Quick! Say something controversial!

[Davidu]

Yeah, in basic you can use variables without declaring them.

IT'S CHAOS  ;D

[Kiyouta]

Hmm add 'Option Explicit' at the top then ;) Still works :D

Well anyone can declare God, but trying to call Him... 'incorrect function call' opps ;p

Bottomline is, God may exist, but there's no way us user-mode processes can call upon the services of a kernel process. Just can't happen, so He might as well not exist.

[Caid Ivik]

Yeah, in basic you can use variables without declaring them.

IT'S CHAOS  ;D

Chaos is all, order's just an illusion or naivity  ;)

[GUNWOUNDS]

That's a horrible analogy Gunwounds brought up, because it demonstrates a clear existence of the wife, and a clear emotion of the man against the wife. It isn't that simple. God does not show himself at all. I do not tell God I hate him or am mad at him, since I do not believe in him. And it shows that it is the man's fault entirely. Let's fix this analogy:

A man is told he has a wife, but he has never seen her nor heard from her. He's read about her in a compilation dusted off in the back of the library, and has been told by others that she is his wife, but that's as far as it goes. He doesn't see her at all, or what he would expect a wife to do as she is defined, and ends up not believing he has this wife or that she may exist at all. He is then punished for eternity for this.

Yeah, that's about right   ::)

Thats a poor analogy.... its more like the wife left behind her panties on the bedroom floor (the universe) and her makeup (matter) on the bathroom counter.... along with a fully cooked meal (your life) sitting right there in front of you.  She went on a trip to europe (to create a test of true love) and she left you directions (bible)  to find her at the honeymoon sweet (heaven) and you decided it just wasnt worth your time.  Then as you sit at home and get so fat you are unable to get off the couch (hell) ... you cry out in anguish that you didnt try to find her when you were lean (alive).  Now you are stuck on the couch (hell) and are unable to ever get to europe (heaven) to find her (God).  You scream out in anguish that you were truly a dumbass for choosing doritos (living your "own" life) over the possibility of getting laid by your hot wife (searching for God and following his will)

Thats more like it.

[exatreide]

No actully that was quite confusing.

[erjin999]

A call to religion : Go to Europe ! Dont eat Doritos !  8)

[jeff2429]

Finally, something I can understand.  ;)

[GUNWOUNDS]

rofl

[GUNWOUNDS]

Needs a creator? There's nothing to suggest that. We have no prior model to look at, so you cannot make that assumption. And God is not the greatest conceivable being in existence, if I can imagine a god that has everything the same for your god but does not send people to hell for eternity, but rather gives them a chance after enough time in hell (an actual forgiving god, anyone?).

Prior model? .... we know that clocks and automobiles dont happen by random... you dont see the parts flying together in a junkyard creating these complex things.  An intelligence caused them to be so.  The universe is a perfect candidate for a complex creatable thing... something quite worthy to be called a work of a higher intelligence.... a dam built by beavers is a natural creation by intelligence as is the universe. Its pretty evident ....even great thinkers such as einstein and your quotable jefferson were all deists.... sure they never found a a particular faith that they liked but they understood how the universe needed a higher power for its creation, since it is lacking in terms of infinite independance.

[Megashrap]

A call to religion : Go to Europe ! Dont eat Doritos !  8)

Hmm,I think that is backwards, maybe that really should be: Eat Dorito's and Don't go to Europe.  ;)

[erjin999]

Quick, a heretic ! Burn him !  :P

You have strayed from the true path !

[nemafakei]

I recall reading an electronics experiment in which silicon chips were manufactured, each with many random mutations. At each stage, the top 10 (or similar) were selected so as to be closest to something which produces a high frequency oscillating output with one input, and a low frequency output with another. After several stages, one chip did it. That chip had a number of redundant transistors which could be removed (and also, interestingly, some transistors which were not electronically connected to the rest, but whose removal meant the chip no longer worked). The universe is a bit like that, with loose ends (and less successful chips) hanging around all over the place.

[erjin999]

Thats mean ! We dont mind gunwounds, and I think I speak for everyone when I say I bet he does have a purpose...we just dont know what it is yet. :P

[Acriku]

Prior model? .... we know that clocks and automobiles dont happen by random... you dont see the parts flying together in a junkyard creating these complex things.  An intelligence caused them to be so.  The universe is a perfect candidate for a complex creatable thing... something quite worthy to be called a work of a higher intelligence.... a dam built by beavers is a natural creation by intelligence as is the universe. Its pretty evident ....even great thinkers such as einstein and your quotable jefferson were all deists.... sure they never found a a particular faith that they liked but they understood how the universe needed a higher power for its creation, since it is lacking in terms of infinite independance.

Those are not prior models because they came from other materials. What I said was that there are no prior models of things coming out of existence from nothing. So, you cannot say that it needs a creator, since there is nothing like the universe before. And yes they were deists, because that is the only reasonable belief in a god that can exist. They denounced Christianity because it was so far beyond reason that to believe in it was a tragedy to man. But I wouldn't put words in their mouth gunwounds, being a deist does not equate to believing that the universe needs a higher power. You're twisting things to fit your own twisted beliefs.

[Andrew]

Those are not prior models because they came from other materials. What I said was that there are no prior models of things coming out of existence from nothing.

I seem to remember a time when it was thought that flies came from meat. They put meat in a container and maggots would develope and turn into flies. This was called spontaneous generation.

Francesco Redi disproved this with scientific method.

Dunno, first thing that came to my mind when I read that.

[Andrew]

Video with Bush answering question if he has seen Brokeback Mountain since he himself is a rancher. Says he hasn't seen it.

Link

Seemed like a hard question for him to answer. Maybe he has a problem with gay movies. Or gays in general. hmm...

[Caid Ivik]

What's Brokeback Mountain? I also haven't seen ie Pik Komunizma in Pamir mountains, but I don't think it's the reason why I disagree with most what EdricO says...

[Andrew]

Brokeback mountain is a movie that is getting lots of good reviews, and will be getting all the american awards.

It's about two gay cowboys doing something or other.

It's not the fact that Bush hasn't seen it (I wouldn't expect him to), it's the fact that Bush should have said "No I havn't, next question", instead of beating around the bush (no pun) with it. Although that is what the student probably wanted. If Bush cant answer a simple question about whether he has seen a certain movie, how can he handle anything else?

Also seems that Bush wont be getting scripted questions all the time now.

Bush to Take Unscripted Audience Questions

Gotta love it.

I laughed during Rick Mercers Monday Report that was aired Canadian election night. He interviewed the 3-4 major candidates while making fun of them. And they go along with it. Much like how he ate at macdonalds with Chretien, or swam in a pool with Martin's swimming trunks at his house.

Videos found at right side of the website. Funny :D

[Edric O]

I call for a temporary moratorium on all Intelligent Design-related arguments until everyone involved has read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

I'm saying that because Hume's dialogues cover just about every argument I've seen people use on the subject of creation in this forum. And because Hume manages to refute most of them without appealing to the theory of evolution in any way (considering how it did not exist yet at the time he was writing).

[Andrew]

He refutes the "Bbb-b-but God" argument?

Sparknotes of the book

Goal of the book

Hume's intention in the Dialogues is to demonstrate that religious belief has no rational basis.

The book can be found at project guttenburg here

Which is legal to get in the US and possibly other countries (most likely, as it was written in mid 1700s).

Bush controversy:

White House won't release Abramoff photos

Which show Bush and abromoff meeting, and shaking hands.

Also

US school require iris scan before parents can pick up kids

[GUNWOUNDS]

I call for a temporary moratorium on all Intelligent Design-related arguments until everyone involved has read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

I'm saying that because Hume's dialogues cover just about every argument I've seen people use on the subject of creation in this forum. And because Hume manages to refute most of them without appealing to the theory of evolution in any way (considering how it did not exist yet at the time he was writing).

     Regardless of that Edrico... this isnt about evolution for me...  its about the most basic physics.  Just as Atheists cannot fathom a God existing or creating matter and the universe.  I cannot fathom the universe and matter simply existing for no reason at all.  If the begining was the Big Bang then where did the energy and matter come from?

Emprworm brought up 3 good points along time ago.

Regardless of what Acriku says about "prior models" ... there are only 3 ways something can come into existance.

1.) It was created by an outside force.

2.) It created itself.

3.) It has always existed.

     From what we humans know about matter and energy and "heat death"  ... i think it is safe to say that matter has not always existed and that it did not create itself.  The base state for the Universe would be "Heat Death"  basically everything degrades into long-wave length heat radiation.  This radiation does not form into matter.  basically the heat would dissipate into the freezing void of space. 15 billion light years of matter and energy will one day turn into long wave heat radiation.... basically the entropy of the universe will be maximized given infinite time.

     Therefore it only seems logical that an outside force.. an intelligent creator created this universe... to say that he created it from "nothing" may be a misunderstanding.  If he .. being God... is infintely independant then he could take part of his "essence" and turn it into anything he wanted... be it 3 dimensional matter, energy, whatever.  So IMO he didnt create the world from nothing..... because if he exists, his essence certainly isnt "nothing".

     Einstein and Jefferson were Deists because they understood the need for a supreme creator...Its not putting words in their mouths becuz there is no other reason to hold such a belief.  Its simply being "blunt".  Just becuz they didnt take up christianity as their faith doesnt make christianity "twisted".   In fact Christianity is the only faith that gives people real hope for an afterlife.  Einstein and Jefferson rejected the faith becuz they thought a God would be so snobby as to NOT desire to have any interaction with "insignificant humans".

      They believed that only an IMPERSONAL God existed and that a "personal" god.. one that would offer hope couldnt possibly exist.  They decided to believe that hope didnt exist.  I on the other hand believe that a "PERSONAL" God can exist that can offer hope.  Why?  becuz it doesnt make sense to me for a God to be a thoughtless creator who abandons its creation... such a complex being would surely have some sort of reason for making creatures with the ability to reason. To be honest i would say that if God caused a big bang and caused some matter and energy to form into a two-legged creature that would one day possess the capability to cry out his name and want to know him... that it would indeed be an accomplishment fit for a God.  But what do i know?  I'm just some random water-filled carbon sac with the ability to reason, sitting in a foam chair on a giant rock floating in space amongst 15 billion light years of matter and energy, thinking about a God that doesnt exist.  ::)

[GUNWOUNDS]

I recall reading an electronics experiment in which silicon chips were manufactured, each with many random mutations. At each stage, the top 10 (or similar) were selected so as to be closest to something which produces a high frequency oscillating output with one input, and a low frequency output with another. After several stages, one chip did it. That chip had a number of redundant transistors which could be removed (and also, interestingly, some transistors which were not electronically connected to the rest, but whose removal meant the chip no longer worked). The universe is a bit like that, with loose ends (and less successful chips) hanging around all over the place.

The problem with that example is that who decides what is the selected version to be selected? ... and who judges the top 10?  Sounds like they are neglecting the human influence or the  intelligent design there.  Not saying that experiment wasnt cool.. but those things are usually rigged to appear "random and natural" when they really have intentional or unintentional intelligent design leaking through.  However even if we give it the benefit of the doubt... it may decribe changes in the universe.. but it doesnt my above post which addresses a much larger issue.

[Acriku]

    Regardless of that Edrico... this isnt about evolution for me...  its about the most basic physics.  Just as Atheists cannot fathom a God existing or creating matter and the universe.  I cannot fathom the universe and matter simply existing for no reason at all.  If the begining was the Big Bang then where did the energy and matter come from?

Having no answer is infinitely better than saying Goddidit. It means we're still researching, we're still contemplating, and what we're not doing is just saying Goddidit. That's the most medieval argument I can think of. It's old, it's used, and should be thrown away with witch-burning.

Emprworm brought up 3 good points along time ago.

Ha, I remember that thread. Too bad you didn't seem to get the point myself, nema, and others were saying what was wrong with it. I'll explain again down here.

Regardless of what Acriku says about "prior models" ... there are only 3 ways something can come into existance.

In other words, "we have no idea if this is correct, having no prior model to suggest anything, so we're just going to ignore that small detail and carry on."

1.) It was created by an outside force.

And what was the outside force caused by, pray tell?

    From what we humans know about matter and energy and "heat death"  ... i think it is safe to say that matter has not always existed

And from the exact thread that the three options were talked about, there is Nema explaining that matter has always existed because the big bang was t=0, and from t=0 to t=current time there has always been matter.

and that it did not create itself.

And again, what do you have to make this statement certain?

The base state for the Universe would be "Heat Death"  basically everything degrades into long-wave length heat radiation.  This radiation does not form into matter.  basically the heat would dissipate into the freezing void of space. 15 billion light years of matter and energy will one day turn into long wave heat radiation.... basically the entropy of the universe will be maximized given infinite time.

If given infinite time, then matter would be infinitely spread apart, since our universe is expanding. The key words are infinite time. Will our universe survive infinitely or collapse into a singularity and start all over?

    Therefore it only seems logical that an outside force.. an intelligent creator created this universe...

You're saying two very different things. 1) an outside force (which doesn't even make sense since the universe is all-encompassing, thus no 'outside'. and 2) an intelligent creator. Firstly, you're assuming there is one 'force' or 'creator.' There could be millions, each with a specific function. You're also assuming the creator(s) is(are) intelligent. Nothing points to this conclusion. The theorized millions of creators could know only their function, or unknowingly function and therefore are not intelligent. Is there anything in this universe that concretely and unsuggestively points to an intelligent creator.

to say that he created it from "nothing" may be a misunderstanding.  If he .. being God... is infintely independant then he could take part of his "essence" and turn it into anything he wanted... be it 3 dimensional matter, energy, whatever.  So IMO he didnt create the world from nothing..... because if he exists, his essence certainly isnt "nothing".

Yes, and when do you suppose he created the universe? Without the universe, there is no time. No matter/space, no time. So how did God go from point A to point B when there is no time to do so?

    Einstein and Jefferson were Deists because they understood the need for a supreme creator...Its not putting words in their mouths becuz there is no other reason to hold such a belief.

Logically flawed. There could be a number of reasons why they are deists. They could have grown up on a belief in a god and just never abandoned it. They could have thought it was more romantic to do so. They could have been glorifying nature as such (Jefferson did just that, appealing to God as Nature's God, equating to 'the revelation of nature.'). So yes, you definitely are putting words into their mouths. 

Its simply being "blunt".  Just becuz they didnt take up christianity as their faith doesnt make christianity "twisted".

Actually, Jefferson was quite blunt in calling Christianity twisted (paraphrased of course).

  In fact Christianity is the only faith that gives people real hope for an afterlife.

What you call real hope is the true scotsman fallacy. Other religions bring out definite hope for the afterlife, but you come around and say it is not 'real hope.'

Einstein and Jefferson rejected the faith becuz they thought a God would be so snobby as to NOT desire to have any interaction with "insignificant humans".

You're wrong to capitalize god because that equates to the Judeo-Christian god (what Jefferson certainly did not appeal to). They rejected Christianity, Jefferson specifically, because it is fictitious and superstitious. Not quite "God would be so snobby..."

Why?  becuz it doesnt make sense to me for a God to be a thoughtless creator who abandons its creation... such a complex being would surely have some sort of reason for making creatures with the ability to reason.

It certainly makes sense for the god to have abandoned his creation because he has not interacted with the world at all. Hmm, I think jefferson might be on to something...

To be honest i would say that if God caused a big bang and caused some matter and energy to form into a two-legged creature that would one day possess the capability to cry out his name and want to know him... that it would indeed be an accomplishment fit for a God.

No, because your God is omnipotent, and is so completely easy to God that there is no accomplishment 'fit' for him. Everything comes easy, and fast.

[Edric O]

Regardless of that Edrico... this isnt about evolution for me...  its about the most basic physics.  Just as Atheists cannot fathom a God existing or creating matter and the universe.  I cannot fathom the universe and matter simply existing for no reason at all.  If the begining was the Big Bang then where did the energy and matter come from?

Emprworm brought up 3 good points along time ago.

Regardless of what Acriku says about "prior models" ... there are only 3 ways something can come into existance.

1.) It was created by an outside force.

2.) It created itself.

3.) It has always existed.

Actually, those can be narrowed down to 2:

1. The universe has always existed.

2. The universe began to exist at some point. There was a First Cause; there was something that caused everything else, without itself being caused by anything.

For centuries, the First Cause was seen as the best scientific argument for the existence of God. Atheists (including Hume) have tried to refute religion by getting around the need for a First Cause somehow; by postulating that the universe always existed, or something to that effect. But today we know that it is physically impossible for the universe to have always existed (this is due to entropy, as you explained). So there must have been a First Cause after all. That's already a big point for religion. We have the ball in our court now; the argument is no longer over the existence of a First Cause, but merely over the question of whether this First Cause was an intelligent entity - God - or something else.

By the way, I'd like to point out that we don't really know what the Big Bang was. We know what happened right after the Big Bang - miliseconds after the Big Bang - but not what happened at the very instant when the universe came into being. And we may never know. It seems the effort required to figure out what happened increases asymptotically as you look back in time towards the moment of the Big Bang.

To paraphrase a famous quote, (and I address this to no one in particular) I contend that we are both religious. I just believe in one more supernatural, unknowable divine thing than you do. The Big Bang has all the attributes of a god. Not a personal god, but a god nonetheless. A divine force, a deist god, take your pick. And don't try to say that the Big Bang was just one event, limited in time - just boom and it was all over - because the Big Bang created time.

[Caid Ivik]

Big bang (or rashit ha gilgalim in kabalist terms ;) ) is a hypothese based on a very linear theory of time. Last year has been found a galaxy (not a quasar) which was "older" than the universe, as counted from big bang. It is unknown, how the time flows in more dense enviroments, so we can't say if there even was a beginning. Perhaps it's still fastening, but you never could find a moment of "beginning", absolutely peaceful form, ruhezustand. If we are to bring philosophy to it, read first antinomy in Kant's Critics of Pure Reason; well, he used to be an astronomer too...