Rayman Pirate-Community

Oh hey, I didn't know this thread got a bump. I'm kind of an agnostic, leaning much more heavily towards atheism, if I ever didn't mention that.

Adsolution wrote:God is eternal. He has always existed and always will, no one created him, as is the definition of an eternal being.

That explanation feels too vague to me. It feels like it's just a fancy way to state "he just exists", without actually answering what made him come to be. It's in general the question that really hits me the most: where the fuck did anything come from? I'm very much for supporting the big bang theory and that the right things came together at the right time, but where did those things come from? I feel like even if you could somehow trace back things as far and complex as possible, there's always the remaining question of how the first anything came to be and it just feels unsatisfying to settle with "it always was there".

Nothing can simply just ‘come into being’, the Universe always has had and always will have a fixed amount of matter and energy within it. Where did the Universe come from? According to how we believe the Universe works, if we trace back all the way to the Big Bang, absolutely everything was compressed into a singularity. Such great density would mean that even time stood still. There was no 'before' the Big Bang, or origin of the Universe, there was nothing ‘before’ that moment in which everything began to rapidly expand. That leaves us with the question as to how the Universe exists or the alternative to existence of course, but there's a chance that question could be no more viable than asking what the purpose of the Universe is; both abstract, man-made concepts which have no basis in reality.

Adsolution wrote:Such great density would mean that even time stood still.

That's the one thing I don't get about the Big Bang theory. There's an explanation for why everything in the universe is predicted to have been in one singular point, but I don't get why it means there was no time. It being dense doesn't explain that at all.

Then again if time was around before the Big Bang then the Big Bang actually happening wouldn't make sense because it wouldn't have a cause, but I still don't see an explanation, and yours doesn't really make sense...

Ambidextroid wrote:That's the one thing I don't get about the Big Bang theory. There's an explanation for why everything in the universe is predicted to have been in one singular point, but I don't get why it means there was no time. It being dense doesn't explain that at all.

As I understand it, it's the same reason that light can't escape from the event horizon of a black hole, the hugely concentrated mass/energy warps time so much it basically stands still.

Well, since the Universe expanded rather than collapsed, it seems to function like a backwards black hole, wherein being closer to the event horizon would cause time to move more slowly than in a black hole where it's quite the opposite (if anyone's seen the part in Interstellar where they go down to the giant-wave planet near the black hole, they should get the basic idea of time warping). Instead of the event horizon containing the 'infinite future' like in a black hole, the event horizon of the Big Bang would be at a standstill dating back to its formation, which, given that it appears everything originated from there, would mean the point at which time itself began moving.

Now I'm not really sure about this next part, but I'm guessing that could explain why the Universe's expansion is accellerating rather than slowing via the force of gravity - the further we are from the Universe's event horizon, the faster we move through time due to its 'outward-facing gravitational force' having less and less of an effect on us.

Shrooblord wrote:

Adsolution wrote:I don't think most Christians actually have a problem with Harry Potter.

The Pope wanted to ban the HP series because Wizards don't exist.

Source please?

Adsolution wrote:according to the second law of thermodynamics, time is finite

Do you mean the age of the universe?

Ambidextroid wrote:When I stoppd believing in Santa because I learned how it was impossible, I also stopped believing in God for the same reason.

What proves you that God's existence is impossible? Even you said the opposite afterwards:

Ambidextroid wrote:I'm personally an atheist, but I don't know for a fact that there's no God as I can't prove it.

Maz wrote:Then again, I don't see any scientific proof for God himself. Which makes me wonder why people wouldn't believe in those theories without needing solid proof?

Same here, do you have any solid proof that God doesn't exist?

Ambidextroid wrote:That's the one thing I don't get about the Big Bang theory. There's an explanation for why everything in the universe is predicted to have been in one singular point, but I don't get why it means there was no time. It being dense doesn't explain that at all.

That's because you're stuck in a linear view of time which corresponds exactly to how you see the world. It's like denying quantum mechanics and sticking to classic mechanics instead just because you don't see the difference in your daily life.

God exist! (Yeah, look, I'm here)

Thanks Ad, that seems to have cleared things up a bit for me.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Ambidextroid wrote:When I stoppd believing in Santa because I learned how it was impossible, I also stopped believing in God for the same reason.

What proves you that God's existence is impossible? Even you said the opposite afterwards:

Ambidextroid wrote:I'm personally an atheist, but I don't know for a fact that there's no God as I can't prove it.

Nothing proves that God's existence is impossible, that's not what I said. Nothing proves that Santa's existence is impossible either, and if Santa came down to me and proved that he was real I would immediately accept his existance. You don't believe in Santa, do you? Because there's no proof, his existence is illogical and highly improbable. Same with me and God, I don't believe in him because there's no proof, his existence is illogical and highly improbable.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Ambidextroid wrote:That's the one thing I don't get about the Big Bang theory. There's an explanation for why everything in the universe is predicted to have been in one singular point, but I don't get why it means there was no time. It being dense doesn't explain that at all.

That's because you're stuck in a linear view of time which corresponds exactly to how you see the world. It's like denying quantum mechanics and sticking to classic mechanics instead just because you don't see the difference in your daily life.

Erm... I don't get what you mean...
I don't deny that the Big Bang was the start of time, just that I don't understand and I'd like some help (which Ad gave me).

Hunchman801 wrote: Do you mean the age of the universe?

Yeah, I meant 'our time', not time itself.

Ambidextroid wrote:Nothing proves that Santa's existence is impossible either

You just said that you "learned how it was impossible" for Santa to exist.

Hunchman801 wrote: Same here, do you have any solid proof that God doesn't exist?

What I said certainly came out wrong if that's what people take as my point.

[rant]
I'm fully aware that science can't explain everything either, quite the contrary, which I believe is probably one of the reasons why people believe in God instead. But to me, it seems like there's at least indications for some of the scientific explanations to hold truth in them (I mentioned the ape-human-thing several times already), whereas I can't see any indication for God's existence.

I don't know whether it was thanks to these discussions, but I managed to at least get a glimpse into why people would possibly believe in God. I hope that you, on the other hand, can understand why someone wouldn't (unless you're non-religious as well and put that question out there just like that). It's just that to me, there's some proof (or at least indications, whatever) to science, but none to God. In my eyes, sticking with whatever seemed more reliable - as in, more seeming-to-be-proof being available - seemed like the logical choice.
[/rant]

I don't have proof that God doesn't exist, it just strikes me as odd that people who believe in God to explain things which science can't explain (due to lack of proof, I might add) can do so when it's just the same thing there. Because even if I don't have any proof, you don't have any either, right? And that's what my point was: Why not believe in science when there's no proof either way? Even if I'm somehow starting to see the reasoning of religious people, I still can't help but wonder.

It is indeed curious, but the reasoning is no different than that of the people who were taught to believe and continued telling themselves that black people were no different from chimpanzees. Now, one actually preaches kindness and acceptance (barring shit like pure Islam), so that's definitely nice I guess.

Also, Hunch is not religious, the question was put out there to reaffirm the principles of deductive reasoning.

People have different standards for belief. Some people will believe in something because their parents told them so, or because they fear the alternatives, or even simply because it is what they want to believe. Others, like it seems most on this forum, have stricter requirements for their own beliefs.

I happen to come from a long line of Christians. Indeed I am the first to question my theological position. I can't speak for my ancestors, but my father's religious-ness is really him seeking comfort. He is truly an intellectual man (and I envy him so much for it), and very open to science and logic, however, he has recently lost some significant figures in his life, and part of coming to terms with this is having hope for an afterlife and a god.

It's probably not a good answer to the question, but it's my stance based on my own position.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Shrooblord wrote:

Adsolution wrote:I don't think most Christians actually have a problem with Harry Potter.

The Pope wanted to ban the HP series because Wizards don't exist.

Source please?

When I posted that, I was saying something I heard my mother say some time ago when she'd read it in, what, the newspaper? I found a link to its source at the time of posting on I think Wikipedia and would have definitely posted it along with my original post, but the site that the reference lead to has been ... taken down.

===

To be perfectly scientific, an acceptable theory has to be falsifiable. I.e. you need to construct your theory in such a way that someone can go out there and disprove you, should there be anything to disprove you. You can't say "My theory holds because I said so" but you can say "My theory holds because all swans have white feathers."
Then someone could go out and investigate whether or not all swans have white feathers. The only thing they need to find is one swan that doesn't have white feathers (and there is such a thing as a black-feathered swan) to disprove your theory.

Good theories hold because they are inherently falsifiable (i.e. there possibly is something to disprove them), but that thing that would disprove them has not been found.
God exists because God is God is not a scientific explanation - but then the very nature of religion is not scientific. But it's a viewpoint from religious scientists I don't quite understand. In your scientific mindset, how can you believe in God? I imagine it's got something to do with "There's something beyond what we can observe and measure and I call that God."
I admire that point of view - blindly following something you cannot prove - as long as it's an innocent belief; it's something that gives you strength, something that reinforces you as a human being.

The moment you start bashing each others' heads in because you believe different things is where I draw the line. The countless parts of religions where they say to 'love one another, respect nature and each other, not commit violence'*) and then people go ahead and shit on those good values just because someone else believes different but still good values... ugh. People suck sometimes.

PS
*)=

• Christian Bible: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” ( John 13:34-35 )
• Islamic Quran: (just follow the second link; there's lots of passages I'd like to quote from it)
• Buddhist Dhammapada: “Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat.” (Dp.15,5) and
  “Hatreds never cease by hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law.” (Dp.1,5)

Shrooblord wrote:The countless parts of religions where they say to 'love one another, respect nature and each other, not commit violence'*) and then people go ahead and shit on those good values just because someone else believes different but still good values... ugh.

The Q'uran contains countless measures that state death and suffering should be brought upon those who question or do not follow it; that is as core a concept to Islam as spreading the word of God is to Christianity, the difference being that Christianity gives you until the end of your life to accept it before you're punished.

I should probably go run my head straight through a wall before making bold statements about religions I don't personally follow.

But in that regard, I find religion is often of a dualic nature - God himself is vengeful and destroys all his non-followers in the Bible, yet preaches to his People that they should never harm others and be Good... is he training us to be better than he is, morally? That would be a heart-wearmingly sweet student-surpasses-master message.

Well, according to Christianity, He is the only one worthy of passing judgement, so I believe it means that the student isn't acting morally superior, rather, is not capable of judging.

What if a human child only ever dreamed of being a god? That's not a very inspiring message for our lord to pass on.

What Ad said. The holiness of God and His ability to cast judgement is integral to Judaeo-Christian thought. Without it, the concept of God taking His own judgement in order to spare us is impossible.

If you understand a religion to be the metaphysical underpinning of a culture (and that understanding of it is more applicable on a global scale than the 'personal belief' thing we've supposedly got going on in the West), then the scriptural dichotomy in the Judaeo-Christian God makes more sense. But remember there are also theologians who have dedicated their lives to explaining why God behaves as He has without going down that route, so...

In my quest to discover the most suitable word to describe my stance on things, I've discovered that "atheist" isn't enough - well, sort of, it describes what it needs to, but there's more to it than that. I'm sure many have noticed my tendency to analogise things that might seem extremely different, such as the thought processes behind racism and theism, but it's only to prove a point by showing how they aren't that different at all. While I'm of course open to the possibility of a religious truth, not only do I not believe in it, I think that religion is harmful because it promotes a very bad method of reasoning, and that usually affects more than just their personal religious beliefs.

I'm aware of the term 'antitheist', but I don't like it as much because it's so vague, and can encapsulate people like myself, as well as people who straight-up hate religion and just religion for an even worse reason than the reason people give for believing in it. It's the reasoning I find harmful, not religion itself (though religion is a prime example of something that requires you to reason in that way). Is there a word for that?

Perhaps something along the lines of 'anti-fideist'? I think 'anti-theist' is used broadly enough to cover your view, though I can understand why you wouldn't want to associate yourself with, eheh, certain others who use it

'Fideism', I didn't know that word existed. I suppose your idea is pretty perfect then, I just wish the word was a little more well-known.

While reading about it on Wikipedia, I was reminded of how Catholics reject fideism because they believe God can be explained through reason.