Religion/Spirituality Theism Discussion (Abrahamic Religions, Religious Philosophy, etc.)

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It does go with the whole let there be light thing

In genesis, god said "4 days had passed" before he created the actual "sun"...

so how was he measuring the length of a day?

Mind you, different planets have different day lengths.

Explain this to me.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

I'm not gonna go back and look for the thread. But all I said was that plenty of scientists challenge the Big Bang theory due to the massive holes in it and it is very likely that it would be altered or thrown out when more information is gathered. You jumped all down my throat as if I said something crazy.

Y'all spend so much time fighting the religious crazies that your ready to pounce as soon as someone says anything. That's why I got the fukk up outa "higher learning" aint shyt higher about the learning in here

There are no "massive" holes in the theory (please point them out to me). Whoever wrote the article in the OP is a dumb fukk and doesn't understand the big bang theory.

"Whereas the Planck results “prove that inflation is correct”, they leave open the question of how inflation happened, Dvali adds. The study could help to show how inflation is triggered by the motion of the Universe through a higher-dimensional reality, he says."

Again, this study doesn't disprove the big bang theory, they're trying to explain why inflation occurred in the first place.

"There are problems with the Big Bang theory, though until now we haven't really had any better ideas, so we've stuck with it as a plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe. For one, we have no idea what would trigger an ultradense pinpoint of matter to explode outwards."

People keep trying to explain why the matter expanded, but the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with "WHY" the matter expanded. So just because you answer the question of "why" expansion happened, it has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang theory.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Not gonna lie ive been gettin more into spirituality an the idea of a greater force is kinda appealing, like idk if its real but believing in spiritual stuff/god makes you feel better. I remember the instant i stopped believing in god i felt like a part of me went missing

Thats all it is.

You missed it and are trying to replace it.

Doesn't mean something is actually there.

Consider it more of a habit than an actual tool.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

God said let their be light and b00m.

Did god say this though:

And why did it take him until the 1920s to do so?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

God gives everyone power, even the strength for you to recite demonic filth to friends, which is saddening but i guess its all apart of Gods plan. Someone has to be the antonym to the power of good. I guess you've stepped up to the plate like pinch hitters to be the example of rubbish for friends to assist in being the opposite. Good job friend but lets turn to God and the power of good in the next 3 seconds so we arent crushed flattened and made humble.

Including Jerry Sandusky?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

There are no "massive" holes in the theory (please point them out to me). Whoever wrote the article in the OP is a dumb fukk and doesn't understand the big bang theory.

"Whereas the Planck results “prove that inflation is correct”, they leave open the question of how inflation happened, Dvali adds. The study could help to show how inflation is triggered by the motion of the Universe through a higher-dimensional reality, he says."

Again, this study doesn't disprove the big bang theory, they're trying to explain why inflation occurred in the first place.

"There are problems with the Big Bang theory, though until now we haven't really had any better ideas, so we've stuck with it as a plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe. For one, we have no idea what would trigger an ultradense pinpoint of matter to explode outwards."

People keep trying to explain why the matter expanded, but the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with "WHY" the matter expanded. So just because you answer the question of "why" expansion happened, it has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang theory.

Not going through this with you again. I posted plenty of proof that plenty of scientists challenge the Big Bang. It's not perfect by any means, the people who came up with the idea will tell you that.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

why sprain your vagina over it tho? you dont know what i believe in and you couldnt prove shyt to me either

Again. This doesn't matter and you know it, since all you can do is deflect instead of actually substantiating anything you're saying.

 

[rapbeats]

i just dont understand

they keep amassing this evidence and people are still willing to hold up the bible, which is getting 'er by the day, as the end-all be all to how we got here

so... just because someone is starting to reveal how a magic trick was done. thats some how supposed to now make the audience disbelieve their was ever a magician involved?

 

[Poitier]

Its not ambiguous. Religious people have been doing it forever.

If I explain how a miracle works and that its not a suspension of the laws of nature, is it still a miracle?

this is poetic semantics aimed at side-stepping the core issue.

And there is no evidence that much of anything is teleological (for a particular purpose).

They are FUNCTIONALLY opposed to one another. One claims to know, the other doesnt, but rather supports its assertions via testable and repeatable hypotheses. The inclusion of that small margin of error makes it a more accurate process. Its like learning physics in high school then going to college and grad school and learning that shyt was pretty inaccurate but rather more complex.

Thats not my problem. Thats your problem. You made that god up. Using this logic then you can say theres always room for lisa frank unicorns and leprechauns.

Faith is belief with the lack of evidence. Literally. You don't use faith in ANY other form of your life. Whether it be drafting players for your fantasy team or haphazardly crossing the street. Nope. Unless you're confusing faith with empiricism...which isn't faith.
seems that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Science doesn't claim to be able to answer "why"

The "why" question doesn't get you anywhere either since it infers a purpose or a meaning...to which case you must ask why you're pursuing a meaning in the first place. Until you can justify that there IS a meaning (outside of one that you place upon such a thing) then you'll never answer that question.

There is no supported reason to suggest "why"

i don't assert that there IS NO WHY. I can't do that.

I can say however that there is no evidence for me to support a "why"

its YOU who do that.



I hate islam.

i don't hate muslims.

Get mad if you want to.

That being said...BEING RELIGIOUS IS VOLUNTARY. If you don't like abiding by even the most socially controversial parts of it, thats YOUR fukking problem. Its not my fault you refuse to be held to the standards you imposed on yourself.





Agnosticism only answers one question: What you know.

Atheism answers a completely different question: What you believe.

I do not know if there is a god. I can't know what I don't know.

However.

Based on the lack of evidence to support theistic or religious claims, i do not have any sufficent reason or evidence to believe in those claims.

1.No, it is no longer a miracle, but it could still be an act of god.
2. Once again, you're putting faith into "evidence" is as silly as someone worshipping an unknown God. If something was teological, we would have to be omniscient to know, correct?
3. How are deism and science opposing. You once again confuse religion with a belief in a higher power.
4. No, it's your problem as well because you care to disprove it but fall short everytime.
5. How do you have evidence that evidence in itself is of any merit? It's circular, my friend.
6. Once again, there may not be a why but you have no means to verify this short of omniscience.
7. You keep exhibiting the fallacy of evidence as the end all be all

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Not going through this with you again. I posted plenty of proof that plenty of scientists challenge the Big Bang. It's not perfect by any means, the people who came up with the idea will tell you that.

There are "problems" and "discrepancies" with the Theory of Gravity too. Take the big bang word out of it, expansion happened, that's a fact.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

There are "problems" and "discrepancies" with the Theory of Gravity too. Take the big bang word out of it, expansion happened, that's a fact.

Expansion doesn't speed up. That's a fact

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

My problem is this...

How is someone who is a deist moving the goalpost different than a person who relies on science that moves the goalpost based on discovery?

the deist claims god is at the root of everything.

The scientist doesn't. The scientist doesn't claim to know everything. It just claims to know what the evidence supports.



if you truly believe in god, then the process of discovery is pointless for you.

"God did it" should really be where the end of your inquiry is.

Empirical evidence? Information? Data? You're putting your faith in the Universe and our shared experience that those things even have any kind of validity.

Consistency is what we rely on. But we admit that even at some scale (quantum to speed of light) things break down and our understanding must change. It doesn't change the extent of what we know though.

Whats your point?

Again. Deists are those fed up with traditional concepts of religion but too p*ssy to go all the way and drop the bullshyt.

I don't think we will ever become fully omniscient, so that just means you either worship God or you worship Data. Both seem a bit silly to me.

No one worships data and your inability to see that people aren't "Praying" to science is fukking retarded.

There is a method that we can use to figure out how things work MORE ACCURATELY than sitting around and sying "god did it"

Data helps make predictions based on empirical evidence.

Thats how weather forcasts are made and how traffic signals work.

its not perfect, but its the pursuit of knowledge that leads to some asymptotic maximization.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Napoleon, a belief in a higher force and religion are not equivalent. You are making tons of straw man arguments.

They are to me.

A lot of people won't make that connection since they like to give the religious moderates a break.

I don't.

Religious moderates are the bane of religion. The fundies are PHILSOPHICALLY more respectable. God said it? They believe it. Done deal.

The moderates who toy around with the concept and redraw the lines and pick and choose from other religious (and they love the eastern shyt since its so "esoteric" ) are the ones who allow religion to survive since people thing "oh well we're not that bad"

Its sheer insanity.

If you believe ANYTHING without evidence, thats SHEER dogma.

Wanting something to be true, in lieu of actually having ANY evidence is DOGMATIC.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

".. the Universe formed from the debris ejected when a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole."

I can't believe you snobs will argue the case for four dimensional objects and look beyond forms of spirituality... you're missing the whole point. The harder you look, the more you'll find, but there will never be a conclusive explanation. Just as much as every time we find smaller particles we postulate even smaller particles. We find gigantic structures in the universe, and then we find even more giant. Existence is fractal in nature, which i don't think can be understood until science and spirituality stop fighting bickering.

What does spirituality bring to the table that astrophysics didn't?

Thats what I would like to know.

Seems like you're piggybacking.

And using this poetic jargon to explain your sense of wonder doesn't actually make any revelations, now does it?

and the "4th" dimension isn't that hard to understand. If you speed WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY the hell up, then yes, the 4th dimension gets really obvious.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yep, you can only control your subjective reality. Science is cool to understand how and most religion provide cool historical context and narratives but neither will lead us to omniscience.

Who said omniscience was the goal?

The goal is to know what we didn't know yesterday. Whether that be everything or a little less than that, thats just fine.

What the hell are you saying?

its like you want to contribute to this conversation by suggesting that sitting around and circle-jerking about your thoughts and feelings to "the universe/gaia/cheerios" enables you to understand more about the laws of the universe.

its sheer sophistry and scraping the barrel of intellectual insight.