Athiests.. How do you explain the beginning of time?

[HAL9000]

It's a ploy. One day they'll change Bankers Hours and the non-Swiss Wealthy will be destroyed through Service Fees.

Don't worry the rest of europe has a close eye on them, the way they stay neutral in wars was far too suspicious, as though they were too busy planning. Were watching.

 

[darkswordsman17]

And interestingly enough, the second law of thermodynamics implies that the universe has existed for a finite time, because if it had always existed entropy would be infinite by now and the universe would have succumbed to heat death. The first and second contradict each other with this subject. Obviously thermodynamic laws aren't enough to explain the origin of the universe.

We know the universe hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, so I'm not sure why you're saying that.

 

[sandorski]

Don't worry the rest of europe has a close eye on them, the way they stay neutral in wars was far too suspicious, as though they were too busy planning. Were watching.

When the Time comes, it will be too late.

 

[Ns1]

Science logic: We're not really sure how this happened, but we believe it's this due to this this and this


Religion logic: We're not really sure how this happened, but we refuse to believe it's random chance so it must be a higher being

 

[HAL9000]

We know the universe hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, so I'm not sure why you're saying that.

It depends on your classification of the universe, if you mean the matter that we are currently able to perceive surrounding us, the no the universe hasn't always existed, but if your defining it as all matter that can be comprehended to exist throughout all of time, then the universe has always existed.

 

[HAL9000]

When the Time comes, it will be too late.

Then might I suggest that Europe and The America's join up to pre-emptively take them down, but as they are essentially time lords, like The Doctor, is that really a good idea?

Science logic: We're not really sure how this happened, but we believe it's this due to this this and this


Religion logic: We're not really sure how this happened, but we refuse to believe it's random chance so it must be a higher being

For me.

Science logic: A + B = C until it turns out that A + B + C = D

Religion Logic: A + B is not required.

 

[sandorski]

Then might I suggest that Europe and The America's join up to pre-emptively take them down, but as they are essentially time lords, like The Doctor, is that really a good idea?

By the Time you're ready, They will stop Time and defeat you. We're all just playthings to the evil Swiss.

 

[Paladin3]

I want to preface this by saying I haven't yet read a single post in this thread, not even the OP, and I am just going off of the title alone, but...

I'm agnostic and fail to understand the argument that because I'm not sure why we are here or how we came to be that God simply *MUST* exist.

 

[Tweak155]

A valid point, If I hear a perfectly rational argument that sways me one way or another I'll go with it, until then rather than saying we don't know I'm saying no, in the same way that I don't believe in unicorns until proved otherwise, I'm not going to stay in the middle and say everything might exist.

Fair enough.

 

[HAL9000]

By the Time you're ready, They will stop Time and defeat you. We're all just playthings to the evil Swiss.

Damn those cheesy bastards.

 

[Tweak155]

Science logic: We're not really sure how this happened, but we believe it's this due to this this and this


Religion logic: We're not really sure how this happened, but we find it hard to believe it's random chance so it must be a higher being

Fixed.

This of course depends on the person you're talking to I suppose.

 

[HAL9000]

Fixed.

This of course depends on the person you're talking to I suppose.

A solid fix.

And it adds to my point, people who find it difficult to believe scientific logic are not people I like to argue with.

 

[Tweak155]

A solid fix.

And it adds to my point, people who find it difficult to believe scientific logic are not people I like to argue with.

It isn't difficult to believe scientific logic. It is ignorant to think science has all the answers on this topic, or even enough to disprove other non-scientific possibilities.

 

[sandorski]

It isn't difficult to believe scientific logic. It is ignorant to think science has all the answers on this topic, or even enough to disprove other non-scientific possibilities.

O'rly?

 

[HAL9000]

It isn't difficult to believe scientific logic. It is ignorant to think science has all the answers on this topic, or even enough to disprove other non-scientific possibilities.

I agree but to me even though scientific logic does not offer all the answers LOGIC does and there is a far greater ammount of logic in scientific logic than religious logic.

Pure Logic>Science>Religion

 

[darkswordsman17]

It depends on your classification of the universe, if you mean the matter that we are currently able to perceive surrounding us, the no the universe hasn't always existed, but if your defining it as all matter that can be comprehended to exist throughout all of time, then the universe has always existed.

It wouldn't make sense to claim all matter throughout time as the universe though.

I get the point they were making, and agree with that (the laws don't explain everything), but I don't see that they contradict each other, as we can't say that the universe is infinite (as far as time), so the point of entropy death could just be some time in the future.

 

[HAL9000]

It wouldn't make sense to claim all matter throughout time as the universe though.

I get the point they were making, and agree with that (the laws don't explain everything), but I don't see that they contradict each other, as we can't say that the universe is infinite (as far as time), so the point of entropy death could just be some time in the future.

I completely agree, but your forgetting that the point of entropy death would essentially be the matter in the universe changing it's state to a state unrecognisable to us, but not the end of the universe. Only the end of the universe as we know it.

 

[Ns1]

It isn't difficult to believe scientific logic. It is ignorant to think science has all the answers on this topic, or even enough to disprove other non-scientific possibilities.

what's the proof of (a) god? that there cannot be any other "solution"?

 

[Saint Nick]

Time isn't real.

 

[HAL9000]

what's the proof of (a) god? that there cannot be any other "solution"?

The only proof of god that i've ever read that truly made sense is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

The only problem with it is that you need to agree with the premise, which actually I do, but every argument requires this so it's as good as any other.

 

[Tweak155]

what's the proof of (a) god? that there cannot be any other "solution"?

Proving one scientific theory doesn't require disproving another. Either you have a full set of proof or you don't.

 

[HAL9000]

Proving one scientific theory doesn't require disproving another. Either you have a full set of proof or you don't.

True but proving a god for most people would mean disproving certain scientific principles.

 

[Tweak155]

True but proving a god for most people would mean disproving certain scientific principles.

Majority holds no water in true or false. If a majority of people think smoking doesn't harm you, it doesn't change the fact it has been proven otherwise.

 

[darkswordsman17]

It isn't difficult to believe scientific logic. It is ignorant to think science has all the answers on this topic, or even enough to disprove other non-scientific possibilities.

The thing is, science isn't even claiming to have all the answers. It is just the tool used. You don't study science, you use science to study. I don't know why science has been bastardized/demonized into being something it is not.

 

[HAL9000]

Majority holds no water in true or false. If a majority of people think smoking doesn't harm you, it doesn't change the fact it has been proven otherwise.

I'm not arguing for the majority in this case, all I'm saying is if you want to prove god your going to have to disprove certain scientific proofs to make the argument valid.