The Science of God

page: 12
57
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I may have come from a Lemur...may have, still very questionable. However, I am very different. One question, are we "better" than animals that havent developed to our level of intelligence?




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


No, because in the end we are just animals that inhabit this planet. The other animals / plants that inhabit this planet have just as much right to be here as we do. We may be better thinkers, but better we are not.

In fact there are many animals on this Earth that should rock us in the battle for the food chain.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


haha rock us. I know i should feel elitist about mankind and its position amongst the animal kingdom, but I do find it very hard not to be XD



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


Well that is because you are a man. If you where say a wolf you would think differently



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
If we humans didn't shave or cut our hair for a year we would be a wherry nasty looking creature lol.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
www.sciencedaily.com...

Explains how matter is present in the Universe after the Anti-Matter/Matter battle at beginning of the Universe.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
Especially since we are taking modern religion or current belief systems out of the equation.


And that's where I would disagree. The concept of God falls under precisely that. UNLESS, of course, we are trying to come up with a new definition of God?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnG
 


Please refer to the ontological argument



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by JohnG
 


Please refer to the ontological argument


And that's exactly my question.

For the purposes of this thread, are we supposed to be approaching this subject as scientists or philosophers?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnG
 


Both. Its not possible to truely define God. Nor can you prove his existence via scientific methods. I think overall, the best way to go about this, is to go into great detail portraying the perfect balance of the universe, its laws to which it abides, overall the EXTREMELY small chance that all this came about at the same time, perfectly.

However, you could always argue, yes its a rare chance but what does that do other than show that this rare chance came about?

Its just a chance to delve into the scientific possibilities of the universe. Overall we come down to the existence of energy. Where did that come from? Did it always exists? What caused the singularity of the Big Bang etc.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I agree. I was just thrown by the whole "Science of God" thread title, that's all.

So here's a question. You state:


Originally posted by Toughiv
...the perfect balance of the universe, its laws to which it abides, overall the EXTREMELY small chance that all this came about at the same time, perfectly.


My question for you is this: how do we know it's rare? Are we assuming that there are a.) an extremely small number of other universes out there or possible we are the only one, OR b.) that although there may be plenty of other universes that exist, ours in one of the very few cream of the crop universes?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnG
 


The definition of a god is:

A being that knows all, is all, and sees all.

Besides the definition of religion is:

A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

So in reality Atheism (if you are one) is your religion because it is a set of beliefs held by more than one person (which i think it also applies to beliefs held by just one). Or for anyone living in a materialistic environment, possessions can be your religion as well. You do not hesitate to preach your religion eaither, do you?

The term god has religious undertones sure, but if there where no religion where god existed would that necessarily mean god wouldn't exist.

Besides if the entire human race is wrong, does that mean that what is really real is wrong? You can believe in multiple universes but cannot allow the possibility of a being that exists on a higher level than us, perhaps you could say, the ultimate observer, or perhaps creator of our reality (or hologram if you prefer).

This discussion is about whether or not this entity could exist scientifically, and the reasons why or why not. We could talk about what this entity could be where they came from etc etc. We are discussing the topic of the possibility of:

a being that exists on a higher level than us, perhaps you could say, the ultimate observer, or perhaps creator


Besides as both sides can probably agree, this has been a fun thread so far.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnG
 


im not talking about other universes, i am only considering our own. It is a rare chance that all of this came about, for example the earth being practically the perfect dist. from the Sun for life to develop etc



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by JohnG
 


The definition of a god is:

A being that knows all, is all, and sees all.

Besides the definition of religion is:

A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

So in reality Atheism (if you are one) is your religion because it is a set of beliefs held by more than one person (which i think it also applies to beliefs held by just one). Or for anyone living in a materialistic environment, possessions can be your religion as well. You do not hesitate to preach your religion eaither, do you?

The term god has religious undertones sure, but if there where no religion where god existed would that necessarily mean god wouldn't exist.

Besides if the entire human race is wrong, does that mean that what is really real is wrong? You can believe in multiple universes but cannot allow the possibility of a being that exists on a higher level than us, perhaps you could say, the ultimate observer, or perhaps creator of our reality (or hologram if you prefer).

This discussion is about whether or not this entity could exist scientifically, and the reasons why or why not. We could talk about what this entity could be where they came from etc etc. We are discussing the topic of the possibility of:

a being that exists on a higher level than us, perhaps you could say, the ultimate observer, or perhaps creator


Besides as both sides can probably agree, this has been a fun thread so far.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by DaMod]



Was this directed at me? I never said I was an Atheist.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by JohnG
 


im not talking about other universes, i am only considering our own. It is a rare chance that all of this came about, for example the earth being practically the perfect dist. from the Sun for life to develop etc


It is not only in the right place, we have the perfect atmosphere for life, the perfect beginning atmosphere. We have the right type of galaxy to produce the right kind of star for life. We are in just the right spot in the galaxy to support life. And we have the perfect star type to support life.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnG
 


I know you didn't that's why i said (if you are one).

It wasn't directly directed towards you, if more people catch it they may stay on topic lol.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by JohnG
 


im not talking about other universes, i am only considering our own. It is a rare chance that all of this came about, for example the earth being practically the perfect dist. from the Sun for life to develop etc


Sure, for one planet out of nine (or eight or whatever... it was so much simpler when I was growing up :lol
. But taking into consideration the "infinite universe" (and using that in a figurative sense, so as not to debate the existence of infinite), the idea of a planet forming in the "water-bearing life zone" of a star isn't so rare at all.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnG
I agree. I was just thrown by the whole "Science of God" thread title, that's all.

So here's a question. You state:


Originally posted by Toughiv
...the perfect balance of the universe, its laws to which it abides, overall the EXTREMELY small chance that all this came about at the same time, perfectly.


My question for you is this: how do we know it's rare? Are we assuming that there are a.) an extremely small number of other universes out there or possible we are the only one, OR b.) that although there may be plenty of other universes that exist, ours in one of the very few cream of the crop universes?


I had this thought actually about that. Now there is supposed to be an infinite number of universes with infinite possibilities. That means there are universes where there is nothing but lightning and radiation, and also an infinite amount of universes with life. If this is so then we reach a dead end.

If there is a universe for every possibility then there is a possibility for a super universe. A universe where beings exist that can manifest their every thought. They could literally manifest our existence in a single thought.

But then we are back to the beginning, who manifested them?

And around and around we go!

Anyone else for a trip down the rabbit hole?

[edit on 26-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
www.sciencedaily.com...

Explains how matter is present in the Universe after the Anti-Matter/Matter battle at beginning of the Universe.


Good find. That would make a lot of sense, but then here's the paradox. Even though, all matter would not have been destroyed imagine that happening over and over and over and over and over again. How much matter would be left? Also if all of the anti-matter would have been destroyed then how could the universe oscillate again after that? Also if that is the case why is there still antimatter around?

[edit on 26-5-2009 by DaMod]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Antimatter is only destroyed when it collides with matter. Those that are still around simply havent collided ? Im not 100% sure on that, im very limited when it comes to my knowledge of physics. How could oscillating universe theory not happen due to this? Matter vs antimatter means matter is destroyed, but energy remains constant yes?





new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join