Religion

[Talapus]

For one, in order to have another Big Bang we either need more mass (the law of conservation of mass/energy suggests this as being impossible) or all the mass that currently exists to recollect into the center of the universe.

Quite true. It is quite possible that we live in a closed universe (although current thinking is leaning towards an open universe). If that is the case, then the universe will eventually begin to collapse, back into the singularity from which it started. From there, it could create another big bang. Unfortunatly, everything is almost certainly destroyed in such a process, and thus no knowledge nor artifacts could survive between cycles.

Phi is simply the relation between the radius of a circle and it circumference, it exists because circles exist and we decided to measure it.

You are thinking of Pi. Phi is another greek letter that has different uses. Presumably Nalaris was trying to speak of the golden ratio, which is simply a ratio of proportionality, and a natural algebraic construct of nature (just as pi is). It is possible however that he was speaking of Euler's totient function, an electric potential equation, or a magnetic flux equation.

[Nyaraka]

I'm going to jump in for a moment (though I'm not finished reading all 93 pages of this thread yet -- and I'm probably going to get distracted in a moment and forget what I wanted to say).

I'm an atheist, but although I lean towards atheism because there is no way to convincingly prove (to me) the existence of a god, there is also, to some degree, an almost-blind faith.

Like many religious people, I think I'm right because I feel that it's true. They may feel in their heart that there is a god. I feel that there cannot be one. It's an internal thing.

Just wanted to mention that, since from the 34 pages I've read, the atheists debating their case have used mainly logical arguments. :3

[Talapus]

Just wanted to mention that, since from the 34 pages I've read, the atheists debating their case have used mainly logical arguments. :3

Well there really is not much other choice. Faith based arguements are laughed at (Oh the irony ), and theological arguements usually only apply to a small fraction of the religions out there(so theological arguements would have to be constructed for each religion). Logical arguements are broad, and are taken somewhat seriously, therefore they are the only real arguement out there for atheists to use.

[Nyaraka]

Yeah, I'm aware as to why they're not used -- I just find it a bit odd that it hasn't been mentioned, really. It's been mentioned on the religious side, and however pointless of an argument it makes, there's not reason for it not to mentioned on the non-religious side.

Plus, I think this is supposed to be a discussion. o.o

[Wilmer Bordonado]

The Main Problem is we can not understand the meaning of infinite. That's why just some of us had invented the figure of someone who's created our world, our existance, our universe...
Nowadays, infinite is beyond human thinking. We have to accept that. Perhaps maths has the solution to this big enigma, or just not. But certainly, we are not the center of the universe, we're just not the only one, and so, god is simply a creature of our culture, a way to find an easy answer to our ignorance.
Main Problem is not if god exists, or not... This answer talks about private opinions, personal fears, individual psychologycal matters, etc.
Main Problem is not WHY we exists, but HOW.

Wilmer B.

[Dee]

Very contradicting... You ask how we exist yet you do not accept the idea of God's existence... Well, that's the answer, God created us.

[Wilmer Bordonado]

Very contradicting... You ask how we exist yet you do not accept the idea of God's existence... Well, that's the answer, God created us.

It's not a contridiction. You're thinking in a cause & effect way, you're thinking in a time related way, but time in itself is a cultural creation... That's our limitation as humans, we're imprisioned in time, while it does not exists. Just consider Sun is only a lost star in universe, and it's our "clock".
There's no time in universe because its simply infinite, it has no borders, and --Pardon me Stephen Hawkings-- no beginning, no end.

Wilmer B.

[Nakranoth]

Hey, if everything needs a cause, then so does God. If God does not need a cause, then why does everything else? Think about that.

[Dee]

Very contradicting... You ask how we exist yet you do not accept the idea of God's existence... Well, that's the answer, God created us.

It's not a contridiction. You're thinking in a cause & effect way, you're thinking in a time related way, but time in itself is a cultural creation... That's our limitation as humans, we're imprisioned in time, while it does not exists. Just consider Sun is only a lost star in universe, and it's our "clock".
There's no time in universe because its simply infinite, it has no borders, and --Pardon me Stephen Hawkings-- no beginning, no end.

Wilmer B.

That's your opinion and I respect it

[Nalaris]

God was once mortal, but, being an incredibly righteous person in His mortal life, was granted the ability to create worlds without number. We can do the same, given that we live really righteously(conversion to Mormonism is also a requirement, I believe). There are Gods without beginning or end, infinitely so. There's no beginning to explain.

I think. I must admit I'm not certain on this, but I'm fairly certain that's accurate...

[Sicofonte]

I repeat: this is funny!


For the rational atheists:
It seems there is no chance for the Universe to re-converge in a single point.
The Universe (its mass) is expanding, and the centrifuge movement of the galaxies (from the original Big Bang point, the Universe's centre) has an increasing speed, i.e., there is a centrifuge force still pushing the galaxies far from the centre. The only explanation for that is that there is more mass in that point, but mass of an inverse gravitational sign, repelling our positive mass.

Entropy tends to zero. Energy tends to distribute itself equally.
Translated to this, Universe is condemned to expand eternally, until any energy disapear, gobbled up by the inmensity of the space, spreaded until no gravity, no hot will remain. No kind of energy exchange will be possible since any possible exchange will be made.

World is condemned to be cold, quiet and dead. Time to time.

The sad side of this is that no God believer will be there to see that God doesn't exists.



I have more things to reply, but no time right now. See you!

[Nakranoth]

For the rational atheists:
It seems there is no chance for the Universe to re-converge in a single point.
The Universe (its mass) is expanding, and the centrifuge movement of the galaxies (from the original Big Bang point, the Universe's centre) has an increasing speed, i.e., there is a centrifuge force still pushing the galaxies far from the centre. The only explanation for that is that there is more mass in that point, but mass of an inverse gravitational sign, repelling our positive mass.

True, the universe is accelerating outwards now, have you concidered the jerk though (the change of acceleration over time)? Just because it accelerates outwars now doesn't mean that it will indefinately.

Entropy tends to zero. Energy tends to distribute itself equally.
Translated to this, Universe is condemned to expand eternally, until any energy disapear, gobbled up by the inmensity of the space, spreaded until no gravity, no hot will remain. No kind of energy exchange will be possible since any possible exchange will be made.

Distribution of energy does not remove energy. Total energy remains constant no matter how far you strech it. Besides, once the universe reaches that point of "equilibrium" one of two things are possible 1) it will continue it's change of acceleration inwards due to gravity thus collapsing back in on itself or 2) It will maintain that constant shell, time will continue, but nothing will matter because nothing will be alive to concider it.

World is condemned to be cold, quiet and dead. Time to time.

And in the grand scheme of things noone will care because there will be noone to care. I understand this more than anyone else I know... I still remember a time before thought where there were no concepts, and I didn't care because caring is a concept itself.

[Dee]

You are describing the day of judgement. Except that after that, everyone who once lived on earth will live again to be judged.

[Nosajimiki]

God seems more likely to exist than not, but if he just came down and said 'yup, I'm real and so is Heaven' then there would be no test of faith. Our very exitance on Earth would be pointless.

Testing our faith and testing our loyalty are two very different things. He/she/it has no reason to test our faith, and it would be easier to test our loyalty if we KNEW he exists, but we don't so why should God expect us to follow him if he's not even concernd to be like, "yup, I'm real" etc. Our lives are pointless if God does not give us a point in life, but since he does not, it is up to us to find a point if we care to have one. God is the result of searching for a point and not finding one, points do not exist b/c of God b/c he refuses to speak dirrectly to us to give them.

You are describing the day of judgement. Except that after that, everyone who once lived on earth will live again to be judged.

except that the version Nakranoth is giving wont happen until billions if not trillions of years after mankind no long exists, according to anything I've ever read on the topic, man will still exist on Judgement Day meaning either this has nothing to do with final judgement or mankind is destined to survive, confined to only earth, until the end of the Universe... the latter is highly unlikely if you ask me.

[west]

This whole thread is just really depressing.