This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new

If time did not exist in his universe he didn't have to come from anywhere.

See, either way you have to inject an eternal someone into the calculation, I don't see a reason to make it a god rather than just say the universe is eternal.
Click to expand...

Nothing made from physical matter is eternal. It all eventually decays away.
 
SirRumpole said:
If time did not exist in his universe he didn't have to come from anywhere.



Nothing made from physical matter is eternal. It all eventually decays away.
Click to expand...

So you're trying to solve the eternal/infinite problem by invoking a god and saying time doesn't apply to him, that's no different to a theists "God is eternal, that's why" claim, it seems a much more complex explanation than just saying the universe itself is eternal, you still need to solve the problem of where it/he came from, otherwise you are just invoking an eternal universe via a god, it's special pleading.

No object is eternal, but the matter itself is, as an object decays the atoms it is made from are not destroyed, they just get recycled into new molecules sure atoms can be split or fused, but again that's just shifting the protons and the neutrons around or converting them into energy, you arent getting rid of them.
 

Do you always have to say deep stuff O'Hennessy?

But I thought religion taps into ethics, not morality. Ethics here we trace to its Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, "custom"); and Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") [thank you Wikipedia].

That is, Religion does not care for what is "right" but care for what is the customarily right - what is accepted as "right". Hence, discrimination against what the big guy above said is right, is right - even though it might be wrong when you kind of stop and think about it morally.

Example: "civilising" the natives and sending a fair number of them to the Creator they never knew about sooner than they ought to be going... that might be the ethical things to do - so saids certain head of certain religion of just about all imperial power; Morally, objectively... it's pretty nasty, even if it's done with the best of ethics.
 
And where was his paper published?
Click to expand...

I posted a LINK to it in my previous post. The journal is Biology Direct, which is BioMed.


I know it is probably meaningless to keep pointing these out, but this is another logical fallacy, a non-sequitur. A physicist can exclusively identify the unique material conditions of recorded language and mathematics, which are found nowhere else in the cosmos -- except in the coding of the living cell. They are the physical means by which the cell is organized, and they had to be obtained in order for that organization to occur. But 670 years ago -- prior to the age of microbiology -- people thought that the Black Death was brought on by an angry deity. We now know it was a pathogen carried by rodents, so we can safely ignore any universal evidence found in microbiology today that infers any such deity.

 

The logical flaw in your argument of an eternal universe is that if matter or energy cannot be created, where did the the matter and energy in the universe come from ?
 
SirRumpole said:
The logical flaw in your argument of an eternal universe is that if matter or energy cannot be created, where did the the matter and energy in the universe come from ?
Click to expand...

That's not a flaw in the arguement, because in an eternal universe, it's always been there.

What you are not seeing is that invoking a creator doesn't solve that arguement, it just creates another laying of question, eg where did the creator come from? Either way you are invoking the eternal or the something from nothing arguement.

Can you see any other option besides something coming from nothing or something being eternal and infinite?
 

The precursor to the "complex living cells" we see today would be much simpler non living self replicating molecules, the evolution of life wouldn't have relied on a complex cell forming by chance, it would have been a much simpler none living self replicating molecules, which over time grew in complexity.

If you are simply weighing up the odds of a complex cell forming by itself, you are jumping to far ahead of where it all started.

There are non living things that have coding, eg a virus.

The border between life and non life is not as black and white as you would like to think.
 
Value Collector said:
That's not a flaw in the arguement, because in an eternal universe, it's always been there.
Click to expand...

I see, so you are now denouncing the laws of physics ?

Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be converted from one to the other

For an eternal universe to exist the Laws of Physics must not have existed at some point in order for the mass/energy of the universe to be created.

So who or what created this mass/energy and the laws that drive them ?

Also "always been there" implies that time is not a universal parameter. It definitely is in any observations we can make.

A physical universe requires time.
 
Sorry which laws of physic am I denouncing.

The laws of physics didn't really exist during the Big Bang, as far as I understand, though I am not a phsicist, Laurence Kraus has written a book called something from nothing, I own it but haven't read it yet, but from speeches I have heard by him he talks about matter being formed from practically nothing.

As I saying if you invoke a creator, the next question is just who created the creator, it gets you no where, either way we are either way we can't escape the to options something from nothing or something eternal/infinite

If it's something infinite, I see not reason to think it's a god, I would assume the universe is infinite and eternal until we could prove otherwise,

I am not sure time is universal, physicists seem to think it breaks down in the conditions before the Big Bang, as I said though I am no expert, I have heard it described as being similar to how the concept of north breaks down at the North Pole, at the North Pole there is no north, east or west only south, but we don't know what existed before the Big Bang, maybe infinite other universes.
 

This is where I need to take a break because I think you are confused and don't know where you are going.

You made a claim that the Universe is cyclical and therefore eternal, when that is challenged you fall back onto a competing theory, the Big Bang Theory which is creation at a point in time.

My view has been consistent, creation by an entity which is outside space and time whereas I think you invoke multiple theories depending on what particular point we are discussing and hoping I've forgotten what you said before.

So, good luck with resolving your confusion, I don't think that there is much point in me saying any more.

 
SirRumpole said:
You made a claim that the Universe is cyclical and therefore eternal, when that is challenged you fall back onto a competing theory, the Big Bang Theory which is creation at a point in time.

:
Click to expand...

Nope, I didn't make a claim, I listed a cyclical universe as a possible option.

in the cyclical universe theory the Big bang "event", wouldn't be a competing theory, it would be part of the cyclical universe, eg the moment after a previous collapse that the universe begins a new expansion.

I don't doubt the big bang happened, saying the universe is infinite doesn't mean you rule out the big bang.

My view has been consistent, creation by an entity which is outside space and time
Click to expand...

Yes, but as pointed out, that theory doesn't solve the problem, it just creates a new bigger one.

eg. what created the universe that this entity lives in,


whereas I think you invoke multiple theories depending on what particular point we are discussing and hoping I've forgotten what you said before.
Click to expand...

I don't actually have a belief in any of the theories, I am happy to say I don't know and I haven't formed a belief, though I find the both the concepts of an eternal universe and of universe that came from nothing more plausible than either of those options + a god did it claim

your god hypothesis is the same problems, your just trying to ignore the problems by saying god did it.

So, good luck with resolving your confusion, I don't think that there is much point in me saying any more.
Click to expand...

I think the confusion is yours, because you seem to think invoking a creator some how gets you around the something from nothing or eternal/ infinite choices.
 

That is exactly what the Koonin paper is about. I thought that was obvious. Apparently I was wrong.

There is a vivid distinction between people who are merely waiving their hands in order to get through an argument without allowing themselves to be cornered by the issues, and those who are not trying to avoid those issues, but are actively seeking them out in order to understand them. You are the former, which is somewhat understandable. Your beliefs are all that seems to interest you.
 
Biosemiosis org said:
and those who are not trying to avoid those issues,.
Click to expand...

Sorry, its actually you avoiding things, you on a thread about religion, however you are not willing to state what your own religious beliefs are, you keep linking your website and other "papers" which are clearly intelligent design stuff not accepted by mainstream science, the whole intelligent design movement has been rejected by main stream science for good reason.

As I said in regards to your claim that because something is unlikely it therefore can't happen, that claim is nonsense. its like saying you can't win the lotto with 1 ticket, because the chances are 1 in 100,000,000, you don't need to buy 100,000,000 tickets to win the lotto, all it takes is one winning ticket, and in a universe with trillions of trillions of tickets the improbability argument is nonsense.

Also, as I said has this guy identified what the molecules were that started the self replicating process???

if not how can he say what the probability was, Does he know the conditions of the early earth??? if not again how can he say.

---------------------------------

Forget about trying to convince laymen, why doesn't mainstream science agree with you???
 
Just wondering why or how that human beings are the only organism to develop intelligence. Trial and error evolution like nothing else.
 
Wysiwyg said:
Just wondering why or how that human beings are the only organism to develop intelligence. Trial and error evolution like nothing else.
Click to expand...

Opposable thumbs for one thing, enables us to use tools. Have thumbs will think.



Chimps have opposable thumbs on all limbs, so by rights they should be twice as smart as us.

 
Wysiwyg said:
Just wondering why or how that human beings are the only organism to develop intelligence. Trial and error evolution like nothing else.
Click to expand...

I don't Wys, thats one of the marvels of our Universe.....wait...err, how do we know we're the only organism to develop intelligence???

Ahhh its all too hard, easier to believe in a old book than try and get to the bottom of it all
 
Sorry, its actually you avoiding things
Click to expand...

Narrow that down and name it. Explicitly.

however you are not willing to state what your own religious beliefs are
Click to expand...

I already told you, my metaphysical position doesn’t change the evidence in any way whatsoever. Neither does yours. We are in the same boat. In business parlance, it’s a wash. Instead of reasoning about the science, you are pressing this issue in order to create something to attack. Yet between us, you envision yourself as the person of science and reason.

you keep linking your website and other "papers" which are clearly intelligent design stuff not accepted by mainstream science
Click to expand...

How do you know when an intellect has become incapacitated? When it accuses Eugene Koonin of being an ID advocate.

Good grief.

the whole intelligent design movement has been rejected by main stream science for good reason.
Click to expand...

Hey, I see you using all the little props and cartoons. And I bet you know someone in some science forum somewhere – someone who you’ve read and admired – someone who actually knows the issues. Do yourself a favor. Go get them. Tell them whatever you want, but bring them here.

If you are unable to engage the issues, you can at least watch someone else. While you watch, keep your own counsel. Look to see if his/her comments actually alter the observations, and note whatever assumptions they contain. When he finally gets around to defending his position by pointing out that “ID has been rejected” then you’ll know how silly and weak it looks when you say it.
 

If there's an intelligent designer, why are you around? ha ha

Come on mate, dressing up religious non-sense with scientific sounding words can only fool some. And those are already part of the choir.

Put it this way, if it didn't work for Scientology, it's not going to work for Biosemiosis.
 

How big would that Creator be?

If the Creator did create the entire universe, with everthing in it - all the suns, the galaxies, the elements. That all the known universe since the Big Bang is His creation, he'd be one big massive being. I mean, some galaxy would take millions of light years for us to reach - So a spaceship that could travel at the speed of light will take millions of years to reach... that's a very very very long way away.

Then if it is possible that there is this Creator who create all these stuff. Why are we the chosen species in this vast universe He created? I mean, our Earth is a little dot next to some known star out there. We human are a little atom relative to the sun alone. Why would the Creator really take notice and take us as His favourite creation, sending down his only son and all that?

Say I build a house... what are the chances of me sending my son to a little ant's nest to save it?

There are things we don't know, may never know, could never prove... but the idea that need refuting is so rediculous in its scale it just doesn't need much evidence to disprove it.

Again... the Creator create this big massive universe all these billions of years... and it's only the last maybe 5,000 years that our specie kind of started writing - on clay; only last couple hundred years that some really advanced technologies came to do some work for humans; only some 60 years ago that one country could send a few guys to the Moon. and we're somehow the most intelligent, the most beloved of this Creator's creation?
 

It's no good coming at me with the religious stuff, I've said I don't believe it.

If you want to know what I think read my previous posts, I've had enough of going around in circles with VC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...