How many planets in the Milky Way?

So 1 scientist looses his marbles and is convinced there is a god and that proves there is a god?

How do you explain all the religious people that become Atheist, I am sure there are more than 1 scientist that has gone down this path. So based on your theory that must prove that there is no god.

Also from what I can understand from your post he does not believe in the christian god but some other god that created everything then fucked off for dinner after throwing the universe in the trash. Mind you this god is more believable than the one in the bible that you cower to.

Sader

What is something? We keep saying that "something" can't be made from nothing.

As far as i know, only a tiny and almost unmeasurrable fraction of an atom is actually something. The rest is space...or nothing. Yet it's perceived as being something. Visible, touchable something.

Even then, nobody is sure if that small fraction of supposed something is actually something, or if it's just a charge, a vibration or some representaiton of data stored somewhere else.

Still, even if it wasn't mostly space that constituted the makeup of solid matter, it could still be made from nothing. Nothing perceptable anyway.

What am i talking about?

Well think of a virutal environment that might exist inside a computer. You could create an entire planet with trees, cars, rivers mountains and everything else, from nothing. Well not entirely because it would be held up by code. But that code would be imperceptable to the beings inside of the environment. All that would be visibile and measurable to them would be the representation of the code inside of their environment. For example...1011010101100 = the color red.

Anywhere that string is found, the color red will be seen. Without having access to the hardware and operating system underneath, you will only ever see red and have no idea of where it comes from or why red exists.

That place DID have a start though. All of that "stuff' WAS made from nothing. It was created on a keyboard in different dimension. And before its creation, in that dimension where it now exists, there was nothing. Not blackness, not a void. Just nothing.

Then somebody created a code and clicked RUN. Boom, a dimension that didn't exist is instanly created along with all the "something" inside it. All the energy, matter, physical laws and co-incidence, it never existed prior to that button press which occured in a realm that is by default inperceptable. Something from nothing.

For me, the best way to think about it is to ask if i believe in the possibility of a technology strong enough to simulate a universe. Not one that necessarily exists in our universe or dimension, but in general, somewhere.

It makes perfect sense to me that something like could exist. Hell, humans will be able to do that in time to come.

At that point. When wer're able to simulate entire universes and we spawn them at will, are we considered Gods to the creatures that exist inside and will they also be wondering how something can be created from nothing as we view them on our screens?

An evolving system is by far the superior type. Why build a finished product? Especially if you want to interact with it? Is it not better, as a creator, to set up initial conditions, like the big bang and physical laws, and then hit the RUN botton?

If you could create a person in a lab. Which is likely to end up superior, the one that learns and adapts or the one that is limited by the finished result of what you created it as?

Also, it's much easier to set up conditions within a system that has the capacity to let them play out then what it is to code every last action and reation yourself.

We're already doing that too. It's far and away the most efficient way to create environments.

Anybody that wants proof of evolution being a sound tool needs look no further than evolutionary simulation software. It literally codes outcomes and actions on it's own. It uses the exact ideas put forward by Darwin but just speeds up generational replicators and allows the user to select desired results as opposed to waiting for natural selection to create them. Those systems self generate some pretty complicated outcomes without the need for single string of code to be written.

I'm not sure why people constantly get stuck on the athiest/creationist /evolution/bible argument every time when thinking about these things.

To me it's clear that all are possible and it's probably likely that all of these things ultimately have some role to play in explaining this stuff.

You are right Plum. "God" is the ultimate code writer. The Devil is some sort of virus threatening to corrupt thr code  yet he isan intended "error" in the code. This Idea of a-wand-wielding-bearded -sky-wizard-on-a-cloud is horse manure Atheists thought up. Atheism is a deliberate choice against God....anti religion.  The only scientificly logical stance would be agnosticism.  Atheism is unlogical God hate...and that is obvious from observation for all neutrals. Satanists take it even a step further....ah well, what do I know.

Plum and Blue, at least you 2 are up for discussion and reason...thanks.

You are right Plum. "God" is the ultimate code writer. The Devil is some sort of virus threatening to corrupt thr code  yet he isan intended "error" in the code. This Idea of a-wand-wielding-bearded -sky-wizard-on-a-cloud is horse manure Atheists thought up. Atheism is a deliberate choice against God....anti religion.  The only scientificly logical stance would be agnosticism.  Atheism is unlogical God hate...and that is obvious from observation for all neutrals. Satanists take it even a step further....ah well, what do I know.

Plum and Blue, at least you 2 are up for discussion and reason...thanks.

Indeed Draad

Idiots fall at insults instead of entertaining different ideas. 

Rooi, I said that if you need proof that evolution o s a sound tool, something repeatable and useful, then that type of software is a good and demonstrable example.

Hall Of Fame

9137 posts

 Atheism is a deliberate choice against God....anti religion.  The only scientificly logical stance would be agnosticism.  Atheism is unlogical God hate...and that is obvious from observation for all neutrals. -

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

Who exactly are the neutrals? 

1. Christians

2. Muslims

3. Other religions

4. Agnostic

5. Atheists

6. Anti-theists

--

Could anyone say they are objective? I am assuming the Christians are objective ones you mention. 

Atheists dont hate religion, a more accurate assessment would they hate religious people 

Anti-Theists take atheism one step further. No only do they not believe in Abrahamic God's, they actually believe the world would be a better place without passing on religion"an opinion" as fact. It could end religious wars for ever. They make Atheists seem like they are agnostic. 

Christians tolerant? hahahahaha you're taking the piss again aren' t you.

Just because Atheist like to point out the absurdity of the christian religion does not make us intolerant. I dont give a flying fuck what you believe but because you believe it doesn't mean we can't point out the multitude of flaws and down right bullshit that christianity claim as facts.

All I ask is you dont pass laws based on your fairy tales that affect me like euthanasia, stem cell research, religious indoctrination of children in state run schools to name a few.

Totally agree Moz.

Above are some great examples of people using their way of explaining existence to shit on others.

"I believe this and therefore you are by necessity both wrong and stupid."

And nobody is speaking from a position of absolute knowledge either. 

It's almost as though people on either side are afraid that their world would unravel if they even dare to look over the edge. It won't.  

If I have some massive religious epiphany tomorrow, great, I seriously look forward to it. If some guy proves that the universe  constantly creates and destroys itself like a snake eating its own tail, awesome. Tell me how it works, I'm all ears and I'll have many questions.

Whatever it is, I'm amazed as is possible by this glitch free super HD and interactive engine that I'm in and I've not nearly made up my mind on how it came about. How could I?

If there is something after this, great, I'll enjoy that too and if not then who gives a damn. Last I heard, dead people don't complain. Not much anyway.

No one is speaking from absolute knowledge, christians say they know its a god Atheist doubt its a god because there is no evidence that such a thing exists.

I have looked at christianty and see no evidence of what you speak but christians look at science and ignore it just because its proves that vast parts of the bible are obviously made up .

Seriously how can anyone believe in such things as noahs ark, it screams fairy tale but some people continue to believe it.

And snowflake you are too indoctrinated to have a thought of your own. you became a slave and unfortunatly for you, you will die a slave to a fairy tale. Supply evidence of a god and i will join your cult but until then I will be a non believer in such BS

"Atheist doubt its a god because there is no evidence that such a thing exists."

Horse shyte. Atheist say "There is no God"...you yourself say it's stupid believing in God.  On this site, even an Oxford professor in mathematics is being called stupid for believing in God. Your call on science is a cop out. I don't mind what you believe,  I  get pisses off at people calling me stupid for what I believe. There are 3 outspoken Atheists on this site. All 3 are anti God. All 3 hide behind so called science. All like to call others stupid and intolerant, yet none have any actual scientific credentials. You hate the idea of a God, and yet you are angry at Him at the same time. It's obvious for all to see.

Crusader flunky has to be one of the most profoundly dumb oaks on the board.

Science has moved on tremendously from Darwin's day (e.g. the simple Amoeba!) and has conclusively proved the existence of God although very foolish atheists have yet to catch up. E.G. the human genome, the information encoded onto DNA all speaks of huge intelligence at work. They cant answer these things just like they cant answer a Universe from nothing or how matter began to live. They cant explain the Cambrian Age whereby fully formed life forms appear from nowhere with NO intermediate forms.

Face facts Darwinism is dead. The fact is also that intelligent design is all around us and again speaks of stupendous intelligence at work.

The real question is why do these dumb atheists cling to their BS. because they prefer the darkness to light.

From 44 former atheists:

Frank is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.

• “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

-Frank Tipler (‘The Physics Of Immortality.’)

Lee was once a self-described militant atheist who worked at the Chicago Tribune. He is now a widely known Christian author, journalist, apologist and pastor, as well as author of the book Case For Christ.

• “It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.”

• “To be honest, I didn’t want to believe that Christianity could radically transform someone’s character and values. It was much easier to raise doubts and manufacture outrageous objections that to consider the possibility that God actually could trigger a revolutionary turn-around in such a depraved and degenerate life.”

-Lee Strobel (‘Case For Christ: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity.’)

• “…the scientific data point powerfully toward the existence of a Creator and that the historical evidence for the resurrection establishes convincingly that Jesus is divine.”

-Lee Strobel (‘Finding the Real Jesus: A Guide for Curious Christians and Skeptical Seekers.’)

Rick Oliver has his Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California, Irvine. He is a member of the American Federation of Herpetoculturalists, the California Science Teachers Association, and the New York Academy of Science.

• “I remember how frustrated I became when, as a young atheist, I examined specimens under the microscope. I would often walk away and try to convince myself that I was not seeing examples of extraordinary design, but merely the product of some random, unexplained mutations.”

• Aleksandr (1918 – 2008) was a Russian writer, and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in literature. He was pivotal in revealing what life was like in the days of the atheistic communist Soviet Union. He is the mind behind his powerful book Voice from the Gulag.

  • “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

  -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. (‘Voice from the Gulag.’)

• Antony was a world leading atheist philosopher who belonged to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought. He was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. In 2003 he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto. In 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a god.

  • “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”
  • “I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”
  • “…we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.”

  -Antony Flew (‘There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.’)

• Sarah, a former atheist, is a research scientist in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Texas.

  • “In fact, it seems that every question we have about the universe is answerable. There’s no reason it has to be this way, and it made me think of Einstein’s observation that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it’s comprehensible. I started to sense an underlying order to the universe. Without knowing it, I was awakening to what Psalm 19 tells us so clearly, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

So, Sader is an agnostic.

Welcome to the team dude!

Moz, was watching, by accident as i cant stand him, an interview with Niel deGrasse Tyson some time back and he said something along the lines of...

When we look up there seems to be no end to the vastness that surrounds us and when we look down there seems to be no difinative answer as to what matter is made of. As a result, we have to rely on artists, writers and philosophers to round off the edges.

For me, he could have added faith to that list, because it's just an explanation.

Anyway, that's what i was eluding to with my original post on this thread.

Not good enough Plum. You are dodging the truth. How did a universe from nothing arise. Why all the information encoded on DNA. Get up to speed Plum! You are too smart to get conned by all the atheist BS.

"we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.” 

(ANTONY FLEW)

NOTE the word "deliberate! A refusal to LOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am an Atheist as I do not BELIEVE that there is a god but I have not ruled out the possibility of there being a god as everyone knows nothing can be proven 100%,

Dradd sorry buddy but get over youself, why are you getting butt hurt over the fact some people think your stupid for believing in christianity. Beeno calls us atheist that and much worse but it doesnt bother me in the slightest, after all its just someones opinion. I am sure you are not an idiot about all things,

And yet again why am I angry at your fairy tale? I get angry that people are stupid enough to get sucked into this scam by the millions so the scam artists can fleece them of their money but as far as your fairy tale goes it is pointless in getting angry at someones invisible friend.

Well shit it appears now that you cannot believe in science unless your a scientist now, does the same apply to believe in a god now you have to be a priest?

What exactly do you mean we hide behind science, are you saying we are fools for believing the answers that science provides(that god does not exist)?

Surely if there was a god he would ensure that science at least pointed to his existance in some way not disprove his existance all together

Crusader Flunky if you were 10% honest you would realize that like Sharkbokkie you know next to squat about the bible, you have precious little clue what it says and no understanding of who Jesus is and what His ministry is about.

You rant and rage like the demented atheist loon you are.

When you have read, prayed and studied the Bible then come and tell me what you have learned. You will never get to the truth until you do. Meanwhile just admit you are a very ignorant nutjob!

Thanks

I have studied your religion for many years beeno and I still find it complete nonsense.I have never managed to read it from cover to cover as its a boring pile of utter nonsense. A person only has to read the first page to know this

As for praying I have asked god to show himself several times and zip on that front as well. So as far as I am concernede its all bollocks and I will continue to believe its nonsense until proven other wise. Nothing short of your god presenting himself to me will do. He knows what to do so I am waiting

You may be surprised to know Crusader Fan I had the same approach. 

Because Jesus rose from the dead He can reveal Himself to those who seek him in Earnest.

You can know so never settle for less. 

Safer

That's the evidence that you require?

That God should reveal himself.

Careful, you might make a life changing decision based on a mere neurological chemical malfunction or even a coincidence that you can't explain. 

Plum please don't descend to sharkbokkie levels

God is there for those who choose not to look away. His law is written in our DNA. The universe is our play pen. The Bible is full of parables.  It's not a science textbook,  it's a record of some of His interactions with man over the years. The general message  has always been the same...much distorted by religion and religious people over the years.

Beeno

Nah dude. I just think that my eyes deceive me much too easily for me to go on their evidence. Especially for something as profound.

As stated, I'm open to having my mind/heart changed. And I'm in no way arrogant enough to assume that I know what the catalyst will be. At a guess, I would assume it to be a deeply personal and character shifting experience that would be felt throughout. A uniquely humbling recognition maybe.

To say that I demand to "see". It's just too base.

Maybe I misunderstood him. Actually, I think I did misunderstand. 

Ah well, I've written all this. May as well leave it up

We've debated this topic a number of times and because of it's interest it's no surprise that we do.

I only have one question which I'd like evolusionist to answer if they can.

Before asking let me just say to not answer with "there always was something."

My question therefor goes to a time when there was nothing, if you can imagine for the sake of description, a vacuum......so how did the Universe evolve from a vacuum?

I cant answer that as and as far as I know nobody can but this does not make the answer god.

Can you answer how a god came from nothing and then made everything from nothing (a question I asked others that so far has had them all running for cover and refusing to answer) after all a creator/builder needs something to actually build with as we hear constantly from creationist.

And no I am not taking he is eternal and always existed (unless you can provide evidence of this which you cant as you cant prove he exists let alone how he was created) 

The same question can be applied to the creationist, so no, I don't know.

No-one has an answer and I'll take the question with me to my grave.  Perhaps we shouldn't be thinking of it in a logical way? That said I don't know how else to think of it but try as I might I can't find an answer.

Still I believe in a supreme being although I'm not convinced my supreme being is one and the same as the Christian God.

Slightly off topic, I watched a documentary once of an english scientist who mixed chemicals in an experiment back in the 1800's. The narrator said that normally when mixing different chemicals it turns into a colour excepting the chemicals in this experiment turned transparent. There is an unfortunate bit to the story which I won't go into but yes I found the story fascinating. Guess what I'm saying is that there might be a case for evolution if circumstances allow for it but that still doesn't explain how the molecules, dust, whatever, was introduced from nothing.

You do know evolution and abiogenesis are 2 different things

Evolution is the change over time in existing organisms

Abiogenises is how life started in the first place

Evolution is a proven fact with so much corroborating evidence that it is undeniable

Abiogenesis is a whole different matter and we dont know how or where life started and neither do the god botherers

Sader

It's all about the formation of the first cell, right? Nobody knows how that happened.

About two years after reading The Selfish Gene I saw a video that gave me an idea. Apparently it's a mystery how the first cells formed closed off units out of strings of amino acids. The video I saw was of how different frequencies cause sand to form geometric patterns on flat surfaces.

They used a large flat sheet of metal, poured fine sand onto it and then ran a violin's bow down the side. 

The sand would go from randomly scattered to creating various perfect geometric shapes...including circles.

This was on a 2d surface. 

The idea I had was that maybe, in the primordial soup, tectonic movements may have created frequencies that could cause amino acids to group up, amongst other shapes, into spheres. This may have occurred many millions of times in varying areas and over a long period.

That would be a perfectly reasonable explanation. Here's a link to a video that demonstrates the idea.

Yes it 2D, but the same thing occurs in 3D too.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w

Then of course there is also panspermia. It's been shown that bacteria can survive in space for long periods. Nothing to say that a rock from somewhere else didn't bring the first living cells to earth. After all, that's how our water got here. 

Again though, nothing says that a creator could not have done all of this either with the snap of a finger or by setting up initial conditions.

Here is a link to an article on Hawkings final theory. As it stands, I have yet to hear a better idea. It's about hologram theory. He fought the idea initially but eventually conceded. 

In summary it basically says that matter passing into a black hole proves that the "something" in our universe is able to exist entirely as data while physically represented as matter in another location.

The conclusion is that, black holes cannot create data, therefore all matter is data and black holes help us to see the code that creates it.

Here is Suskind explaining it very simply. 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

Would be great if some of you guys could watch it and share your thoughts. 

Please, don't dismiss this out of hand. It's NOT pseudo science. 

Also, numerous spiritual traditions from around the world talk about how our reality is a projection, dream, illusion etc. 

How they came to believe that I don't know, but Th r coincidence is remarkable.

No wrong again. 

Tell me how the eye evolved. The retina is useless without the cornea. 

The had to have been created at the same time. 

Forget about the discredited daft theory of evolution. 

Take a rat trap. 

It has five parts. Take one part away and it won't work. 

Now consider the Flagellum a small micro biological motor with 39 parts. One part missing it does work. How did it evolve. Well obviously it didn't.

Atheists are so desperate to prop up their daft take that there is no God nothing is two outlandish for them to accept. 

Hahahahaha. 

"Tell me how the eye evolved. The retina is useless without the cornea. 

The had to have been created at the same time."

You trolling Beeno?

The eye is understood. A light cell or two helps the organism know if it's in the dark or not. Being hidden equals survival. You don't need a lens for that.

Mutations cause bumps on that surcafe of light sensative cells. Certain sequences of those bumps give it the ability to locate light sources. It's a pretty huge advantage. Then it's refined from there.

So really, it's more about the mutations that lead to the light cells initially being created. The answer is that it's a similar progression.

Do christians by default not accept evolution? There is a good deal of mistranslation in the bible. A lot of it relates to time. People living for a few hundred years...which we know wasn't true.

Are we sure that the seven days of creation were actual days? I saw something recently talking about errors relating to plural as well. Specifically to do with god/s. For me, thos e are details and if i get stuck on them then i have to chuck it all out.

Anyhow, i prefer to focus on the larger message. That of a creator being and one's relationship with it.