GOD!!! The finite topic for an infinite being

[Wolfie]

Then if 'god made everything' is rational and probable, so is the thought that a toy car did, or a bowl of spaghetti, or a teapot, or a dragon. If you can claim god created everything without a shred of evidence, then I can say that there is an invisible box of crackers watching over us all. Both are entirely ridiculous.

Yws and no, its true God could be a dragon or a toy car etc
I never claimed to know what God was.
the invisible box of crackers watching over us all makes no sense, the idea of something making us and everything holds some value as some how we where made, and we have no clue how
but how?




I'm not say it's probable but it is more probable then the fact that

the first thing came form nothing, (mosty likely some form of dust) then something more, then big bang, then some how dust and stuff where atracted to each other, made suns and palnets around it making the solar systems, and life apeard on this planet that just happen to be in the right spot, a spot that is so unlikely btw
and some how the laws of physics where set, where did the come fomr?

How did life even beguin ? what makes the combnation of two or more non living thing
Make a living thing?
(since there was nothing living the first living thing came from something that was non living

they both are highly unlikely, to me God is unlikely but only requires one unlikely thing to be true while yours requires thousands
I am not saying mine is right yours is wrong either.

Also, I like how you said "educated that god is real" meanwhile 90%+ of the academic elite are complete skeptics of religion.

Care to back up that claim?

[Spiney]

To quote a scripture from my book. "Faith is believing in that which is not seen." basically saying that it's not faith if you know it to be 100% true. Dispute this little scripture from the Book of Mormon if you want.

but we dont know E= mc2 is ture, thats whay its a theroy, yet many of us scinetist included use it

Which is my point, they to use faith

faith that if one or two sicnetist say that the big bang happen (so long ago)

you can not see it yet you belive, I'm not saying they are wrong I'm just saying they to use faith

Lolololol, E = mc^2 not true?

-sound of me facepalming-

It is without a doubt true. Proven countless times and incorporated in today's technology.

Hell I've even used the formula in physics to calculate the energy that converts to mass when you approach the speed of light. See, if you don't understand it, it doesn't make it wrong. Lord help me if I try to explain special reletivity to you, or try to explain the structure of an atom.

And see, this works in turn with religion. Since we don't know, and never will know about an apparent omniscient being that rules our very lives. I know how it's thought of, I understand it, I just don't agree with it.

And with the big bang, we can't see it, because it happened a few billion years ago. What we can see is it's after affects. Namely, the leftover background radiation all around our universe, ergo the static you hear in HAM radios. Also, the red shift phenomena, proving our universe is expanding. And more proof, the age of the galaxies oldest features, quasars, that are nearly as old as our estimated age of the universe.

It ain't faith what so ever.

Also I'm not agnostic atheist, I'm just Atheist.

[Wolfie]

Lolololol, E = mc^2 not true?

if they did then E = mc^ is not true
-sound of me facepalming-

It is without a doubt true. Proven countless times and incorporated in today's technology.

Hell I've even used the formula in physics to calculate the energy that converts to mass when you approach the speed of light. See, if you don't understand it, it doesn't make it wrong. Lord help me if I try to explain special reletivity to you, or try to explain the structure of an atom.

http://www.inquisitr.com/144267/scienti ... han-light/


How do you feel right now?

And see, this works in turn with religion. Since we don't know, and never will know about an apparent omniscient being that rules our very lives. I know how it's thought of, I understand it, I just don't agree with it.

I have no problem with this

And with the big bang, we can't see it, because it happened a few billion years ago. What we can see is it's after affects. Namely, the leftover background radiation all around our universe, ergo the static you hear in HAM radios

and how do you know this is left over form that? what prove other then they tell you? how do you trace it back? wait they do it? is that not fairth in them??

Also, the red shift phenomena, proving our universe is expanding. And more proof, the age of the galaxies oldest features, quasars, that are nearly as old as our estimated age of the universe.

And how do they get the age? how do we know this memthoid is corecot?

It ain't faith what so ever.

Yes it is, you have faith that the way they figure stuff out is right.

[Spiney]

I'm laughing really hard right now.

Your argument of neutrinos moving faster than light but reinforces my argument. Science changes, what is right is wrong and right at the same time. It changes and revises based on new evidence and so forth.

Background radiation is the left over heat after the explosion. Simple really.

Red shift, is simply observing the shift of light based on the direction of the star. If it's movig away from us it's red, to us it's blue, it's basically the Doppler affect with stars.

The age is based on the width of the universe worked with the speed of light an the speed the universe is expanding. Which means the age is always being revised.

Now that we know the universe is accelerating, it could be younger than we expected.

Look it up and you'll see. Don't expect me to explain it all.

[Wolfie]

I'm laughing really hard right now.

Your argument of neutrinos moving faster than light but reinforces my argument. Science changes, what is right is wrong and right at the same time. It changes and revises based on new evidence and so forth.

which means you have faith that the cureent part is right


as you can see

Lolololol, E = mc^2 not true?

if they did then E = mc^ is not true
-sound of me facepalming-

It is without a doubt true. Proven countless times and incorporated in today's technology.
Hell I've even used the formula in physics to calculate the energy that converts to mass when you approach the speed of light. See, if you don't understand it, it doesn't make it wrong. Lord help me if I try to explain special reletivity to you, or try to explain the structure of an atom.

You put trust in it to be real and now it may not be

you put faith in it to be 100% real, said there is no way it was wrong, and now there may be.

thanks for proving my point

Background radiation is the left over heat after the explosion. Simple really.

and it could not come form something eles how?
how do you know they did not get the wrong idea like E=mc2?

Red shift, is simply observing the shift of light based on the direction of the star. If it's movig away from us it's red, to us it's blue, it's basically the Doppler affect with stars.

and witrh E=mc^ being wrong so might this

The age is based on the width of the universe worked with the speed of light an the speed the universe is expanding. Which means the age is always being revised.

yep

Look it up and you'll see. Don't expect me to explain it all.

I know these, but there is not a 100% any of them are ture at all, as such some of it is faith.
that was my whole point

I belvie in this stuff, but i know its not 100 chance of being true

stop asummign i know nothing about this stuff please

My whole point is scince uses faith to

[Spiney]

-sigh- the usual 'faith' bogus [&@%!].

For when you don't have a real counter argument. I don't have faith, I know what is right or what is wrong. I don't just think or have faith in that it's right. E = mc^2 is right. We use it in our everyday lives.

Even when things break the law, it doesn't make it wrong. It means we need to revise it.

So don't say it's all faith. I don't have faith. It wouldn't be faith when I can use it with my mind and hands. It wouldn't be science if it were faith.

You have faith that there is a god, based on nothing. I know and use science everyday because it's humans 'tool.'

[Wolfie]

sigh- the usual 'faith' bogus [&@%!]

please calm down, if you cant I'd ask you to leave

For when you don't have a real counter argument. I don't have faith, I know what is right or what is wrong.

like E=mc2? you said it was 100% right, it was not

I don't just think or have faith in that it's right. E = mc^2 is right. We use it in our everyday lives.
Even when things break the law, it doesn't make it wrong. It means we need to revise it.

if it needs to be revised it is wrong, a part saying nothing can pass speed of light was wrong.

So don't say it's all faith. I don't have faith. It wouldn't be faith when I can use it with my mind and hands. It wouldn't be science if it were faith.

uh wrong, Faith is belving in something that is not 100% true, like E=mc2

You have faith that there is a god, based on nothing. I know and use science everyday because it's humans 'tool.'

Wrong, based on the fact that the odds are that one impoosible thing is true, rather then more then a trillion
and no scicne may be a human tool but the things it finds out where around before humans.

[Spiney]

Lol.

You don't get me. It's right and wrong. Just like the cat is both dead and alive. Just like the electron of an atom is everywhere and nowhere at once. Hopefully you know what analogy I'm talking about.

It's right in that it works for the Newtonian universe. We know that parts of universe are non-Newtonian. I also know we haven't yet proven the basis of said experiment, it's not proven fact that the experiment was 100% correct. So you're using non-fact to fight fact.

Smart one.

[exoclipse]

My whole point is scince uses faith to

It's not faith.

Every single practitioner of every faith-based religion puts faith in their God of choice. Not a single person has any rational explanation for any part of their religion.

While no single scientist can say, "Oh, I know every aspect of every field of science ever," any single scientist, sufficiently educated, can read a scientific paper and understand immediately whether or not something has been conducted rationally, why it has been conducted rationally, how it makes mathematical sense, and etc. It is impossible to learn everything, but it is very possible to learn everything that's pushed in your face. Because of this fact, there is no faith involved.

Every single scientific discovery can be scrutinized by anybody with a scientific education and enough mathematical background. Nothing has to be taken based purely on faith. There is no requirement for me to make the stretch to say, "Okay...I'll believe whatever you say." That's the exact opposite of the intent of the scientific method, and the thought of that just makes me cringe.

I'm clarifying this very clearly because saying that science is faith is profoundly offensive to me, and even more so to those who've dedicated decades of their lives chasing after the truth as rationally as possible. I am not offended by faith in the slightest - again, I find it admirable more often than not, nor am I offended by your noncritical worldview. I am offended by you telling me I'm noncritical, and that science, in general, is noncritical.

And E=MC^2 may not be true. Every scientist must acknowledge the fact that new evidence will come into play. However, that experiment has been found to have one critical flaw: the researchers failed to take into account the minute motion of the earth, which will make neutrinos appear to move slightly faster than expected. A scientist posted an excellent blog on it, and I wish I could find it too, because it utterly shattered my hopes of having faster than light travel. But the error induced by that effect is slightly more than the amount that neutrinos travelled faster than light, thereby making them travel just under the speed of light.

And guys? Don't flame each other. The biggest problem facing the world right now is arbitrary division. We can talk about this without emotions entering play. I really don't want to see this locked.

[chibimyuutsu]

Does anyone here watch Penn and Teller's "BS"?

[Wolfie]

You don't get me. It's right and wrong. Just like the cat is both dead and alive. Just like the electron of an atom is everywhere and nowhere at once. Hopefully you know what analogy I'm talking about.

So your saying its imposible?

i dont care about any anolgy I'm talkign cold hard facts,
the facts are E=mc2 may be wrong

It's right in that it works for the Newtonian universe. We know that parts of universe are non-Newtonian. I also know we haven't yet proven the basis of said experiment, it's not proven fact that the experiment was 100% correct. So you're using non-fact to fight fact.

and how is it a fact that E= mc2? if it was a fact there would be no chance of disproving it

[exoclipse]

and how is it a fact that E= mc2? if it was a fact there would be no chance of disproving it

Then there are no facts.

[Spiney]

Eh, more "E=mc^2 may be wrong".

Read the above post. Then prove to me that it's wrong. Along with every other scientific theory or phenomena.

I'll leave a quote: "Religion makes us happy with not understanding the universe."

[exoclipse]

To counter your quote, what of people who just can't handle the existential problem?

[chibimyuutsu]

You don't get me. It's right and wrong. Just like the cat is both dead and alive. Just like the electron of an atom is everywhere and nowhere at once. Hopefully you know what analogy I'm talking about.

So your saying its imposible?

i dont care about any anolgy I'm talkign cold hard facts,
the facts are E=mc2 may be wrong

It's right in that it works for the Newtonian universe. We know that parts of universe are non-Newtonian. I also know we haven't yet proven the basis of said experiment, it's not proven fact that the experiment was 100% correct. So you're using non-fact to fight fact.

and how is it a fact that E= mc2? if it was a fact there would be no chance of disproving it

I'm sorry, but I have to interject here....


:headdesk:



I really wish I could post Penn and Teller stuff.

[Wolfie]

It's not faith.

Every single practitioner of every faith-based religion puts faith in their God of choice.

Not a single person has any rational explanation for any part of their religion.

What do you call rational? and how do you know? have you heard evrey single person?
Again you put faith in that a person in a faith can not have a rational reasson.

While no single scientist can say, "Oh, I know every aspect of every field of science ever," any single scientist, sufficiently educated, can read a scientific paper and understand immediately whether or not something has been conducted rationally, why it has been conducted rationally, how it makes mathematical sense, and etc. It is impossible to learn everything, but it is very possible to learn everything that's pushed in your face. Because of this fact, there is no faith involved.

but there is, they put faith in E=mc2 bein right, now it may not be.

Every single scientific discovery can be scrutinized by anybody with a scientific education and enough mathematical background. Nothing has to be taken based purely on faith. There is no requirement for me to make the stretch to say, "Okay...I'll believe whatever you say." That's the exact opposite of the intent of the scientific method, and the thought of that just makes me cringe.

So what your saying si evreything in scicne can be wrong? how is it not faith to belive i it then?

I'm clarifying this very clearly because saying that science is faith is profoundly offensive to me, and even more so to those who've dedicated decades of their lives chasing after the truth as rationally as possible.

and i find it offensive you think ours is illrationally
i to looked through sicnce and tried to find awnsers before comming to God

I am not offended by faith in the slightest - again, I find it admirable more often than not, nor am I offended by your noncritical worldview. I am offended by you telling me I'm noncritical, and that science, in general, is noncritical.

it is if it can be wrong at any time corect?
if it can be wrong at any time then how is it not like faith?

And E=MC^2 may not be true. Every scientist must acknowledge the fact that new evidence will come into play. However, that experiment has been found to have one critical flaw: the researchers failed to take into account the minute motion of the earth, which will make neutrinos appear to move slightly faster than expected. A scientist posted an excellent blog on it, and I wish I could find it too, because it utterly shattered my hopes of having faster than light travel. But the error induced by that effect is slightly more than the amount that neutrinos travelled faster than light, thereby making them travel just under the speed of light.

Well can you show me this? I will not have faith its true by what you say, as no search brings it up and if true it would be some where

not saying its not, just that i cant find it.

[Spiney]

To counter your quote, what of people who just can't handle the existential problem?

If you can't understand it, that doesn't make it wrong. Fighting facts with no facts takes us back to the dark ages, where it was nothing but superstition.

[exoclipse]

If you use religion specifically so that you can function through the existential problem, and have an otherwise rational worldview...I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

A lesser evil for the greater good, you see.

[Wolfie]

Eh, more "E=mc^2 may be wrong".

Read the above post. Then prove to me that it's wrong. Along with every other scientific theory or phenomena.

I'll leave a quote: "Religion makes us happy with not understanding the universe."

So he posted no link, no sign of it and showed no reasons why this would affect it... and you believed it... again faith.


All I'm saying is by your own words science may be wrong in some places, you put faith in that it is right.

If you can't understand it, that doesn't make it wrong. Fighting facts with no facts takes us back to the dark ages, where it was nothing but superstition.

and if you cant prove it it dont make it wrong either

your saying " Fighting facts with no facts " dont work yet you just took the world of one guy with out any thing other then his claim

you to are doing the samwe thing

[chibimyuutsu]

If you use religion specifically so that you can function through the existential problem, and have an otherwise rational worldview...I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

A lesser evil for the greater good, you see.

I agree with this, to each his own.


Unless you're being a complete moron about what you're spouting out at me.

Then I'll humiliate you.

[Spiney]

Jesus Christ Wolfie, a quote is not fact, it's an observation to be interpreted in your own way.

Seriously, you've only been using this 'faith' stuff in your arguments.

I can't be assed to argue with the metaphysical. (and that that has the spelling and grammar of which drives me mad)

[Wolfie]

Jesus Christ Wolfie, a quote is not fact, it's an observation to be interpreted in your own way.

Seriously, you've only been using this 'faith' stuff in your arguments.

No I have not I used the fact that you guys said
all of it ca be wrong, if it can be wrong then it means you have faith it is right.

How is that "faith" stuff? Its science 101, all of it can be wrong at any giving time .

and you have only used "sceince is not faith its right" as yours

I can't be assed to argue with the metaphysical. (and that that has the spelling and grammar of which drives me mad)

No one is forcing you.

[Spiney]

I would reply... But I have no idea what you said.

[exoclipse]

I've stopped addressing him for a reason. No hard feelings, Wolfie.

Unless you're being a complete moron about what you're spouting out at me.

My breaking point is when philosophy students argue that time is light, and that time is entirely a man made concept. It's like throwing a wrench into a running engine.

[Wolfie]

not suprising
cause I used grammar and evreything

you see this is why I do not

I'm not trying to get anyone made its just better that I do not, I;m easier to read then

This whole thing I've been saying is since anythign in scicne can be proven wrong at any time
You use faith that it is right