So who is rolling the dice? If no one is that’s like waiting for 6 to come up 100 times while the die is sitting motionless in a drawer.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Do you believe that by sheer random chance and the act of nothing or no one, some huge balls of gas poofed into existence out of nothing, collided, created the universe, created the fundamental laws of existence and matter, formed the earth, and spontaneously generated life and eventually consciousness?
It may have happened that way, but I doubt it was random. I find it hard to comprehend that we exist randomly, but then again, I doubt I can comprehend the extent of the universe.
I also find it hilarious that people can be “open-minded” right until someone says “well, couldn’t the Bible be wrong?”
Did it ever occur to you that major religions have a vested interest in keeping the masses under their control? We’re just not smart enough to comprehend existence. Wait until the human race is a bit smarter before going there.
Just as an aside, I don’t see anything wrong with the underlying morals of what Jesus preached and the majority of the New Testament, it’s just when people take things LITERALLY that the old BS meter goes off.[/quote]
I have no problem with discussion and am open to exploring new ideas. What I am not open to is someone attacking and insulting me and my beliefs because he doesn’t agree with some the tenants of my faith.
I personally don’t completely agree with everything in the Bible being taken literally. I do think the lessons are perfect. I think it is strange that Christians can be so engraved with the dogma Genesis is word for word literal and then say that revaluations is merely symbolic.
I think God provides us with all the information we NEED in the Bible and nothing more. Kind of a need to know basis. I think Christians are under the mistaken impression that the Bible contains ALL knowledge rather than just what we need.
If you have a child that won’t eat his vegetables, what would you tell him? Would you try to explain the effects of fiber and anti-oxidants on a cellular level? Or maybe tell him it will make him grow up big and strong? Is the latter lying to the child?
Is evolution real? good chance, I don’t know for sure. But just because the Bible doesn’t mention it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, just that it’s not spiritually critical for us to know.
Christ…If ever someone needed proof that intelligent design is just creationism through the back door the bible study this thread has degenerated into would be it.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
Christ…If ever someone needed proof that intelligent design is just creationism through the back door the bible study this thread has degenerated into would be it.[/quote]
What I find funny is it is the ones who are proponents of evolution that are turning it into a bible study, asking us specific questions about the bible.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I was talking about how you know what Paul meant regardless of what the book actually says.[/quote]
How is it logical that Paul would be condemning people that have never physically heard the sound of a prophet’s voice? Is it not blatantly obvious that he was condemning those that refuse to consider the meaning of a prophet’s message?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Jesus said he comes with a sword as a divider. [/quote]
Nice way to cherry pick a single statement, while ignoring the fundamental tenet of every sermon he gave.
Just goes to show that “Christianity” can be, and has been, used to justify any atrocity if you are selective and creative enough in your interpretation.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I feel that observable science suggests God’s input in the creation of the universe. There is no observable system that when at steady state, and void of all action suddenly changes into action without some input. Something had to be introduced to the system by something outside of it to. [/quote]
I was hoping you would answer my questions, but since you finally admitted you don’t take everything in the bible as literally true, I suppose that will have to do and I’ll respond to your question to me.
No, I don’t believe something was created from nothing. The law of conservation states that energy and matter have always existed.
On randomness, it is a little more complex. Quantum physics suggests the presence of true randomness in the universe, but that could simply reflect ignorance of the underlying mechanisms on our part.
I do believe laws governing the nature of the universe exist, which have always existed just as matter and energy have always existed.
Neither the presence of energy/matter nor the existence of laws implies intelligent design. I know the trite claim that “Laws prove the existence of a Lawgiver!”, but that is flawed logic. Laws simply reflect the way things are, and they are as eternal as energy and matter.
Furthermore, the claim that a divine being created the universe begs the question:
“Who then created the divine being?”
The common response is that the divine being has always existed.
But how probable is it that a supernatural, all knowing, all-powerful entity has always existed vs. the probability that matter/energy and fundamental laws have always existed? The former is a more complex claim, and the law of parsimony/Occam’s Razor requires going with the simpler and more probable claim.
Does this mean “god” is an impossibility? No, but it means “god” is not as likely as the possibility that there is no “god”.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I was talking about how you know what Paul meant regardless of what the book actually says.
How is it logical that Paul would be condemning people that have never physically heard the sound of a prophet’s voice? Is it not blatantly obvious that he was condemning those that refuse to consider the meaning of a prophet’s message?[/quote]
Maybe he was condemning people exposed to the word who deny hearing it. in that sense it doesn’t matter what tense is used. However, I don’t pretend to know why he chose to put it that way, but it doesn’t make it inherently illogical.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Jesus said he comes with a sword as a divider.
Nice way to cherry pick a single statement, while ignoring the fundamental tenet of every sermon he gave.
Just goes to show that “Christianity” can be, and has been, used to justify any atrocity if you are selective and creative enough in your interpretation.
[/quote]
I was just saying that even Jesus wasn’t always peaceful as many people try to say. Further, that he states that his message will ultimately divide people.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Maybe he was condemning people exposed to the word who deny hearing it. in that sense it doesn’t matter what tense is used. However, I don’t pretend to know why he chose to put it that way, but it doesn’t make it inherently illogical.[/quote]
Come on, do you not see how you are convoluting the scripture exactly as I have been talking about?
[b]For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.[/b]
Paul didn’t mention people who deny hearing the words of the prophet. He specifically condemned people who “will not hear that prophet”.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that, and Paul used the genetive case.
Sorry, but your explanation for the blatant contradiction between Paul’s accounts of his visitation by Jesus doesn’t hold up.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I feel that observable science suggests God’s input in the creation of the universe. There is no observable system that when at steady state, and void of all action suddenly changes into action without some input. Something had to be introduced to the system by something outside of it to.
I was hoping you would answer my questions, but since you finally admitted you don’t take everything in the bible as literally true, I suppose that will have to do and I’ll respond to your question to me.
No, I don’t believe something was created from nothing. The law of conservation states that energy and matter have always existed.
On randomness, it is a little more complex. Quantum physics suggests the presence of true randomness in the universe, but that could simply reflect ignorance of the underlying mechanisms on our part.
I do believe laws governing the nature of the universe exist, which have always existed just as matter and energy have always existed.
Neither the presence of energy/matter nor the existence of laws implies intelligent design. I know the trite claim that “Laws prove the existence of a Lawgiver!”, but that is flawed logic. Laws simply reflect the way things are, and they are as eternal as energy and matter.
Furthermore, the claim that a divine being created the universe begs the question:
“Who then created the divine being?”
The common response is that the divine being has always existed.
But how probable is it that a supernatural, all knowing, all-powerful entity has always existed vs. the probability that matter/energy and fundamental laws have always existed? The former is a more complex claim, and the law of parsimony/Occam’s Razor requires going with the simpler and more probable claim.
Does this mean “god” is an impossibility? No, but it means “god” is not as likely as the possibility that there is no “god”.[/quote]
Yes, and the law of conservation was violated by atomic energy and hence re-written. It won’t be re-written ever again?
You also don’t ever answer the real question proposed on existence. Why? Why are there laws that govern motion, electricity, and photons? Why does the universe exist? How does it exist? You only answered “because it always has”.
If you see an asteroid flying through space, do you think well, it must have always been that way. Or do you think, some force I cannot currently observe set it in motion?
As for the inherent randomness in quantum, it’s not a lack of understand that facilitates it, but our current understanding. The way particles are understood the system itself creates randomness.
I also think that there being a higher power responsible for existence is a simpler explanation than trying to grasp at infinity which in the end doesn’t answer any of the original questions anyway.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, and the law of conservation was violated by atomic energy and hence re-written.[/quote]
How was the law of conservation violated by atomic energy? Are you suggesting energy was created out of nothing?
Why does there have to a purpose, outside the existence itself? Why are you assuming this must be the case and denying the possibility that the universe has no inherent purpose beyond its own reality?
Either it has always been in motion, or some object set it in motion by virtue of being in motion itself. Again, why are you not considering the possibility that the universe has always had matter and energy? Why are you only considering the possibility of a dead, inert universe?
Isn’t that what I just said? Quantum physics suggests that true randomness exists, but what appears as randomness could be masked by our ignorance of particles at the subatomic level. My personal opinion is that randomness does exist, what about you?
[quote]I also think that there being a higher power responsible for existence is a simpler explanation than trying to grasp at infinity which in the end doesn’t answer any of the original questions anyway.
[/quote]
How is it a simpler explanation, when you are invoking the highest form of order and complexity in a vacuum of nothingness? The idea of a supernatural, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent being is the ultimately complex assumption, and hence the most improbable.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Maybe he was condemning people exposed to the word who deny hearing it. in that sense it doesn’t matter what tense is used. However, I don’t pretend to know why he chose to put it that way, but it doesn’t make it inherently illogical.
Come on, do you not see how you are convoluting the scripture exactly as I have been talking about?
[b]For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.[/b]
Paul didn’t mention people who deny hearing the words of the prophet. He specifically condemned people who “will not hear that prophet”.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that, and Paul used the genetive case.
Sorry, but your explanation for the blatant contradiction between Paul’s accounts of his visitation by Jesus doesn’t hold up.[/quote]
Hmm… people who will not … sounds like ones who refuse to me. but I’m no bible scholar, just sounds like common sense.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, and the law of conservation was violated by atomic energy and hence re-written.
How was the law of conservation violated by atomic energy? Are you suggesting energy was created out of nothing?
You also don’t ever answer the real question proposed on existence. Why? Why are there laws that govern motion, electricity, and photons? Why does the universe exist? How does it exist? You only answered “because it always has”.
Why does there have to a purpose, outside the existence itself? Why are you assuming this must be the case and denying the possibility that the universe has no inherent purpose beyond its own reality?
If you see an asteroid flying through space, do you think well, it must have always been that way. Or do you think, some force I cannot currently observe set it in motion?
Either it has always been in motion, or some object set it in motion by virtue of being in motion itself. Again, why are you not considering the possibility that the universe has always had matter and energy? Why are you only considering the possibility of a dead, inert universe?
As for the inherent randomness in quantum, it’s not a lack of understand that facilitates it, but our current understanding. The way particles are understood the system itself creates randomness.
Isn’t that what I just said? Quantum physics suggests that true randomness exists, but what appears as randomness could be masked by our ignorance of particles at the subatomic level. My personal opinion is that randomness does exist, what about you?
I also think that there being a higher power responsible for existence is a simpler explanation than trying to grasp at infinity which in the end doesn’t answer any of the original questions anyway.
How is it a simpler explanation, when you are invoking the highest form of order and complexity in a vacuum of nothingness? The idea of a supernatural, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent being is the ultimately complex assumption, and hence the most improbable.
[/quote]
I never said anything about supernatural, perfect, omniscient, or omnipotent.
Originally the theory was the conservation of mass. Atomic energy proved that law to be false and that mass could convert to energy.
I ask why because that is human nature and the nature of scientific inquiry. If you are satisfied with the because answer your give, that’s up to you. I find it unsatisfactory.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hmm… people who will not … sounds like ones who refuse to me. but I’m no bible scholar, just sounds like common sense.[/quote]
Exactly. Obviously, he wasn’t talking about hearing the “sound” of a prophet’s voice. He was talking about hearing or refusing to hear the “message” of that voice.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I never said anything about supernatural, perfect, omniscient, or omnipotent.[/quote]
So you don’t believe your “god” possesses any of these qualities? The more “perfect” you claim your god to be, the more complex and improbable the hypothesis becomes. It is far simpler and more likely that the universe consists of mass and energy that have always existed.
In other words, you’re talking about something I never mentioned. I specifically said that mass and energy are conserved, and thus must have always existed.
If you’re truly willing to ask why, then why do you not sincerely consider the possibility that your “god” is a made up fairy tale?
I’m willing to admit the theoretical possibility, however improbable it might be, that there may be god/gods running our universe. Are you equally willing to admit that you might be wrong?
And who is more likely to be correct, given the complexity of the assumptions being made?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I never said anything about supernatural, perfect, omniscient, or omnipotent.
So you don’t believe your “god” possesses any of these qualities? The more “perfect” you claim your god to be, the more complex and improbable the hypothesis becomes. It is far simpler and more likely that the universe consists of mass and energy that have always existed.
Originally the theory was the conservation of mass. Atomic energy proved that law to be false and that mass could convert to energy.
In other words, you’re talking about something I never mentioned. I specifically said that mass and energy are conserved, and thus must have always existed.
I ask why because that is human nature and the nature of scientific inquiry. If you are satisfied with the because answer your give, that’s up to you. I find it unsatisfactory.
If you’re truly willing to ask why, then why do you not sincerely consider the possibility that your “god” is a made up fairy tale?
I’m willing to admit the theoretical possibility, however improbable it might be, that there may be god/gods running our universe. Are you equally willing to admit that you might be wrong?
And who is more likely to be correct, given the complexity of the assumptions being made?
[/quote]
Everyone has doubts. I read and study because of them. I most certainly have mine.
I was just saying that all observable systems were set in motion by some initial interaction. I don’t see why the universe would be different.
I don’t think either of us can pretend to wrap our mind around either a higher being, or eternal existence of the universe, so I don’t think anyone can make an educated guess about which is more likely.
It makes more sense to me that the universe, like every observable system has a beginning. Chicken or the egg? One, in truth, had to come before the other and be either the first chicken or the first chicken egg.
If it makes more sense to you that things are because they were in the past that’s fine. It doesn’t to me is all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Hmm… people who will not … sounds like ones who refuse to me. but I’m no bible scholar, just sounds like common sense.
Exactly. Obviously, he wasn’t talking about hearing the “sound” of a prophet’s voice. He was talking about hearing or refusing to hear the “message” of that voice.[/quote]
If your mother tells you to do something you don’t want to do. And she comes back 20 minutes later and asks you why it’s not done. You respond “I didn’t hear you”. What “hear” is that? Really it makes more sense that you didn’t realize she even spoke, than you didn’t understand what she said? I’m really having a hard time seeing what logical flaw you are pointing out.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Everyone has doubts. I read and study because of them. I most certainly have mine.[/quote]
That’s good to hear, and a sign that you are more than just a sheep blindly trusting in your emotions rather than in reasoning and common sense. No offense, but there are a lot of religious people who refuse to truly consider the possibility that they might be wrong.
Why an initial interaction? If you are willing to accept the possibility of a highly evolved, ultimately complex being that had no beginning, why not accept the possibility of a universe that had no beginning?
Infinity is implied in both cases, but a higher being is by definition more complex and less likely than the fundamental components of matter and energy.
Do you realize that you’re only begging the question by saying this? If something outside of the present universe created the present universe, didn’t that something exist in its own universe?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If your mother tells you to do something you don’t want to do. And she comes back 20 minutes later and asks you why it’s not done. You respond “I didn’t hear you”.
What “hear” is that? Really it makes more sense that you didn’t realize she even spoke, than you didn’t understand what she said? I’m really having a hard time seeing what logical flaw you are pointing out.[/quote]
Dude, it’s obvious that you understood what your mom said. You didn’t just hear an ambient noise in the background, you heard the message and chose to ignore it.