Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: 'THE GOD THEORY'

  1. #1 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    This is the last place i thought i'd be starting a topic.

    It really annoys me when theists say that because we have no evidence of the Big Bang and what caused it, it also annoys me when they say "it's only a theory" and that "God created the Universe and that's that" i have decided to put my foot down with 'THE GOD THEORY'

    The dictionary has this to say about theory "supposition to explain groups of phenomenon" now all you theists, have a think. God hasn't been proven to exist (just like the big bang), We have no tangible evidence for God (unlike the big bang which does have a bit of evidence). and now here is the sinch, theists say that the big bang can't be true because where did the mass and energy come from (this bit i like), well that can be thrown right back in your faces, WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?


    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Oh, thats EASY !! Didnt you know ?? On the seventh day God made man and on the eighth day man returned the favour :wink:


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    It really annoys me when theists say that because we have no evidence of the Big Bang and what caused it, it also annoys me when they say "it's only a theory" and that "God created the Universe and that's that" i have decided to put my foot down with 'THE GOD THEORY'
    You also hear them saying there is no evidence for evolution. In either case I think we can say that they have no idea what constitutes evidence let alone a scientific investigation. The big bang may be only a theory, but it is a scientific theory and that is a lot more than we can say about the idea of God creating the universe.

    Don't get me wrong. I happen to believe that God created the universe. But I am also a scientist and so I know what constitutes a valid scientific hypothesis (let alone a theory) and what does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    The dictionary has this to say about theory "supposition to explain groups of phenomenon" now all you theists, have a think. God hasn't been proven to exist (just like the big bang), We have no tangible evidence for God (unlike the big bang which does have a bit of evidence). and now here is the sinch, theists say that the big bang can't be true because where did the mass and energy come from (this bit i like), well that can be thrown right back in your faces, WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?
    If a theist had a brain in his head He would think that the big bang theory was terrific, for this is a scientific theory that is far more compatable with the idea of creation than previous scientific ideas. I am afraid that the theists you are speaking to really have very little understand of (or care) what science is all about. The truth is that you and these theists only think that you are speaking the same language, and so you are really wasting your time talking at all.

    God will not hack it as any part of any scientific theory because God is basically unknowable and therefore explains nothing at all - at least not in any way that is of any use to science (no help in predicting the results of measurements).
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    It really annoys me when theists say that because we have no evidence of the Big Bang and what caused it, it also annoys me when they say "it's only a theory" and that "God created the Universe and that's that" i have decided to put my foot down with 'THE GOD THEORY'
    You also hear them saying there is no evidence for evolution. In either case I think we can say that they have no idea what constitutes evidence let alone a scientific investigation. The big bang may be only a theory, but it is a scientific theory and that is a lot more than we can say about the idea of God creating the universe.

    Don't get me wrong. I happen to believe that God created the universe. But I am also a scientist and so I know what constitutes a valid scientific hypothesis (let alone a theory) and what does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    The dictionary has this to say about theory "supposition to explain groups of phenomenon" now all you theists, have a think. God hasn't been proven to exist (just like the big bang), We have no tangible evidence for God (unlike the big bang which does have a bit of evidence). and now here is the sinch, theists say that the big bang can't be true because where did the mass and energy come from (this bit i like), well that can be thrown right back in your faces, WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?
    If a theist had a brain in his head He would think that the big bang theory was terrific, for this is a scientific theory that is far more compatable with the idea of creation than previous scientific ideas. I am afraid that the theists you are speaking to really have very little understand of (or care) what science is all about. The truth is that you and these theists only think that you are speaking the same language, and so you are really wasting your time talking at all.

    God will not hack it as any part of any scientific theory because God is basically unknowable and therefore explains nothing at all - at least not in any way that is of any use to science.
    You wouldn't happen to be a Mormon, would you ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    You wouldn't happen to be a Mormon, would you ?
    Nope and none of my family either.

    Unless you are a Christian like myself with some regard for the Bible and the results of the eccumenical councils of the the fourth century AD, there is not much reason to see a whole lot of difference between the Mormons and others who call themselves Christian. I don't like the Mormon approach to Christianity for according to their missionaries it seems to be all about the passing of apostolic authority from God to man - heh heh - a lot like the Catholics (RC and EO both).

    Of course the Mormons have perhaps generated some hostility in some locations with the door to door activities of their missionaries. But they really are a tremendous improvement over the Jehova Witnesses, whose door to door activities are even more aggressive and obnoxious. It is true that the JWs take the Bible a great deal more seriously than do the Mormons (who have their own books), but their (the JW's) doctrine that all other religions and denominations are inspired by the devil is the most intolerant and exclusivist of any religion I have ever heard of.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    As far for the matter and energy, matter can be created and destroyed so is energy. and it happen every where all the time. and the energy now after big bang is equal to the energy before big bang, assuming we had nothing before.

    We do know big bang happened, what we dont know is what caused it


    Mod edit: Off topic, this is religion not cosmology.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Mod edit: Off topic, this is religion not cosmology.
    Not when it is compared to "God created the Universe", which can never be considered a scientific theory and therefore this comparison is not a part of the topic of cosmology but religion (or at least metaphysics in any case).

    Zelos' post was quite relevant to the this comparison. For his first statement is saying in response to

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    theists say that the big bang can't be true because where did the mass and energy come from (this bit i like)
    that where the energy came from has nothing to do with the big bang theory, which is a theory about how this energy came to be in the form it is in.

    His final statement then refocuses the issue from an imagined conflict between the big bang theory and creation by God to the question of the cause of the big bang. It is quite possible (even likely) that scientific methods will never be able to answer such a question, and we will be left with the suppositions of physicsts (like Steven Hawkings) that it was some kind of quantum fluctuation, and the supposition of theists that it was an act of God. The first is metaphysics rather than science and so neither are really a proper part of the questions of the science of cosmology.

    Furthermore I can dive into my metaphysics which claims that there is a plentiful supply of non-physical energy (i.e. outside the mathematical laws of physics) which could have supplied the energy for the big bang, as well as non-physical forms of energy (spirits) which could have supplied the "first cause" for this event. See...... no science or cosmology in these ideas at all.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Nope and none of my family either. In fact, believe it or not, Utah is neither the state with the most Mormons (California) nor the state with the highest percentage of Mormons (Idaho).

    ?.......Uh.....wait a minute.....?


    That quote doesn't make much sense.

    It might be a good idea to read that one over again and perhaps rephrase it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolt
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Nope and none of my family either. In fact, believe it or not, Utah is neither the state with the most Mormons (California) nor the state with the highest percentage of Mormons (Idaho).

    ?.......Uh.....wait a minute.....?


    That quote doesn't make much sense.

    It might be a good idea to read that one over again and perhaps rephrase it.
    California could have more Mormons than any other state largely as a result of its rather high population, so that even a low percentage of Mormons in California would amount to more Mormons than any other state. Idaho on the other hand has a low total population - about half what Utah has, so even less Mormons than you find in Utah could still give you a higher percentage of the total population.

    That is it would make sense if in fact it were true. However in an attempt to verify this, the information I found on the internet contradicts this rather than confirms it. In 1990 the percentage of Mormons in Idaho was only 27% compared to 72% in Utah. The total number of Mormons in California was only 533,741 which is less than half the total in Utah which was 1,236,242. In the capitol city, Salt Lake City, just under half the population is Mormon, but in many of the smaller town over 90% of the population is Mormon. What baffles me, is where I got my misinformation, which I have mistakenly believed for quite a long time.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    Oh, okay. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    God theory is the lazy man's way of solving puzzle. Where does the universe come from? God made it. Where does God come from? He exist everywhere, everywhen.
    What else you do not know? I can tell you the answer: God is the cause.

    But if someone answers anything other than God, he has to use his intelligence to explain a whole lot more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    It really annoys me when theists say that because we have no evidence of the Big Bang and what caused it,...
    But many reputable scientists question the validity of the Big Bang. True, they are in a minority, but some suggest this is because the Big Bang has become dogma in the science community. As such it cannot be debated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    We have no tangible evidence for God (unlike the big bang which does have a bit of evidence).?
    Here is tangible evidence:
    1) The Universe
    2) The magnitude of the fine structure constant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    We have no tangible evidence for God (unlike the big bang which does have a bit of evidence).?
    Here is tangible evidence:
    1) The Universe
    2) The magnitude of the fine structure constant
    Ok then.
    Number 1) link it to god,
    2) what the hell has the magnitude got to do with anything? you stick 10 mls of petrol with a match and it goes up in flames. You get a gallon of petrol an it still goes up in flames. It's a matter of scale not god
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    We have no tangible evidence for God (unlike the big bang which does have a bit of evidence).?
    Here is tangible evidence:
    1) The Universe
    2) The magnitude of the fine structure constant
    What do you mean by the fine structure constant?

    Are you insinuating that because alpha =1/137 this implies evidence for God?

    1/137 is just an approximation. It really is more like 1/137.0359895....

    Cheers,
    william
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    You wouldn't happen to be a Mormon, would you ?
    Nope and none of my family either.

    Unless you are a Christian like myself with some regard for the Bible and the results of the eccumenical councils of the the fourth century AD, there is not much reason to see a whole lot of difference between the Mormons and others who call themselves Christian. I don't like the Mormon approach to Christianity for according to their missionaries it seems to be all about the passing of apostolic authority from God to man - heh heh - a lot like the Catholics (RC and EO both).

    Of course the Mormons have perhaps generated some hostility in some locations with the door to door activities of their missionaries. But they really are a tremendous improvement over the Jehova Witnesses, whose door to door activities are even more aggressive and obnoxious. It is true that the JWs take the Bible a great deal more seriously than do the Mormons (who have their own books), but their (the JW's) doctrine that all other religions and denominations are inspired by the devil is the most intolerant and exclusivist of any religion I have ever heard of.
    Not at all, my family is catholic, I believe in well......thats a secret
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    True Path said: Here is tangible evidence:
    1) The Universe
    2) The magnitude of the fine structure constant

    Ok then.
    Number 1) link it to god,
    I think Plato, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas did this much more effectively than I could.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    2) what the hell has the magnitude got to do with anything? you stick 10 mls of petrol with a match and it goes up in flames. You get a gallon of petrol an it still goes up in flames. It's a matter of scale not god
    Quote Originally Posted by William
    Are you insinuating that because alpha =1/137 this implies evidence for God?
    I am not insinuating anything. I am stating it very clearly. If the fine structure constant varies by 4% from its current value, carbon would not be produced in stellar interiors. Carbon based life would not exist. We would not exist. That is clear evidence that something interesting may be going on.

    Don't you think you guys ought to know a few basics like that if you aree going to argue the case you appear to be trying to argue?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: 'THE GOD THEORY' 
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    I am not insinuating anything. I am stating it very clearly. If the fine structure constant varies by 4% from its current value, carbon would not be produced in stellar interiors. Carbon based life would not exist. We would not exist. That is clear evidence that something interesting may be going on.
    It is not clear evidence, that is the biggest pile of HS i have ever heared, just because the odds of something happening are 4/100 dosn't mean that some random devine being has taken a hand in it. Even though the odds are 1/25 dosn't make it impossible and in no way does it signify the exixtance of a mystical being
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I am not insinuating anything. I am stating it very clearly. If the fine structure constant varies by 4% from its current value, carbon would not be produced in stellar interiors. Carbon based life would not exist. We would not exist. That is clear evidence that something interesting may be going on.
    not really it means just that if it hadnt been like it is we wouldnt be here to think its strange that its so fine tuned
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    TruePath said

    Here is tangible evidence:
    1) The Universe
    2) The magnitude of the fine structure constant
    As I said earlier, it is very easy to attribute any puzzle as the work of God. God created universe because universe cannot happen by itself. God set up physical constants because the constants are too unusual to happen by themselves. But then the question of 'who created God' is not acceptable. It is concluded without clear explanation that God is the end of the line. Quite handy. No-brainer.

    Sometime not so long ago in the past, some people also said that the complexity of men, animals, plants are the evidence of God. Now they don't say that anymore, because someone has used his brain to figure it out.

    Do you also have evidence that this Great Manipulator of Physical Constants is the same entity who appeared in the form of a man fourteen billion years later, in a tiny planet of a tiny solar system in an insignificant galaxy for a very very short time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Prasit, Zelos and Nevyn: I am disappointed, though not surprised, by each of your answers. You demonstrate a singular inability to read what is written, to understand the philosphic and scientific debates that have ranged (and raged) over three millenia, or to apply the critical objectivity in assessing arguments that I understood scientists prided themselves upon.
    Let us work through this one point at a time. Do try to keep up.

    Nevyn:
    such a knee jerk reaction. Does the possibility of divine involvement in the creation of the Universe scare you so much that your critical faculties evaporate entirely?
    You said, in response to my suggestion that the magnitude of the fine structure constant was clear evidence that something interesting may be going on "It is not clear evidence, that is the biggest pile of HS i have ever heared (sic)"
    Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof? Apparently not.
    Do you understand the difference between 'something is going on' and 'something may be going on'?
    Apparently not.
    Are you even remotely aware of the questions (in regard to the remarkable fitness of the Universe to allow life to arise) raised by Henderson, almost one century ago, and echoed in more recent times by the likes of Hoyle, or Barrow and Tipler?
    Apparently not - remember Google is your friend, but a proper education might be more useful.

    You go on to say: "just because the odds of something happening are 4/100 dosn't mean that some random devine being has taken a hand in it."
    Two points here
    1) Nowhere did I state this was a random devine (sic) event. I tend to agree with Einstein - "God does not play dice".
    2) I mention a 4% change in the value of a constant that arguably could have had any value at all. Any value! And you think a 4% change represents a 4 in 100 chance. Please go away and take some elementary statistics.

    Zelos: your remark "not really it means just that if it hadnt been like it is we wouldnt be here to think its strange that its so fine tuned."
    This is actually not a bad point and one that may, on the face of it, hold some water. This is commonly known as the weak anthropic principle.
    The problem with that is it ultimately unsatisfactory as a response. Science, so I understand, sets out to learn how things work and why they are what they are. While there is doubtless great prestige in calculating the fine structure constant to ever more decimal places, the real question should be - and is - why does it have that value rather than any other.
    Since each of the six key numbers would have utterly changed the character of the Universe, making it inimicable to life, had they been just slightly different, it behoves science to answer that question 'why'.
    The WAP simply does not cut it.
    Be honest, you already knew that.

    Prasit remarks: But then the question of 'who created God' is not acceptable. It is concluded without clear explanation that God is the end of the line. Quite handy. No-brainer.
    Interesting. You feel your logic and debating skills are superior to Aristotle. That is quite a cocky position to take. Or, are you just parroting what you have been taught in the public school system, without bringing any real understanding to the subject?

    You continue - with all the prejudice the mind of man can muster - "Do you also have evidence that this Great Manipulator of Physical Constants is the same entity who appeared in the form of a man fourteen billion years later,"

    Again two points:
    A) One might like to notice that the idea of the Big Bang (conceived incidentally by a Roman Catholic priest) is coming under increasing pressure.
    b) Main point. You appear to have mistaken me for a Christian, or as someone who takes the bible literally. I'm not surprised you have made this mistake. Your critical faculties appear to be cuddling up to Nevyn's somewhere in the Arctic wastes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    TruePath wrote:
    Prasit remarks: But then the question of 'who created God' is not acceptable. It is concluded without clear explanation that God is the end of the line. Quite handy. No-brainer.
    Interesting. You feel your logic and debating skills are superior to Aristotle. That is quite a cocky position to take. Or, are you just parroting what you have been taught in the public school system, without bringing any real understanding to the subject?
    No, I have not been in a public school system. No, my school had not taught me that. And I feel I understand nature better than Aristotle as I have the advantage of access to accumulated knowledge of many great people who were born after him. Is that all you can say about this? Just insults?

    Again two points:
    A) One might like to notice that the idea of the Big Bang (conceived incidentally by a Roman Catholic priest) is coming under increasing pressure.
    b) Main point. You appear to have mistaken me for a Christian, or as someone who takes the bible literally. I'm not surprised you have made this mistake. Your critical faculties appear to be cuddling up to Nevyn's somewhere in the Arctic wastes.
    A) If you say so. Please let me know if there is a better, more convincing theory.
    B) My mistake. Earlier in another thread a member named Lucid gave the same reasoning as yours about God setting constants. He also believed that this is the same God and the Christian God, but did not give clear reason. So I hope (wrongly, it turns out) that you can elaborate more.
    From your answer, I take it that you don't believe there is any connection between the fourteen-billion-year old God and the Hindu or Islam or Christian God? Could you tell me about your beliefs?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    And I feel I understand nature better than Aristotle as I have the advantage of access to accumulated knowledge of many great people who were born after him. Is that all you can say about this? Just insults?
    Well, excellent. Perhaps you could cite which of these thinkers has refuted Aristotle's original points and summarise their arguments for us.
    You mistook me for a fundamentalist Christian. I did not accuse you of insulting me.
    I mistook you for a thoughless, parroting product of the public school system. You accuse me of insulting you.
    Interesting dichotomy, yes?
    [quote="prasit"] And I feel I understand nature better than Aristotle as I have the advantage of access to accumulated knowledge of many great people who were born after him. Is that all you can say about this? Just insults?

    A) If you say so. Please let me know if there is a better, more convincing theory.
    Thus far, apparently not, but the paradigm is looking increasingly strained. We are ready for a Kuhnian paradigm shift, or my name isn't Oswald Thunderbolt.
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    From your answer, I take it that you don't believe there is any connection between the fourteen-billion-year old God and the Hindu or Islam or Christian God?
    There are several connections. Since God is the First Cause, in Aristotelian terms, then any posited God would be connected, as a hypothesis, with the True God.
    Secondly, since life and intelligence and moral beings are all emergent properties of the Universe, they are a product of the First Cause. Hence there is a clear connection between the First Cause God and later hypothesises God's.
    Scientists routinely point out to religious fundamentalists that science is in a continuous state of change. That they approach the truth, but they can never reach it. Strange that these same scientists will not afford the same kind of asymptotic discernment of Truth by followers of religion.
    Disregard the specious, thoughtless arguments of the fundamentalists and look at the thoughtful approach to theism followed by many, including scientists, and the connections between these metaphorical Gods and the First Cause should become clearer to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    The problem with that is it ultimately unsatisfactory as a response. Science, so I understand, sets out to learn how things work and why they are what they are. While there is doubtless great prestige in calculating the fine structure constant to ever more decimal places, the real question should be - and is - why does it have that value rather than any other.
    science work is to answer how things work and what process causing it and how it can be described. telling why things work like they do is a none-objective question since it means there gotta be a reason. and the same with constants, they were sat to their values (randomly lets say it) and maybe i dont know a infinite amount of big bangs went of some of them are then bound to get life that wonders why the hell it is so perfect for life

    Since each of the six key numbers would have utterly changed the character of the Universe, making it inimicable to life, had they been just slightly different, it behoves science to answer that question 'why'
    asking why the constants are as they are is as i said before a none-neutral question it asks for a meaning that is thought to exist. the most reasonble thing is assume that it was random and we were lucky it got right
    WAP dont give a why cause a why can never be provided, if you ask why and want a "answer" go to a preist munk or what ever religius dude cause they are allowed to answer. science isnt nor will it be able to most liikly.

    A) If you say so. Please let me know if there is a better, more convincing theory.
    OH OH OH TELL ME ASWELL TELL ME

    and as for philosophy *doing evil stuff*
    its crap nothing worth gives nothing. a bit fun for time to time but of no value
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Nevyn: such a knee jerk reaction. Does the possibility of divine involvement in the creation of the Universe scare you so much that your critical faculties evaporate entirely?
    What scares me is your willingness to jump on the band waggon with the other crakpots
    You said, in response to my suggestion that the magnitude of the fine structure constant was clear evidence that something interesting may be going on "It is not clear evidence, that is the biggest pile of HS i have ever heared (sic)"
    what led me to say that was three contradictary words in your statement "clear evidence" and "may", one is a definate and the other is a possibilty
    Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?
    yes i do, show me evidence of God then
    Do you understand the difference between 'something is going on' and 'something may be going on'?
    yes, one is a possibility and the other is a definate and we have no evidence to suggest the latter when God's concerned
    Are you even remotely aware of the questions (in regard to the remarkable fitness of the Universe to allow life to arise) raised by Henderson...
    I went to your friend Google and found many interesting things such as PC's and Garage door openers and vegetarian cafe's
    ...and echoed in more recent times by the likes of Hoyle, or Barrow and Tipler?
    So what, all that means is there is a parrot in the room and they all wanted their chance at the soap box
    Apparently not - remember Google is your friend, but a proper education might be more useful.
    My education is just fine, just because it contains no "creationism" (thank God ) *pun intended*, and besides, according to you Google knows everything so why don't we call it God
    You go on to say: "just because the odds of something happening are 4/100 dosn't mean that some random devine being has taken a hand in it."
    Two points here
    1) Nowhere did I state this was a random devine (sic) event. I tend to agree with Einstein - "God does not play dice".
    2) I mention a 4% change in the value of a constant that arguably could have had any value at all. Any value! And you think a 4% change represents a 4 in 100 chance. Please go away and take some elementary statistics.
    in answer two:
    1) you said to my "Link it to God", "i think that aristotle plato..." clearly implying that you were taking the side of God
    2)I think it is you that needs to learn some statistics, percentages are just another way of showing fractions.

    please answer me this question, WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON? no seriously i am intrigued, and please tell me this, where did God come from? was it from God's God?
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Truepath wrote:
    You mistook me for a fundamentalist Christian. I did not accuse you of insulting me.
    I mistook you for a thoughless, parroting product of the public school system. You accuse me of insulting you.
    Interesting dichotomy, yes?
    I don't know that fundamentalist Christian is an insulting word. (I did not even mention the word 'fundamentalist'). But I believe you know that parroting is an insulting word.

    Secondly, since life and intelligence and moral beings are all emergent properties of the Universe, they are a product of the First Cause. Hence there is a clear connection between the First Cause God and later hypothesises God's.
    OK. Then there is a clear connection between the First Cause God and Allah and Thor and the celestial teapot and the Boogie man and the cow shit and my urine and etc, like aether permeating the space. I got it. No more question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    You know the problem with both The God Theory, and the Big Bang Theory is that they explain nothing. They merely buffer us from the question.

    If God created the universe, then whatever created God is the true original cause of our existence - so what/who did that?

    If the Big Bang started the universe, then whatever caused the Big Bang is the real cause of our existence - so what/who did that?

    You see? Neither theory gives an answer to the question of existence that's even worth the trouble of remembering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore Nanobrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas, US
    Posts
    150
    Urghh! Will the insane and pointless debates end!? Of course not! At least not until several, several, several more years of research are conducted. Or, God comes to end the madness of these conversations. Or, we all die from global warming, or whatever happens to the world, due to our focus on such infinite topics, and lack of focus on important topics in science!

    Let the religious/godly devout debate, and the science community debate seperately. And this, on topics according to the field! You all will never come to a conclusion that converts the other side with our level of intelligence in this century! Leave it alone, might I say for God's sake(pun slightly intended)!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Nanobrain
    Urghh! Will the insane and pointless debates end!? Of course not! At least not until several, several, several more years of research are conducted. Or, God comes to end the madness of these conversations. Or, we all die from global warming, or whatever happens to the world, due to our focus on such infinite topics, and lack of focus on important topics in science!

    Let the religious/godly devout debate, and the science community debate seperately. And this, on topics according to the field! You all will never come to a conclusion that converts the other side with our level of intelligence in this century! Leave it alone, might I say for God's sake(pun slightly intended)!
    No. They won't end. It's like the abortion debate. Most people know it won't end, but they continue anyway because if one side backs down, then the other side can say it won; furthermore, there are always those people who fuel the debates. For instance, if someone says: "GOD SUCKS!!! HE DOESN'T EXIST!" Naturally some religious person is going to respond, and the debates go on.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore Nanobrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas, US
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by NanoBrain
    ...pointless debates end!? Of course not!...
    I know it won't end. Just had to rant, I suppose. Hehe...I guess my frustration got the best of me. Because, I know how pointless it is for me to try to get this point across. However, it felt good to let it out anyhow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    the title of the this thread is "the god theory", which in itself is an oxymoron.
    theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

    The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition


    nothing factual has ever been produced or proven, regardimg a god. however the concept of evolution/big bang are both fact AND theory.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    1the title of the this thread is "the god theory", which in itself is an oxymoron.
    theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

    The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition


    2 however the concept of evolution/big bang are both fact AND theory.
    1. The word "theory" is WAY more loosely defined than how you suggest; for example, the ideal observer theory of ethics doesn't fall under your definition.
    2. So?
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    1the title of the this thread is "the god theory", which in itself is an oxymoron.
    theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

    The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition


    2 however the concept of evolution/big bang are both fact AND theory.
    1. The word "theory" is WAY more loosely defined than how you suggest;
    I dont thinks so, all dictionaries tend have a similar definition for example
    Theory:
    a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:

    Cambridge English Dictionary

    A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

    American Heritage

    the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

    Merriam-Webster

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    for example, the ideal observer theory of ethics doesn't fall under your definition.
    irrelevant we are discussing the possiblity of a god, not the possibility of ethics.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    2. So?
    factually based
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    1the title of the this thread is "the god theory", which in itself is an oxymoron.
    theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

    The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition


    2 however the concept of evolution/big bang are both fact AND theory.
    1. The word "theory" is WAY more loosely defined than how you suggest;
    I dont thinks so, all dictionaries tend have a similar definition for example
    Theory:
    a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:

    Cambridge English Dictionary

    A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

    American Heritage

    the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

    Merriam-Webster
    1. See bolded red text.
    2. Dictionaries give very narrow definitions. Usually if you see a word in the dictionary, you'll more than likely use it out of context if you've never seen it used before.

    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    for example, the ideal observer theory of ethics doesn't fall under your definition.
    irrelevant we are discussing the possiblity of a god, not the possibility of ethics.
    My example was to show you a theory that does not fall under the strict definitions you gave above.
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    2. So?
    factually based
    You still haven't shown how: "the concept of evolution/big bang are both fact AND theory" has any pertinence to this thread.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    1the title of the this thread is "the god theory", which in itself is an oxymoron.
    theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

    The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition


    2 however the concept of evolution/big bang are both fact AND theory.
    1. The word "theory" is WAY more loosely defined than how you suggest;
    I dont thinks so, all dictionaries tend have a similar definition for example
    Theory:
    a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:

    Cambridge English Dictionary

    A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

    American Heritage

    the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

    Merriam-Webster
    1. See bolded red text.
    well of course, an opinion or explanation of a fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    2. Dictionaries give very narrow definitions. Usually if you see a word in the dictionary, you'll more than likely use it out of context if you've never seen it used before.
    I dont thinks so thats why we have dictionary defintions, and yes, we can make up our own meanings, but the dictionaries are there, to do away with that kind of confusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    for example, the ideal observer theory of ethics doesn't fall under your definition.
    irrelevant we are discussing the possiblity of a god, not the possibility of ethics.
    My example was to show you a theory that does not fall under the strict definitions you gave above.
    still irrelevant, and it does fall under the strict definitions I gave above.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    2. So?
    factually based
    You still haven't shown how: "the concept of evolution/big bang are both fact AND theory" has any pertinence to this thread.
    It probably doesn't, it was mentioned in several previous post in this thread.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •