How about a religious debate?

[Kurtis500]

OK, this is it, last post on this moronic thread.
You are the one who turned it into a moronic thread. Thanks for the laughs.
What don't you understand? I DON"T HAVE TO BACK UP A NON BELIEF IN YOUR GOD, OR ANYONE ELSE'S!!
I have NO BELIEFS to back up.
Yes you do, you have a belief that there is no such thing as god. You just cant explain it.
Good grief man, listen to yourself, same shit over and over, and zero logic, zero proof, zero deductive reasoning.......ZERO!!!!! You want proof that you are full of shit?
Looking at your pathetic diologue, it is the other way around. You can't answer a question, and throw a fit when confronted about your atheistic views.
IF your god,
What god do I believe in again? Oh wait.. you never quit rambling on to ask...
or anyone else's has the power to create that reactor, why can't that god intervene when a sweet little 6 year old is about to be run over by a fricken car?
Finally a decent question. But you have lost your mind and wont be back so there is no need to respond.
If you think your god created the sun then you're equal to a box of rocks in the IQ rating system. Try to understand, Billion, with a B.......Look into the night sky, see those little lights? Those are stars that are far far away, so far away the light you are seeing left them millions of years ago and is just now reaching earth!! Some of those stars are gone, but we still see the light........The Hubble telescope has taken us back millions of years to see how galaxies formed, MILLIONS of years ago........Enough! If you can't see beyond the end of your nose, so be it.
So you think the universe is eternally old or it just popped into being from absolute nothingness... awww nevermind.
Don't ask me any more questions, I won't be here to answer them.
Let me re-phrase that. I wont answer any questions so I won't be back for more.
You only showed up to share an opinion you can't back-up.
Go ahead, take your ball and go home..

[Tom Brown]

So you think the universe is eternally old or it just popped into being from absolute nothingness... awww nevermind.
I'll dip my toe into your side of the argument for the sake of drama.
Current evolutionary theory seems to be that the universe exploded from a single, extremely dense, wad of matter some 13 billion years ago. Since that explosion, matter has been scattering at an accellerated pace. This matter will continue to expand causing matter density to drop and space to become cold until all life as we know it will stop.
Sounds reasonable.
So... what happened before that? http://www.***boat.com/ubb/graemlins/idea_2.gif
I think that's what it comes down to. When was the beginning of time and what happened before that?
Some have argued God to be akin to a broad definition of infinity. I think that's reasonable. Perhaps God is a way to categorize the unknowns beyond the limits of our comprehension.
At one time, the sun and the sky were Gods. As our domain of exploration broadened, these things became known to us and God became further distant but no narrower in scope.
I'd have to say, until we can figure out what happened before the beginning of time, the concept of one or more Gods seems reasonable to me.
Now... squelching research and scientific exploration because it does not agree with religious beliefs is a concept I find far less paletable.

[Kurtis500]

Current evolutionary theory seems to be that the universe exploded from a single, extremely dense, wad of matter some 13 billion years ago. Since that explosion, matter has been scattering at an accellerated pace. This matter will continue to expand causing matter density to drop and space to become cold until all life as we know it will stop.
Sounds reasonable.
From what I can tell, that is just what is taking place. It is still baffling to see the galaxies are flying apart AND accelerating at the same time. Likely that is why the science community took many years to accept it as fact. The theory was first introduced back when Hubble discovered the red-shift in light from visible galaxies as they move away.
So... what happened before that? http://www.***boat.com/ubb/graemlins/idea_2.gif
I think that's what it comes down to. When was the beginning of time and what happened before that?
That is one of the amazing points to relativity. Einsteins theory took many years (20+ I think) and countless experiments to finally be accepted as fact. Obviously much has been done with that law of physics. The strange part to contemplate is that space-time-matter are all connected and cannot exist without the other. Even stranger is that when you change one you can change the other as they are relative to each other. If this is the case and we can determine the universe had a beginning, then so did time. If time had a starting point then attempting to apply terms that are relevant to time such as; before, after, present are non-applicable. It also allows for the concept that if something brought it all into existence then that something is not confined by space, time and matter.
Some have argued God to be akin to a broad definition of infinity. I think that's reasonable. Perhaps God is a way to categorize the unknowns beyond the limits of our comprehension.
I admit it is difficult to concieve infinity. It is a term that appears to be only understood within the framework of time since it is a continuation of time with no beginning and no ending. It seems only a concept though and not possible to address it mathematically as all laws of physics are. For example, if I had an infinite amount of baseballs and I gave you 2 then I would still have an infinite amount and you would have two. If I gave you half of my infinite amount then you would also have an infinite amount and so would I. If I gave you every fourth baseball then you would still have an infinite amount of baseballs and so would I. Then if I kept 2 and gave you an infinite amount I would have 2.So the math is;
Infinity minus 2 = still equals infinity.
Infinity minus half = still infinity.
Infinity minus 1/4 = still infinity.
2 minus infinity = infinity still.
Its an absurd result and doesn't apply to science at all. It is called 'transfinite arithmatic' if I recall. Interesting stuff for sure.
At one time, the sun and the sky were Gods. As our domain of exploration broadened, these things became known to us and God became further distant but no narrower in scope.
Just recently as the 19th century people firmly believed the moon was also inhabited. It was a given. In fact, the 'Seas' of the moon i.e. "sea of Tranquility" where Apollo 11 landed was named after a place people believed really were seas. These people were normal scientists with higher educations and leaned heavily on the Copernicum principle. Percival Lowell built his observatory in Flagstaff AZ so he could see the civilizations on Mars that he knew existed. People actually believed Mars was 'peopled' before the Mariner and Viking missions which may have accounted for Orson Wells great effectiveness. Of course science has pushed back human assumptions to the point now that the Copernicum principle is not even universally accepted anymore and lifes origins are now highly illusive. I am fortunate to have some insight on Mars as my uncle is an expert in Mars geography and authored the Smithsonian book.
http://www.amazon.ca/Smithsonian-Bk-.../dp/1588340740
I'd have to say, until we can figure out what happened before the beginning of time, the concept of one or more Gods seems reasonable to me.
I agree. It baffles me that people will rule something out without exact evidence to prove the concept false. To say it is obvious there is not god and riducule those who believe shows an arrogant amount of assumptions. Many people have abandoned the biological and cosmological evolutionary theory in favor of nothing other than the determination that it isn't possible.
Now... squelching research and scientific exploration because it does not agree with religious beliefs is a concept I find far less paletable.
I like the quote I posted earlier;
"the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science" - Werner Von Braun

[Old Texan]

I agree. It baffles me that people will rule something out without exact evidence to prove the concept false. To say it is obvious there is not god and riducule those who believe shows an arrogant amount of assumptions. Many people have abandoned the biological and cosmological evolutionary theory in favor of nothing other than the determination that it isn't possible.
The other side of that coin is the number of "religious" folks that refuse to believe in the existance of life on other planets. Same with those folks views on science. It takes 2 to make an argument and neither side has any lack of membership when taking a stubborn stance on the topic of this thread.
Ideally the whole process should involve pretty much what the last 2 posts have projected, an openminded view taking into account the reality of infinity. Until the beginning and end are established everything is theory. Pretty much what Van Braun said.

[Kurtis500]

Thought I would check back in after a while...
The other side of that coin is the number of "religious" folks that refuse to believe in the existance of life on other planets.
Religious people believe in life on other planets and scientists believe there is none. Religion doesn't make the distinction. What is evident is that there is absolutely NO evidence of life anywhere else, not a single shred but only speculation and guessing. The Capernicum principle is the assumption that if there is enough planets and solar systems there IS life no matter what. With life being viewed as automatic in nature by just adding water the assumption is made for extraterrestrial life. The problem is that even with our vast intelligence in science the origin of life is nowhere to be found. Many are abandoning the Copernicum principle. Those who don't have to maintain they have nothing but assumptions to rest thier belief in.
Same with those folks views on science. It takes 2 to make an argument and neither side has any lack of membership when taking a stubborn stance on the topic of this thread.
Funny part is some believe so firmly they are right that there is no need to reconsider what they think. They already know enough. Just look a few posts up.
Ideally the whole process should involve pretty much what the last 2 posts have projected, an openminded view taking into account the reality of infinity. Until the beginning and end are established everything is theory. Pretty much what Van Braun said.
Infinity is a strange concept and is more active in philosophy than mathematics. An interesting problem is that you can never reach infinity by adding one on top of another since you would always be able to add one more. It is a problem with "traversing the infinite". More interesting stuff.

[steelcomp]

WOW! I just spent most of this morning reading this entire thread. Pretty interesting stuff.
Observations:
Man without God is man without accountability. Social morality changes like the tides...just look at our derss code of the day, and the sexual freedom we express being "morally acceptable", as compared with 50 yrs ago. Biblical morality is what it is...take it or leave it.
Scientists have proven that there was a "beginning", with more evidence than anything to support evolution. The only thing proven about evolution is that there were evolutional changes among species. A simple question I always ponder is that if we all came from the same place, why are we not all the same? Why are there carnivores, herbivores, etc?
I haven't heard the term "intelligent design" used in this "debate"
In the Bible, "death from sin" as refered to Asam's death, I believe, is referring to "spiritual death" not physical death. It's our spiritual death that is of concern. "All men die once, and then shall be judged..."
For those of you who don't believe, it's not a problem. You'll just go to hell. I hope for your sake, that's not the case, but for me, that's not a mistake I'm willing to chance.
I can't go a day without looking around me in complete amazement and awe at the wonderful works of God. A tree. A bird. The complexity of a human being, and all that is required for this system of life that we have, all so delicate and dependant on all the parts working together in such balance. Our temperature changes a few tenths of a degree over a period of decades and people start freaking out! We need so many specific, precise, exact circumstancesa to occur, and maintain, in order to exist, that IMO, there's no way in the world that this was just a cosmic coincidence, unless you want it to be, in order that you may have only yourself to answer to.
AFA instant life here on earth, well, why not? If there was a beginning, some thing or some one started it. I don't see a cosmic occurance creating life...even at the simplist cellular form. Heat, radiation, and the forces of a cosmic explosion would kill any form of life as we know it, which is all we have to refer to (our knowledge of life as we know it, even at a cellular level) A planet in it's inception would be sterile in every form of the word, in a cosmic sense. If there is a power or being capable of putting this all together, and creating this system of checks and balances we have known as "life", my guess is that "it" or "he" can pretty much do as they will, in whatever time frame they choose.
There's an awsomew book that's well worth reading for both sides of the debate. It's called "The Geneisis Connection" written by John Weister. He's an amazing guy...he wrote this book to help in an uunderstanding of what both scripture and science are saying about our origins on this earth, and to help those who believe build an abiding faith in our Creator.
This has really been an interesting thread. I'd like to compliment those keeping it on track, and to the topic. You guys have spent a lot of time and given a lot of thought to what you've said, and I've really enjoyed reading.