[G0atmaster]

Karajorma: That is absolutely not true at all!  For your example, I say God did open the sky and make it rain.  I could go into further detail if I so desired, or if my audience so desired, and explain how God designed the molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, which combine in such a way that they have an extra pair of electrons, which force the other electrons, those that bond said atoms together, into a bent shape that allows for an incredible degree of polarity with a significant dipole moment.  This allows water to be a liquid at certain temperatures where heavier molecules are not, thus allowing for such molecules to precipitate in the absence of a certain degree of pressure, and clump together in droplets that gravity then prevails over to bring said water back to the ground, which is what we call rain.  And in doing so, we have a perfect, in-depth look at how rain is created, and I don't need to omit the fact that God Himself designed water molecules to function this way, that God devised the fact that opposites attract and alikes repel, that God decided that matter should attract other matter, thus creating a substantial gravitational pull when a large concentration of mass is in one place.  Or the fact that God decided there should be people to even come up with these explanations.

Like I said, I believe science points all the more to God, not away from Him.

The question of how is still just as important as ever.  For that matter, so is knowledge itself.  To which I say, who needs knowledge to come up with cures for disease when disease didn't exist?  I ask the question, what are we doing with this knowledge?  We are trying to make better lives for ourselves.  Why are we doing this?  Because life sucks right now.  People die.  Diseases are a reality.  Age is an inescapable thing.  People start the process of dying from the moment they are concieved.  If this were not the case, such knowledge would be a mad waste of time.  It would be completely unnecessary.  This is a perfect example of man trying to find something to replace God.  Himself.

I never noticed it before now, but this goes right back to the Garden of Eden.  Man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thinking he could be just like God, that he wouldn't need God anymore.  Let me tell you right now that this will never be the case.  We simply aren't good enough.  This goes back to the original thread topic because, man, without God, will never be capable of creating a utopian society.  That is, Heaven on Earth.  Man cannot make such a thing.  Yet He is trying to with each technological advance he makes.  Technology, which would be entirely relevant if Man had not sinned, thus bringing death itself into this world.

ngtm1r: Actually, I would say that I myself was not conscious, no.  Yet man is a conscious being.  And being man, in the early stages though I was, was destined for consciousness, having been begotten by a conscious being.  Consciousness begets consciousness.  Life begets life.

[karajorma]

Cop out.

You want science to explain everything and then simply stick God in at the start. But it's a cop out. If you can explain everything without God then you don't need God at all.

And as for your you never get something for nothing argument isn't God a great big something for nothing? Instead of actually answering the question you've simply pushed it back one remove and said God has always existed and is unexplainable. You haven't explained complexity at all. You've simply invented something more complex and ducked the question of how it exists.

[Mefustae]

Blimey, what have I set in motion!?

Karajorma: That is absolutely not true at all!  For your example, I say God did open the sky and make it rain.  I could go into further detail if I so desired, or if my audience so desired, and explain how God designed the molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, which combine in such a way that they have an extra pair of electrons, which force the other electrons, those that bond said atoms together, into a bent shape that allows for an incredible degree of polarity with a significant dipole moment.  This allows water to be a liquid at certain temperatures where heavier molecules are not, thus allowing for such molecules to precipitate in the absence of a certain degree of pressure, and clump together in droplets that gravity then prevails over to bring said water back to the ground, which is what we call rain.  And in doing so, we have a perfect, in-depth look at how rain is created, and I don't need to omit the fact that God Himself designed water molecules to function this way, that God devised the fact that opposites attract and alikes repel, that God decided that matter should attract other matter, thus creating a substantial gravitational pull when a large concentration of mass is in one place.

I know of the particles you've mention, and have actually seen them individually (electron microscopes are really cool, btw). I've detected the gravitational and electromagnetic forces you've mentioned in a physics course I did last semester. I've studied the varying things rain does, how it does it, and why. However, i'm yet to see this "God particle" you've mentioned. Is it an electromagnetic force like gravity? Or is it the possible force behind "dark energy", the theorized force that keeps the universe expanding. If so, then could you point me towards the published papers on the subject?

Like I said, I believe science points all the more to God, not away from Him.

I disagree with you, but I respect your conclusion. And might I just add that it's awesome that you've kept your wits about you and stayed the hell away from Intelligent Design. Too bad a lot more Christians aren't like you.

The question of how is still just as important as ever.  For that matter, so is knowledge itself.  To which I say, who needs knowledge to come up with cures for disease when disease didn't exist?  I ask the question, what are we doing with this knowledge?  We are trying to make better lives for ourselves.  Why are we doing this?  Because life sucks right now.  People die.  Diseases are a reality.  Age is an inescapable thing.  People start the process of dying from the moment they are concieved.  If this were not the case, such knowledge would be a mad waste of time.  It would be completely unnecessary.  This is a perfect example of man trying to find something to replace God.  Himself.

I don't suppose you could clear up what you mean here? Not sure of the point you're making, but i'd like to take a crack at discussing it.

I never noticed it before now, but this goes right back to the Garden of Eden.  Man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thinking he could be just like God, that he wouldn't need God anymore.  Let me tell you right now that this will never be the case.  We simply aren't good enough.  This goes back to the original thread topic because, man, without God, will never be capable of creating a utopian society.  That is, Heaven on Earth.  Man cannot make such a thing.  Yet He is trying to with each technological advance he makes.  Technology, which would be entirely relevant if Man had not sinned, thus bringing death itself into this world.

Woah! Let's pull over to the side of the arrogance turnpike! Not only is your little paragraph here anti-thought, it's anti-human. All we've accomplished, all we've fought and struggled to achieve, everything we've created with only the sweat and blood of our brow: We did it. We invented the wheel, we constructed thousands of vastly complex written and spoken languages, we've learned what makes us tick and been able to live longer with every generation, we've even been able to shed the confines of this Earth and travel into space! So much we've accomplished, all on our own. Now, if you want to cheapen those monumental achievements by saying we pale in comparison to a Heavenly Spirit, the same God who has done exactly dick for us throughout all recorded human history, that's entirely your choice. But you should keep in mind that in doing so, you're marginalizing how utterly awesome we all are. But then, that's just how it always seems to work: The underlings do all the work, and the Big Boss gets all the credit.

If you want to live by the notion that God is the ultimate provider of everything we need, then go live out your own little Garden of Eden and dick around naked in the bush without even the basic knowledge of what plants to eat. That's all the Big Guy has provided for us, He even actively denied our advancement with the whole "Tree of Knowledge" debacle. On the other hand, if you want to live on what humanity has provided you, then continue as you are. Just do me a favor and attribute credit where it's due.

[TrashMan]

]Rather than bothering to search for how the universe came into existence, how things evolved and the immutable causes that have created so much around us... you say 'God did it', and that's that. It's disappointing because you lack the drive to find out how we got here, instead choosing a copout answer and putting your feet up like you've accomplished something by coming to this contrived conclusion.

You assume too much Sir.
You think I didn't look into it? I love science. I love reading all sorts of things, especially about the universe.
Thing is, nothing I found out trough sience contradicts in any way my belief that God is the creator...in fact, it only reinforces it.

Trashman: I guess this is one place where we somehat drastically differ.

I wouldn't call this drastic at all.

Ever heard of Occam's razor? The scientific method?

What has that got do do wth anything?
Occams razor sez the simplest solution are MOST OFTEN true.
1. no certanty in that argument..most often, not allways.. and IIRC, this is a theroy in itself, never realyl proven
2. why do you think universe jsut creating itself is simpler thant being created by God? I see no logic in the way "simplicity" is rated here...

Actually they'll be more ignorant, cause people like me told them it was a stupid assumption to say "God did it" when you haven't got enough proof in either direction.

Well, technicly, since God created the universe and everything in it, including hte clouds, and the wind, then in some sense he did do it.

You want science to explain everything and then simply stick God in at the start. But it's a cop out. If you can explain everything without God then you don't need God at all.

But you won't be able to explain everything. Never.

[karajorma]

You assume too much Sir.
You think I didn't look into it? I love science. I love reading all sorts of things, especially about the universe.
Thing is, nothing I found out trough sience contradicts in any way my belief that God is the creator...in fact, it only reinforces it.

On previous occasions you have claimed that evolution alone can not give rise to intelligence and that abiogenisis is not possible.

Mefustae's description is not incorrect.

Well, technicly, since God created the universe and everything in it, including hte clouds, and the wind, then in some sense he did do it.

That wasn't what I was talking about and you know damn well it wasn't. Even if I accept your assertion that God created those things it is not the same as him personally having to open the sky every time it rains.

But you won't be able to explain everything. Never.

So? I'd rather have best guess that explained some of the subject matter than a completely incorrect explanation that covered everything.

2. why do you think universe jsut creating itself is simpler thant being created by God? I see no logic in the way "simplicity" is rated here...

Saying that God created everything is not simpler. You're sticking God in as a fait accompli without realising that the existence of a supernatural being capable of creating the universe is actually a more complex being than the rest of the universe. Somehow God has managed to exist outside of space time. Somehow he's capable of creating the universe. Somehow he's capable of understanding it. Somehow he's capable of knowing everything.

God is not simple. In fact you are probably blaspheming against him if you claim you believe he exists but say he is.

[Mefustae]

2. why do you think universe jsut creating itself is simpler thant being created by God? I see no logic in the way "simplicity" is rated here...

Please, please tell me you're joking. Occam's Razor offers that it is prudent to choose the simplest of options. You have presented two theories: The universe came into existence by itself, and the Universe came into existence with the guidance of an omnipotent being. As there is no evidence for either case, it is entirely logical to choose the simplest option, the one with the fewest components. Thus, logic dictates that the Universe just popped into existence by itself, as no evidence exists to suggest anything more than this simple, basic premise.

Is it a perfect idea? Hell no! But nobody is trying to argue that the Universe likely popped into existence by itself, only that it is the simplest and therefore most logical conclusion to make based on the apparent dearth of information. Why introduce more layers to it, ie. God, without anything to prompt such an addition? You find evidence, you add to the theory. You don't find evidence, you don't add to the theory. That's how science works. Logic prevails.

Edit: Damn Kara, you beat me to it. And you just had to use Italian or whatever that is. Showy bastard.

[TrashMan]

On previous occasions you have claimed that evolution alone can not give rise to intelligence and that abiogenisis is not possible.

Mefustae's description is not incorrect.

It is, and so is yours (as usual). I don't recall ever making such claims tough. I said it is my personal BELIEF that I find that HUMAN INTELIGENCE is highly unlikely to have jsut happened by itself. I never staited it as a fact.

But you won't be able to explain everything. Never.

So? I'd rather have best guess that explained some of the subject matter than a completely incorrect explanation that covered everything.

Assuming it's incorrect. And assuming that science even has plausable guesses on all subjects.

2. why do you think universe jsut creating itself is simpler thant being created by God? I see no logic in the way "simplicity" is rated here...

Saying that God created everything is not simpler. You're sticking God in as a fait accompli without realising that the existence of a supernatural being capable of creating the universe is actually a more complex being than the rest of the universe. Somehow God has managed to exist outside of space time. Somehow he's capable of creating the universe. Somehow he's capable of understanding it. Somehow he's capable of knowing everything.

God is not simple. In fact you are probably blaspheming against him if you claim you believe he exists but say he is.

[/quote]

I don't see how it's more complex. I see it in fact as a simpler solution. You see it as more complex. Simplicity, especially on some subjects, isn't something that can be objectivly rated.

God is as simple and complex as he wants to be (indeed, he can be both simple and complex at the same time).
And you'd be the LAST person in the world I'l listed to what talking about blasphemy....well, allmost the last.

[Scuddie]

Simplicity is key.  God didn't create it all, he started it all.  The Big Bang happened, yet its occurrence violates every law of science we have.  There had to have been an outside force.  God did it.  And when he did, he created Eden in the center of our galaxy.  However, not forseeing the pure gravitational force holding our galaxy together, he ended up being trapped there.  For countless years, he became angrier and angrier, and eventually tried killing William Shatner when he came to visit.

Seriously guys, haven't any of you seen Star Trek V?

[karajorma]

It is, and so is yours (as usual). I don't recall ever making such claims tough. I said it is my personal BELIEF that I find that HUMAN INTELIGENCE is highly unlikely to have jsut happened by itself. I never staited it as a fact.

But that's just the point. It's a belief. You have no science to back it nor have bothered to look, nor have bothered to try to understand how it could have happened without divine intervention.

Which is exactly what Mefustae was complaining about.

Assuming it's incorrect. And assuming that science even has plausable guesses on all subjects.

It seems a valid assumption. There is no proof it is correct. And every other major religion has a different theory of equal validity. Better to go with the plausible guesses of science.

And if you want to claim they're implausible you have to provide evidence other than gut instinct and bible quotations for why they are implausible.

I don't see how it's more complex. I see it in fact as a simpler solution. You see it as more complex. Simplicity, especially on some subjects, isn't something that can be objectivly rated.

Don't give me that bull****. God creating the universe is absolutely the more complex of the two. Not a matter of opinion. If you take two theories, God created the big bang and the Big Bang just happened. Then you subtract everything after the big bang away (since it's the same) you're left with two things. Explaining God and how he could start the big bang or explaining how it could start itself. The latter is obviously the easier one of the two. It's not easy but since God seems to play by the rules of physics in all cases then having someone come up with a way to fake a big bang so well that it can't be detected as a fake is more complex than it simply happening for real.

Any theory involving God creating the universe must first explain where God came from. You have to explain all the complexity of God. And to do that you must get into the whole how he has always existed. Otherwise why not simply say "The universe has always existed" and be done with it?

[TrashMan]

But that's just the point. It's a belief. You have no science to back it nor have bothered to look, nor have bothered to try to understand how it could have happened without divine intervention.

Which is exactly what Mefustae was complaining about.

You two can complain all you want, I don't care. But DON'T tell me what I did or didn't do in my spare time or what I bothered to do. You have no friggin clue (as usual).
I read as much scientific artiles as you do, if not more. I found nothing that contradicts my belief and nothing that supports the contrary.

So why should I NOT belive it?

It seems a valid assumption. There is no proof it is correct. And every other major religion has a different theory of equal validity. Better to go with the plausible guesses of science.

And if you want to claim they're implausible you have to provide evidence other than gut instinct and bible quotations for why they are implausible.

Science has more than once tried several different theories about the creation of the universe.
AFAIK, no one is yet even remotely without holes, and most are redicolous enough that even if it were no God, I would rather chose the Flying Spaghetti Monster over them.

Don't give me that bull****. God creating the universe is absolutely the more complex of the two. Not a matter of opinion. If you take two theories, God created the big bang and the Big Bang just happened. Then you subtract everything after the big bang away (since it's the same) you're left with two things. Explaining God and how he could start the big bang or explaining how it could start itself. The latter is obviously the easier one of the two. It's not easy but since God seems to play by the rules of physics in all cases then having someone come up with a way to fake a big bang so well that it can't be detected as a fake is more complex than it simply happening for real.

Any theory involving God creating the universe must first explain where God came from. You have to explain all the complexity of God. And to do that you must get into the whole how he has always existed. Otherwise why not simply say "The universe has always existed" and be done with it?

I'm giving you that "bull****" and you're gonna like it young man, coause you ain't getting anything else.

God created the universe IS simple.*poof* like that. He's omnipotent, all knowing, all powerfull. There's nothing to explain...partially becosue God can't be fully explained.
Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bag. God likes to paly by hte ruels, but he created the rules. There is nothing to "fake", as those rules weren't there before.

[karajorma]

I'm giving you that "bull****" and you're gonna like it young man, coause you ain't getting anything else.

Oh dear, you really do make this too easy sometimes.    

God created the universe IS simple.*poof* like that. He's omnipotent, all knowing, all powerfull. There's nothing to explain...partially becosue God can't be fully explained.

And therefore too complex.

Simple things can be explained easily. Complex things can't. You claim that God can't ever be explained which therefore makes him infinitely complex.

Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bag.

there was no before the Big Bang. Time and space didn't exist.

God likes to paly by hte ruels, but he created the rules. There is nothing to "fake", as those rules weren't there before.

However the universe always obeys the rules of physic right up until the big bang. Even though it doesn't have to if it was created.

[Scuddie]

Wait a second...  Kara, you believe the big bang is easier to understand if it was caused by something that contradicts the laws of nature, than it is to understand it was caused by an external force?  How?

I believe in God if God believes in EVE.

[karajorma]

God contradicts the laws of nature.

And then you still need to explain why he cares about your sex life.

[TrashMan]

God created the universe IS simple.*poof* like that. He's omnipotent, all knowing, all powerfull. There's nothing to explain...partially becosue God can't be fully explained.

And therefore too complex.

Simple things can be explained easily. Complex things can't. You claim that God can't ever be explained which therefore makes him infinitely complex.

He is GOD. That is an explanation in itself. And it doens't get any simpler and easier than that.

Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bag.

there was no before the Big Bang. Time and space didn't exist.

Not as we know them anyway. So your'e saying there was nothing. There was nothing. But that contradicts the basic law of energy conserrvation. Something can't come forth from nothing.
That means something must have been there before the Big Bang.

Science is impotent when it comes to explaining this...it's becouse GOD^(TM)

However the universe always obeys the rules of physic right up until the big bang. Even though it doesn't have to if it was created.

If it's created to obey the rules then it has to. Read above. God however, doesn't. God made hte laws...he can change them at will, go around them, break them and make you think he never broke them in the first place.

[Ghostavo]

God created the universe IS simple.*poof* like that. He's omnipotent, all knowing, all powerfull. There's nothing to explain...partially becosue God can't be fully explained.

And therefore too complex.

Simple things can be explained easily. Complex things can't. You claim that God can't ever be explained which therefore makes him infinitely complex.

He is GOD. That is an explanation in itself. And it doens't get any simpler and easier than that.

You'd have to explain what is god and how he can do what he can. If you can explain the universe without a supernatural being, then you are better off without it. We don't atribute supernovas on god's cough or a kitten being killed on you masturbating (because surely god hates that). Again, Occam's razor.

Science can't explain what happened before the Big Bag.

there was no before the Big Bang. Time and space didn't exist.

Not as we know them anyway. So your'e saying there was nothing. There was nothing. But that contradicts the basic law of energy conserrvation. Something can't come forth from nothing.
That means something must have been there before the Big Bang.

Science is impotent when it comes to explaining this...it's becouse GOD^(TM)

The current laws of physics only hold up to the beginning of the universe because of the singularities involved. So it doesn't contradict anything. The current theory predicts it's own downfall.

1000 years ago it was people like you that would say that a non-religious knowledge base would be impotent to explain natural phenomena so...

However the universe always obeys the rules of physic right up until the big bang. Even though it doesn't have to if it was created.

If it's created to obey the rules then it has to. Read above. God however, doesn't. God made hte laws...he can change them at will, go around them, break them and make you think he never broke them in the first place.

And you still think god is simple? You are making all these descriptions and you still don't see how mind boggling complex those descriptions are?

[karajorma]

He is GOD. That is an explanation in itself. And it doens't get any simpler and easier than that.

Okay, it rains cause invisible giants are pissing on us. Simple right?

As long as I don't have to explain who the giants are, what they eat and drink, how they are invisible or why they like giving everyone golden showers.

You've ignored the question of what God is and claimed that a complex being can just have existed outside the universe, ignoring its rules, interacting with it at will and called that simple. It's nonsense plain and simple. God is by very definition so complex that the human mind can not understand him. If God was simple the human mind could understand him. Yet you have instead given a schizophrenic explanation about how he is simple but too complex to understand but simple but complex. And when pressed you simply shout HE'S GOD! as if that gives you carte blanche to make ridiculous statements 

God is complex. It's ludicrous to suggest anything else. Yet in order to not have to face up to Occam's Razor you simplify his creation to the level of a child's statement and claim that it is somehow valid. It's not. And it's a complete logical fallacy to claim that it is. If you disagree with the idea of Occam's Razor then disagree with it. It's only a philosophical tool anyway. But don't make nonsensical and contradictory generalisations and then use that to somehow claim that you fit the definition of the simplest explanation.


Besides as I have stated twice now the Steady State theory is actually simpler than both the Big Bang Theory and Creationism. It simply states that the universe has always existed. Since you disagree that the Big Bang could have happened without God you've already discounted most of the arguments that lead scientists to favour the Big Bang over Steady State anyway so therefore even if you don't believe in the Big Bang without divine intervention it still isn't the simplest choice.

Not as we know them anyway. So your'e saying there was nothing. There was nothing. But that contradicts the basic law of energy conserrvation. Something can't come forth from nothing.

The law of conservation of energy and mass is only a law of this universe. It would not apply to the Big Bang. Again it is foolish to apply the laws of physics that apply to this universe to a time when this universe didn't exist. The big bang created those laws of physics. They didn't exist before the universe did.

If it's created to obey the rules then it has to. Read above. God however, doesn't. God made hte laws...he can change them at will, go around them, break them and make you think he never broke them in the first place.

That's kinda my point. Doing all that is complex behaviour.

[TrashMan]

The idea of God is simple (alltough God himself is infinitly complex). One doesn't have to explain the world Omnipotent.

As soon as you say a omnipotent being created the universe, it's self-explained. In this respect, it's very simple, since details don't matter (since God doesn't necessarily follow the physical laws).

However, when you claim the universe created itself, since universe follows hte laws of physics, that has to be explained.

But allright, let's say it's not simpler. What does that prove? Nothing. Occams razor is in reality totaly worthless.

[karajorma]

No it isn't self explained any more than my invisible giants example. The idea of invisible giants is simple. But there is a lot of hidden complexity.

And like I said the universe having always existed is still a simpler explanation that avoids the need for a god to have created everything.

[Scuddie]

Do you not realize that you guys are arguing in circles?  Do you also not realize that neither of you are basing your arguments around reason, but rather absurdities?

[G0atmaster]

And I suppose you actually believe that we can never come to a conclusion about anything?  That God is unsearchable and unknowable?  That right and wrong are completely and wholly subjective?

Then sir, why live?