How did the universe begin???

[sao123]

Because we see these "accidents" happening all the time.

examples?

 

[BannedTroll]

Originally posted by: sao123

Because we see these "accidents" happening all the time.

examples?

Particles come into existance in a vacuum.
The flu.

 

[imported_brad]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2


Basically, what created the first organism?? a comet??? what created the comet??? what created space????

life can be made from nothing. A russian physicist created a contained atmosphere with extreme temps and wet conditions just like early earth, and out of nothing, amino acids formed...which as you know are the building blocks of life. The experiment has been done more than once, the last time by a man named stanley miller i think it was.

beyond that, its the same old same old. what created everything. most people stop with that question and think they've ended the argument. but what created the creator? how did he come to be?

it's all basically a fancy version of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" its not possible for us to KNOW right now.

As far as your questioning our brain function as a product of evolution...i would argue that they are indeed a product of evolution. The emotions and feelings help keep us knit as a people and less seperate than other species, even though other speicies feel emotion like sorrow and so forth. You may think you dont need to feel them now, because you dont know what its like not to have them and like thoughts.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: sao123
what makes the aethiest theory that it was just some random occurance that happened by accident, any better or more acceptable, than the idea that all these events occured at the desire of a higher deity.

Because said higher deity has never been scientifically proven to be real.

Random accidental occurances happen.

 

[sao123]

Because said higher deity has never been scientifically proven to be real.

Until you can scientifically prove that said higher diety does not exist, you cannot eliminate the theory that it does.

 

[BannedTroll]

Originally posted by: sao123

Because said higher deity has never been scientifically proven to be real.

Until you can scientifically prove that said higher diety does not exist, you cannot eliminate the theory that it does.

How would you prove a creator doesn't exist? Your logic is very flawed.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Sorry TuxDave

got so worked up I didn't read your next post.

Sorry for the duplicate link

Hahaha... that's ok. That 'never landing on the moon' thing pisses me off too.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Sahakiel

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
wait let me make sure of something....you consider reason and logic an absolute, correct? like you can safely base science and whatnot on it?

I think so to, our reasons are different however. And the implications of those reasons are different.

Tell me, am I safe to assume that all of us can agree that what Hitler did in killing so many people was wrong? As in, he shouldn't have done it?

Actually, no, it is quite possible and logically valid to derive an argument that Hitler was in the right. The reason is due to the fact that your conclusion is derived from your sense of morality, which is highly subjective and largely unbound by objectivity (morality is unmeasurable). Even a simple change, such as assuming that selfishness is morally better, can turn around the Hitler argument.

Scientific study strives to deal with objective, observable phenomenon, although in hindsight, many such observations have been proven heavily biased. Scientists are human and as such, contain a sense of morality (even sociopaths have morals) which provides bias in all scientific endeavors. For that reason, the scientific method has been developed to help identify and eliminate personal bias (among other traits).
As far as I know, reason and logic are absolute. The primary flaw in any valid argument lies in the assumptions.

Exactly. My high school physics teacher put it best when she said "In science, we don't ask why the chicken crossed the road or should he have crossed the road, but we ask how did the chicken cross the road." Morality, is something on a whole other island unless you want to make a science out of it. You need to define what is the source of morality and complete observable and repeatable experiments with and without that source to see if it reflects a change in a moral view. (and the double blind study and etc etc etc....)

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: sao123

Because said higher deity has never been scientifically proven to be real.

Until you can scientifically prove that said higher diety does not exist, you cannot eliminate the theory that it does.

One cannot prove a negative.

Likewise, until further notice, an invisible pink unicorn covered in green pokey dots created the universe.

It is not science's job to prove a hypothesis (i.e. god exists). It is the person or group of persons claiming that a fact is true.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Until said evidence is presented, it is not considered a valid theory.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: sao123
Why is it that everyone argues that creation & evolution must be mutually exclusive?

The theories of the big bang and evolution are a measurable path from the beginning to present day.

So close, so very close, to intelligence.

Everything that has been measured and observed has led us to a conclusive theory of that path. What we cannot do is prove or disprove that this was a result of a random accident or the result of the desires of a higher power. Even Stephen Hawkings himself now admits that everything as he sees it and understands it, probably must have been the result of an intelligent creator of a higher power.

And yet so far.

The evidence about the earliest events is probably the Noah's Ark, buried under thick ice in the mountains in turkey i believe.

So very, very, very far.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Also any Major University class is not going to show evidence of the events as they are described because the Bibles reasoning for them are divine.

Um. What exactly are you saying with this statement? I went to a small liberal arts college, with a religious afiliation, that required two religion classes, at least one of which had to be about, somehow, the bible. I took a course on Judeo-Christian Tradition, which basically looked at the bible from a historic point of view. A much more facinating document, really, when you learn what was happening historically--especially in other nearby cultures and religions--while it was being written.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: sao123

Because said higher deity has never been scientifically proven to be real.

Until you can scientifically prove that said higher diety does not exist, you cannot eliminate the theory that it does.

Yes, you can never eliminate that theory (if you associate theory with hunch). However, the existance of a higher diety is nothing like a scientific theory.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: sao123

Because said higher deity has never been scientifically proven to be real.

Until you can scientifically prove that said higher diety does not exist, you cannot eliminate the theory that it does.

I think that logic if completely flawed... If someone makes a claim, then the burden of proof is on that person to show evidence that the claim is true.

If you guys are interested in evolution, go read a book called "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It's an EXCELLENT book on his views of evolution, and why we behave and act the way we do.

 

[BannedTroll]

Originally posted by: Gilby

Originally posted by: BannedTroll
Also any Major University class is not going to show evidence of the events as they are described because the Bibles reasoning for them are divine.

Um. What exactly are you saying with this statement? I went to a small liberal arts college, with a religious afiliation, that required two religion classes, at least one of which had to be about, somehow, the bible. I took a course on Judeo-Christian Tradition, which basically looked at the bible from a historic point of view. A much more facinating document, really, when you learn what was happening historically--especially in other nearby cultures and religions--while it was being written.

What am I saying? Well I don't really know how I could put it in simpler terms but I will try.

Nobody really doubts the Bible has historic significance. Look at it this way. If the only surviving evidence of our civilization after a nuclear war is a scratched up copy of Independence Day once the archeologist of the future times find Washington and LA are they to assume aliens blew the place up?

Look at any religion and you will find events that were real except given divine reasonings after the fact. If the Tsunami a few weeks ago had happened a couple thousand years ago there is no doubt it would have been attributed to a "God" by someone. There are probably some people now that feel that way.

As I said give me an example of something significant that has been substantiated that cannot be explained by a natural occirrence with a little human embellishment afterwards?

 

[Gibsons]

Likewise, until further notice, an invisible pink unicorn covered in green pokey dots created the universe.

Yes, for did not The Unicorn say in his address to Ambrose of Milan during the congregation of Augustine of Hippo: "and yea, do I not wear the ineffable horn, which though cute and vaguely phallic, symbolith that I spaketh only the Truth? And the Truth be that I made all this about ye? Save ye strange quark, which I did subcontracteth to the butterfly."