Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
4v6 said:
cymtriks said:
The Dawkins fan club are wrong, in fact they are so wrong it calls into question their claim to be so much more clever than their opponents.
How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?
The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.
What a load of.....How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?
The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.
If god made the universe and everything in it, who made everything outside of it?
Who made god?
Its all in the mind dear boy an aberration, a crutch to deal with the fact that theres sweet fa left when you exhale your last breath and your eyes roll back in your head, its a bunch of who shot john, nonsense, cobblers and codswallop for simple minds to focus on, its all taken on faith, on someone elses word, proof dont live here.
Now, do you believe in pink fairies orbitting pluto?
I do.....
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
Is that how you understood it?
He's saying that to understand something people need a framework underpinned by some common knowledge, for example everyone knows ice is slippy so they accept that someone would fall over on it; and once they reach that understanding they stop asking why. You stopped when you reached fundamental forces, but there are an infinite number of levels of understanding beyond that.Certainly you can say the level we are now discussing is far removed from the magic and god of the gaps pushed by many religions. Yes you can carry on as far as you want, but is there a point at which you say, actually a magical creator now seems very unlikely. Certainly saying "ha - he must have created the charge on an electron!", seems a bit hollow when pretending the same creator has an opinion on homosexuality.
ash73 said:
///ajd said:
But his point - and he was an atheist remember - was that where do you stop.
Do we know enough to stop? We don't know why the universe exists. We don't know about anything before the big bang. We don't know if there are other universes. We don't know how our universe inherited its fundamental properties. We don't know if it has a purpose, or how it will end. We have no idea *whatsoever* what dark energy is and it accounts for 70% of our universe. We don't know if there is intelligent life on other planets, or any life for that matter.Right now anything is possible; all we can do is keep an open mind.
My point was - where do you stop before you conclude the probability of a god that matches the bible (or any other god or holy text yet published) is rather less than likely?
In my opinion I'd suggest we reached that point some time ago.
ash73 said:
Do we know enough to stop? We don't know why the universe exists. We don't know about anything before the big bang. We don't know if there are other universes. We don't know how our universe inherited its fundamental properties. We don't know if it has a purpose, or how it will end. We have no idea *whatsoever* what dark energy is and it accounts for 70% of our universe. We don't know if there is intelligent life on other planets, or any life for that matter.
Right now anything is possible; all we can do is keep an open mind.
This is why science is wonderful.Right now anything is possible; all we can do is keep an open mind.
To quote Krauss -
"The idea of being in 2 places at the same time is just bonkers. But if you are an electron - you are in 2 places at the same time."
Despite all we know - we still know very little.
///ajd said:
I fully agree, there is much yet to discover. Much to keep an open mind about.
My point was - where do you stop before you conclude the probability of a god that matches the bible (or any other god or holy text yet published) is rather less than likely?
In my opinion I'd suggest we reached that point some time ago.
That's always just going to be an opinion isn't it? My point was - where do you stop before you conclude the probability of a god that matches the bible (or any other god or holy text yet published) is rather less than likely?
In my opinion I'd suggest we reached that point some time ago.
Surely the easier way to disprove God as set out in any/all holy scriptures is to prove the scriptures wrong. If we have a situation where we can neither prove scriptures wrong not prove how life started, we're always going to have people who believe in God and those who believe in the other theories of creation.
ash73 said:
If we encounter intelligent life on another world, the story of original sin and our special relationship with God will require some "modification" that's for sure.
The Fermi Paradox is a thorn in our sides. One interesting idea I came across the other day was it being used as indirect evidence to support the simulation hypothesis, i.e. an incomplete universe
Why do we need to encounter intelligent life before we question the stories? The Fermi Paradox is a thorn in our sides. One interesting idea I came across the other day was it being used as indirect evidence to support the simulation hypothesis, i.e. an incomplete universe
Is there not enough evidence already to question the veracity of the scriptures? There is an enormous amount in the bible alone which already cannot be taken literally. World only x thousand years old, the ark, Adam 800+ years old, Eve came from his rib etc.
I'm not sure why the Fermi Paradox need be such an issue. Despite the statistics, the scale of the universe, its relative youth and the limitations of the speed of light in enabling communication - let alone travel - do not make a lack of contact that surprising, do they?
ash73 said:
Watch this and think for a minute about what you just said.
The 'why does' never ends, keep drilling down and the answer to what seems a simple question ends up being very complex and might not ever fully answer the question.I haven't heard many more about England's hypothesis, is he still pursuing that avenue?
Troubleatmill said:
Despite all we know - we still know very little.
This is where I am too. I love listening to people talk about Religion and science with such authority but in reality we are where we are a confrontational angry mob who like to kill each other.When I look up at the night Sky I think just how little we really know about how we got here and were we are going
johnxjsc1985 said:
... and were we are going
That bit is known.In about 5 billion years we will be wiped out be either.
a/ Our sun going supernova
b/ The Andromeda galaxy colliding into ours
We are well and truly fecked - unless we can work out a way to get out of this galaxy.
But don't lose sleep over it
Troubleatmill said:
That bit is known.
In about 5 billion years we will be wiped out be either.
a/ Our sun going supernova
b/ The Andromeda galaxy colliding into ours
We are well and truly fecked - unless we can work out a way to get out of this galaxy.
But don't lose sleep over it
Cant see mankind lasting too much longer before we destroy each other .In about 5 billion years we will be wiped out be either.
a/ Our sun going supernova
b/ The Andromeda galaxy colliding into ours
We are well and truly fecked - unless we can work out a way to get out of this galaxy.
But don't lose sleep over it
cymtriks said:
The Dawkins fan club are wrong, in fact they are so wrong it calls into question their claim to be so much more clever than their opponents.
How exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?
The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.
Like any religious people/groups there are thoughtful Atheists and dumb-as-fHow exactly does this new theory disprove a creator?
The theory could equally well be seen as evidence of a divine plan, the creation of a universe in which the laws of nature guaranteed the arrival of life and ultimately life that could comprehend the creator.
k Atheists. Soon enough the clever Atheists are going to have to distance themselves from the nobber Atheists who are doing nothing with their Atheism except for using it as a means to spread negativity and bullst.Hence the hypothesis reported as a theory is taken as proof on here, and when questioned in the slightest about what they understand about that hypothesis and how it relates to the idea of a God - oh I hear tumbleweeds (and loads of boring, repetitive, generic 'religion is evil' s
te).anonymous said:
[redacted]
Interesting that you refer to some as 'dumb-as-f*ck'. Why resort to insults? Losing the argument?The theory was explained in the article. If proven, it may close one of the key gaps the religionists like to close with their chosen god - the origin of life. Whether the theory gains traction or not, who knows. But what if it did explain the origin of life? Would that be significant to a religionist? The lack of a solid scientific proof/explanation for the origin of life always seems to be one of the favourite gaps of the believer to fill with their preferred intelligent designer.
The title was maybe over the top but was intended to make people think and contemplate the possibility. But sadly it just produced swear words from some, presumably unable to do so and engage in debate.
rxtx said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's a very telling response. I'd be interested in hearing what you think "atheist bullst" is. Is it the fact they discount any god, or is it the language they use to put that point across?What is atheist bulls
t?Negativity like spreading homophobia and inequality? Lets leave that to various churches.
It is not so much spreading bulls
t, but exposing it.///ajd said:
Interesting that you refer to some as 'dumb-as-f*ck'. Why resort to insults? Losing the argument?
The theory was explained in the article. If proven, it may close one of the key gaps the religionists like to close with their chosen god - the origin of life. Whether the theory gains traction or not, who knows. But what if it did explain the origin of life? Would that be significant to a religionist? The lack of a solid scientific proof/explanation for the origin of life always seems to be one of the favourite gaps of the believer to fill with their preferred intelligent designer.
The title was maybe over the top but was intended to make people think and contemplate the possibility. But sadly it just produced swear words from some, presumably unable to do so and engage in debate.
Was responding to Cymtriks' comment. Don't take it personally. I have nothing against decent atheist viewpoints, it's just they are being drowned out by people who want to identify with Atheism, not for reasons of conscience, but solely to attack religion. It's doing Atheism, as a concept, no good at all.The theory was explained in the article. If proven, it may close one of the key gaps the religionists like to close with their chosen god - the origin of life. Whether the theory gains traction or not, who knows. But what if it did explain the origin of life? Would that be significant to a religionist? The lack of a solid scientific proof/explanation for the origin of life always seems to be one of the favourite gaps of the believer to fill with their preferred intelligent designer.
The title was maybe over the top but was intended to make people think and contemplate the possibility. But sadly it just produced swear words from some, presumably unable to do so and engage in debate.
However, if you are going to suggest scientific hypotheses are proof of something you should be better prepared to back it up! It's more interesting that way.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 2nd March 01:01
rxtx said:
That's a very telling response. I'd be interested in hearing what you think "atheist bullst" is. Is it the fact they discount any god, or is it the language they use to put that point across?
What is atheist bullst?
Other than you, nobody else has used the term 'atheist bullst" is. Is it the fact they discount any god, or is it the language they use to put that point across?What is atheist bulls
t?t'. And I think you can work out from what I said that I don't think Atheism equals bulls
t simply because of denial of God.Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 2nd March 01:11
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff