Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[joujou_84]

Can someone give me the link to the atheist and theist debate, at the islamic instution. I formated my computer and cant be bothered go through this thread.

http://www.madressa.org/events/Debate2003/Transcript.asp

 

[rapier]

It may not prove the non-existence of God per se, but it may counter the foundations of particular religions' claims for the existence of God.

That's what I was proposing exactly

 

[lengstar]

I just saw an autopsy today. I've decided to give christianity another go. FUCK science.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I just saw an autopsy today. I've decided to give christianity another go. FUCK science.

HAAHHAHAHHA. that was kinda cute.

 

[lengstar]

HAAHHAHAHHA. that was kinda cute.

you have no idea how disgusting that procedure was.

 

[ur_inner_child]

you have no idea how disgusting that procedure was.

sounds disgustingly traumatic. I saw the post in the meet your meat thread too. You sound so traumatised. Tell me it all. Lol. Every memory of it!

 

[lengstar]

sorry i'm bound by confidentiality.
how about you give me your number and we can discuss it privately?

 

[hairyman18]

Hi all this is the first time ive posted on this site and this topic looked interesting. but before i begin hows everyone handling there exams, did anyone understand that micheal jordan question in the physics paper?

Anyway back on track i thought i might put my view point across.

i believe that for life to exist, a certain level of complexity and information carring potential is required. this is especially ths case for consious , thinking life, like us. therefore we need a universe with a physics that leads to the possibility of biochemistry, or something equivalent to it. in other words, a universe with life needs physics thats allows intricate machines to be built. this is quite a balencing act. for example

the force of gravity determines what type of stars are possible in this universe. If the gravitational force was slightly stronger, star formation for proceed more efficiently and all stars would be at least 1.4 times the size of our sun. Large stars in our current universe are important as they allow for elements heavier than Iron to be produced which are essential for life. however these stars burn too rapidly to maintain life supporting conditions on surronding planets. stars the size of our sun are nessarly for that. If the gravitational force was slightly weaker, all stars would have a mass less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. this allows for steady burning stars that allow for life to exist how ever they produce no heavy elements which are essential for building planets and thus life. which perhaps suggests that the universe is "rigged" for existance.

i must apolgise for only putting up one example i did not wish to make this reply to long. i realise that this could be due to chance and not due to a supreme being, however that is what i believe. id like to end this response with this statment. even if you had a so called "theory to everything"- the equation for the scientific laws that showed how everything unfolded nessarily from the Big bang, and how the Big bang itself was a random fluctation in the quantum vaccuum- you would still not have explained the reason for the laws of physics themselves. so there is always a furthur level to push the question. that is why i believe God exists.

 

[Sophie777]

Ok yes but what God?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

what you're basically saying is there has to be a god because something had to cause the laws of physics... the problem with this is that what created a god?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Hi all this is the first time ive posted on this site and this topic looked interesting. but before i begin hows everyone handling there exams, did anyone understand that micheal jordan question in the physics paper?

Anyway back on track i thought i might put my view point across.

i believe that for life to exist, a certain level of complexity and information carring potential is required. this is especially ths case for consious , thinking life, like us. therefore we need a universe with a physics that leads to the possibility of biochemistry, or something equivalent to it. in other words, a universe with life needs physics thats allows intricate machines to be built. this is quite a balencing act. for example

the force of gravity determines what type of stars are possible in this universe. If the gravitational force was slightly stronger, star formation for proceed more efficiently and all stars would be at least 1.4 times the size of our sun. Large stars in our current universe are important as they allow for elements heavier than Iron to be produced which are essential for life. however these stars burn too rapidly to maintain life supporting conditions on surronding planets. stars the size of our sun are nessarly for that. If the gravitational force was slightly weaker, all stars would have a mass less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. this allows for steady burning stars that allow for life to exist how ever they produce no heavy elements which are essential for building planets and thus life. which perhaps suggests that the universe is "rigged" for existance.

i must apolgise for only putting up one example i did not wish to make this reply to long. i realise that this could be due to chance and not due to a supreme being, however that is what i believe. id like to end this response with this statment. even if you had a so called "theory to everything"- the equation for the scientific laws that showed how everything unfolded nessarily from the Big bang, and how the Big bang itself was a random fluctation in the quantum vaccuum- you would still not have explained the reason for the laws of physics themselves. so there is always a furthur level to push the question. that is why i believe God exists.

Refuting the argument on the laws of physics

At its heart, it is an argument from incredulity --

Claim:
Cosmologists can't explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from.


Response:
1. Some questions are harder to answer than others. But although we don't have a full understanding of the origin of the universe, we are not completely in the dark. We know, for example, that space comes from the expansion of the universe. The total energy of the universe may be zero. Cosmologists have hypotheses for the other questions that are consistent with observations [Hawking 2001]. For example, it is possible that there is more than one dimension of time, the other dimension being unbounded, so there is no overall origin of time. Another possibility is that the universe is in an eternal cycle without beginning or end. Each big bang might end in a big crunch to start a new cycle [Steinhardt and Turok 2002] or, at long intervals, our universe collides with a mirror universe, creating the universe anew [Seife 2002].

One should keep in mind that our experiences in everyday life are poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. The stuff cosmologists deal with is very hard to understand. To reject it because of that, though, would be to retreat into the argument from incredulity.


2. Creationists can't explain origins at all. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation, because it is not tied to any objective evidence. It doesn't rule out any possibility, or even any impossibility. It does not address questions of "how?" and "why?", and it raises questions such as "which God?" and "how did God originate?" In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.


References:
Hawking, Stephen, 2001. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam.
Seife, Charles, 2002. Eternal-universe idea comes full circle. Science 296: 639.
Steinhardt, P. J. and N. Turok, 2002. A cyclic model of the universe. Science 296: 1436-1439.

 

[Nick]

Refuting the argument on the laws of physics

At its heart, it is an argument from incredulity --

i don't know how my laptop works, does that mean God made it?

 

[§eraphim]

god doesnt exist. when we die, we die..we dont go anywhere except into our graves. atheism - the forgotten faith!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

^^^^^ Hikki rocks! ^^^^^

 

[Bone577]

Looks like Sonic the Hedgehog.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

--------------

i don't know how my laptop works, does that mean God made it?

exactly

 

[Bone577]

--------------

exactly

Compaq is God it seems.

 

[Nick]

Compaq is God it seems.

oh but i think ACER is God?

that's it, crusade time

*kills millions of people

 

[lengstar]

NO! has to be an apple iBook! starts crusade in the name of apple! long live apple!

 

[Bone577]

NO! has to be an apple iBook! starts crusade in the name of apple! long live apple!

If you wanna go cross-platform i will go with the Sun workstations. Go the Sun Ultra-Sparks (and if anyone is familiar with their performance they will agree).


Fuck it, go all the way, Cray supercomputer!