Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn

[Mizango]

WMAP Image.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z...CMB/WMAP-s.gif

[Mizango]

You see, we actually take time to answer questions, we aren't afforded the luxury of guessing and declaring something as an absolute without proof. So far WMAP has given up not just this image but tons of insight into the ideas of a galactic "big bang" and why the Universe is as diverse as it is.

No magic here, just simple observations at work.

[Demosthenes11]

Evidence has to point to only one conclusion. Looking around and saying the beauty of the world proves a god doesn't actually make it proof. Because there are many other possible explanations for the origins of matter and the beauty that surrounds us that have much more support then god, it would seem evident that it's less likely. God was once responsible for the origins of man as well. Why did man start turning away from the idea of creation? For the same reason we don't believe we are the center of the universe. God of the gaps, where we don't know, he lurks. Again, simply making the claim that god is unknowable or making the claim that some aspect of nature is proof of his existence doesn't change the fact that god can't be differentiated from a fantasy. Can you at least acknowledge that?

it seems in this paragraph you have conceded we have not disproved god. Creation of humans is a construct of organized religion. Oddly enough, it is still encompassed with the origin of everything. We will never have an answer for the origin of matter, because we know it can never be created in our universe. Even theories of other dimensions wouldn't disprove god, because then how did there get to be other dimensions? Matter is not just a simple "aspect of nature." It is everything. It is what we are, what we are on, what we are a part of, etc.

and no, evidence does not have to point to only one conclusion. That statement is just outright false.

The only way you can say god is no different from a fantasy is if you were to define a fantasy as a hypothesis.

[Plow]

Because there are many other possible explanations for the origins of matter

Uh, like what?

You see, we actually take time to answer questions, we aren't afforded the luxury of guessing and declaring something as an absolute without proof. So far WMAP has given up not just this image but tons of insight into the ideas of a galactic "big bang" and why the Universe is as diverse as it is.

No magic here, just simple observations at work.

If you want to keep punting the 2 year old, you're going to have to wait for Firas to get back. The big bang explains what happened *after* the *creation* of the universe. It explains the formation and the molding. It doesn't explain the time before itself, at least not yet.

[Tristam]

Uh, like what?




If you want to keep punting the 2 year old, you're going to have to wait for Firas to get back. The big bang explains what happened *after* the *creation* of the universe. It explains the formation and the molding. It doesn't explain the time before itself, at least not yet.

why must the creation of the universe involve a god?

[zoobernut]

At the end of the day, it's about what god does/did rather than what he is. What he is is something that will never be proven or disproved. People put their faith in what he does and did, not what he is

This is a very important point that was brought up many times in this thread. If you have the stomach I suggest going back and reading it. The existence of god is not important what is important is what god can or cannot do with relation to our world. If god exists and can interact with our world then those interactions would be observable and god could be proven, if god exists and cannot interact with our world in any measurable or observable way then the existence of god is inconsequential and meaningless to us.

This is really tied in with the idea of relativism that you were talking about earlier, if god cannot interact with our world in any measurable way then relative to humans the existence of god does not matter.

[Tristam]

then the buffalo is god. But unfortunately there is no evidence for that form of god. I would say the universe existing is evidence there is a god. Because there is matter and energy, and the total of both can never be changed, I find that evidence of god.

But here we are talking in circles

That's not evidence of god, that's evidence of the existence of matter and energy, no more, no less.

[Mizango]

If you want to keep punting the 2 year old, you're going to have to wait for Firas to get back.

Champion! Champion! Champion!

[Demosthenes11]

why must the creation of the universe involve a god?

It's not a must sort of thing. It's a hypothesis/belief.

This is a very important point that was brought up many times in this thread. If you have the stomach I suggest going back and reading it. The existence of god is not important what is important is what god can or cannot do with relation to our world. If god exists and can interact with our world then those interactions would be observable and god could be proven, if god exists and cannot interact with our world in any measurable or observable way then the existence of god is inconsequential and meaningless to us.

This is really tied in with the idea of relativism that you were talking about earlier, if god cannot interact with our world in any measurable way then relative to humans the existence of god does not matter.

Matter existing is pretty measurable in our world.

That's not evidence of god, that's evidence of the existence of matter and energy, no more, no less.

So your claim is that matter has always existed and always will? Nothing created this matter even scientifically?

[Tristam]

So your claim is that matter has always existed and always will? Nothing created this matter even scientifically?

Nope, my claim is that I don't know the answer.

[kareface]

Uh, like what?

Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you do the research you'll know that there are models that suggest a quantum singularity small enough (1 cubed plank length) that originated as a scalar field could expand, and the gravitational binding energy along with the exponential increase of the energy in the field in relation to the inflation would account for all the energy (and 400k years later, matter) in the universe. This is only taking into account Lambda-CDM and quantum mechanics. Other theories have their own explanation, like m-theory.

It seems in this paragraph you have conceded we have not disproved god.

...I just said, you can't prove a negative. I've also said several times now in this thread, that it's not possible to disprove god. It's also not possible to disprove many other fantasies. It doesn't change anything.

Oddly enough, it is still encompassed with the origin of everything. We will never have an answer for the origin of matter, because we know it can never be created in our universe. Even theories of other dimensions wouldn't disprove god, because then how did there get to be other dimensions? Matter is not just a simple "aspect of nature." It is everything. It is what we are, what we are on, what we are a part of, etc.

Keep rambling on. You still haven't conceded the fact that there is no way to differentiated between god and fantasy....

and no, evidence does not have to point to only one conclusion. That statement is just outright false.

In science it does. If collective evidence points to multiple conclusions, then it can't be used to define a theory or conclude a hypothesis.

The only way you can say god is no different from a fantasy is if you were to define a fantasy as a hypothesis.

Holy crap, your a moron. You can't form any tests on the basis of "god did it". You have to be able to test a hypothesis, otherwise it's just a statement. That's the entire point of formulating a hypothesis. You really are trying hard to avoid having to admit the fact that god can't be distinguished from fantasy. Explain to me, what aspect of god prevents him from being fantasized? You are dodging the question by trying to relate god to something else instead, even then you're doing a poor job.

It's not a must sort of thing. It's a hypothesis/belief.

Stop trying to conflate those words, it won't work. If you don't know what the words you are using mean, don't use them.

[Mizango]

For us that would be the big bang and the 4 "forces of nature" and their unification essentially.

[Demosthenes11]

dying is a pretty good test, I'll let you know from the other side. I'm glad you aren't among the crazies that think god has been disproved. Hypothesis is not just a word reserved for science either. I think a lot of scientists forget hypothesis and theory aren't always the same word they use every day

@Tristam: Our beliefs are not far then. I am the same way, only I feel (maybe even just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside) that it was a divine creator. I got to the same point.

work time ;;

[kareface]

So your claim is that matter has always existed and always will? Nothing created this matter even scientifically?

How's this sound, if you can explain to me how god differs from a fantasy convincingly, I'll explain where all matter came from. The difference is, I actually have some answers that might be looking promising. You can't answer my question, because there is only one answer, and it's something you're unwilling to admit.

dying is a pretty good test, I'll let you know from the other side. I'm glad you aren't among the crazies that think god has been disproved. Hypothesis is not just a word reserved for science either. I think a lot of scientists forget hypothesis and theory aren't always the same word they use every day

@Tristam: Our beliefs are not far then. I am the same way, only I feel (maybe even just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside) that it was a divine creator. I got to the same point.

work time ;;

You are no longer even attempting to explain why god isn't a fantasy? Can I take that as your concession?

[Demosthenes11]

oh stop your platitudes. Logic is not one single answer that is universally true. elementary philosophy or logic courses will tell you that

[kareface]

oh stop your platitudes. Logic is not one single answer that is universally true. elementary philosophy or logic courses will tell you that

Logic says that something is either A or not A, not both. God it either a fantasy or not a fantasy. You keep using words that you don't understand. You have yet to offer a single reason why god isn't a fantasy.

[Neosutra]

oh stop your platitudes. Logic is not one single answer that is universally true. elementary philosophy or logic courses will tell you that

Except the physical question on wether "god" was responsible for creation of the universe (a physical event) is a logical/scientific question, and not philosophical. At least not when you are trying to place "god" as the cause for a direct physical effect.

If you want to talk about "meaning" of life, then it gets philosophical. However, when talking directly about causes for physical events, you dont get to play the relativism card.

[Nystul]

It's not a must sort of thing. It's a hypothesis/belief.



Matter existing is pretty measurable in our world.



So your claim is that matter has always existed and always will? Nothing created this matter even scientifically?

by definition, it is a belief, not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is meant to be a guide to be tested. Religion is inherently untestable (as my old freshman bio teach would say "You can't weigh an angel!") and therefore exists solely in belief.

And as for the creation of matter, I always love that question because thats where creationists always think they have an ace in the hole. A scientist must explain where the matter came from! Of course, it must come from somewhere and the only legitimate answer is GOD! Of course, it can't simply just have been there. "it was always there" is unacceptable as an answer!

To which I like to respond...then if god created the matter, where did god come from? What created him?

And of course, everyone will respond "it was always there!"

And I will roll my eyes.

[Plow]

Logic says that something is either A or not A, not both.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5mxw-sYc_F.../ads130004.jpg

objects!

[Mizango]

lol Plow.