wrap your head around that one) and since gravity allows for singularities it also allows for all of the mass in the universe to exist in a very small space, possibly the size of a large atom called the primeval atom. Gravity would probably have existed before the Big Bang in order to hold the mass in one place and since Time is intimately linked with it then it would probably have to be there too. Even if the primeval atom only existed for a nanosecond.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Then it remains trivial.  Regardless of how intuitive or unintuitive something is, all that matters is whether or not an explanation exists.

No, you simply class it as trivial because if it was important to you it would interfere with your currently rather low standards of perception.

It's important to astronomers and it's important to chemists, and it's important to physicists. It's important to me because I want to understand as much as I possibly can about the world.

So then it DOESN'T MATTER THAT THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE AT FIRST GLANCE (read: their unintuitive nature is trivial), because, like it or not, the mechanics are there, like it or not, they're fundamental in our understanding of the universe, and regardless of how simple or complex they might be, you and I want to learn about them to further our understanding.  I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE MECHANICS THEMSELVES ARE TRIVIAL BECAUSE THEY'RE UNINTUITIVE.  Sheesh.  This should not be as hard to understand as you're making it.

And exactly what low standards of perception are you talking about? You're the one who needs me to spell out every single thing so that you'll get it.

It's funny when religious people say there are in awe of the beauty and intricate detail of the universe that God made, because when you ask them to look at it in any other context you realise they aren't genuinely interested in the detail and the elegance, they are just spouting a soundbyte that they've heard hundreds of other religious people use.

That's so blatant a strawman argument I'm not even going to bother to debate it.

So there is nothing to consider here, only another terrible analogy that doesn't work.

Is anyone else having trouble with my analogies? Anyone? Or is it just Mangled*?

Here I thought we were having a civil debate, and then, out of the blue, you're acting like a dick again.  What gives?

[Veritas]

before the Big Bang

The accepted model is that time began at the Big Bang, making this statement entirely nonsensical.

Nope. The accepted model is that it's yet to be determined what the universe was like before the Big Bang.

You're confusing ``accepted model" with ``things I've read in Pop Sci."

The accepted model is that the Big Bang is a singularity, making "before the Big Bang" nonsense. There are proposals that singularities don't exist, but to present what you're saying as anything more than that is utter bollocks.

From: May 04, 2011, 09:00:29 pm

So there is nothing to consider here, only another terrible analogy that doesn't work.

Is anyone else having trouble with my analogies? Anyone? Or is it just Mangled*?

No, you've actually presented a perfect model of a singularity.

While I hardly agree with your conclusion, it is really funny to see Mangled* acknowledge that you're making an analogy and then completely ignore the fact that its an analogy to make a point.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Found this on Slashdot, and it's unexpectedly relevant:
http://news.discovery.com/space/did-some-black-holes-survive-the-big-bang-110504.html

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Nope. The accepted model is that it's yet to be determined what the universe was like before the Big Bang.

You're confusing ``accepted model" with ``things I've read in Pop Sci."

The accepted model is that the Big Bang is a singularity, making "before the Big Bang" nonsense. There are proposals that singularities don't exist, but to present what you're saying as anything more than that is utter bollocks.

sorry to interrupt you guys and all but this was just too golden not to quote

[demoniac93]

imagine

/religion

Really now? Let's not forgot that Edison imagined electric light bulbs before creating them. And that Ford imagined the modern car before producing it.
Imagination is what's keeping your ass safe and sound, kid.

@Homerofgods: The "Genesis" in The Bible is a metaphor, and if you'd ever bother reading it, and asking someone who actually cares about what it all means (Not necessarily a preacher or a priest, any Christian dedicated to studying The Bible could tell you this and explain Genesis), you'd know that.

@Mangled: I am in awe of, and inspired by, this "beauty", not because I heard someone say it before me, but because I have eyes that see.

[croat1gamer]

Protip: Read the bible as an fantasy book with lots of metaphors.

[Mangled*]

So then it DOESN'T MATTER THAT THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE AT FIRST GLANCE (read: their unintuitive nature is trivial), because, like it or not, the mechanics are there, like it or not, they're fundamental in our understanding of the universe, and regardless of how simple or complex they might be, you and I want to learn about them to further our understanding.  I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE MECHANICS THEMSELVES ARE TRIVIAL BECAUSE THEY'RE UNINTUITIVE.  Sheesh.  This should not be as hard to understand as you're making it.

And exactly what low standards of perception are you talking about? You're the one who needs me to spell out every single thing so that you'll get it.

Wow, you're actually trying to strawman ME? That is really kind of low.

I liked the part where you say they are "trivial" and yet they're "fundamental in our understanding of the universe". So to you understanding the universe must be trivial. To me it isn't, it's important. See: Your low standards of perception mentioned previously.

It's funny when religious people say there are in awe of the beauty and intricate detail of the universe that God made, because when you ask them to look at it in any other context you realise they aren't genuinely interested in the detail and the elegance, they are just spouting a soundbyte that they've heard hundreds of other religious people use.

That's so blatant a strawman argument I'm not even going to bother to debate it.

How is that a strawman?

Is anyone else having trouble with my analogies? Anyone? Or is it just Mangled*?

You're comparing a clearly man made machine, which we have other man made machines to compare to, to a universe. What other universes that are made by God do you have to compare this one to? That's why your analogy doesn't work.

It sounds a lot like an argument for ignorance: 'this looks complicated therefore it must have been made by some intelligence'.

Here I thought we were having a civil debate, and then, out of the blue, you're acting like a dick again.  What gives?

u mad bro?

We are having a civil debate. I haven't changed anything about my approach, so what's up with you? Why do you percieve me to be so phallic all of a sudden?

Was it by any chance this?:

I have an explanation which is consistent with the observed phenomina. God is just an ego-extention much like an imaginary friend.

Not really.  I was basing my argument on a logical interpretation of what a God would have to be; not necessarily on who the Bible says he is.  That's not to say the two don't intersect in places, of course...

I have a logical interpretation of God too.

Because these are entirely valid points regardless if you disapprove of them or not.

What I notice is I respond to all of your points that are directed at me, but you seem to just pick and choose from the ones I direct at you as to which ones you can respond to.

before the Big Bang

The accepted model is that time began at the Big Bang, making this statement entirely nonsensical.

Nope. The accepted model is that it's yet to be determined what the universe was like before the Big Bang.

You're confusing ``accepted model" with ``things I've read in Pop Sci."

The accepted model is that the Big Bang is a singularity, making "before the Big Bang" nonsense. There are proposals that singularities don't exist, but to present what you're saying as anything more than that is utter bollocks.

You know those eyes that God gave you? Have you learned how to use them yet? Read the above quote box repeatedly until you understand anything about what I stated. You're making an assertion that can't be made about me making an assertion that I haven't made.

I've been strawmanned, for a second time, but in the stupidest way ever.

Look, PANZERCATWAGON noticed it too!:

Nope. The accepted model is that it's yet to be determined what the universe was like before the Big Bang.

You're confusing ``accepted model" with ``things I've read in Pop Sci."

The accepted model is that the Big Bang is a singularity, making "before the Big Bang" nonsense. There are proposals that singularities don't exist, but to present what you're saying as anything more than that is utter bollocks.

sorry to interrupt you guys and all but this was just too golden not to quote

[Mittsu]

imagine

/religion

Really now? Let's not forgot that Edison imagined electric light bulbs before creating them. And that Ford imagined the modern car before producing it.

what you've said is just irrelevant and dumb

@Homerofgods: The "Genesis" in The Bible is a metaphor, and if you'd ever bother reading it, and asking someone who actually cares about what it all means (Not necessarily a preacher or a priest, any Christian dedicated to studying The Bible could tell you this and explain Genesis), you'd know that.

i find it hilarious how some christians/other? tend to claim bible is partially a metaphor. Just look at this:
1. Some dudes wrote the bible and spread the word - it's all true
2. Some other dudes have proven scientifically something in the bible can't be true because that's not how nature works
3. This part is now a metaphor
4. Same dudes have proven again another part of the bible can't be true
5. It's now a metaphor as well
and so on

pretty convenient

how about the entire bible is a metaphor; god is a metaphor. Why not?

, kid.

what are you, 40? You're way closer to being a 'kid' with your "i have an imaginary friend" mentality

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I liked the part where you say they are "trivial" and yet they're "fundamental in our understanding of the universe". So to you understanding the universe must be trivial. To me it isn't, it's important. See: Your low standards of perception mentioned previously.

Okay, again, is anyone else having trouble understanding what I'm saying, or is it still just Mangled*? I need to know if I'm being unclear or if I'm just dealing with an idiot (or more generously, a troll).

For the last time, there's a difference between the intuitive nature of a natural law and the natural law itself.  The two are not the same thing.  Just because a person has a bad haircut doesn't make him a bad person, and just because the intuitiveness of a law is trivial doesn't mean the law itself is trivial.

It's funny when religious people say there are in awe of the beauty and intricate detail of the universe that God made, because when you ask them to look at it in any other context you realise they aren't genuinely interested in the detail and the elegance, they are just spouting a soundbyte that they've heard hundreds of other religious people use.

That's so blatant a strawman argument I'm not even going to bother to debate it.

How is that a strawman?

Well, perhaps it's not a strawman as much as it as an argument based on falsely believed (but untrue) premises.  See your confusion above.

Is anyone else having trouble with my analogies? Anyone? Or is it just Mangled*?

You're comparing a clearly man made machine, which we have other man made machines to compare to, to a universe. What other universes that are made by God do you have to compare this one to? That's why your analogy doesn't work.

It sounds a lot like an argument for ignorance: 'this looks complicated therefore it must have been made by some intelligence'.

And you're missing the point, yet again.  The ONLY point of the analogy was to show that we can't have any knowledge of what happened before the Big Bang.  No further presumptions were made.

You know, these discussions would go a lot farther if you'd just respond to what I'm saying, instead of hidden points and agendas you assume I have.  Argue with my actual points, not with what you think of me.

Here I thought we were having a civil debate, and then, out of the blue, you're acting like a dick again.  What gives?

u mad bro?

We are having a civil debate. I haven't changed anything about my approach, so what's up with you? Why do you percieve me to be so phallic all of a sudden?

Was it by any chance this?:

No, it wasn't that, though I'll address it shortly.  It was more of you aggressively missing the point of everything I'm saying and taking potshots at me because of it: "you don't REALLY appreciate the complexity of the world; none of your sort does" "you're not very perceptive because I think you're saying something you're not" "your analogies suck even though the fault is really with me because I don't understand what analogies are"

You know, that sort of thing: attacks against me instead of against my arguments.  That's what ticked me off.

I have an explanation which is consistent with the observed phenomina. God is just an ego-extention much like an imaginary friend.

Not really.  I was basing my argument on a logical interpretation of what a God would have to be; not necessarily on who the Bible says he is.  That's not to say the two don't intersect in places, of course...

I have a logical interpretation of God too.

Because these are entirely valid points regardless if you disapprove of them or not.

What I notice is I respond to all of your points that are directed at me, but you seem to just pick and choose from the ones I direct at you as to which ones you can respond to.

What do you want me to say to, "I have a logical interpretation of God, too"? "No you don't"? Where does that get us, besides an endless loop of "no u"s? I've said my piece, you've said yours, they're fundamentally at odds with each other, so carrying on that particular discussion is pointless.

[iDante]

Okay I think this has branched out like crazy and is now quickly approaching flame fest. I'd like to talk about physics because that seems to be interesting to everyone.

The general idea of the beginnings of the universe as we know it is that at time zero the universe had zero size and infinite temperature. It is impossible with our current understanding of quantum physics to know what the universe was like before this time. You can insert a creator into this gap if you really want, but even that is shrinking slowly. After the big bang the universe expanded extremely fast, maybe went into a special period of inflation, but we see it now 13 billion years later as it still expands and cools off. Because we don't understand it and we exist in it, some humans use the anthropic principle to argue for a creator. Whether this works or doesn't work philosophically is another problem.

What I am interested in is the christian god. Why, if there is in fact a creator (for there are certainly enough gaps for one to squeeze in), do people believe in the christian god. What makes the bible so special, when it's outright wrong in so many places and morally questionable in most others? Why do people believe that the creator that possibly made this universe 13 billion years ago made it just for us, a species of stupid apes on a small planet orbiting an average star on the arm of an ordinary galaxy among millions of millions of other galaxies? For that matter, why did this creator take so long to show up to us? Humans were around for a hundred thousand years or more before this jesus chap decided to show and save. What's up with that?
Science provides logical and scientific answers to all of these questions. Religion just says god did it.
Belief in a creator is understandable, although I think it will be unnecessary soon. Belief in the christian god is not understandable.

[demoniac93]

imagine

/religion

Really now? Let's not forgot that Edison imagined electric light bulbs before creating them. And that Ford imagined the modern car before producing it.

what you've said is just irrelevant and dumb

@Homerofgods: The "Genesis" in The Bible is a metaphor, and if you'd ever bother reading it, and asking someone who actually cares about what it all means (Not necessarily a preacher or a priest, any Christian dedicated to studying The Bible could tell you this and explain Genesis), you'd know that.

i find it hilarious how some christians/other? tend to claim bible is partially a metaphor. Just look at this:
1. Some dudes wrote the bible and spread the word - it's all true
2. Some other dudes have proven scientifically something in the bible can't be true because that's not how nature works
3. This part is now a metaphor
4. Same dudes have proven again another part of the bible can't be true
5. It's now a metaphor as well
and so on

pretty convenient

how about the entire bible is a metaphor; god is a metaphor. Why not?

, kid.

what are you, 40? You're way closer to being a 'kid' with your "i have an imaginary friend" mentality

Eh, God wouldn't exactly be God if he spoke our language, would he now?

1.God isn't literal, because it would be a type of confinement, or you could say, limitation.

2.God uses metaphors because believe it or not, metaphors express the meaning of some ideas better than direct statements, they paint a more accurate picture in your head.

3.Which parts of The Bible are you talking about? Be specific, don't give me vague hints and majority-atheistic ideas, I want examples.

4.Spiritual disposition does not determine mental age.