TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- there is no G-d? religion is bull? read this and I DARE YOU TO ARGUE :)
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »

And it is suggested that the universe ends with a "big crunch" which is pretty much the opposite of the big bang. So the universe ends by going back to one point. Once that happens another big bang takes place. Therefore, universe has no beginning or end, but has always been there.

quote:

Originally posted by surferfb And it is suggested that the universe ends with a "big crunch" which is pretty much the opposite of the big bang. So the universe ends by going back to one point. Once that happens another big bang takes place. Therefore, universe has no beginning or end, but has always been there.

That theory currentely isn't sitting pretty with most astrophysicists. They say now that there is not enough mass in the universe to halt its expansion. However, since we don't even know or understand the properties of 90% of the mass of the universe, I would be hesistant to close out that theory in its entirety.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider That theory currentely isn't sitting pretty with most astrophysicists. They say now that there is not enough mass in the universe to halt its expansion. However, since we don't even know or understand the properties of 90% of the mass of the universe, I would be hesistant to close out that theory in its entirety.

If by your 90% figure you're referring to that ambiguous dark matter stuff, I higly doubt it will be able to stop the escape velocity of matter expanding outward. Little is known about this substance, but all indications point toward infinite expansion regardless. It's just too strong for gravity to take hold, though I could be wrong (and I'm sure I am).

We arent capable yet to understand all this universe mistery.. although if one sits to think about it, to me its very scary stuff....

I thought the Big Crunch theory was thrown out upon the discovery that the rate of the expansion of the universe was actually increasing? Surely if the universe were to contract once more, we would have seen a slowing rate of acceleration after the big bang?

hey guys im posting this from the end of the universe, theres a door here, should i open it? it may be god or something out of men in black II

i wonder if the universe will countinue to expand or is there a limit?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If by your 90% figure you're referring to that ambiguous dark matter stuff, I higly doubt it will be able to stop the escape velocity of matter expanding outward. Little is known about this substance, but all indications point toward infinite expansion regardless. It's just too strong for gravity to take hold, though I could be wrong (and I'm sure I am).

Ah yes, well I can answer both your and Renegade's questions together quite convenientely. Yes I was referring to dark matter. And yes current indications are that the rate of expansion was actually increasing. Now from some lectures I attended a while ago, what's interesting is that the amount of dark matter in the universe is increasing as well. Some theorize that as the universe expands, this expansion creates more dark matter. What does that tell us? That dark matter, despite having mass, has attributes of self-repulsion! Actually, it is not so much the dark matter that exhibits attributes of self-repulsion but rather dark energy. Dark energy is a relatively new theory and in the past mass density alone would be the determinant of the fate of our universe. However, since the apparent acceleration of our universe is fueled by the role of dark energy, the fate of our universe has shifted to the role dark energy plays in controlling our acceleration. What is not known, is anything about the nature of dark energy ... whether it is something that decays or its equation of state changes, etc. Basically, could dark energy actually change its state and have properties of attraction in the future? Well, the article I was reading explains it much better:

quote:

After the introduction of inflationary theory or the very early universe by Guth (9), many theoretical cosmologists became convinced that the universe must be flat and that the total energy density must equal the value (termed the critical value) that distinguishes a positively curved, closed universe from a negatively curved, open universe. Furthermore, noting how the evidence for dark matter was growing and extrapolating from the previous decade of study, the theoretical cosmologists became attracted to the beguiling simplicity of a universe in which virtually all of the energy density consists of some form of matter, roughly 4% being the ordinary matter and 96% the dark matter. In fact, observational studies were never compliant to this vision. Although there was a wide dispersion in total mass density estimates, there never developed any convincing evidence that there was sufficient matter to reach the critical value. The discrepancy between observation and the favored theoretical model became increasingly sharp. Finally, dark energy came to the rescue (10). The only thing dark energy has in common with dark matter is that both components neither emit nor absorb light. In all other respects, they are different. Microphysically, they are composed of different constituents. Most significantly, dark matter, like ordinary matter, is gravitationally self-attractive and clusters with ordinary matter to form galaxies. Dark energy is gravitationally self-repulsive and remains nearly uniformly spread throughout the universe. Hence, a census of the energy contained in all the galaxies would miss almost all of the dark energy. So, by positing the existence of a dark energy component, it became possible to account for the 70-80% discrepancy between the measured mass density and the critical energy density predicted by inflation (11, 12, 13, 14). But the dark energy dominated models make a strong prediction � that the universe is currently accelerating, due to the gravitational self-repulsion of the dominant dark energy component. This ran contrary to the then-current best observational tests based on the brightness of distant supernovae. Then, two independent groups (15, 16) found evidence of the acceleration from observations of supernovae, and the model with a dominant dark energy component became the concordance model of cosmology. Dark energy has changed our view of the role of dark matter in the universe and our vocabulary for describing the cosmological possibilities. If this paper had been written a decade ago, before any serious consideration of dark energy, the focus would have been on the mass density. According to Einstein�s general theory of relativity, in a universe composed only of matter (particles and radiation), it is the mass density that determines the geometry, the past history and the future evolution of the universe. For example, if the mass density exceeds the critical value, the self-gravity of the matter would cause the current expansion to eventually halt and reverse and, also, space would be positively curved. If the mass density is right at the critical value, space is flat (Euclidean) and the universe expands forever. Hence, the structure and fate of the universe would rest on the value of the ordinary plus dark matter density. With the addition of a new component, the story is totally different. First, what determines the geometry of the universe is whether the total energy density equals the critical value, where now we add to the mass contribution (identifying its energy according to E=mc2) the dark energy contribution. Second, the period of matter domination has given way to dark energy domination. So, the important cosmological role of dark matter is in the past when it was the dominant contribution to the energy density, roughly the first few billion years. Our future is determined by the nature of the dark energy, which is sufficient to cause the current expansion of the universe to accelerate, and the acceleration will continue unless the dark energy should decay or change its equation of state.

http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/osdark.pdf

Therefore, when I say that we don't even know what 90% or whatever of the mass of the universe even IS, (or more importantly the nature of the component causing its acceleartion, aka dark energy) I'm saying that we cannot come to an absolute conclusion that the big crunch/bang theory is completely out the window.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen i wonder if the universe will countinue to expand or is there a limit?

That depends on things that are currently beyond science to comprehend.

If the universe *does* continue to expand as it's currently postulated the entirity of the cosmos will slowly experience "heat death" as matter becomes so spread out and heat so slight that nothing of consequence can actually form into meaningful shapes.

Basically you're taking x amount of matter, and spreading it more and more thinly because of the expansion of space.

As for *if* it *could* expand forever, I don't see any reason why it *couldn't*, but that doesn't mean that it will either. If the expansion is only speeding up as the current models state than the possibility of a "crunch" in the future which would culminate in yet another big bang seems to be waning unless someone can come up with a new model for why the expansion would slow, and ultimately retract.

All that said, everything is completely dependent on current models holding up, and given the extremely vast spatial/time aspect of cosmology it's very difficult to get a model that can be anything approaching 100% reliable.

Sorry to dig up a post from far back...

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Also, the Bible is something to really look and study, not just read through it, but study it. But anyways, like I said, the Bible is something one must study deeply in order to understand it, and with it pray.. if you apply what the bibles teaches to your daily life, then you should be closer to get an answer..

The thing is you must remember, the Bible has been translated several times from languages to languages over thousands of years...it must have lost something in the translation!

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Sorry to dig up a post from far back... The thing is you must remember, the Bible has been translated several times from languages to languages over thousands of years...it must have lost something in the translation!

It was written in Latin. And maybe some mixed arab languages. So there wasent many translations. Maybe to the modern times, but the originals are still there.. is not like they were written and then translated, and then translated .. and the original was lost among translations. No its not like that.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX It was written in Latin. And maybe some mixed arab languages. So there wasent many translations. Maybe to the modern times, but the originals are still there.. is not like they were written and then translated, and then translated .. and the original was lost among translations. No its not like that.

Actually I think that the bible translations were going something like this: hebrew->greek->latin->modern languages. So there were several mistakes being made. One of the more known ones was about the virgin Mary. Originally she was not a virgin, but a young woman. Then one of the translations used the word that could mean both a virgin and a young woman. From then on she became a virgin.

http://www.tashian.com/multibabel/

I hope this site will give you some perspective on to how the bible was translated

Re: Re: Re: Re: im herebro

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Strange, these are my sentiments exactly about any Creationist/IDer, minus the anti-israel part. Their inability to distinguish scientific fact and observation from their fundamental religious beliefs is all too evident. I believe that if you would like to discuss Creationism/ID topics, instead of posting a copy/paste article(s) that discusses a broad range of topics, pic a few out instead which grabs you the most and let's discuss those. Before you do, however, to savoid redundancy you might want to answer some of the refutations given to you, specifically those of probability and argument from incredulity.

you say that creationist/id'ers (what is that?) dont distinguish scientific fact and observation from their fundamental religious beliefs. I am not part of any creationist groups, so I don't know them or their beliefs.

I agree with you guys that people who pose wacked out theories against science will not hold up.

Once again I will say that Judaism, and my logical understandings go hand in hand with Science.

there was a professor here and a Kabbalist (jewish mystical master) and they were talking about quantum physics and that kind of stuff, and they were both talking about the same things, except the Kabbalist never touched a science book in his life, and the professor was just that, a science profesor and not a student of Kabbalah!!!!!!

So you see, if you can put aside all the mishmosh of religion, and focus on the fact that I am saying there is something out there that 99.9% of the people don't know about, which is a scientific valid approach to Hashem, and understand that with objectivity and logical analysis you can agree, that it is plausible.

quote:

to savoid redundancy you might want to answer some of the refutations given to you, specifically those of probability and argument from incredulity.

Yah I want to answer everything here, except I find it hard to find a valid argument sometimes in these points, it seems like like not so much a question as much as a very flaky point... Please if you don't mind, in question form if possible post what exactly you want answered in this post so far that I have missed? I am waiting for a response from a professor from what Drug_tit0 said, and I sent someone else a few points that people made, because I want to see what my teachers would say about these things. Once I get some answers from them about those things, I will write it up here, and we will discuss it.


Do you want to start a new thread in the meantime about creationism? I'd love to discuss it. But realize my view is not of the 'western believer'. I hold a unique logical view based on science and the jewish approach.

So I ask remember not to catagorize me with those guys like the 'moonies' etc...

everything I believe and hold, is based on logic and fact, so we have some common ground!!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: im herebro

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And what makes you so certain that was the beginning? Yes science can reveal what conditions were like in the universe as we know it, up until a fraction of a second after the big bang, however we have no idea of what preceded the big bang itself. For all we know, the big bang originated from a chicken.

that is not logical, and therefore not plausible.

I hold that anything in reality must be logical, things don't happen for a no reason, the fact that universe was created alone must signify some reason. Think about it and don't throw off the idea. How can a universe just come into being at one point. Because we know that with the creation, also the dimension of TIME was created, meaning before the starting of the big bang, there was no time. Therefore what was there?

I hold that Hashem was just there, there was no seperation of any forces, and everything was just ONE. (like the buddhists think).

Hashem wanted to create a situation where there was a concealment of the truth of His existence, and therefore created the universe, in a way that we could look at the world and think it was natural and had no creator. That is the whole story of Abraham. He went out and realized that there is not just chaos in the world, but order, and the order ultimately has a creator, not who was created, but JUST CREATED.

This understanding enabled Abraham, on his own, using his OWN BRAIN, through LOGIC and not believing some guy that says "believe it or die!" to come to the realization that there is a supreme being, without beginning nor end. This is Hashem.

quote:

Originally posted by surferfb And it is suggested that the universe ends with a "big crunch" which is pretty much the opposite of the big bang. So the universe ends by going back to one point. Once that happens another big bang takes place. Therefore, universe has no beginning or end, but has always been there.

ok so lets use logic here.

this theory is based on the 2 things.
1 that the universe expanded initially, and will eventually contract.
2 this process has been occuring forever.

ok so i got 1 question. Where is the proof that this has been occuring forever?

even more questions... what started this process, and why would it work like this? randomly for no reason forever this wierd contracting universe has been there just expanding and contracting? Is there more universes that do this?

what about a mirror effect? I mean, if this universe contracts and expands, could it be that there is an equal process hapening on the other side of this contraction expansion that does the same thing?

this can go on forever. So for now lets assume that this theory is just that, and it is as valid as the other theories.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX We arent capable yet to understand all this universe mistery.. although if one sits to think about it, to me its very scary stuff....

yes it is. Its even more scary that we can realize that we know so little about the universe, yet we think we can disprove and throw out the idea that there is a creator of the universe, even when we know SO LITTLE ABOUT IT.

how can judge about the existence of a supreme being, when we can barely touch upon the understandings of His creations!

Someone once said, G0d doesn't exist! I can't see him therefore HE doesn't exist! Show me him! A wiseman came to him and said, look at the sun for a minute. The man said, are you crazy? I will go blind if I look at the power of the sun for a minute! And the wiseman said, you are not even able to look at a mere creation of G0d and you expect to be able to see HIM???

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ah yes, well I can answer both your and Renegade's questions together quite convenientely. Yes I was referring to dark matter. And yes current indications are that the rate of expansion was actually increasing. Now from some lectures I attended a while ago, what's interesting is that the amount of dark matter in the universe is increasing as well. Some theorize that as the universe expands, this expansion creates more dark matter. What does that tell us? That dark matter, despite having mass, has attributes of self-repulsion! Actually, it is not so much the dark matter that exhibits attributes of self-repulsion but rather dark energy. Dark energy is a relatively new theory and in the past mass density alone would be the determinant of the fate of our universe. However, since the apparent acceleration of our universe is fueled by the role of dark energy, the fate of our universe has shifted to the role dark energy plays in controlling our acceleration. What is not known, is anything about the nature of dark energy ... whether it is something that decays or its equation of state changes, etc. Basically, could dark energy actually change its state and have properties of attraction in the future? Well, the article I was reading explains it much better: http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/osdark.pdf Therefore, when I say that we don't even know what 90% or whatever of the mass of the universe even IS, (or more importantly the nature of the component causing its acceleartion, aka dark energy) I'm saying that we cannot come to an absolute conclusion that the big crunch/bang theory is completely out the window.

crazy stuff!!!! I love Science!!!!

yes

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Sorry to dig up a post from far back... The thing is you must remember, the Bible has been translated several times from languages to languages over thousands of years...it must have lost something in the translation!

yes it is true, the translations have lost a lot of truth. This is actually how the christian missionaries convert people, is through the mis-translations of the real text. For instance, I have heard that somewhere they say there is proof in the original bible of Jesus, but in fact it was from the translation of a hebrew word into greek, then into latin, and then into english. Since a word in hebrew may not have an exact translation in greek, they use a similar word, and so on, resulting in a totally warped version by the time it hits english!!!!!!!!!

I have a solution for you however. The original text is written in BIBLICAL HEBREW. If you want to learn it from its un-translated text, the only way is from ORTHODOX RABBI's, or scholars in BIBLICAL HEBREW. I am personally learning now to translate from the ancient language. It is not so different from modern hebrew language.

Also I might add that the bible was not given by itself, there was an oral tradition to explain all of it given to.

If you want to say that this is not true, then in the bible it says if you break the shabbat you will be killed. Without the oral tradition we would not know that this means many different things, and that the process is so rarely leading to death that a court that sentenced 2 people to death within 70 years was called a bloody court.

Also Hashem says in the bible: "slaughter your animals in the method I have told you" but does not elucidate it further, so what is the way he told us? The way he said in the ORAL TRADITION!!

the oral tradition by the way, was almost lost due to constant persecution of the jews by the romans and greeks and babylonians, so it was written down, and is called the TALMUD today. Also the KABBALAH is part of the oral tradition, but it is seperate from the TALMUD because it is very deep and hard to understand.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Actually I think that the bible translations were going something like this: hebrew->greek->latin->modern languages. So there were several mistakes being made. One of the more known ones was about the virgin Mary. Originally she was not a virgin, but a young woman. Then one of the translations used the word that could mean both a virgin and a young woman. From then on she became a virgin.

exactly!

I am very impressed. This is what I was referring to about the missionaries citing as proof.

quote:

Originally posted by DJBARON yes it is. Its even more scary that we can realize that we know so little about the universe, yet we think we can disprove and throw out the idea that there is a creator of the universe, even when we know SO LITTLE ABOUT IT. how can judge about the existence of a supreme being, when we can barely touch upon the understandings of His creations! Someone once said, G0d doesn't exist! I can't see him therefore HE doesn't exist! Show me him! A wiseman came to him and said, look at the sun for a minute. The man said, are you crazy? I will go blind if I look at the power of the sun for a minute! And the wiseman said, you are not even able to look at a mere creation of G0d and you expect to be able to see HIM???

What I ment is that we are not ABLE or CAPABLE to say how, why and when the Universe was created and why, that only a GOD knows all of it, and us as human beens arent capable yet to understand that, not until afterdeath...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: im herebro

quote:

Originally posted by DJBARON that is not logical, and therefore not plausible. I hold that anything in reality must be logical, things don't happen for a no reason, the fact that universe was created alone must signify some reason. Think about it and don't throw off the idea. How can a universe just come into being at one point. Because we know that with the creation, also the dimension of TIME was created, meaning before the starting of the big bang, there was no time. Therefore what was there?

Once again, you are looking at time as being a two dimensional, linear entity. Try to look at it as being finite yet boundless much like space.

Stephen Hawking:

quote:

Many people hoped that quantum effects, would somehow smooth out the singularity of infinite density, and allow the universe to bounce, and continue back to a previous contracting phase. This would be rather like the earlier idea of galaxies missing each other, but the bounce would occur at a much higher density. However, I think that this is not what happens: quantum effects do not remove the singularity, and allow time to be continued back indefinitely. But it seems that quantum effects can remove the most objectionable feature, of singularities in classical General Relativity. This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there. This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead, one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe. This may be why many religious leaders, were ready to accept the Big Bang, and the singularity theorems. It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time. The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football. In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off. If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

On a side note, it's interesting to see how religion so readily embraces science with respect to the big bang theory to propogate the idea of the creator yet so casually dismisses the theory of evolution to surmise how we came into existence. If God created a perfectly working and logical universe in order to "hide" his existence, why would he come out of "hiding" to create us??? If the universe spawned from a singularity to the galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atoms, etc., why is it so difficult to believe that this perfectly logical and scientific universe created us??? I've always despised how organized religion seems to have a certain sense of arrogance about it. God created us in his image, we are his chosen people, etc.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: im herebro

quote:

Originally posted by DJBARON you say that creationist/id'ers (what is that?) dont distinguish scientific fact and observation from their fundamental religious beliefs. I am not part of any creationist groups, so I don't know them or their beliefs.

ID = Intelligent Design. It�s the latest concept that Creationists have been riding on for the last 20 years or so. Modern Creationism, more or less. The most touted IDers are Michael Behe (Darwin�s Black Box), Rev. Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution), and William Dembski (No Free Lunch). Other Creationists/IDers like Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial, and founder of Discovery Institute � www.discovery.org) and Michael Denton (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) are also noted. All of these individuals have a common goal: overturning Evolutionary Theory with their debunked Creation Science. They are even willing to overlook their own deeply contrasted beliefs. For example, Phillip Johnson (who�s a lawyer I might add, not a scientist) I think is a young earth creationist (YEC), while Behe believes many evolutionary events occur, including the evolutionary ascent of man. Yet despite these huge differences in beliefs, Johnson often refers to Behe for many of his arguments, as well as considering him a fellow researcher in his Discovery Institute.

Finally and most seriously, they are willing to overlook the basic scientific principles of the scientific method and observation to allow their steadfast religious beliefs cloud their view of evolutionary principles. In essence, their Creationism is nothing less than negative logic, with absolutely no positive evidence to support their claims. Furthermore, their �evidence� is and could never be tested (Godidit, therefore it�s true), and it cannot be falsifiable. In order for any evidence to be sound, it must meet these 3 criteria, which Creationism/ID clearly does not. Evolutionary Theory, however, continues to meet this criteria.

quote:

I agree with you guys that people who pose wacked out theories against science will not hold up.

I�m glad we agree on this.

quote:

Once again I will say that Judaism, and my logical understandings go hand in hand with Science.

Please clarify.

quote:

So you see, if you can put aside all the mishmosh of religion, and focus on the fact that I am saying there is something out there that 99.9% of the people don't know about, which is a scientific valid approach to Hashem, and understand that with objectivity and logical analysis you can agree, that it is plausible.

Again, please clarify this scientific valid approach to Hashem so that I may understand better. Furthermore, is it positive evidence? Testable? Falsifiable?

quote:

Yah I want to answer everything here, except I find it hard to find a valid argument sometimes in these points, it seems like like not so much a question as much as a very flaky point... Please if you don't mind, in question form if possible post what exactly you want answered in this post so far that I have missed?

I believe you are beginning a dodge here. There have been a number of people here that have given you the same valid arguments against your points, including myself. More specifically, the probability argument you originally posted to create this thread, which has been given valid refutations against. I reiterate - I have not seen a response from you yet in regards to these refutations. As Spin Doctor had said earlier, �just because something is highly IMPROBABLE, it does not mean it is IMPOSSIBLE�. People like Denton and Shapiro make seemingly plausible arguments against evolutionary pathways to the lay person, but to an evolutionary biologist their arguments are straw men. A more touted arguer, William Dembski, utilizes his mathematical expertise to show such improbabilities are so incredibly unrealistic.

What�s revealed, however, is that many of these folks don�t have a very clear understanding of Evolutionary processes. They tend to view evolution in a more linear fashion, which is an extremely elementary and unrealistic view. As a result, they contrive counterarguments based on this improbability, of which their counterarguments have no positive, testable, and falsifiable elements of truth. In Dembski�s case, he essentially used the wrong mathematical formula in his attempts to invalidate evolutionary chance.

As I stated earlier, what�s often used is the Posterior Probability Fallacy: The probability of an event occurring, after it has already occurred, is exactly 100%. Just because a given event has occurred in a certain way doesn't mean it couldn't have been just as successfully configured in a bazillion other possible ways. Furthermore, this probability argument Creationist/IDers use is nothing more than the logical fallacy known as Argument from Incredulity (It is soooooo unlikely to happen, therefore godidit).

As yet another example for you, let�s consider the YEC view of life and consider the probability of your own existence. Suppose the Earth is as young as many creationists say it is, about 5000 years old. What then is the probability that you would have been born? Let's generously assume that the average length of a generation over the last 5000 years has been 30 years. Let's also assume, very generously, that the average probability of an individual living long enough to have children and then to actually have them is 95%. The probability that all of your great-great-grandfathers and great-great-grandmothers survived and had children leading to you (or to anyone) would then be about 1 in 25 million! Somehow we all won the lottery. Now suppose you aren�t a YEC, but believe the earth is much older, say hundreds of thousands, or perhaps (gasp) billions of years. Given this scenario, the probability of your very existence is exponentially unbelievably humongous! But yet, here you are. So no matter what you believe in in terms of how old the planet is, your very existence, by playing with probabilities, shouldn�t be possible. You see how easily it is to debunk such logic? This is flawed logic being used over and over by Creationists.

quote:

I am waiting for a response from a professor from what Drug_tit0 said, and I sent someone else a few points that people made, because I want to see what my teachers would say about these things. Once I get some answers from them about those things, I will write it up here, and we will discuss it..

I anticipate those answers.

quote:

Do you want to start a new thread in the meantime about creationism? I'd love to discuss it. But realize my view is not of the 'western believer'. I hold a unique logical view based on science and the jewish approach.

The ball�s in your court. I�m game if you decide to do so. I am curious about your beliefs and would like you to expound on them further.

quote:

So I ask remember not to catagorize me with those guys like the 'moonies' etc...

Fair enough, but it might do you more credit not to cite these �moonies� and dare anyone to refute them, which was easily done. The fact that you were not aware of what �ID� stood for earlier indicates to me that you�re not as knowledgeable in this particular area, and that someone might be more or less spoon feeding you Creationist propaganda to serve their specific religious purposes to steadfast beliefs. It is quite common to the unknowing to fall into this trap and believe Creationist propaganda. But a little bit of knowledge and education in evolution and perhaps a little lurking onto certain internet forums in Creationism/Evolution debates can give you a great deal more understanding on the flaws of Creationist arguments. As stated earlier, they really are the same arguments being regurgitated and passed on for generations.

quote:

everything I believe and hold, is based on logic and fact, so we have some common ground!!!

I have my doubts, but I�m willing to listen.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: im herebro

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 As yet another example for you, let�s consider the YEC view of life and consider the probability of your own existence. Suppose the Earth is as young as many creationists say it is, about 5000 years old. What then is the probability that you would have been born? Let's generously assume that the average length of a generation over the last 5000 years has been 30 years. Let's also assume, very generously, that the average probability of an individual living long enough to have children and then to actually have them is 95%. The probability that all of your great-great-grandfathers and great-great-grandmothers survived and had children leading to you (or to anyone) would then be about 1 in 25 million! Somehow we all won the lottery. Now suppose you aren�t a YEC, but believe the earth is much older, say hundreds of thousands, or perhaps (gasp) billions of years. Given this scenario, the probability of your very existence is exponentially unbelievably humongous! But yet, here you are. So no matter what you believe in in terms of how old the planet is, your very existence, by playing with probabilities, shouldn�t be possible. You see how easily it is to debunk such logic? This is flawed logic being used over and over by Creationists.

You're right! It's so exceedingly improbable that events lead to my existence ... therefore I'm pretty sure I don't exist!

Hehe good one.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: im herebro

quote:

Originally posted by occrider On a side note, it's interesting to see how religion so readily embraces science with respect to the big bang theory to propogate the idea of the creator yet so casually dismisses the theory of evolution to surmise how we came into existence. If God created a perfectly working and logical universe in order to "hide" his existence, why would he come out of "hiding" to create us??? If the universe spawned from a singularity to the galaxies, stars, planets, molecules, atoms, etc., why is it so difficult to believe that this perfectly logical and scientific universe created us??? I've always despised how organized religion seems to have a certain sense of arrogance about it. God created us in his image, we are his chosen people, etc.

- Well, when once we both die, ( talking from a I believe in god point of view ).. I'll remind you of this day when you posted this questions on TA.. and ask god himself, but IM sure he'll just answer them with us not even asking, .. so try to be good boy and dont go to hell

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: im herebro

quote:

Originally posted by DJBARON that is not logical, and therefore not plausible. I hold that anything in reality must be logical, things don't happen for a no reason, the fact that universe was created alone must signify some reason.

Allow me to play Parmenides' advocate here for a brief moment, merely for the sake of philosophical banter, and ask how you can presume to know that the universe was created, or even began for that matter?

You're presupposing linear time, which is a common perception, but far from the only one.

Logic can make *many* implausible things plausible if you give it a chance.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.