Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Darwinism
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 7 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5475 days, 7 hours, 29 minutes and 57 seconds ago. |
Anything that didn't have a beginning in time is outside of time and therefore cannot change (change happens inside time). Either matter had a beginning or it did not. If matter didn't have a beginning (that means matter is outside of time) then matter cannot change in time. Matter changes in time. Therefore matter had a beginning. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4148 days, 21 hours, 21 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
the main flaw is time doesnot exist without matter. at least in my understanding of modern physics. p.s. technically time did not existed before big bang. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/15/2007 at 15:19 (GMT -5) by Soirana] |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5763 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes and 47 seconds ago. |
The main reason I have faith in god is that I see no way to have something without nothing, and the only way you can is if you have something that we can't explain, like God that created such events. Oh, and there's the day the sun never went down, which nowadays by the use of calculus, we can see that there is a day missing from the earth's history...the bible lists this day, saying it was god... "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5475 days, 7 hours, 29 minutes and 57 seconds ago. |
But matter still would have no way of changing. Objects that are in motion stay in motion, objects that are at rest stay at rest...Unless acted upon from an *outside* force. Intelligence had to exist at the beginning in order to change the direction of motion. Another reason against atheistic Evolution is that there is no way to create proteins from the natural processes that could have existed at the time. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom |
||
|
Mewto Registered user Last page view: 3598 days, 18 hours, 26 minutes and 56 seconds ago. |
Why wasn't that ball of matter stable all the time? Or if it wasn't stable before the bang, why did it explode right then? And I still don't understand how humans evolved from something that's lifeless... helium atoms or whatever there was at the beginning. In the Bible it's written that God blew life into Adam (translation is not correct, but you should get the idea), since Adam was a pile of mud before. Isn't it strange that the Bible says all that, thousands of years before darwinism? For the Horde! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/15/2007 at 17:05 (GMT -5) by Mewto] |
||
|
Z Unregistered user |
I don't like the argument about "no way to have something without nothing", or in other words, an axiom that everything what exists must have been created (either in a conscious process or not). Why does this axiom apply to the world, but not to God himself? It is surely possible to create proteins and life from the natural processes. It just has a very small probability (as confirmed by our observations of space). If the Universe is infinite, it does not matter, everything which can happen will happen somewhere in it. |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4148 days, 21 hours, 21 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
not understanding something is not a reason to invent obscure ideas like god. speaking about the rest/motion that is newton physics. try reading basics quantic. it has very strange logic. and sort of need of observer... A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5763 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes and 47 seconds ago. |
"Why does this axiom apply to the world, but not to God himself?" It doesn't because a God or entity is something beyond us that we as humans will never ever understand, it's very abstract and strange. The whole concept of life and everything around us is strange enough, let alone when we try to understand it. I just try to enjoy it. "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Gozer Unregistered user |
I think we can all agree that there are essentially three theories here: 1. God created everything - the Big Bang never existed; 2. God doesn't exist - the Big Bang set everything in motion; 3. God initiated the Big Bang - which then set everything in motion. The problem here is not so much the difficulty with "proving" either of these three theories but, rather, the tendency for most people to insist that their preferred theory must be true and THEN try to prove it. Purely in the interest of encouraging deeper thought about what is obviously a very thought-provoking issue, I would challenge everyone participating in this thread to consider the following: What if NONE of the three theories are correct? |
||
|
Mewto Registered user Last page view: 3598 days, 18 hours, 26 minutes and 56 seconds ago. |
Interesting challenge Gozer... unfortunately waaaay above my IQ level, methinks. The only other "theory" I can think of, is something similar to the Matrix. We actually live in a dream, nothing that happens is really true. Does anyone have any other theories? And I don't mean just us, the members visiting this thread. Are there any scientists or philosophers out there that have any other theories? Regarding my earlier topic, I just find it much easier to believe in God, a God that has been for ever, than in a ball of matter that has been for ever. And the idea of infinite space is disturbing, but so is the idea of the Universe still expanding, which means that at some point it has barriers. What would we see if a human spaceship reached the "barriers"? I guess it depends on what your parents taught you, kids are very easy to influence. Most kids in Christian families have no problem believing God and Jesus, but when he reaches puberty, and especially after (as a young adult), doubts start creeping in. I'm not sure that a kid whose parents taught him the evolution theory would have doubts later on, because most people in the world, teachers and bosses believe in evolution, and so many can't be wrong, right? Right?? Man is easily deceived, and many of man's theories are wrong, even if nobody thought so at the time they were created. For example, communism... the idea is ok but look what happened years later (I know it wasn't very accepted at the time it was created). Well maybe communism isn't the best choice, but there are other theories out there that are simply wrong. Does anyone believe in UFO's and extraterrestrial intelligence? Because if none of the three theories Gozer wrote are true, and the Matrix theory is a possiblity... the aliens could be our Agents Smith and robots. But I don't believe in that :) For the Horde! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 04:52 (GMT -5) by Mewto] |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5763 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes and 47 seconds ago. |
WIth the Matrix theory.... Some people believe in a different belief, actually similar to that of Christianity and other religions, except with different goals. For example, Christians try to bond closer with God and do things for people because they want others to bond with God. The end goal is heaven, which is eternal life. Now the other side of the coin are people who believe that this universe is all a test, a matrix kind of test, where only the best and the ones who achieve the most in their life here get to go back to the 'real' world. (see the similarities?) And there are those self-centered babbling fools who believe from the youngest age( I know a few) that have always believed and thought that everyone and everything around them is a test for them, or their dream, and they can do whatever they want to people, and right now these kids are druggies sitting in the dark side of the cafeteria.... I believe in the third Gozer theory. I believe in UFO's. I do not necessarily believe in extraterrestial intelligence or life, however. I see a ball flying through the air, but don't have enough time to recognize it. That's a UFO. Thousands of people in Phoenix Arizona see tons of lights in the sky, in a triangular formation, and assume that its aliens. That's a UFO. I find it funny how there's people at school who are hardcore about aliens, yet constantly call them UFO's...nowadays alot of people associate UFO's IMMEDIATELY with aliens....I personally don't at all. "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4148 days, 21 hours, 21 minutes and 20 seconds ago. |
>What if NONE of the three theories are correct? nothing at all. there still a lot cute theoris like pulsating universe, white holes, etc.. bing bang just happens to be more popular and to have a lot of facts behind it. speaking about version 2vs3. scientific theory can be scientific if there is an experiment which results could deny it. neither God itself nor his actions fall into this category. so from my viewpoint 2vs3 can't be distinguished into true or false. you can believe one of them and preferably accept others believing another one. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4238 days, 16 hours, 4 minutes and 29 seconds ago. |
Mewto: "Ball of matter" is a very wrong way to think about things at the start of the big bang. Things wouldn't be on the scale of a ball - you'd be talking everything concentrated down to much less than the size of an atom. This is why there was such force in the Big Bang - the pressure exerted by all this concentrated matter/energy has led to the giant expansion of the universe. It wasn't stable before because there is no known "before". The cause of all this matter to appear in a single point is unknown - God is obviously one explanation. Another is perhaps a wormhole sucking material from a different universe. The truth is something that is maybe impossible to prove. I must say I personally find it irksome when people doubt the Big Bang, because to me it's a representation of just how far humanity has come. Here we are, sitting on a little rock in some insignificant galaxy, orbiting one of billions upon billions of stars. Random strings of protein have managed to form into a giant ecosystem, and eventually produced creatures that could think and use tools to explore more about its environment. And in the last measly few thousand years we've developed our observation abilities to study much more about the universe - how far it stretches in time and space and what it's made of, even going back to the beginning of time and how our whole universe started. We know things about stars and planets we can never hope to reach for many centuries to come, if ever. On the universal scale we are utterly insignificant, and yet the very fact we know this is quite astounding. With or without god we should be proud of our achievements. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 07:51 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
Mewto Registered user Last page view: 3598 days, 18 hours, 26 minutes and 56 seconds ago. |
World War I and WW2, yeah, we should be proud. Spending billions of dollars on weapon and space travel research while people are still dying of hunger in Africa. Right, we should be proud. You say that "Random strings of protein have managed to form into a giant ecosystem, and eventually produced creatures that could think and use tools to explore more about its environment." There really isn't a reason for us to be proud, since we didn't do anything. How can I put this? It's not because of us that proteins managed to form ecosystems, we didn't influence it. Since we're here by chance, if that's what you're saying there's no reason for us to be proud. I find it strange that the greatest scientists from the Middle Ages forward believed in God... Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Einstein, etc... Of course, dwarwinism wasn't around when Copernicus was born, but still... And another thing... believing in God is much easier for me than believing that the blue whale, Taipei 101, a Boeing 747 and the Sun (along with everything else) come from a small "ball" half the size of an atom. But like you said, we'll never know for sure... we'll probably find out when we die though. Besides, does it matter? If somehow I convinced you to believe in God (or you convinced me to believe in the theory of evolution), would it change the world? Nothing would change, but I still enjoy reading this kind of debates :) For the Horde! |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4238 days, 16 hours, 4 minutes and 29 seconds ago. |
Perhaps proud isn't the right word. I more mean I feel in awe - the wonders and the complexities of the universe have been unraveled by this little ape species on this tiny planet. When looked at on its own the evolution of life on this planet is pretty amazing, with all of its complexities and myriad forms. When put in the context of the size of our universe it seems utterly negligible, and yet we stand here able to comprehend this. Here we are, a tiny set of atoms in our universe, able to look at ourselves and the rest of the universe and analyze where we came from, even right back to the beginning of creation. To me that seems more like a miracle than god simply creating everything out of nothing. It's no surprise that many scientists are deeply religious. You can't escape the incredible sense of wonder when studying nature or the universe, with beauty and complexity far beyond our imagination. I don't see why you beleive science and religion to be in any way mutually exclusive though. Most religions embrace the theories of evolution and the Big Bang, pointing them out as miracles and beauties of god. The Big Bang is especially well-received - the Catholic church in particular were very quick accept the idea. What greater symbol of divine power than creating the whole universe from a single point? Besides, there's tonnes of evidence, which is more than god's got ;) Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5475 days, 7 hours, 29 minutes and 57 seconds ago. |
(quantum physics: please don't hurt my brain. That is one of the things I understand the least. I absolutely cannot get my mind around something being both true and false at the same time.) "Why does this axiom apply to the world, but not to God himself?" Because matter is constrained to time and space. God existing at the beginning is just about as incomprehensible as a ball of matter existing at the beginning. We live in a cause and effect world. Thus we have trouble imagining how cause and effect was caused. You are left with infinite recursion. It really is bad for the brain. I don't separate science and God. I separate Evolution and the Laws of Science. It is a *theory*, far short of proof. One thing I give the big bang is that the average density of matter as we know it is about the density required to create a black hole of the size of the entire universe (as we know it). I suppose my main arguments lie against the creation of life from inanimate matter, an "old Earth", macro-evolution of amoeba et all to chickens, continuing to Man, and thus Man being no more than an animal. The creation of proteins is improbable given amino acids (which is more improbable). Furthermore several proteins would have to be formed independently. After the proteins survive, they then have to create a single-celled organism. With DNA. This is all odds and as previously pointed out, doesn't hold too much weight. Still, it would be astounding if it happened. Even given several billion years. Also, there is no theoretical "medium" for Evolution to work. Survival of the fittest works. Provided you are working within dogs and chickens and even humans, it works. The problem is when you try to extrapolate a chicken->ape transition. Our genes are "messy". They allow for a large degree of change. In order to go beyond chickens, you have to change the DNA. There is no way to get around this. Mutations are *always* harmful (unlike ADOM corruptions). We have not seen a mutation make an animal better able to survive. We are stuck with chickens. Even if we were able to get past chickens, we would see the "missing links". They are called missing for a reason. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 12:53 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4238 days, 16 hours, 4 minutes and 29 seconds ago. |
They are called missing because they don't survive. What we see is like the leaves on the outside of a tree - the trunks and the main branches never made it this far (the proper term is speciation). All life on earth is actually extremely similar - something like 60% of our genetic code is identical to plant life, and over 99% is indifferent to chimps. We see a lot of variety because we've evolved to differentiate most of all between life forms (which are important to our survival), but from an outside view all life on earth is as similar as all the rocks making up the planet. Sure, we have pebbles and mountains, but it's all made of the same stuff. Also if you look at foetuses of different creatures like mice and snakes we are all actually extremely similar at the very early developing stages (freakishly so in fact). If we didn't all come from the same things why are we all made of the exact same stuff? And don't forget the evidence that actually supports evolution, such as details discovered through fossils of the evolution of the eye going back to a single source 540 million years ago (which also explains the blind spot in our eye - a flaw which can be understood through its evolutionary history, but which can't be explained through intelligent design (unless it wasn't very intelligent)). Or the fact we have an appendix, which before we were human was used to digest cellulose in plants, but is now obsolete (and sometimes dangerous if infected). I'm sure Tianjin could argue the evidence better than I could, but basically there's a lot of reasons why evolution is not in any doubt in scientific circles. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Morio Registered user Holy Champion of ADoM Last page view: 3897 days, 14 hours, 20 minutes and 29 seconds ago. |
One of the things about theories involving a god is, why did he create the earth/universe, and what did he do before that? I read an interesting article about emptiness a while ago. There is no such thing as empty, there is always something there, no matter how much you try to suck it out. Emptiness is filled with energy, more specifically dark energy (no it has nothing to do with Starwars and Jedis). This dark energy is velieved to be the reason for the universe to expand with increasing velocity. Someone has even patented a device that creates energy from a vacuum. The article also presented a theory that the universe truly was created from nothing (almost). Since mass can be turned to energy and vice versa. But still there is no answer to the question 'why?'. "I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 with be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5475 days, 7 hours, 29 minutes and 57 seconds ago. |
Careful with the fetuses. There was at least one hoax on that topic. I don't know which pictures you are referring to but one hoax was referenced from the first Google link searching for "fetuses Evolution". "Ernst Haeckel in his 1876 book General Morphology of Organisms. With supreme audacity it was called the "Biogenetic Law." It was a fraud from the beginning. Haeckel fraudulently presented altered, misleading and misinterpreted evidence. Some of the key details of his embryo drawings were wrong - purposely altered to make a case for Evolution where none existed. Yet, how many people still know this? Of Haeckel, Richard Milton says, "No errant scientist has been more thoroughly disowned by his colleagues. …The biogenetic law is no longer taken seriously by embryologists." Genetic similarity also makes sense in view of a designer. In computer programming you want to reuse code. It easier that way. Taking a quick look at a diagram of the eye it seems that the blind spot is placed at the connection of the eye to the socket (or wire to the brain). This small spot did not necessarily have to be there in the beginning of humanity. I really need more knowledge to say anything else. Before the Appendix there were 99 such useless organs. All of the other ones have found uses. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that there isn't doubt in scientific circles? Just because its taught in schools (I stop here for a reason)... 540 million years ago huh? How was that dated? "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3116 days, 11 hours, 33 minutes and 41 seconds ago. |
I'm not in the shape today to get into a scientific argument (lost 450 ml of blood. Damn donations ;P ), but the argument that "Mutations are always harmful" is just about as right, as the Nazi's were. The "harmfulness" of a mutation depends on the environment. And you arguments just scream "uneducated". I'd advise you to get into chemistry and biology on academic level. It helps to understand. [maybe some rational arguments from me tommorrow. Still feel weird...] A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4238 days, 16 hours, 4 minutes and 29 seconds ago. |
Morio: The energy from a vacuum thing is correct, but very little understood at the moment. Dark energy is an extremely recent (and in some ways frightening) discovery, with a lot of ramifications for the evolution and future of the universe. I've seen the design for the making energy from a vacuum thing and I'm quite sure it's doomed to failure, but it's an inventive idea nonetheless. F50: The pictures I was referring to were from a recent BBC News article I read online about stem cells - the site is well known for using very reliable sources. I couldn't find the article again with some quick searching, but I'll try again later maybe. I've seen mouse foetuses with my own eyes though - the similarity to human foetuses is very disturbing. (Whilst searching round for it found several articles on hybrid embryos - intermingling human dna with a mouse foetus and harvesting stem cells from it. Very interesting, if somewhat disturbing, but it goes to show that humans and mice must have a lot in common to be able to intermingle their basic cells like that.) The idea of "reusing organs" between species doesn't fit since no two species have the same organs - there's always little differences. A lot of animals can see better than us, some of them can see worse. Some can see different parts of the spectrum (eg. uv light). This all stems from their divergent evolutionary backgrounds. Studies of ancient sea snail fossils show a very basic eye that is simply like a flat panel that gets heated up by incident light. Following fossil records and analysing creatures around today shows the various stages it went through to make the modern human eye (see here). The blind spot is a feature that arose from having the optic nerve connect through the photoreceptors to the neurons on the surface of the back of the eye. If you were to go out and design an eye you would shove the neurons on the other side so they don't get in the way (much like cameras work with the film in front). Otherwise it wouldn't be particularly intelligent design. Evolution is uncontested because of the mass of evidence supporting it, and also because there are no rival scientific theories. Things like ID and Flying Spaghetti Monster aren't scientific theories because they give no testable predictions (as all theories must have). They're just imagining and philosophying, and you could think up anything you want doing that without an ounce of credulity (like, I dunno, an evil overlord named Xenu who who infested our bodies with the tortured souls of dead aliens that were dropped into volcanoes and blown up with nuclear bombs - amazing the sort of stuff that people will sometimes believe). Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 16:55 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4696 days, 10 hours, 26 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
MewTo: Re: a ball of matter existing forever I hate to make the situation more complicated, but your starting premise is incorrect, according to modern theories. As I understand it, the Big Bang did not come from a Ball of matter that was very dense. Rather, it came from a sigularity that was infinitely dense (all mass, and no volume) The same situation occurs with black holes. The mass of a star has been compressed into a singularity that has no volume. As for time, time did not exist for the singularity. The singularity of the Big Bang had not existed "forever" because forever implies that time existed before the Big Bang. When the sigularity exploded, it created both matter and time. You may be familiar with the theory that time slows down as you speed up. A less well known theory is that time slows down as gravity increases. At a sigularity, gravity is infinite, and time has slowed to a stop. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 18:20 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5475 days, 7 hours, 29 minutes and 57 seconds ago. |
I did not say "reusing organs" I said "reusing [stuff]" like code, concepts, structures. Not organs. Wing/Arm structure, that kind of thing. Evolution has a rival scientific theory: (immediate to distinguish it from the God's Evolution theory) Intelligent Design. The basic idea it that all life was created fully-functional and in a short period of time. Christians can also add certain historical events such as the flood as well as the assertion that all was created perfect but has since been marred. This makes certain predictions of the fossil record. For instance the "Cambrian Explosion" would indeed be abrupt. (from wikipedia: Cambrian Explosion) "Scientists have also long been puzzled by [the Cambrian Explosion's] abruptness, and the apparent lack of obvious predecessors to the Cambrian fauna." Genetic variation's effects would be seen next: "First, as mentioned above, the diversity seen in all other major exceptional faunas is a sample of life well after the beginning of the Cambrian explosion" So it does make predictions. Predictions which seem to match the evidence given my light reading on the subject. "And you arguments just scream "uneducated". I'd advise you to get into chemistry and biology on academic level. It helps to understand." I never have taken any courses on Evolution. But I haven't heard of any beneficial mutation. Admittedly, some mutations are benign. PS: I skimmed through the article so please correct me if I mistook the second quote. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 17:58 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Z Unregistered user |
> "Why does this axiom apply to the world, but not to God himself?" > It doesn't because a God or entity is something beyond us that we as humans will never ever understand, it's very abstract and strange. The whole concept of life and everything around us is strange enough, let alone when we try to understand it. I just try to enjoy it. If you say that *everything* was created by something that existed "before", then *everything* was, no matter how abstract and strange it is. (If the God is strange enough that it defies the laws of logic, then any discussion by logical reasoning has no sense.) If you admit that God was not necessarily created by Metagod, then why not the Universe itself? |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4696 days, 10 hours, 26 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
Z: Re: How can an rule apply to the universe but not to God Well, I would say that God created the axioms/laws/rules that apply to this Universe -- physics, logic, etc. -- We are part of this Universe, so those axioms/laws/rules apply to us and our understanding. However, IMHO, since God is beyond this universe, those axioms do not apply to It. You might be interested in the work of Kurt Godel (there are 2 dots over the "o"), if you are willing to risk your head exploding. To paraphrase his theory: If a universe is defined as the set of laws/axioms that govern it, then . . . Within any Universe (set of laws/axioms), there are some things (some statements) that are true, but cannot be proven from within that universe. His proof is mind blowing when you work through it. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 18:34 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4696 days, 10 hours, 26 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
F50 and Darren: DON'T FORGET THE 20 LINE RULE FOR PHILOSOPHICAL THREADS!!! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 18:22 (GMT -5) by Caladriel] |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5763 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes and 47 seconds ago. |
I completely agree with Caladriel's first paragraph, in response to Z's response to me. As I said before, since God is beyond this universe(or our understanding) the axioms do not apply to it. Though on a side note Caladriel, there is a lot of information in this topic, and I feel that 20 lines may more often than not be enough to get your point across, and be clear enough so further arguments are not started. As long as someone's post isn't a page long, I personally don't really care. "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Caladriel Registered user ReGiStErEd UsEr Last page view: 4696 days, 10 hours, 26 minutes and 9 seconds ago. |
Morio: Re: What did God do before creating the universe Well, if God created time when It created the Universe, then I would say that "before" cannot be applied to the Universe, since there was no time or "before" until God created the Universe. Even without God, scientists believe that Time is not absolute. Supposedly, until after the Big Bang, (or at any sigularity) time does not exist. As for "why", I think God created us so that It could love us and so that we could love It, but that is purely speculation. |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5763 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes and 47 seconds ago. |
I think that God created us either for your reason, the most commonly accepted one. Some people(like terrorists) think that if they kill people in suicidal attempts that it makes them worthy to their god....what a conveluted religion in my opinion.... "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4238 days, 16 hours, 4 minutes and 29 seconds ago. |
Caladriel: Wah, sorry, got carried away a bit. With regards to your point about singularities, that's not necessarily true. A growing number of scientists (including Stephen Hawking) are starting to believe that there might be some quark exclusion principle that stops singularities forming in black holes. As for whether or not there was a singularity before the big bang... we don't know. The only degree of certainty scientists have from the evidence is up to about 3 milliseconds after the start of the universe. F50: The Cambrian explosion happened 542 million years ago according to fossil records, which goes completely against most ID beliefs. Besides, it doesn't classify as a prediction of intelligent design - instead people change the ideas behind ID to fit in with what exists. This goes against the entire definition of scientific theory. A theory must make a prediction that is unknown and can be experimentally verified - to be a sound theory it must make numerous such predictions and not be contradicted repeatedly by scientific evidence. Read up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster to see why Intelligent design doesn't count as a scientific theorem. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |