• Atheists' view of world creation?
    259 replies, posted
I don't think the universe really has a beginning, it's just always been there. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] I don't understand why everything always needs to have a beginning and an end.
[QUOTE=Da_Maniac_;33215872]I don't think the universe really has a beginning, it's just always been there. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] I don't understand why everything always needs to have a beginning and an end.[/QUOTE] I think somebody already said, we look at everything from a human perspective. Everything else we know has a beginning and an end, so we have no way of conceptualising something with no beginning.
[QUOTE=yuki;33179049]Your personal lack of knowledge is not representative of the whole of humanity.[/QUOTE] So edgy and cool. There are many theories as to the creation of the universe, and from that, the planet we live on. 'Just shit piling up in space due to gravitation and other cool laws of physics, which are relative and.. well, there's just a lot of objects of different masses, in space.' Is not a valid point.
[QUOTE=Sickle;33216129]There are many theories as to the creation of the universe, and from that, the planet we live on.[/quote] such as? [quote]'Just shit piling up in space due to gravitation and other cool laws of physics, which are relative and.. well, there's just a lot of objects of different masses, in space.' Is not a valid point.[/QUOTE] "I don't understand relativity, therefore it's meaningless"
[QUOTE=Da_Maniac_;33215872]I don't think the universe really has a beginning, it's just always been there. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] I don't understand why everything always needs to have a beginning and an end.[/QUOTE][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory[/url] Already proven false with calculations from general relativity.
I'm an atheist and I believe that the universe was created by the Wu Tang Clan so that they would have somewhere to perform. I think RZA was probably the main mind behind it, whilst Method Man, GZA and Ghostface killah were creative aids. Ol Dirty Bastard was in charge of making all the fucked up looking Nebulas and Cocaine. Debate me.
[QUOTE=AgentBoomstick;33134259]I'm stealing a bit of theory from Stephen Hawking here, but humans have a hard time thinking of things that don't have a beginning or an end. Everything in our lives begins or ends at some point, including our lives themselves. So when you try to tell someone that the world simply came into existence from nothing, it's hard to even imagine it. It goes against everything we've ever known or seen. You grow up seeing everything begin and end, so when you finally hear the theory that there was no "beginning" it's a good headache-inducer.[/QUOTE] Another problem people seem to face with trying to understand the universes existence is that people try to apply our current laws of physics and logic to the universe at birth. At the big bang the laws that governed the universe would probably be completely unlike those that govern the universe now! The universe was faaaaar too energetic and dense for any physical rules akin to our own to exist. At our current point in time it's easy to look backwards and go, "lol but cause and effect, so god must exist!" - easy, but not right. Back then, 13.7 billion years ago, at the instant of the big bang cause and effect may not have had any place - there might not have been any laws in place to say, "something can't come from nothing."
[QUOTE=AK'z;33133627]I didn't say it made it any less scientific, I said it didn't make it any less imaginative.[/QUOTE] Please don't tell me there's no imagination in science, If it where possible to develop new theories on computers it would have been done ages ago. Science is all about thinking of ways to explain something and thinking of ways to test it. Sorry I misread, the point still stands to anyone else though.
thos fuking atheists say that god didnt make us but the univers EXPLIODED and maed us cum frum goo? WTF!!!1 [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost in Mass Debate" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
There is no evidence that God exist, nor that Jesus cured a blind girl. For all we know, she could have had temporary blindness that just when away the moment he "heal" her. No one is "Born Christian". We can never get said evidence because we [b]weren't there[/b]. When I hear people talk about God, demons and angels, and demon possession, it sound a like fairy tale. "A demo to me to kill 3 people." Really? A demon told YOU to kill 3 people? Why would it waste time with you and not after someone who can damage? As far as creationism, I don't really buy it. I strongly believe in evolution. The fact that some pops form nothingness (other than things that have proven to do so) seems, farfetched.
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;33258558]I'm an atheist and I believe that the universe was created by the Wu Tang Clan so that they would have somewhere to perform. I think RZA was probably the main mind behind it, whilst Method Man, GZA and Ghostface killah were creative aids. Ol Dirty Bastard was in charge of making all the fucked up looking Nebulas and Cocaine. Debate me.[/QUOTE] If the world was created by the Wu Tang Clan, doesn't that mean they are "gods"? so therefore, you are not an atheist.
I don't care how we got here, all I know is that it happened. That's really all I need to know.
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33267360]I don't care how we got here, all I know is that it happened. That's really all I need to know.[/QUOTE] aren't you even a little curious?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33267021]If the world was created by the Wu Tang Clan, doesn't that mean they are "gods"? so therefore, you are not an atheist.[/QUOTE] no they aren't gods, they're magic
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33267372]aren't you even a little curious?[/QUOTE] Not particularly at all. It's all a bit too ambiguous and no matter how someone would explain how it happened. Can we be 100% sure that's how it happened? No we can't. Even the most rock solid of scientific theories can be edited. In the end I believe that it doesn't even matter how we got here, it happened, just live with it.
[QUOTE=deaded38;33203659]Who was the one who said "have you even passed seventh grade science"? Don't tell me I'm a dick when you are clearly being one as well. Also, if we're going to be on this note, have you ever passed seventh grade English? Falsified: 1. Capable of [B]being falsified[/B], counterfeited, or corrupted. Falsify: 1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be false. My own link did [I]not[/I] prove me wrong. You atheists just think you know everything and aren't open to correction or change. [editline]9th November 2011[/editline] So let's bitch at the person who actually has the brain to USE the dictionary.[/QUOTE] Science is [i]never[/i] about being right. In laymans terms, Science is a method of testing hypotheses until enough data is collected to come up with a general idea of whats going on. That idea is deemed a Theory. Let's make up a mock theory. [b]The theory that all fish have fins.[/b] Overwhelming observation supports this new idea that all fish must have fins, so it is widely accepted through this very fake scientific community. They publish their findings in a scientific journal. This idea stays the same for a few decades as more and more observations show that so far, as we know it, all fish have fins. However, years later, a researcher and his team find a gilled creature that has not fins, but stubs that it uses to hobble around on the bottom of the sea. Data is collected, including DNA, images, and maybe even a living specimen of this stubby fish. Scientists around the world are astounded and baffled by this new discovery. This finding deals a devastating blow to the theory that all fish have fins, for it proves that not all fish have fins. The Theory is rethought and redefined as the [b]Theory that [i]most[/i] fish have fins[/b] This is of course, the most watered down idea I could come up with at the moment. In a real scientific theory the variables and data would be much stronger to where a single finding, unless it was the scientific find of the century, could not disprove it. Science refines data and hypotheses until a theory is so well defined it's as close to fact as it can get, or disproved. It's never "right." As an Atheist and self-defined marine biologist, being wrong is in some cases more rewarding than being right. For the longest time everyone thought fish were dumb, thoughtless animals. However, just recently we've found a fish that [i]uses tools[/i] and has shown that it can remember things. Which is a very big deal. In Science, being wrong is just as rewarding as being right. A real scientist does not look for right answers. [editline]14th November 2011[/editline] Another way of explaining it is: [b]Hypothesis:[/b] I think the sky is blue. [b]Theory:[/b] Data suggests the sky is indeed, blue. [b]Law:[/b] The sky is blue because... [editline]14th November 2011[/editline] "God made the universe." is in absolutely no way shape or form, a scientific theory as there is no evidence to suggest it. You could call it a Hypothesis, but then you have to devise an experiment to test it, then have hundreds of other scientists test it and get similar data as you did to even be considered a theory.
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33281095]Not particularly at all. It's all a bit too ambiguous and no matter how someone would explain how it happened. Can we be 100% sure that's how it happened? No we can't. Even the most rock solid of scientific theories can be edited. In the end I believe that it doesn't even matter how we got here, it happened, just live with it.[/QUOTE] well then. I'm guessing your not a scientist, though you do seem to believe in science.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33281962]well then. I'm guessing your not a scientist, though you do seem to believe in science.[/QUOTE] I can honestly say that I do not believe there is a god(s). I also think that everything doesn't NEED to be explained. Sure it'd help if we knew how things worked, like the human body, machines, computers, and the like. However the idea that all the matter in which this universe came out no where is one of the things that I believe is just a waste of time to think and know about.
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282129]I can honestly say that I do not believe there is a god(s). I also think that everything doesn't NEED to be explained. Sure it'd help if we knew how things worked, like the human body, machines, computers, and the like. However the idea that all the matter in which this universe came out no where is one of the things that I believe is just a waste of time to think and know about.[/QUOTE] maybe it doesn't need to be explained, but that doesn't mean humans don't want to explain it. Is the knowledge useful? not extremely. is it provable? not with today's technology. But human beings as a whole crave knowledge; it is part of who we are. seeking the answers to the universe are as old as humans themselves.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33282184]maybe it doesn't need to be explained, but that doesn't mean humans don't want to explain it. Is the knowledge useful? not extremely. is it provable? not with today's technology. But human beings as a whole crave knowledge; it is part of who we are. seeking the answers to the universe are as old as humans themselves.[/QUOTE] The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282237]The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.[/QUOTE] useless to know? yes. Useless to care about? no. Knowing how the universe was created would affect most portions of our lives.
[QUOTE=OvB;33281673] "God made the universe." is in absolutely no way shape or form, a scientific theory as there is no evidence to suggest it. You could call it a Hypothesis, but then you have to devise an experiment to test it, then have hundreds of other scientists test it and get similar data as you did to even be considered a theory.[/QUOTE] I believe this can be better reworded to as : "God made the universe" is absolutely no way shape or form a scientific theory and here is why: Scientific Theory - An explanation of why two or more pieces of data are related. Note the word 'data' in here. This implies that there must be observation in order to obtain this data. "God made the universe" is not a scientific theory because it fails to provide a sufficient amount of data to formulate a theory around it. While we're on the topic, I am agnostic. I believe that the creation of the universe is an unanswerable question simply because we fail to provide enough data to support either case. I base my beliefs on asking "What happened before the big bang? Before that? And that?". [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282237]The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.[/QUOTE] The more we learn about the universe - the better we can make our technology. Work done by scientists inspires engineers to put those finds to practical use. To discredit one field of science is to discredit progress as a whole.
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282237]The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.[/QUOTE] It may reveal information to us that might be useful e.g. if the physical constants were shifting or anything else that's the thing with broad scientific inquiry we don't [I]know[/I] what the positive benefits will be
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282237]The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.[/QUOTE] The thing is that you never know what you'll discover when you start looking for answers. Wasn't the principle behind the MRI scanner partly discovered by accident by particle physicists? I might have that a bit wrong, but that kind of thing does happen does happen. Knowing more about the way the universe works could lead to new technology that would be incredibly useful, but who knows until we look.
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282237]The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.[/QUOTE] That is a horrible attitude to have. If everyone in history had that mindset then we still wouldn't know where the sun goes at night or the fact that there are billions of galaxies out there instead of just one, each most likely supporting lifeforms of their own. Trying to deliberately ignore the potential to expand our knowledge is completely foolish.
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33281095]Even the most rock solid of scientific theories can be edited.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0]how many times must this be posted[/url] [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282237]The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.[/QUOTE] Just because something may be perceived to be useless now doesn't mean it will remain so. When lasers were first invented, the inventors said straight up that they didn't have a clue what they could be used for. Now millions of consumer goods have lasers in them. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;33281673][b]Hypothesis:[/b] I think the sky is blue. [b]Theory:[/b] Data suggests the sky is indeed, blue. [b]Law:[/b] The sky is blue because...[/QUOTE] I thought a Theory explained why and a Law explained how to calculate it.
This is exactly how my conversations end up with any Christian ever. No exceptions (I don't have many christian friends).
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33289867] I thought a Theory explained why and a Law explained how to calculate it.[/QUOTE] Basically. A Theory explains why something is and has data to back it up. A law explains what it does/how to calculate it, essentially. Again it's one of those things that goes way more in depth but really that's the basics of it. [quote=wikipedia]Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law."[/quote]
[QUOTE=Mr Kirill;33133274]What world creation theories are there that are not based on any deity activity? It is very hard to believe there's an old bearded man in the skies that made everything, but it is also hard to explain why the world is as it is - why do atoms act like they do, why are organisms so complex yet so 'smart' to function properly and so on?[/QUOTE] There are a few intricately tied fields of physics attempting to explain the "why" of the universe, so far with some really weird theories and shocking discoveries. Those fields are theoretical physics, astrophysics, particle physics, and quantum physics. We're discovering new things at a relatively rapid rate, but many of the accepted theories, and purely theories at that, dip into the realm of multiverse theory; there does exist the odd scientific creation theory here and there, which doesn't involve deities so much as curious inhabitants of another universe. There's some really mind-bending stuff in various multiverse theories, primarily attributable to the fact that we as humans have evolved to only perceive and comprehend three specific dimensions of our own distinct universe.
I'm not saying that studying the universe is bad or useless. Studying how it was MADE is useless. It seems as if I wasn't very clear.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.