1730 replies to this topic

[Fatal]

Are you referencing to big bang? I fail to see how your statement has anything to do with evolution.

Read the quote that you were responding to.

"I still believe in God, because something must have created logical beings."


I am saying that Evolution does not explain how something can be created from absolutely nothing. How did the first of ANYTHING start? No one knows.

[Sweeney]

Read the quote that you were responding to.

"I still believe in God, because something must have created logical beings."


I am saying that Evolution does not explain how something can be created from absolutely nothing. How did the first of ANYTHING start? No one knows.

Why do you assume there was a beginning?

[Gen]

I hope I don't get bashed for this o.o
I believe in god, not exactly the same way most people do... Hmmm, just told you what I believe in, no need to discuss, everyone has an opinion about something and they often are different

[jcrdude]

I believe in GODMODE

[Fatal]

Why do you assume there was a beginning?

The point is, how was anything ever created for the first time? That's what's not explained, and is a very essential question that isn't answered yet.

[jcrdude]

The point is, how was anything ever created for the first time? That's what's not explained, and is a very essential question that isn't answered yet.

Just like theism we have to make a leap somewhere.

According to the laws of conservation of mass and energy, whatever energy and mass exist have always existed.

According to monotheism, God has always existed.

According to polytheism, all gods descended from an original god(that we can assume always existed).

So scientifically, explaining "when it was created for the first time" is about as far from scientific as it comes. That's as silly as asking "who created God?"

[Waser Lave]

The point is, how was anything ever created for the first time? That's what's not explained, and is a very essential question that isn't answered yet.

I think what Joe is saying is along the lines of, why do we assume things need to have been created in the first place?

[Fatal]

I think what Joe is saying is along the lines of, why do we assume things need to have been created in the first place?

Because how would things exist otherwise? It all has to start from somewhere.... at least until proven otherwise. Like I said, humans don't have this knowledge yet, making it kind of pointless even discussing it.

[Waser Lave]

Because how would things exist otherwise? It all has to start from somewhere.... at least until proven otherwise. Like I said, humans don't have this knowledge yet, making it kind of pointless even discussing it.

If we only discussed things we already understand then we would never advance.

[jcrdude]

Because how would things exist otherwise? It all has to start from somewhere.... at least until proven otherwise. Like I said, humans don't have this knowledge yet, making it kind of pointless even discussing it.

I think that the only way we can tackle the "beginning" of matter or energy is when we can "end" it. Once we find a way to do that, we're golden.

Until then we're stuck postulating about infinity or using circular reasoning.

"Where did all the matter in the universe come from?"
"It all expanded out in a large explosion in the big bang"
"And where did all THAT come from?"
"From the previous universe's collapse"
"And where did all THAT come from?"
etc.

"Where did all the matter in the universe come from?"
"God made it"
"And who made God?"
a)"God"
b)"God has always existed" (much like matter)

[kiddX]

I believe in God - but not really in the traditional sense. I believe everything is God, but God is more than everything.

[Sweeney]

Because how would things exist otherwise? It all has to start from somewhere.... at least until proven otherwise. Like I said, humans don't have this knowledge yet, making it kind of pointless even discussing it.

Well, no.
"Everything has to begin" is an unsupported assumption. An assumption which is incompatible with the laws of physics as we understand them.
This incompatibility essentially means that "everything" had no beginning, or had a beginning that we can't understand yet.

Inserting "God" into that gap of absent knowledge is like filling a crack in a wall with custard; it might make you feel like the crack is gone, but it doesn't really help the situation in the least.

I believe in God - but not really in the traditional sense. I believe everything is God, but God is more than everything.

Apples are fruit, but fruit is more than apples.
Congratulations on believing in a tautology.

[kiddX]

Well i didn't feel like writing an essay and that seemed like a good way to sum it up. I feel like arguing why or why not believing in god is pointless is well kind of pointless. It's a belief and you can't really force anyone to believe what you believe.

Plus people have believed in dumber things: vampires, ghosts, spirits, mind reading, George Bush only to name a few.

[luvsmyncis]

Plus people have believed in dumber things: vampires, ghosts, spirits, mind reading, George Bush only to name a few.

WTF did Casper ever do to you?
There's about as much proof of vampires as there is God's existance, so I don't think believing in ghosts or vampires is dumber than having faith in a higher being. One could argue they are equally dumb.

[jcrdude]

WTF did Casper ever do to you?
There's about as much proof of vampires as there is God's existance, so I don't think believing in ghosts or vampires is dumber than having faith in a higher being. One could argue they are equally dumb.

We've killed people because we thought they were vampires.

And we've killed people that are "God," "Son of God," "a god" etc.

[Elindoril]

We've killed people because we thought they were vampires.

Don't forget Witches, gotta make sure they weigh the same as a duck before killing them, though.

[Sweeney]

Plus people have believed in dumber things: vampires, ghosts, spirits, mind reading, George Bush only to name a few.

Vampires stem from a misinterpretation of a real disease of ancient peoples.
Ghosts and spirits, essentially the same thing, are still more readily "evidenced" than God.
Mind reading is perfectly plausible, although not of a supernatural nature.

Only faith in George Bush is totally inexplicable.

[Shadowfool]

I strictly do not believe in god in the way that most modern religions define him.
That being said, I still think organized religion is a good thing for some people. Personally I do not need it as I'm a fairly stable and logic bound person, but others have trouble coping with reality and need something to ground them.

[Gen]

Don't forget Witches, gotta make sure they weigh the same as a duck before killing them, though.

It really felt like one of Monty Python's movie line...
Plus, I think it was the first time Joe made me laugh since I've entered codex lol

[RKO]

I can't picture god, its illogical. I look at science, and the facts are there, god does not exist.

[Sweeney]

I can't picture god, its illogical. I look at science, and the facts are there, god does not exist.

That's an equally illogical stance. Scientific facts in no way disprove the existence of a god.
Some types of god, and some aspects of other types of god, sure, and they certainly render one generally uneccessary, but they don't disprove the existence of one.

[Warriors]

I can't picture god, its illogical. I look at science, and the facts are there, god does not exist.

Science can't disprove or prove the existance of God. However, science does explain in theory how the solar system was created, how the earth was created, how humans came to exist. Life on this planet. Volcanoes -> Methane -> Carbon dioxide -> oxygen or whatnot, can't remember it.

As for facts..I guess you can look at Plato and Aristotle to determine facts and true facts and absolute facts.

[kiddX]

I think of science as the how and not the why. I think of god as everything in the universe - me included rather than a sentient being.

[Sweeney]

I think of science as the how and not the why. I think of god as everything in the universe - me included rather than a sentient being.

How wonderfully pointless. I believe in God too, then, as long as I redefine God to mean "my shoes".

[kiddX]

So god has to be a limited sentient being? A lot of religions don't have a sentient god so I think my opinions are hardly unique.