RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it....

RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwird -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 5:19:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The "Big Bang" theory, when was the last time a huge explosion created anything? Ah, well there's where you went astray. The so-called "Big Bang" was not actually an explosion but rather the rapid expansion of a singularity. Uhm ... how to break this to you ... An explosion is 'a rapid expansion.' Not lying, it really is. They teach this stuff in college, honest. "Don't sweat the small stuff," as they say.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 8:12:10 PM)
quote: Uhm ... how to break this to you ... An explosion is 'a rapid expansion.' Indeed, but not all rapid expansions are explosions. They may not teach that in college, but they do in university.

Edwird -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 9:00:18 PM)
Did they teach English at your school? The physics and geology classes at the university I attended explained what I laid out. Did they tell you different in your poli-sci class at your school? We must go by what that department said, surely. Is this the same school that taught you to not have a clue what the difference between spirituality and religion is?

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 9:15:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Because the concept of awareness requires recognition, the concept of determining there is a there...there. That requires the electro-chemical activity in a brain to create the thought required to conceptualize that recognition. Really? And where is an oak tree's brain? It doesn't have one. Why do you ask ? The tree is plant life and not sentient.

MrRodgers -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 9:19:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Vince do you think our species is capable of understanding infinity and its obvious implications? We already discussed time and the two of these together I believe will be forever beyond anything but wild speculation by your beloved science. Is space with no limiting dimension or border...time with no beginning or ending any less unbelievable and without proof than a universal intelligence? Both are incomprehensible to our human minds but if one is possible the other cannot be denied with certainty. Your denial of the possibility of a universal intelligence is my bone to pick with you not your belief in the infallibility of observable science. Otherwise I think it is reasonable to doubt... I do at times as well...but it is not reasonable to claim science has any say or proof in denying the possibility of...for lack of another word... God. Butch Science does not and is not required to prove a negative...that can't be done. However, science tells us there is no scientific proof or even evidence to suggest further scientific investigation would produce proof of the existence of a god.

Staleek -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 9:47:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The "Big Bang" theory, when was the last time a huge explosion created anything? Ah, well there's where you went astray. The so-called "Big Bang" was not actually an explosion but rather the rapid expansion of a singularity. Uhm ... how to break this to you ... An explosion is 'a rapid expansion.' Not lying, it really is. They teach this stuff in college, honest. "Don't sweat the small stuff," as they say. An organism that flies is a bird. Does that mean that all things that fly are birds? An explosion is a rapid expansion, but a rapid expansion need not necessarily be an explosion. http://www.livescience.com/32278-was-the-big-bang-really-an-explosion.html http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/big_bang_was_not_explosion_however_explosion_metaphor_what_big_bang_was-78575

Edwird -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 10:39:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek An organism that flies is a bird. Does that mean that all things that fly are birds? Well dang, you caught me out, there. And all this time, I thought that anything that moved laterally was a car, not a dog. A deflation is not necessarily an expungement of air. A leak is not necessarily an escape of liquid. Light doesn't necessarily involve photons. Am I catching on, here? I mean, this is getting to Dylanesque proportions, here. Fingers can't grip, toes too numb to step, etc. Inspiration for song; "My Senses Are Senseless!"

Edwird -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/5/2016 11:17:17 PM)
If the big bang was an explosion, that proves god doesn't exist. If the big bang was a rapid expansion, that proves god exists. (slaps my head) OK, OK, I get it now. The infinite importance of these fine details just escapes me sometimes I'm just happy when somebody provides incontrovertible evidence to themselves, in any case.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 11:52:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Because the concept of awareness requires recognition, the concept of determining there is a there...there. That requires the electro-chemical activity in a brain to create the thought required to conceptualize that recognition. Really? And where is an oak tree's brain? It doesn't have one. Why do you ask ? The tree is plant life and not sentient. And yet they are aware of their surroundings.

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 11:53:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Vince do you think our species is capable of understanding infinity and its obvious implications? We already discussed time and the two of these together I believe will be forever beyond anything but wild speculation by your beloved science. Is space with no limiting dimension or border...time with no beginning or ending any less unbelievable and without proof than a universal intelligence? Both are incomprehensible to our human minds but if one is possible the other cannot be denied with certainty. Your denial of the possibility of a universal intelligence is my bone to pick with you not your belief in the infallibility of observable science. Otherwise I think it is reasonable to doubt... I do at times as well...but it is not reasonable to claim science has any say or proof in denying the possibility of...for lack of another word... God. Butch Science does not and is not required to prove a negative...that can't be done. However, science tells us there is no scientific proof or even evidence to suggest further scientific investigation would produce proof of the existence of a god. You miss my point MrRodgers... Science has no understanding of the very basic building blocks of nature... time and space...Can science prove we were created from nothing or the implications if we were not?...Can they prove time with no beginning or the implications if true? Because they cannot explain or prove how the bits of us were created... does this mean we do not exist? I am not saying with absolute certainty that a universal intelligence exists or not...but I am saying that if everything was created from nothing...and if not how... then all things we can possibly think of COULD be part of our reality. I think we would be fools to think we can absolutely say... there is no universal intelligence using observable science...at least until we know the secretes of the universe. Butch

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 11:53:36 AM)
quote: However, science tells us there is no scientific proof or even evidence to suggest further scientific investigation would produce proof of the existence of a god. Incorrect.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 11:55:45 AM)
quote: If the big bang was an explosion, that proves god doesn't exist. No it does not. quote: If the big bang was a rapid expansion, that proves god exists. No it does not. quote: OK, OK, I get it now. No, you don't.

PeonForHer -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 2:22:30 PM)
TDC, you've said that you've been working in a bar for many years. Is this a bar that doesn't get many patrons, and in which you get to stand there, contemplating, for long periods? I'm just wondering.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 4:18:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Because the concept of awareness requires recognition, the concept of determining there is a there...there. That requires the electro-chemical activity in a brain to create the thought required to conceptualize that recognition. Really? And where is an oak tree's brain? It doesn't have one. Why do you ask ? The tree is plant life and not sentient. And yet they are aware of their surroundings. In a Disney movie perhaps.[8\|]

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 6:23:52 PM)
@Butch quote: Is space with no limiting dimension or border...time with no beginning or ending any less unbelievable and without proof than a universal intelligence? Both are incomprehensible to our human minds but if one is possible the other cannot be denied with certainty. Butch. I never claimed science is infallible. Science is a human endeavor; nothing that humans do is infallible. I have only said that science demands evidence from observation of things seen or from testable hypotheses of things not necessarily seen. Einstein's Law of General Relativity (a mathematical model) stood the prediction that Mercury would have some hitches in its orbit. I never denied the possibility of universal creative intelligence; I simply see no evidence of it. Your evidence for the possibility of universal intelligence seems to be that we cannot comprehend infinity so an incomprehensible god is quite possible, if I understand you. Well, lets ponder this. What is infinity? Can we agree it is time without end in either direction, past or future? What is time? It is a measurement of activity. Does time exist without the presence of matter/energy? Only if you postulate a god in the gap. But how is time measured by the activity of god? How is that possible? No, I think matter/energy must be present in order for time to be measured. So if time exists as a measurement and if it is infinite to the past then matter/energy must always have existed. If not, infinity is nonsensical. Let's consider space. You keep saying nothing can arise out from nothing. I assume you mean that space is empty of matter, that empty space is a vacuum. Science does not recognize that there is a perfect vacuum. As a result, QED vacuum contains vacuum fluctuations (virtual particles that hop into and out of existence), and a finite energy called vacuum energy. Vacuum fluctuations are an essential and ubiquitous part of quantum field theory. Some experimentally verified effects of vacuum fluctuations include spontaneous emission and the Lamb shift.[20] Theoretically, in QCD vacuum multiple vacuum states can coexist.[38] The starting and ending of cosmological inflation is thought to have arisen from transitions between different vacuum states VACUUMS Humankind has no proof in denying the possibility of god; we simply have no evidence for the possibility. Regards, vincent

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 6:37:34 PM)
No darling, in the real fucking world, maybe you should know the very basics of a topic before you comment.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 6:39:51 PM)
quote: I have only said that science demands evidence from observation of things seen or from testable hypotheses of things not necessarily seen. And in doing so, you are wrong. You clearly understand neither science nor spirituality, and therefore are utterly unqualified to comment. And that explains the infantile nature of your responses.

Termyn8or -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 8:07:19 PM)
FR Do y'all realize there is no such thing as a nuclear explosion ? Ain't no such thing. The explosion you think you see is a rapid expansion of the air and moreso the moisture in it. The nuclear charge does not increase in mass at all. It's just that the massive heat that it develops makes everything around it expand so fast. Normal explosives are different. Many of them are simply things that burn, but if you contain them they blow up because of the buildup of pressure. Maybe Ford Pintos used to blow up but if you pour a bunch of gasoline on the ground and light it up you are NOT going to have an explosion, unless you are burning someone else's stuff who happens to have a gun. And more people in this country have guns than file taxes. Pretty badass bombs can be made from household materials. I have zero interest in propagating the information though. If you want to do that, spend the time and money to find the REAL Anarchist's Cookbook. Or just study chemistry. Actually The Anarchist's Cookbook was never all that great and now it is severely outdated. And now, there are so many fake versions with plans that will get you injured really badly, or do not work at all that you have to watch what you download. Remember the Trump balloons ? You think this is the first time that shit happened ? T^T

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/6/2016 9:53:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Because they are inanimate... I don't see why being animate would be a requirement for having an interior awareness of being. Because the concept of awareness requires recognition, the concept of determining there is a there...there. That requires the electro-chemical activity in a brain to create the thought required to conceptualize that recognition. I don't see why an awareness of being would necessarily require recognition that there is a "there" in addition. K.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/7/2016 1:36:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers science tells us there is no scientific proof or even evidence to suggest further scientific investigation would produce proof of the existence of a god. I'm sorry things have devolved into debating the question of God. To me, at least, that question falls into the category of religion. Science studies the material world, and the view that I would prefer to see questioned is that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality. K.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875