Summer means no religion or politics?

[Nacho]

Intense: If you believe in Big Bang theory, you should know that it was a singularity. A point infinitelly small and of infinite density. The latest studies prove that there was nothing before it. The previous studies believed that, if something existed before that, it was destroyed by the singularity and no information can possibly "survive" to it. None of the possibilities needs a "God"; Actually both possibilities tell us that, if the big bang is true, there is no God.

[Misj']

Science is progress, religion is the opposite.

I have to disagree with that...both that science is progress, that religion is the opposite of progress, and that religion is the opposite of science (the latter statement you didn't make, I know, but it fitted nicely within the rant, so I thought I'd include it).

Actually, I am convinced that scientists are among the least productive, progressing, and advancing people on this planet (with the exception possibly of their followers, because those - their followers - really are a bunch of amoebae-brained mammals who really have no idea what science really is). I have found that it is really best to just largely ignore everything that comes out of their mouth, pen, or keyboard, because there's rarely any sanity in any of it. So if you ever meet a scientist in real-life (and I'm talking about a real scientist, not one of those whacks who claim to be and/or write 'popular' books that are considered crap even by their colleagues) pay your regards, and ignore him from that moment on...because he really has no idea what he's talking about.

[Nacho]

Good post! You only have to add the line "and burn him in a fire!" to make it fit perfectly with some old religious standards!   

[Intense Degree]

...Big Bang theory ... The latest studies prove that there was nothing before it.

Prove there was nothing before it? Really?

None of the possibilities needs a "God"

I don't think I said they did!

Actually both possibilities tell us that, if the big bang is true, there is no God.

How on earth do they do that? I'm not just trying to provoke, I honestly do not see how they do.

[Matti]

Misj, you can't be serious. It's like saying: All students are hippies, or: All Americans are dumb. Or: All unemployed are lazy. Well, just a stupid generalization that is.

[Intense Degree]

Actually, I am convinced that scientists are among the least productive, progressing, and advancing people on this planet (with the exception possibly of their followers, because those - their followers - really are a bunch of amoebae-brained mammals who really have no idea what science really is). I have found that it is really best to just largely ignore everything that comes out of their mouth, pen, or keyboard, because there's rarely any sanity in any of it. So if you ever meet a scientist in real-life (and I'm talking about a real scientist, not one of those whacks who claim to be and/or write 'popular' books that are considered crap even by their colleagues) pay your regards, and ignore him from that moment on...because he really has no idea what he's talking about.

Not sure I would accept such a sweeping generalisation...!

However, I agree with your first paragraph

[Matti]

Intense, there seems to be a formatting mistake. Your quote is from Misj, not Khris. 

[Intense Degree]

Whoops! (fixed)

Sorry about that, didn't want to misquote/malign anyone!

[Misj']

Ok...so maybe there are one or two scientists that are a bit more capable than most...I was of course talking in general not in absolutes. However...how many scientists (that do not fit my description) do you know personally to proof me wrong? - Because up until now no evidence was given to support otherwise.

[LimpingFish]

If you listen carefully you might just be able to hear the faint meow of Schrödinger's cat.

Leaving aside the argument of how a God can exist, if we cannot determine that (a) God exists or (b) God doesn't exist, aren't we left with the conclusion that neither argument is correct/incorrect? Furthermore, since neither state can be validated, the concept of God's existence lies in a state outside our own comprehension?

Isn't this current debate more to do with the Atheist's intellectual disgust of those people who shape their world based on a book which claims to be the word of a supernatural being, rather than the actuality of such a being?

[Nacho]

...Big Bang theory ... The latest studies prove that there was nothing before it.

Prove there was nothing before it? Really?

None of the possibilities needs a "God"

I don't think I said they did!

Actually both possibilities tell us that, if the big bang is true, there is no God.

How on earth do they do that? I'm not just trying to provoke, I honestly do not see how they do.

Of course, if your replies to option A and B are "Really?" and "I don't think so!", you'll never understand conclussion C. You are simply not opened to belive it.

[Intense Degree]

Nacho:

Option A - please do explain to me how it proves there was nothing at all before it (and in particular no God before it).

Option B - with respect I didn't say "I don't think so", I said that I had not stated that the possibilities you outlined needed a god (from your point of view of course) as I though you were implying . Apologies if I misunderstood you.

Option C - I am open to hearing reasoned argument on the subject and just as capable of looking at it impartially as anyone else of average intelligence (I flatter myself ). That is the reason I asked the question. If the big bang is true then what you say about matter may follow, but how would that affect the existence of God? Once again, please explain this for me I promise I will try to listen with an open mind.

[Khris]

However I would say that the very existence of matter, the earth and indeed your very good self is evidence that there is a God who creates.

We know pretty much about how the universe got to its current state by exclusively natural ways since 0.000001 seconds after the big bang (the actual number is different but I'm too lazy to look it up). There are some fuzzy gaps science isn't able to explain completely, but by and large we know.

You have completely missed my point though. The god hypothesis does fill in the gaps, true, but leaving it at that is completely useless. If you include a supernatural, omnipotent being, anything is possible and everything can be explained. Conducting science becomes utterly pointless.
There's increasingly strong evidence that everything can be explained by natural processes, so lets fill in the gaps using science, not god, alright?

Plus, the hypothesis that a god created the universe including us (whether directly or through natural processes he invoked) and the theory that no god did it are NOT equal alternatives. And I'm calling it a theory because in a sense, it's something that's confirmed over and over again, has a huge body of evidence and allows accurate predictions (e.g. no amount of prayer will cause amputees to grow back limbs).
You can't do science based on the assumption that an omnipotent being could interfere at any moment.

Misj':
I knew it would be only a matter of time before you'd start to piss me off with silly posts. Business as usual I guess. If there really is a point to that last two posts of yours, try to convey it like an adult please.

[Misj']

Misj': I knew it would be only a matter of time before you'd start to piss me off with silly posts. Business as usual I guess. If there really is a point to that last two posts of yours, try to convey it like an adult please.

So tell me...why do these posts 'piss you off'? - And even more so: why do you think they are silly? - And why again is this business as usual? - And if a point can't be made in an adult way, why not present it using sarcasm (which by the way is not for kids)?

Oh...and you did proof my point, thank you for that.

[Intense Degree]

[
We know pretty much about how the universe got to its current state by exclusively natural ways since 0.000001 seconds after the big bang (the actual number is different but I'm too lazy to look it up). There are some fuzzy gaps science isn't able to explain completely, but by and large we know.

But it doesn't explain where all this came from, including the energy etc. for the big bang. And what went before.

You have completely missed my point though. The god hypothesis does fill in the gaps, true, but leaving it at that is completely useless. If you include a supernatural, omnipotent being, anything is possible and everything can be explained. Conducting science becomes utterly pointless.
There's increasingly strong evidence that everything can be explained by natural processes, so lets fill in the gaps using science, not god, alright?

But if there is a God who created (i.e. "the god hypothesis") then he would have created the rules and state of the universe that make it what it is. Therefore science is not pointless but is mankind's effort to understand and innovate/create in the physical world that God has created.

Plus, the hypothesis that a god created the universe including us (whether directly or through natural processes he invoked) and the theory that no god did it are NOT equal alternatives. And I'm calling it a theory because in a sense, it's something that's confirmed over and over again, has a huge body of evidence and allows accurate predictions (e.g. no amount of prayer will cause amputees to grow back limbs).
You can't do science based on the assumption that an omnipotent being could interfere at any moment.

The theorys are not equal because clearly they are mutually exclusive.

I may have misunderstood the next bit but I think you mean that science in general is the theory allowing accurate predictions etc. As I said earlier, the universe works the way God created it to work and therefore we are only discovering and using what God has made. God could - and has - interfered in "mysterious ways" as the cliche goes but as he has created the universe to work a certain way you can generally rely on the fact that it will do!

[Vince Twelve]

I'm going to try and explain what KhrisMUC is getting at because I'm in general agreement with him.  (Here I go again... why can't I listen to myself and stay out of these threads!)

But if there is a God who created (i.e. "the god hypothesis") then he would have created the rules and state of the universe that make it what it is. Therefore science is not pointless but is mankind's effort to understand and innovate/create in the physical world that God has created.

Yes, you're right.  If a god created the universe, he created the rules of science, set off the big bang, whatever.  So, believing in religion and having a respect for science are not mutually exclusive.  As long as people aren't denying that evolution exists or saying that man and dinosaurs coexisted or that the world was made 6000 years ago.

However, this is a big If because it isn't something that can be proved.  You can believe and have faith that it is true, but you can not prove it, and thus you must allow the people who do not believe this the same freedom to disbelieve as you expect them to allow you to believe.

But it doesn't explain where all this came from, including the energy etc. for the big bang. And what went before.

This is true.  Science doesn't yet explain what there was before the big bang, or if there was nothing, then where the big bang came from.  But that doesn't mean that it will never be able to explain this! 

Remember, thousands of years ago, people didn't know why the sun moved across the sky, so they said it must be a god in his chariot pulling it across. 

Science later filled in that gap, but led to more questions.  Where did people come from?  Haha!  Can't explain that, can you science!?  It must, therefore, have been a god making a guy and putting him in a garden etcetera etcetera.  Well now we know that we evolved from lower animals and that life itself started on the planet from microbes huddled around volcano vents in the ocean etcetera etcetera. 

So the further and further science expands, you will always find more places where it hasn't explained something yet.  And filling in those gaps with "GOD!" and calling it done is not proof.  It's fine.  You can do it.  You can believe what you want.  But you can't claim it as proof of the existence of a god.

Then there's the whole question of if you could prove god's existence, how can you prove that your god is the right one when there are more people on this planet who believe in a different god than there are who believe in your god.  If religion were a democracy, you'd be a heathen.

[miguel]

God's infinity shows itself in science, the more you dig, the more you find. It never ends.
And first of all, it doesn't make you happier to know what was bigbang or if it existed. The knowledge of God existence will clearly sooth your inner being and reassure you that cancer, bits and bites, molecules, HIV, cellphones don't really count in your life.

I also want to apologize to Vince Twelve because I didn't understand his comments.
To all homosexuals as well, if I somehow offended anyone. 'The only gay in the village' comes from a TV show called Little Britain.
Maybe I should have thought before posting something like that.

[smiley]

[...]since 0.000001 seconds after the big bang (the actual number is different but I'm too lazy to look it up). [...]

5.39124 * 10^−44 seconds.

The theorys are not equal because clearly they are mutually exclusive.

They are not equal, because one of them is a theory* and the other one is a fairy tale.

*in the scientific meaning of the word.

God could - and has - interfered in "mysterious ways" as the cliche goes [...]

Yeah, he could for example make weekly announcement. He wasn't that shy back in Old Testament days. But I figure, having your only son killed does that to you.

[Phemar]

But if God is not just a watcher and men have free will, doesn't that void the other argument where God acts indirectly to aid us when we pray for things?
Wouldn't that mean God is controlling other people, making them do things in order to present us with the opportunities we pray for... Which would mean men don't have free will.

[miguel]

Phemar, why do you think God will listen to you?
See, you're the one that goes after the quick reward situation. You pray for your ill uncle and God cures him?
Again you have not understand what praying is.
It's all about a state of mind where more than getting answers from God, you find them in you.