If God created everything, why does religion contradicts so many things??

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Not all scientists agree because science is VERY SLOOOOOOOOOOOOW at affirming truth.

Science doesn't KNOW the truth of the nature of universe. Please, NuT, stop with this intellectual dishonesty! Science hasn't proven or disproven the size, age or nature, whether finite or infinite, of the universe.

originally posted by: windword

Science doesn't KNOW the truth of the nature of universe. Please, NuT, stop with this intellectual dishonesty! Science hasn't proven or disproven the size, age or nature, whether finite or infinite, of the universe.

Science update:

-science is getting close in determining our universe has a clearly defined boundary.
-same goes for our true origins

We might figure it all out by 2020 which has nothing to do with my username.

But I fear that the truth which will be revealed through science will likely result to WWIII of an unprecedented nature. None of which anyone had hypothesized before. The discovery will also uncover the true and insidious nature of religion.

If the war does takes place, the outcome will either result to our liberation or another cycle of dark ages which culminated to our present civilization.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Sure it does, "there is no purpose to life", is a viable answer to the question.

That's one response that an atheist may have, another might be that the purpose to life is nothing more than to eat, drink and be merry.

What more does a believer have in the way of purpose except an added belief that their purpose is to please their creator?

Well, I'm not trying to be flippant but, religion doesn't deny being religion either.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Not all scientists agree because science is VERY SLOOOOOOOOOOOOW at affirming truth.

Science doesn't KNOW the truth of the nature of universe. Please, NuT, stop with this intellectual dishonesty! Science hasn't proven or disproven the size, age or nature, whether finite or infinite, of the universe.

That's not true, again. Have you ever heard of Planck? The universe is both finite in the microcosm, and the macro. There is a limit that any particle can be. (10^-35 cm) and a limit to the length of time (10^-43 sec). So space-time is digitized, it's finite. And do you realize you are arguing that there is no such thing as maximum entropy when you say that the universe is infinite in space-time? THAT'S TERRIBLE PHYSICS! Entropy is certain, and no scientist worth a damn would deny thermodynamics.

If the universe were infinite in space-time it would be at heat death. Life would cease to exist.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Have you ever heard of Planck?

If it were true that Planck's Law defined the beginning of the Universe and proved the fate of Universe, heat death, or as other have argued "the big freeze", then physicists wouldn't still be arguing and testing hypothesis.

I believe one source of the public's confusion about what Big Bang theory says about the origin of the universe is the fact that the Planck time is typically referred to as something like "the first 10-43 seconds of the universe." If it is the first 10-43 seconds of the universe, then wouldn't it seem that there must have been a beginning to the universe? I presume that what cosmologists mean when they talk about Planck time that way is that if you were to ignore quantum mechanical effects, and thus predict a beginning of the universe from general relativity alone, then the Planck time would be 10-43 seconds after that hypothetical beginning. This provides a convenient way to assign dates to everything, but tells us nothing about whether there was really a beginning to the universe.

[5] R. M. Wald. 1977. Space, Time, and Gravity: The Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 53.

a reply to: windword

If it were true that Planck's Law defined the beginning of the Universe

I never said it did, re-read my post. Planck's time and Planck's length describe quanta, the fundamentals of quantum physics.

R. M. Wald. 1977. Space, Time, and Gravity: The Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes.

And just so you know, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology have discovered VOLUMES more knowledge about the universe in the past 37 years. Refer to the date of the lecture I provided by Stephen Hawking please.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Bottom line............

Nobody really knows the true nature of the Universe, and Planks Constant DOES NOT prove God exists or that the Universe was created, has a beginning or an end.

Please just stop!

a reply to: windword

Nobody really knows the true nature of the Universe

True, but it's clearly known the universe is not infinite in space-time. Which was my point. To claim it is is very bad Physics.

and Planks Constant DOES NOT prove God exists or that the Universe was created

I never said it did, why are you straw manning what I've said?

Please just stop!

Stop what? Stop you from putting words in my mouth that I've not said?

The creator created the universe, from the universe came many things including man, man created religion.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Stop what? Stop you from putting words in my mouth that I've not said?

It's just as easy to believe that the Universe, which mean everything that exists, did exist and will exist, including dimensions and spirits, is infinite and eternal as it is to believe in a God that is.

Please stop trying to prove my philosophy illogical with your intellectual dishonesty. You can't prove that the Universe isn't infinite and eternal any more than you can prove that a god exists, let along that it is infinite and eternal.

a reply to: windword

It's just as easy to believe that the Universe, which mean everything that exists, did exist and will exist, including dimensions and spirits, is infinite and eternal as it is to believe in a God that is.

Sure, for a child. Not anyone who knows quantum mechanics. Space-time is a physical dimension, it is affected by entropy laws. It had a definite beginning, and it will have a definite end called "heat death". That's precisely what Einstein proved, that there is no difference between space and time, and that theory has been proven by 14 different methodologies down to 19 decimal places. It's a fact.

Please stop trying to prove my philosophy illogical with your intellectual dishonesty.

Oh please, get off your high horse. I'm sourcing Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. lol

You can't prove that the Universe isn't infinite

You're the one being intellectually dishonest, that theory has already been falsified. Space and time are finite, that's indisputable.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

If the Universe dies a heat death, then so does God. There is nothing outside of what is, not even God.

Space-time is a physical dimension,

Space time is NOT the entire Universe. One dimension does not a Universe make!

You're the one being intellectually dishonest, that theory has already been falsified. Space and time are finite, that's indisputable.

Nope!

Conventional wisdom says the universe is infinite. But it could be finite, merely giving the illusion of infinity. Upcoming measurements may finally answer this ancient question.
cosmos.phy.tufts.edu...

You may speculate all you want, and present the speculation of physicists all day long, but there is no objective scientific proof of the size, shape, dimensions, origin or fate of the entire Universe.

Observations of various times in the universe suggest that, for the first several billion years, the universe’s expansion slowed — but then roughly 8 billion years ago, expansion began accelerating. If the acceleration continues (which seems likely), the universe will never slow its expansion or re-collapse. This corresponds to the idea of a “flat” universe, which is currently the most accepted model.

But a spatially flat universe can be characteristic of either a finite or an infinite universe. When we say that space is “flat,” we mean it obeys Euclidean geometry: parallel lines never intersect, and the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. We can imagine the universe in two dimensions as a plane, which is flat and infinite (like an infinite piece of paper). But we can also imagine taking that paper and rolling it into a cylinder, then rolling it again into a torus (doughnut shape). The surface of the torus is spatially flat, like the piece of paper, but finite. However, with expansion, it is possible that even if the universe just has a very large volume now, it will reach infinite volume in the infinite future.
- See more at: www.skyandtelescope.com...

To claim that science has proven that the Universe is finite is intellectually dishonest!

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Please see this NEW thread!

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

a reply to: windword

To claim that science has proven that the Universe is finite is intellectually dishonest!

No, it's what both Einstein and Stephen Hawking are saying. I provided a link to his lecture on the subject. You're ignoring it.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Are you referring to the Wiki article on Heat Death, or the Hawkins lecture, where he sums up his "theory": "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."

So, for you, whatever Hawkins says is God's truth?

You're being obtuse and deliberately ignoring others' work, work that contradicts Hawkins' theories.

I have also posted links which PROVE my point, that the jury is still out regarding the origins, age, shape, size, nature or fate of the Universe, which you've chosen to ignore.

We seem to be at a stalemate. The difference in our stances is that I'm willing to admit that science hasn't found the answers, you are not.

I reiterate:

"It's just as easy to believe that the Universe had no beginning and is infinite as is to believe in a God that is as such."

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

There is no such thing as contradiction when dealing with something not in the present.


Last Thursdayism (sometimes Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older. It forms both a philosophical point about how our observations may not match with "reality" and a reductio ad absurdum of some young-Earth creationist ideas; if the world was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what stops us simply claiming it was made last Thursday in the same manner?

Last Thursdayism can not be proven as false, so there is no contradictions.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
There is no such thing as contradiction when dealing with something not in the present.

Many concepts of religion exist in the present as well - the concept of right and wrong for one thing has many contradictions within Christianity as one example.

a reply to: johndeere2020

Firstly, God and religion are separate things.

Next, the biggest killers in most modern societies (according to the CDC) are, in order:
Heart disease
Cancer
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)
Alzheimer's disease
Diabetes
Influenza and Pneumonia
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis
Intentional self-harm (suicide)

You'd go a long way down the list before anything that could be possibly construed as 'religion based' appears.

Face it, most people die of lifestyle choice.

And yes, religion is a lifestyle choice but compared with most other lifestyle choices, is harmless.

Perhaps people who bemoan the perils of religion can't face the truth about their naturally self destructive and selfish human nature; and want to scapegoat a choice that they feel they will safely never select.

The truth, however, is evident.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Perhaps people who bemoan the perils of religion can't face the truth about their naturally self destructive and selfish human nature; and want to scapegoat a choice that they feel they will safely never select.

The truth, however, is evident.

Yes expressing concern over the effects religion has now and has had in the past obviously means you're a bad person!