• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sandorski said:
It's a ploy. One day they'll change Bankers Hours and the non-Swiss Wealthy will be destroyed through Service Fees.
Click to expand...

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.
 
frostedflakes said:
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

We know the universe hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, so I'm not sure why you're saying that.
 
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
 
darkswordsman17 said:
We know the universe hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, so I'm not sure why you're saying that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sandorski said:
When the Time comes, it will be too late.
Click to expand...

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?

Ns1 said:
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
Click to expand...

For me.

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

Religion Logic: A + B is not required.
 
neckarb said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Fair enough.
 
Ns1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Fixed.

This of course depends on the person you're talking to I suppose.
 
neckarb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tweak155 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
neckarb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. 🙂
 
Tweak155 said:
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.
Click to expand...

what's the proof of (a) god? that there cannot be any other "solution"?
 
neckarb said:
True but proving a god for most people would mean disproving certain scientific principles.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tweak155 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tweak155 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top