Politics & Stuff

[Dion 2,476]

11 hours ago, Fernando said:

This is the same reasoning religion use. There might be a heaven or hell. There might be a creator. It's called faith. 

But let's say your observation is true, then my question is how it got there? 

You see, many scientist agree that the universe had a beginning ie big bang. A start to the universe suggest that there's must be a causal agent beyond space and time that cause the universe into being. 

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem says any universe that expands over its history must have a space time beginning (this implies there must be a creator beyond space and time that created everything). 

And only a universe that expands is able to have life. 

Yes. I'm more of an agnostic atheist, as such I believe it is possible that there was a creator. Do I think it is likely? No. Especially not a god in the molds of any religion I've seen so far. None of those religions nor their gods look like what I think the creator would have been like or would have wanted to pass to us as a doctrine.

The origin of everything is way harder to guess than the origin of life and there are many theories that look somewhat plausible given how little we know about it. As for myself, I like the superstring theories. Even if the universe and space-time as we know it may have had a beginning and the big bang theory is somewhat right, perhaps the conditions in the background that originated the big bang have always existed before time even began in the big bang. It is difficult for our brains to accept something that doesn't have a beginning because we are wired to believe things start and things end from most of our observations of the natural world. But if you look at it, the concept of God doesn't solve this either, if God created everything, then who created God? Where does he come from? This only leaves the conclusion that He must have always existed. If one can accept something to be perpetual like God, one can also suppose that, instead of the creator, maybe the "creation" has always existed and there was no need for a creator. Maybe the fundamental matter that constitutes everything has always existed and by chance things lined up in a way to cause the big bang and the origin of our universe as we know it. That sounds to me as good or better than a Creator-creation hypothesis.

[Fernando 6,585]

4 hours ago, Dion said:

Yes. I'm more of an agnostic atheist, as such I believe it is possible that there was a creator. Do I think it is likely? No. Especially not a god in the molds of any religion I've seen so far. None of those religions nor their gods look like what I think the creator would have been like or would have wanted to pass to us as a doctrine.

The origin of everything is way harder to guess than the origin of life and there are many theories that look somewhat plausible given how little we know about it. As for myself, I like the superstring theories. Even if the universe and space-time as we know it may have had a beginning and the big bang theory is somewhat right, perhaps the conditions in the background that originated the big bang have always existed before time even began in the big bang. It is difficult for our brains to accept something that doesn't has a beginning because we are wired to believe things start and things end. But if you look at it, the concept of God doesn't solve this either, if God created everything, then who created God? Where does he come from? This only leaves the conclusion that He must have always existed. If one can accept something to be perpetual like God, one can also suppose that, instead of the creator, maybe the "creation" has always existed and there was no need for a creator. Maybe the fundamental matter that constitutes everything has always existed and by chance things lined up in a way to cause the big bang and the origin of our universe as we know it. That sounds to me as good or better than a Creator-creation hypothesis.

Good stuff. But as it stands your relying on faith that this is true just like a religious person with his faith for God. 

So in the end its all about faith....

[Dion 2,476]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

Good stuff. But as it stands your relying on faith that this is true just like a religious person with his faith for God. 

So in the end its all about faith....

I don't know if I would call it faith. Calling it a guess would be more appropriate, I have absolutely no idea whether what I just said is the actual case or not, I just consider it as a possibility. I think faith requires a bit more confidence in one's beliefs. Faith as I understand is a strong belief in something that has little or no supportive evidence. In this sense, I wouldn't call it faith because I lack the confidence that this is the explanation. Additionally, my belief in evolution isn't either because there is strong evidence supporting it, at this point in time it's something almost certain. And even if it's wrong by any chance, I don't think anyone can say it did not make a hell lot of sense to reach such a conclusion given the information we have today. Heck, even popes have claimed it to be true.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

On 28/03/2016 at 1:31 AM, Fernando said:

 

 

I fail to grasp, how dark energy even semi-convincingly confirms creationism and/or debunks evolution? Why they even took dark energy as an example? If that's the reasoning they do they would have done sooner to take gravity, or even H2o as an example.

It's all chemistry and relativity really.
If there was some kind of intelligent design it would all be so boring and we wouldn't even be asking these questions.


Also, morality comes from Batman. That's the end of it and i won't hear another word. Peace.

[Fernando 6,585]

11 hours ago, Dion said:

I don't know if I would call it faith. Calling it a guess would be more appropriate, I have absolutely no idea whether what I just said is the actual case or not, I just consider it as a possibility. I think faith requires a bit more confidence in one's beliefs. Faith as I understand is a strong belief in something that has little or no supportive evidence. In this sense, I wouldn't call it faith because I lack the confidence that this is the explanation. Additionally, my belief in evolution isn't either because there is strong evidence supporting it, at this point in time it's something almost certain. And even if it's wrong by any chance, I don't think anyone can say it did not make a hell lot of sense to reach such a conclusion given the information we have today. Heck, even popes have claimed it to be true.

This is totally wrong. As I just provided you many examples as to why evolution has many flaws mainly to the beginning of the universe. And you just stated that this is a mystery and hence have to hope for other believes. Like the constant that the universe has always existed while scientific study prove this is not what they see.

Scientific study states that the universe had a beginning... 

[Dion 2,476]

3 hours ago, Fernando said:

This is totally wrong. As I just provided you many examples as to why evolution has many flaws mainly to the beginning of the universe. And you just stated that this is a mystery and hence have to hope for other believes. Like the constant that the universe has always existed while scientific study prove this is not what they see.

Scientific study states that the universe had a beginning... 

Evolution and the origin of the universe or life are completely separate things. They state the universe as we know it had a beginning. And such as everything else with science that may even be proved wrong in the future upon arrival of new evidence.

Look at it this way. You get home and your wife is naked with another dude in the bedroom, they're panting, there's sperm... do you know for sure they had sex? No, you don't. Is it completely plausible to assume so? I think it is. That's about the degree of evidence we have that evolution is right. We don't have a live stream or video tape of the act but we're pretty damn close.

[Fernando 6,585]

1 hour ago, Dion said:

Evolution and the origin of the universe or life are completely separate things. They state the universe as we know it had a beginning. And such as everything else with science that may even be proved wrong in the future upon arrival of new evidence.

Look at it this way. You get home and your wife is naked with another dude in the bedroom, they're panting, there's sperm... do you know for sure they had sex? No, you don't. Is it completely plausible to assume so? I think it is. That's about the degree of evidence we have that evolution is right. We don't have a live stream or video tape of the act but we're pretty damn close.

No my friend, everything about the origin of universe is vital to any theory a person has. Right now your just making assumptions about the future.

Again your assumptions and believe that in the future it would be something else is just about as close as you can get to faith.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

43 minutes ago, Fernando said:

No my friend, everything about the origin of universe is vital to any theory a person has. Right now your just making assumptions about the future.

Until we have concrete evidence is based on assumptions. Just like religious people have.

I'm not sure as to what you're referring in there, but we do have CMB to provide evidence of the big bang.
A god, this, i assume, enormous being that sits upon a throne of interstellar medium and engineered all of life, has what exactly to provide evidence to its existence? A book written by men?
All of the universe it's evidence to its existence? And what exactly links it to him? Men's imagination?
Too simplistic. And why choose our people to transfer his words in written material? Out of the surely thousands of life forms out there.
In one of your posts you wrote how without these goldilocks circumstances there would be life. To that sentence i would add "as we know it" There wouldn't be life as we know it.
Too self entitled in my opinion.
Surely if he engineered this beautiful creation, he would have made sure at least on one planet people would know for sure of its existence, as one being and one only; and yet each culture has its own god, maker, whatever you want to name it. So is it only one god, or is it multiple gods out there? Or it's all the same god, only people gave him different names? Or is it god just a makeshift object of our minds, which in their frailty try to explain as best as they can something they cannot yet grasp?
Surely if we would walk together, say in a park, and a lighting out of nowhere would strike the ground near us, you would scoff at me if i would say "Zeus made that!"
And why is that? Because you know, i assume, it's just the product of an electrical storm, not a god who sent that upon us. The greeks, centuries ago would have disagreed, probably the most fanatics would have killed you on the spot, claiming that it was Zeus' will (hyperbole i know).
Surely you can relate the examples to different set of circumstances.
Does god exists? Yes, if you name him chemistry, fundamental forces and chance, and don't believe all of this is some kind of intelligent design.

[Dion 2,476]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

No my friend, everything about the origin of universe is vital to any theory a person has. Right now your just making assumptions about the future.

Again your assumptions and believe that in the future it would be something else is just about as close as you can get to faith.

Evolution deals with how organisms change over time and differentiate themselves from one another. It has nothing to do with the origin of life or universe. It only deals with life after it appeared and it has nothing to do with how it was originated. It is even compatible with creationism somewhat if we assume god created the first organisms who then evolved through mutation and natural selection. The origin of everything and evolution are not tied up. To be honest, most of the complaints I see from ordinary people about evolution come from a poor understanding of it.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

No my friend, everything about the origin of universe is vital to any theory a person has. Right now your just making assumptions about the future.

Again your assumptions and believe that in the future it would be something else is just about as close as you can get to faith.

It's always funny when someone decides to use a whole bunch of semiconductor material assembled as processors and logic gates. be it a computer or a phone, connected to a global network of fiber optics that links almost everyone on the planet together, to doubt the entire scientific method  

[lucio 5,418]

why does anyone doubt evolution? old species disapear and new ones emerge in the fossil record. it really is simple

[Stingray 9,441]

Ok. Im going there about evolution. I will respond (maybe late cause i lack motivation). Sigh. Fernando, if you wanna talk science, i have been into the heart of evolutionary theory for decennia. But you do not make sense and you abuse data. I can safely say i have been at the top tier of the evolutions research group for years. What I will not do, is lower the bar for belief, and up the bar for science.

[Fernando 6,585]

1 hour ago, Dion said:

Evolution deals with how organisms change over time and differentiate themselves from one another. It has nothing to do with the origin of life or universe. It only deals with life after it appeared and it has nothing to do with how it was originated. It is even compatible with creationism somewhat if we assume god created the first organisms who then evolved through mutation and natural selection. The origin of everything and evolution are not tied up. To be honest, most of the complaints I see from ordinary people about evolution come from a poor understanding of it.

Yes but then you have a faulty reasoning. Information comes from somewhere. We pass information by our biology as you gave an example about this.

So if the universe had a beginning, and there was nothing then how you get stuff from nothing?

How do you jump from nothing to information?

[Fernando 6,585]

2 hours ago, Blue_Fox_ said:

I'm not sure as to what you're referring in there, but we do have CMB to provide evidence of the big bang.
A god, this, i assume, enormous being that sits upon a throne of interstellar medium and engineered all of life, has what exactly to provide evidence to its existence? A book written by men?
All of the universe it's evidence to its existence? And what exactly links it to him? Men's imagination?
Too simplistic. And why choose our people to transfer his words in written material? Out of the surely thousands of life forms out there.
In one of your posts you wrote how without these goldilocks circumstances there would be life. To that sentence i would add "as we know it" There wouldn't be life as we know it.
Too self entitled in my opinion.
Surely if he engineered this beautiful creation, he would have made sure at least on one planet people would know for sure of its existence, as one being and one only; and yet each culture has its own god, maker, whatever you want to name it. So is it only one god, or is it multiple gods out there? Or it's all the same god, only people gave him different names? Or is it god just a makeshift object of our minds, which in their frailty try to explain as best as they can something they cannot yet grasp?
Surely if we would walk together, say in a park, and a lighting out of nowhere would strike the ground near us, you would scoff at me if i would say "Zeus made that!"
And why is that? Because you know, i assume, it's just the product of an electrical storm, not a god who sent that upon us. The greeks, centuries ago would have disagreed, probably the most fanatics would have killed you on the spot, claiming that it was Zeus' will (hyperbole i know).
Surely you can relate the examples to different set of circumstances.
Does god exists? Yes, if you name him chemistry, fundamental forces and chance, and don't believe all of this is some kind of intelligent design.

But this is what I'm saying. There's only evidence for a big bang. A big bang suggest there's a creator.

[Dion 2,476]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Yes but then you have a faulty reasoning. Information comes from somewhere. We pass information by our biology as you gave an example about this.

So if the universe had a beginning, and there was nothing then how you get stuff from nothing?

How do you jump from nothing to information?

That's what YOU are not understanding. What you call the first information is the first organism. Evolution does not explain how the first organism was originated it explains how it changed and also tries to explain the mechanisms involved in that process. It's not faulty reasoning, it's you failing to understand what's the phenomena that evolution deals with. How do you jump from nothing to information is not what evolution explains or tries to explain. That would be what primordial soup tries to explain.