Question for religious people.......

[dman4486 5,000+ posts]

Wait, you can believe in both, but not neither?
That isn't very logical.

I didn't realize that this was such a black and white topic.

you can't use the word logical....it implies science:fyi:

 

[lilmaniac2 5,000+ posts]

Nothing you said above equates to there being a god. Science cannot disprove god, nor prove it. That's why it is called theory.

If i could prove there is a God you really think I'd waste my time posting on ca.com?

What I posted is my personal belief.

 

[Banana Balls 5,000+ posts]

If i could prove there is a God you really think I'd waste my time posting on ca.com?

I don't see why not. At least we'd finally have something useful to add to discuss in this thread.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

I don't see why not. At least we'd finally have something useful to add to discuss in this thread.

that would be very interesting

 

[lilmaniac2 5,000+ posts]

I don't see why not. At least we'd finally have something useful to add to discuss in this thread.

So what i posted isn't useful? Your the idiot who doesnt understand what anyone else is saying from what I can gather, Flip even used a word to big for you to understand and you misinterpreted it. I give up on you sir.

 

[Chevillac 5,000+ posts]

You got nobody. If you don't believe in God, then you must believe in science. It's really not that difficult to comprehend, is it?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif "got you" means I understand you(it was directed at lilmaniac). You are trolling so hard right now its ridiculous. You make no sense, and im not responding to you anymore.

 

[lilmaniac2 5,000+ posts]

You got nobody. If you don't believe in God, then you must believe in science. It's really not that difficult to comprehend, is it?

OK lets break down this ignorant sentence piece by piece.

First of all you use God which most commonly if not all the time refers to the Hebrew/Christian God. Which is fine, but what you are saying here is anyone who is not Christian believes in science. Do you really thing Muslims believe in science? Last I checked Allah was #1 for them.

Lets go one step further, you say if you don't believe in the Hebrew God you must believe in science, what about agnostics who believe that there is neither proof of a god nor proof that he doesn't exist.

Now really, is that that hard to understand or do we need to break out the fingerpaints.

 

[Banana Balls 5,000+ posts]

So what i posted isn't useful? Your the idiot who doesnt understand what anyone else is saying from what I can gather, Flip even used a word to big for you to understand and you misinterpreted it. I give up on you sir.

I'm going to assume that you meant to quote BoomBoomBoy, because I have no idea what you're talking about. Flip and I are not debating, and if you could prove something as large as there being a god, then hell yea that would be worth discussing.

 

[dman4486 5,000+ posts]

OK lets break down this ignorant sentence piece by piece.
First of all you use God which most commonly if not all the time refers to the Hebrew/Christian God. Which is fine, but what you are saying here is anyone who is not Christian believes in science. Do you really thing Muslims believe in science? Last I checked Allah was #1 for them.

Lets go one step further, you say if you don't believe in the Hebrew God you must believe in science, what about agnostics who believe that there is neither proof of a god nor proof that he doesn't exist.

Now really, is that that hard to understand or do we need to break out the fingerpaints.

You can borrow my Crayons

 

[lilmaniac2 5,000+ posts]

I'm going to assume that you meant to quote BoomBoomBoy, because I have no idea what you're talking about. Flip and I are not debating, and if you could prove something as large as there being a god, then hell yea that would be worth discussing.

yea my bad lol

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif "got you" means I understand you(it was directed at lilmaniac). You are trolling so hard right now its ridiculous. You make no sense, and im not responding to you anymore.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crying.gif.ec0ebefe590df0251476573bc49e46d8.gif:crying://content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crying.gif.ec0ebefe590df0251476573bc49e46d8.gif:crying://content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crying.gif.ec0ebefe590df0251476573bc49e46d8.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[adio 5,000+ posts]

I see, I don't agree with him.
If you fail to claim a religion based on God or any gods that doesn't automatically make you an science idiot. It just makes you "lost" in the view of many of the religions.

I personally struggle with the idea of eternity as I can't wrap my mind around that idea, but have rationalized it into what I currently believe and that is my explanation of the matter being created that I posted above.

Truth is no faith based religion has all the answers.

1.) see, this is what i mean when i say we are so limited in our knowledge and thinking

2.) i forget that alot!!!

 

[BoomBoomBoy 10+ year member]

OK lets break down this ignorant sentence piece by piece.
First of all you use God which most commonly if not all the time refers to the Hebrew/Christian God. Which is fine, but what you are saying here is anyone who is not Christian believes in science. Do you really thing Muslims believe in science? Last I checked Allah was #1 for them.

Hey dummy, Allah is the very same God that Jews and Christians worship. They also believe in the very same prophets including Abraham, Isaac ,and yes, Jesus himself. They just don't believe Jesus was the Messiah

Lets go one step further, you say if you don't believe in the Hebrew God you must believe in science, what about agnostics who believe that there is neither proof of a god nor proof that he doesn't exist..

If you knew anything about the major 3 religions of this world, you'd know that Scripture, the torah and the Koran don't preach sitting on the fence vascillating whether you believe or not. You either do, or you don't. Vascillating is for the indecisive.

Now really, is that that hard to understand or do we need to break out the fingerpaints.

Perhaps you are talking to yourself on the above.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

I'm not reading 13 pages of arguing but my main problem with people who base there ideas on science is they fail to admit one very important detail.
The laws of science say matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed this is a scientific FACT that has been proven time and time again. Using this law there MUST be something eternal. Period. If matter cannot be created then they're always had to be something. There is no finite beginning where everything was created as something had to be transfered into it ( energy and matter).

No matter how you look at it you cannot convince me that there is not something eternal. They say the big bang was a result of gas's, but where did the gas's come from. And where did the thing that made the gases come from. There has to be something eternal if that fact is indeed true.

There is measurement of time known as Plancks time, which is about 10^-43s (a very, very small period of time). The life of the universe that comes prior to one Plancks time (the universe younger than 10^-43s) is known as Plancks epoch. During Plancks epoch, the known laws of physics simply do not apply. For example, all four fundamental forces (gravity, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetism) were likely unified into a single force. It wasn't until after Planks time that the forces began to split. It's not possible to analyze the young universe (a universe younger than Plancks time) using the known laws of physics. This includes the conservation laws, which you are inducing in your post.

So, in short......a young universe could "violate" the conservation laws as, during that time frame, our currently-discovered laws of physics do not apply.

Will we ever know what happened during Plancks epoch? Maybe, maybe not. But the correct course of action is to continue to approach the issue scientifically rather than fall into the infinite regress of a "first cause" argument.

 

[SHOemup233 10+ year member]

There is measurement of time known as Plancks time, which is about 10^-43s (a very, very small period of time). The life of the universe that comes prior to one Plancks time (the universe younger than 10^-43s) is known as Plancks epoch. During Plancks epoch, the known laws of physics simply do not apply. For example, all four fundamental forces (gravity, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetism) were likely unified into a single force. It wasn't until after Planks time that the forces began to split. It's not possible to analyze the young universe (a universe younger than Plancks time) using the known laws of physics. This includes the conservation laws, which you are inducing in your post.
So, in short......a young universe could "violate" the conservation laws as, during that time frame, our currently-discovered laws of physics do not apply.

Will we ever know what happened during Plancks epoch? Maybe, maybe not. But the correct course of action is to continue to approach the issue scientifically rather than fall into the infinite regress of a "first cause" argument.

I learn something new everyday. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif.