Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
ash73 said:
How on earth does "both sides" imply something specifically aimed at atheists? Pure paranoia. No doubt a religious person would assume I only meant people carrying backpacks 
"something people on both sides might do well to consider."I think it is reasonably obvious what you intended to imply.
It is interesting how religion also seems to instill a feeling of superiority - perhaps that is one reason it appeals to some.
ash73 said:
Burwood said:
i don't subscribe to findinding alien life and that debunking god. God created everything so aliens included.
I agree it doesn't say anything about the existence of God, that's not what I said. Try to keep up 
ash73 said:
Ergo find intelligent life elsewhere, and religion is fundamentally broken.
So you are saying only religion would be broken, but not God?
Alpinestars said:
Proveable models? Sounds like bolleaux to me. Pure speculation.
"Flukey and amazing"
Pure speculation - really? "Flukey and amazing"
I haven't seen the program (will have to catch it on iPlayer) - but I find it hard to believe that none of the models they were presenting were based on known physics like gravity, radiation pressure, collisional energy transfer, material aggregation etc.
The more we look - the more examples we are finding which appear to support some of the solar system formation models (e.g. circumstellar disks). We have directly observed such disks around other stars.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 22:06
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
I think it is reasonably obvious what you intended to imply.
Then you are 100% incorrect. I am not religious, remember.Ash73: "....I think the basic idea is to live a perfect life and make the right choices, not apologise for an imperfect one after the fact.....It might matter more how you lived your life and treated other people. I would expect to be judged on that not my beliefs; something people on both sides might do well to consider.
Edited by ///ajd on Tuesday 3rd March 22:10
Moonhawk said:
Pure speculation - really?
I haven't seen the program (will have to catch it on iPlayer) - but I find it hard to believe that none of the models they were presenting were based on known physics like gravity, radiation pressure, collisional energy transfer, material aggregation etc.
Maybe watch it and see what you conclude. Their conclusion was flukey and amazing.I haven't seen the program (will have to catch it on iPlayer) - but I find it hard to believe that none of the models they were presenting were based on known physics like gravity, radiation pressure, collisional energy transfer, material aggregation etc.
I'm no expert, but it appears to me to that we can't explain our own Solar system, never mind beginning to understand the other hundred billion stars in the Galaxy.
///ajd said:
DOn;t you have a pick a religion to pick a God?
Mormons is the correct answer http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=123_1190395606&...
Alpinestars said:
Maybe watch it and see what you conclude. Their conclusion was flukey and amazing.
I'm no expert, but it appears to me to that we can't explain our own Solar system, never mind beginning to understand the other hundred billion stars in the Galaxy.
Me too I am neither a Scientist or a person of religion but when I look at the clear night Sky as I did tonight I can't help thinking we haven't got a clueI'm no expert, but it appears to me to that we can't explain our own Solar system, never mind beginning to understand the other hundred billion stars in the Galaxy.
WinstonWolf said:
But you think science is b
ks?
As a scientist, I doubt that.ks?You're not very good at joining posts are you? Did you hear their conclusion? And the words used? Might have, could have, if, maybe, possibly. Rethink everything we thought we've know for hundreds of years etc etc. Conjecture.
Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 3rd March 22:15
Alpinestars said:
Maybe watch it and see what you conclude. Their conclusion was flukey and amazing.
I'm no expert, but it appears to me to that we can't explain our own Solar system, never mind beginning to understand the other hundred billion stars in the Galaxy.
Did they actually state that it was Flukey and Amazing (as indicated by your quotation marks in your previous post) or are you paraphrasing. I'm no expert, but it appears to me to that we can't explain our own Solar system, never mind beginning to understand the other hundred billion stars in the Galaxy.
No scientist pretends we have all the answers. Research into the formation of the solar system is still in it's infancy. One thing we can say however is that as more and more powerful telescopes get built allowing us to see solar systems around other stars in various stages of their life - we do appear to be on the right sort of lines (nebula hypothesis, protoplanetary disks, planetary accretion etc)
Horizon is made to appeal to the masses with pretty graphics and simple language - i'm sure the actual scientific models hold a little more detail and have been tested with far more rigour than is presented in a 1 hour popular science show. I think your dismissal of those models as "pure speculation" is unfair in the extreme.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 22:31
Moonhawk said:
Did they actually state that it was Flukey and Amazing (as indicated by your quotation marks in your previous post) or are you paraphrasing.
No scientist pretends we have all the answers. Research into the formation of the solar system is still in it's infancy. One thing we can say however is that as more and more powerful telescopes get built allowing us to see solar systems around other stars in various stages of their life - we do appear to be on the right sort of lines (nebula hypothesis, protoplanetary disks, planetary accretion etc)
Horizon is made to appeal to the masses with pretty graphics and simple language - i'm sure the actual scientific models hold a little more detail and have been tested far more rigour than is presented in a 1 hour popular science show.
I agree re Horizon and the way it articulates the science. I can't remember the exact words, but something like - ending up with a stable planetary system was a fluke/lucky roll of the dice, and amazing that Earth survived. No scientist pretends we have all the answers. Research into the formation of the solar system is still in it's infancy. One thing we can say however is that as more and more powerful telescopes get built allowing us to see solar systems around other stars in various stages of their life - we do appear to be on the right sort of lines (nebula hypothesis, protoplanetary disks, planetary accretion etc)
Horizon is made to appeal to the masses with pretty graphics and simple language - i'm sure the actual scientific models hold a little more detail and have been tested far more rigour than is presented in a 1 hour popular science show.
It's basically based on a new model of the solar system, which has evolved over the last 20 years. Apparently, one of the modellers couldn't make the model work without modelling one of the planets being ejected from the Solar system. Which apparently saved the Earth. They don't know where the planet was ejected to. It could be anywhere in the Galaxy.
I am starting to feel a bit left out of this thread. I don't believe in God, I have never seen an Alien or a UFO and I don't really understand a lot of the stuff the scientists come up with.
Yet I bet when people look up at a clear sky like tonight we all feel a bit insignificant.
For me I am still with science and their honest attempts to understand.
Yet I bet when people look up at a clear sky like tonight we all feel a bit insignificant.
For me I am still with science and their honest attempts to understand.
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
So you are saying only religion would be broken, but not God?
Yes. I quite like Godel's idea you can prove logically God exists as a creator, but it's fundamentally unknowable, and I think religion is just man-made speculation about the nature of God.Look at the underlying theme of Christianity rather than pecking away at little details. It's about man having a unique relationship with God, the relationship being broken by original sin, and Jesus being sent as a saviour to repair it; by living a perfect life and achieving immortality.
Put simply, if there are intelligent aliens, some more intelligent than us, all of them with free will, God could not have a unique relationship with man. Our localised religion is smashed to pieces.
So you believe in the concept of a God, but dismiss all the intepretations of him through religion to date? I can kind of understand the logic in that.
Can you define what drives your belief in some form of God? And what such a God actually represents/does?
Reading again you do appear to recognise the specific ideas of Jesus and sin - which suggests the basics of Christianity are at the root of your belief. In that case does that not make you in some way loosely religious in terms of Christianity?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff