|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socrates in Disguise Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:43 pm
Bowlin Plato Perhaps you believe in God because you were raised to do so, just as I was raised to believe what I do. And faith isn't hard to prove or disprove with science, really... although faith-based resolutions tend to be hard to do so, it's easy to disprove faith-based ideals through science itself... By proving God did NOT create the earth, we can thereby at least disprove that he's "The Creator"... I know you said this quite awhile ago but I just realized an important issue know one brought up. Can you prove anyone or anything created the earth? Say you take the Big Bang theory...how exactly do you prove it..."scientifiaclly" as it were. they are theories and religion go hand in hand...niether have a lot of evidence...if any at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:41 am
Socrates in Disguise I know you said this quite awhile ago but I just realized an important issue know one brought up. Can you prove anyone or anything created the earth? Say you take the Big Bang theory...how exactly do you prove it..."scientifiaclly" as it were. they are theories and religion go hand in hand...niether have a lot of evidence...if any at all.
Firstly, definitions in science:
Hypothesis - An idea or concept which accounts for existing evidence in a logical manner. A hypothesis must also be testable and falsifiable so that it can be shown to be wrong if it is wrong. A hypothesis will make predictions (usually in the area of it's falsafiability).
Theory - A hypothesis which has been accepted as the best description of how things work to our understanding currently and which has not been falsified.
Example 1:
Swans. I can create a hypothesis that all swans are black.
This hypothesis explains current swans if they are all black. It makes predictions (if I find more swans - they will be black). It is falsifiable (if we find a green swan the hypothesis is wrong).
After some testing we come across a white swan. The hypothesis is falsified and does not become a theory.
Example 2:
Gravity. There was a hypothesis that all things were attracted to each other by a factor of their mass and distance. It makes predictions (everything will be attracted to everything else). It is falsifiable (we can test large masses and see if they have stronger attractive forces than smaller ones and see if it is effected by distance).
After much testing the gravity hypothesis has a large volume of supporting evidence which matches the hypothesis and no contrary evidence (it hasn't been falsified). They hypothesis becomes a theory and we have the Theory of Gravity as undestood today.
Now, let us apply this to the big bang hypothesis (BBH).
The BBH makes predictions that the entire universe should be expanding from a central point. The BBH suggests that everything will tend towards a zero time when everything began - nothing should predate this time.
We can make these into testable predictions and examine the universe around us to discover whether or not the BBH adaquately explains the evidence we perceive.
Having undergone extensive testing we discover that the universe appears to be expanding. That a certain distance back in time there were no stars and with other theories (gravity, radioactive decay, nuclear theory, etc.) we can determine how they would have formed from the initial state suggested by a BBH expansion.
After all this we find that the BBH has no contrary evidence and plenty of supporting evidence. It makes predictions which are useful, testable and supported by the evidence.
The BBH becomes the Big Bang Theory.
Note: The Big Bang Theory is slightly unstable as we don't understand the physics well enough to make it work and there are competing hypothesise. However this was to illustrate science as a way to test ideas and the BB theory is reasonably supported and can be followed logically based on evidence.
Let us contrast this to young earth creation (YEC) as described by many fundamentalist religions. For this example I will use christianity as it is the best known YEC theory to me.
Christian Young Earth Creationistism (CYEC) suggests the world was created by YWH ~6-7000 yers ago along with the rest of the universe.
Predictions made by CYEC include:
1 Nothing should be older than ~6-7000 years
2 Man should be distinct from animals
3 Evolution should not exist
We can test these predictions and find that:
1 is contradicted by radioactive dating, astronomical distances, decay effects of stars, magnetic pole shifts and archaeology.
2 is contradicted by genetics, biological chemistry and anatomical comparisons.
3 is contradicted by the theory of evolution and observed evolution events.
As such we find thet CYEC as a hypothesis is falsified and holds no scientific merit.
There is a really brief and messy example of how to prove something scientifically and how a couple of the hypothesise hold up to scientific scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socrates in Disguise Captain
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:33 pm
Quote: Predictions made by CYEC include: 1 Nothing should be older than ~6-7000 years 2 Man should be distinct from animals 3 Evolution should not exist We can test these predictions and find that: 1 is contradicted by radioactive dating, astronomical distances, decay effects of stars, magnetic pole shifts and archaeology. 2 is contradicted by genetics, biological chemistry and anatomical comparisons. 3 is contradicted by the theory of evolution and observed evolution events. As such we find thet CYEC as a hypothesis is falsified and holds no scientific merit. 1 such dating tests may be very inaccurate and a lot of the time they are. 2 genetics doesn't have anything to do with the current believed evolution theory...and if one being made everything in the universe don't you think a couple of things might end up in close resemblence? hm...Mars and Earth are both round...Earth is just an evolved form of mars then?? 3 again evolution is a THEORY not fact...it is impossible to prove evolution with firm scientific fact... I hold the BBT and Evolution to be falsified and hold no merit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:15 pm
Socrates in Disguise 1 such dating tests may be very inaccurate and a lot of the time they are. Socrates in Disguise 2 genetics doesn't have anything to do with the current believed evolution theory...and if one being made everything in the universe don't you think a couple of things might end up in close resemblence? hm...Mars and Earth are both round...Earth is just an evolved form of mars then?? Socrates in Disguise 3 again evolution is a THEORY not fact...it is impossible to prove evolution with firm scientific fact...
You do not seem to understand how science works or what a theory means in science. So here are a couple of links:Evolution - Only a theory?Evolution is only a theory - EvoWikiEvolution is a Fact and a TheorySocrates in Disguise I hold the BBT and Evolution to be falsified and hold no merit.
I will leave you with a couple more links supporting evolution:Evoluton proofEvidence for Evolution: An Eclectic SurveyA Short Proof of EvolutionEvidence of Evolution: What is a Theory Anyway?The Big Bang Theory is another issue all together. I will say simply that you have done nothing to falsify it as a theory and some of the evidences for evolution listed above also support the Big Bang Theory loosely. I am not going to take the time to cover the Big Bang Theory in such a comprehensive manner - however I am sure you can find plenty of information out there if you wish to look for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:19 pm
Normally... I wouldn't worry about how the universe began... or would ultimately end.
Reason is that, assuming that reincarnation is real, that I couldn't have possibly been around to see that. As for the end, I cannot fathom the idea of something just "ending" suddenly. (Logically... if it did, I wouldn't worry because I wouldn't exist to worry about it. xd )
God making the universe... at least the world... I don't know if I can even think about this. The reason is that creationists and anti-creationists, as I heard, both have the same arguement on where god came from, or where the big bang "thingy" (the object that exploded) came from.
"It's been there since the beginning of time."
An interesting idea I have heard is a combination. God did make things... but more of "directing" than physically making everything. The same excuse was applied to evolution, in that god directs where it goes, yet doesn't (or can't) do anything drastic.
However, I don't go to say that there isn't a god. I don't worship a god, and just wonder on gods in different religions and mythologies. Even though people say that god is "all powerful", I have a very messed up belief that, one, I won't be in his plans of things, and two, that I won't be "put" in heaven or hell. (Although I go further to say that I'm not going to follow every desire of mine... which I don't conciously have any, at least at this current point in time to when I realized that money is evil... but that's another matter.)
And... since it was mentioned, I hope and believe upon death that I do indeed have a soul that would live on. I wouldn't go to heaven or hell... just stay to be with friends and family. (The reasoning is odd... I'll explain if someone PMs with interest.)
(I'm... new... to this. I don't know if I'm going about this "philosophically" or not... and have the feeling of rambling. sweatdrop )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:50 pm
Maybe man created God and not the other way around. And God being the word/reason to describe anything that is not easily explained... and in that sense, yes, "God" did create the earth and everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:34 pm
ochimaru Maybe man created God and not the other way around. And God being the word/reason to describe anything that is not easily explained... and in that sense, yes, "God" did create the earth and everything. This is close enough to my personal point of view, my main reason for this is the fact that god had alot more power in the past. Everyone figured lightning was god's fury until it was proven otherwise scientifically. And so we come back to the age old bout of Science vs. Religion. Personally, I happen to have my money on science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:07 pm
Oh joy! A debate about gods. This could get messy. smile I have to say I'm with SanguineV on this one. But since he's already done a fantastic job expressing my general viewpoint on this subject, I'll just stick around and see where I can make myself useful to the discussion. ochimaru Maybe man created God and not the other way around. And God being the word/reason to describe anything that is not easily explained... and in that sense, yes, "God" did create the earth and everything. This definition of God seems very reasonable, but one has to wonder why such a god would merit any worship or attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:21 pm
easy definition for god... whatever created everything ....there must have been something to create everything... if you beleive that the universe trully exist and is not just a possiblity then you beleive in god... easy answer... i don't define god don't try to define god if you don't know god personally don't try to define him even if you've met him do you truly KNOW him blah blah blah. i have my beleifs i may be wrong but i don't know... done
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:44 am
God exists to me as a concept. Which is silly because the conceptual God I believe in is required to be transcendent of concepts. So I'm put into a bit of a pickle with my paradigm. I truly enjoy the concept of neti-neti ("neither this nor that") - God isn't what you think it is, and nor is it otherwise.
Many people don't include God in their paradigms. Many do, but have a different name for it (Tao, Chaos, Buddhanature, Probability, et cetera). What I'm trying to say here is that I do not believe that we can suitably define God any more than we can find proof of God's existence. The best that we can do is to choose to believe/label a God into/out of our relative realities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:17 am
If I may make a quick comment on the BBT. Big Bang theory is one of the fronters of science. It is an area where the two great 20th century theories of Quantum physics and Relativity come into conflict, and where all the physics is cutting edge. We have run observations using particle accelerators, and formed new theories and concepts that explain such phenominon, in a single, overreaching theory. However, that theory is not fully constructed yet. The greatest contender for this Theory of Everything (TOE) is M-theory, the descendant of Superstring theory. What the M stands for is anyones guess by the way. It is suggested that we will name it when we work out just how the hell the theory actualy works. That it does seem to work is beyond doubt, and supporting physical evidence is predicted soon; if not through our observations of distant pulars ( Wiki), then with the fireing up of the LHC accelerator at CERN, which should be able to reveal a whole realm of particles and interactions that we have only seen through equations and predictions so far. M-theory has a lot to say about the big bang and origins of the universe, forces and particles. However, most of it is said in a language that very few can understand. I will need at least three years in university before I can tackle the main core of the theory, and even then it would be years before I was good enough with the maths to catch the lead wave of the theory. For people to ask for proof of the big bang, or something before it, the best I can do is show them one of the less technical papers I have found on the subject. Note, while this is not insanely technical, it still takes a long time to get through each page. And there are a lot of them... String Theory in pre-Big Bang cosmology.There are easier concepts to understand, but they are hard to swallow unless you see the details of the work that has gone into them. They include Brane Cosmology ( Wiki), which incorporates Ekpyrotic theory ( Wiki).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:30 pm
why do people always say gods a he... shouldn't god not have a sex... really... why are people always trying to define god, did you ask god no. all the definitions for god have come from people, did any one ask god how god is how god feels what god thinks. why do we call god god how do we know he wouldn't rather be called george or nathan or cosmipolitan glick. we don't we don't know anything really... we've made most of the idea's of god up and do you really think over time even the original information has stayed the same no. we just keep morphing it till it is the way we want it to be never knowing how it really is and then people argue and kill each other over there own idealistic entity. we create false idols almost everytime we worship, do you wanna know how, we don't know what were worshipping so we make something up to worship, in our minds in our hearts. how do we even know which idols are false when all of them are made up by men... and as we all know men are flawed... i just opt for we are all wrong most likely none of this exist and we should all just try to be happy in this illusion of reality and make everyone's lives as pleasent as can be expected from here on out. not like that will ever happen but it would be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:28 am
Sinesthera why do people always say gods a he... shouldn't god not have a sex... really... why are people always trying to define god, did you ask god no. all the definitions for god have come from people, did any one ask god how god is how god feels what god thinks. why do we call god god how do we know he wouldn't rather be called george or nathan or cosmipolitan glick. Because men are always trying to take control ever things, that's why we define god. It makes us feels safe inside our own little bubble, that's all. Oh...by the way.. God or Dios, comes form the sanscrit word DIV, which means shine or above. It's basically a way to explain trascendence with perspective... 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:37 am
boku_wa_kage Because men are always trying to take control ever things, that's why we define god. It makes us feels safe inside our own little bubble, that's all. Oh...by the way.. God or Dios, comes form the sanscrit word DIV, which means shine or above. It's basically a way to explain trascendence with perspective... 3nodding oh now that makes sence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:29 am
I finally found proof of the existance of God!! And here it is for you all to admire:  And yes, God tastes really good. I'd drink God every day if I could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
