Homosexuality in Australia (11 Viewers)

[Lentern]

What, so are you saying it is physically impossible for something to happen without a catalyst?

I am yet to hear of anything that did. Atleast nothing bound by our most basic laws of science. If there is no catalyst there is no science in play, only religion.

 

[Kwayera]

I am yet to hear of anything that did. Atleast nothing bound by our most basic laws of science. If there is no catalyst there is no science in play, only religion.

Why?

 

[Lentern]

I was merely repeating an often-asked and perfectly reasonable question. I don't see why we should appoint God as the "religious trigger" of all that is rather than, say, the big bang. Personally, I don't believe in the first and am a little shaky about the second. Anyways, my argument wasn't supposed to be seen as one about the "origin of everything", rather about love, which I think is cheapened by the discussion of its origin.

I, however, still find you to be one of the delightful folk who disagree with me, but still discusses the notion of religion reasonably.
Do you think faith is a personal choice?

Not really. I think like a child and Santa Clause people vary in how willing they are to listen to arguements from either side but I think that is largely a chicken and the egg. They won't seriously indulge in possible talk of their being no God because they inherently believe, but they so deeply believe because they don't seriously indulge the possibility of their being no god, but they don't indulge the possibility because their belief is so strong... The two just keep compounding each other.

 

[Tully B.]

I am yet to hear of anything that did. Atleast nothing bound by our most basic laws of science. If there is no catalyst there is no science in play, only religion.

Beyond our current scientific knowledge does not translate automatically to "religious". Any unknown science is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[Lentern]

Why?

Well I said this a while back and Kfunk quickly bombarded me with a lot of impressive sounding stuff I didn't really understand but I still think science is in essence is why stuff happens. If there is no catalyst, there is no answer to why stuff happens.

 

[Graney]

The Big Bang could not have happened without trigger, and if it did then the Big Bang is effectively a religious theory.

Well I said this a while back and Kfunk quickly bombarded me with a lot of impressive sounding stuff I didn't really understand but I still think science is in essence is why stuff happens. If there is no catalyst, there is no answer to why stuff happens.

You're applying the laws of the contemporary universe to the creation of the universe, something that is unknown and speculative. We can only study the creation of the universe by observations based on evidence apparent in the contemporary universe, the rules of the universe may have been radically different at time=0.

It doesn't demand religion at all.

 

[Tully B.]

Not really. I think like a child and Santa Clause people vary in how willing they are to listen to arguements from either side but I think that is largely a chicken and the egg. They won't seriously indulge in possible talk of their being no God because they inherently believe, but they so deeply believe because they don't seriously indulge the possibility of their being no god, but they don't indulge the possibility because their belief is so strong... The two just keep compounding each other.

Hmmm, if faith isn't a matter of choice, and the only way to salvation is faith, and I don't have faith, and I can't "choose" faith into existence, then from your point of view, I must be pretty fucked, right?

 

[Lentern]

Beyond our current scientific knowledge does not translate automatically to "religious". Any unknown science is indistinguishable from magic.

It would mean acting contrary to our most basic laws of science, as opposed to being something we don't really understand yet.

 

[Iron]

Pay no attention to comrade VLenturdimir. He is now considered refused to be collected

 

[Graney]

It would mean acting contrary to our most basic laws of science, as opposed to being something we don't really understand yet.

The rules of physics don't need to be unchanging over an infinite time frame. They can be different at time=0.

 

[Kwayera]

Well I said this a while back and Kfunk quickly bombarded me with a lot of impressive sounding stuff I didn't really understand but I still think science is in essence is why stuff happens. If there is no catalyst, there is no answer to why stuff happens.

You're applying the laws of the contemporary universe to the creation of the universe, something that is unknown and speculative. We can only study the creation of the universe by observations based on evidence apparent in the contemporary universe, the rules of the universe may have been radically different at time=0.

It doesn't demand religion at all.

What Graney said.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstand of science, its requirements, specifications and limitations. Just because we don't yet know of a catalyst for the big bang, it doesn't mean that we never will.

 

[Lentern]

You're applying the laws of the contemporary universe to the creation of the universe, something that is unknown and speculative. We can only study the creation of the universe by observations based on evidence apparent in the contemporary universe, the rules of the universe may have been radically different at time=0.

It doesn't demand religion at all.

But heres the thing, it does. Its exactly the same, putting forward a kind of logical but not scientifically viable way of explaining what can't be explained. Religious folk tend to be ok with the idea it is just beyond them to fully understand, science athiests tend to be more arrogant however when they put forward baseless claims and scream in our face "ITS NOT GUESSING, ITS NOT RELIGION, IT IS SCIENCE WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ENCODE THIS SCIENCE YET." But yeah, we're the irrational ones.

 

[Kwayera]

But heres the thing, it does. Its exactly the same, putting forward a kind of logical but not scientifically viable way of explaining what can't be explained. Religious folk tend to be ok with the idea it is just beyond them to fully understand, science athiests tend to be more arrogant however when they put forward baseless claims and scream in our face "ITS NOT GUESSING, ITS NOT RELIGION, IT IS SCIENCE WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ENCODE THIS SCIENCE YET." But yeah, we're the irrational ones.

God of the Gaps? And yet, the gaps grow fewer and fewer.

 

[Lentern]

Pay no attention to comrade VLenturdimir. He is now considered refused to be collected

Please take it down it made me jump.

 

[katie tully]

Its exactly the same, putting forward a kind of logical

herein lies your problem. it's not logical.

Religious folk tend to be ok with the idea it is just beyond them to fully understand, science athiests tend to be more arrogant however when they put forward baseless claims

we're the irrational ones.

You said it

 

[Lentern]

Hmmm, if faith isn't a matter of choice, and the only way to salvation is faith, and I don't have faith, and I can't "choose" faith into existence, then from your point of view, I must be pretty fucked, right?

I'm not Iron. I do not expect you will go to hell even if you never believe.

 

[Graney]

But heres the thing, it does. Its exactly the same, putting forward a kind of logical but not scientifically viable way of explaining what can't be explained. Religious folk tend to be ok with the idea it is just beyond them to fully understand, science athiests tend to be more arrogant however when they put forward baseless claims and scream in our face "ITS NOT GUESSING, ITS NOT RELIGION, IT IS SCIENCE WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ENCODE THIS SCIENCE YET." But yeah, we're the irrational ones.

What do you actually mean when you say "The Big Bang could not have happened without trigger, and if it did then the Big Bang is effectively a religious theory."?

What does it have in common with a religious theory?

Anyway, no one is saying it definetly happened without a trigger. You simply can't know. There may have been a trigger for all we know. There are theories I have heard outlined that propose various hypothetical triggers. Or maybe there wasn't a trigger. The accepted truth is that we simply do not have enough evidence to ever decode the exact events of time=0, it will always be speculative, but we can theorize very close to this event.

 

[Iron]

I'm not Iron. I do not expect you will go to hell even if you never believe.

Then you dont worship the Jesus I worship, friendo. You worship the plastic Jesus that you made yourself for consolation

 

[Graney]

It's really best compared to an agnostic approach to reason if anything.

 

[Lentern]

God of the Gaps? And yet, the gaps grow fewer and fewer.

As do the people who go to heaven, No I'm not like that. You can write off all the stuff about Jesus et al and I would say thats fine and rational, I obviously dissagree but I find it pefectly reasonable. But somewhere along the way there has to be something that wasn't begotten of something else and that is a higher power. Do I believe it was the god of Abraham? Yes, Do I insist it?
No. But it was a higher power.