The Religion Discussion

[bluefete]

science has proven that something CAN pop into existence out of nothing

Please provide more information on or a link to this. Thank you.

[MG Man]

you quoted it buddy
Hawkings' last book

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

ok so if alluh ent believe in ah god what about supernatural stuff like obeah, spirits , jins etc?

what does one have to do with the other?
you are just listing phenomena that we do not currently have explanations for
sinple as that
there was a time when moving objects in the sky were supernatural...so were thunder and lightning......

MGMan & Duane, hear dis nuh: If I gave you a statue and you asked me where it came from and I said no one made it, would you call me crazy?????

I'd call you crazy even before the statue popped up

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.
Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. By existence we mean in and out of our space time.

read this quote:

Can Something Come from Nothing?

To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles.

These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force.

These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.

In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.

---------------
I have not attempted to argue that the universe did come from nothing, or even to survey everything in cosmology or philosophy that bears upon the question of whether or not the universe was created. All I have attempted to do is to argue that an atheistic universe ex nihilo, in both a popular and a technical understanding of nihil, is possible. Even that modest step is bitterly contested by many theists, but modern physics appears to underwrite it decisively.

[MG Man]

ok so if alluh ent believe in ah god what about supernatural stuff like obeah, spirits , jins etc?

what does one have to do with the other?
you are just listing phenomena that we do not currently have explanations for
sinple as that
there was a time when moving objects in the sky were supernatural...so were thunder and lightning......

MGMan & Duane, hear dis nuh: If I gave you a statue and you asked me where it came from and I said no one made it, would you call me crazy?????

so based on your logic...........where did your god come from?????

[megadoc1]

Well, if you are going to swallow everything in the bible wholesale, you are going to end up in a certifiable mess,

are you saying that Christians are people living in a certifiable mess??? because the last time I checked they swallow everything in the bible wholesale...

1. You mean the "Christians" YOU know.
2. If the cap fits...

1. most yes
2. it don't matter, at this point I was only interested in your opinion

as the bible is simply a massive collection of writings, made up of many books,

wasn't this the reason its called the bible ...(the books or collection of books) whats your point?

My point (which is clear for those who can mentally follow the meaning of sentences strung together) is that many people who refer glibly to "the Bible", do so as though it is one book. I am sincerely happy for you that you are able to realize that this is not so.

OK captain obvious !!! let me try hey everybody the bible (which means "the books") is ...guess what ? an actual collection of books

why can't this very statement be used as evidence that he is really the one he claims to be?

the issue here is NOT "that he is really the one he claims to be", but if He is what various writers of differing outlooks, religious beliefs, and cultures wrote of Him.

agreed but they all wrote the same thing, its not like they were in disagreement like the crap you posted to suggest such, its a cool story though but I think you placed it wrongly...the various writers of the bible are not in disagreement.......(thats what you were suggesting).
however, "if He is what various writers of differing outlooks, religious beliefs, and cultures wrote of Him" is really an issue of our faith in what they said

are these really the best reasons why the bible should not be taken wholesale?
c'mon

Actually, they are not.

@ your argument thanks

[bluefete]

ok so if alluh ent believe in ah god what about supernatural stuff like obeah, spirits , jins etc?

what does one have to do with the other?
you are just listing phenomena that we do not currently have explanations for
sinple as that
there was a time when moving objects in the sky were supernatural...so were thunder and lightning......

MGMan & Duane, hear dis nuh: If I gave you a statue and you asked me where it came from and I said no one made it, would you call me crazy?????

I'd call you crazy even before the statue popped up

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space.
Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. By existence we mean in and out of our space time.

read this quote:

Can Something Come from Nothing?

To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles.

These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force.

These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.

In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.

---------------
I have not attempted to argue that the universe did come from nothing, or even to survey everything in cosmology or philosophy that bears upon the question of whether or not the universe was created. All I have attempted to do is to argue that an atheistic universe ex nihilo, in both a popular and a technical understanding of nihil, is possible. Even that modest step is bitterly contested by many theists, but modern physics appears to underwrite it decisively.

So then the argument would be that things suddenly appear from "nothing". But if "there is no such thing as nothing", then it means that all things either came from nothing (which does not exist) or always existed and were never created.

So - is space really empty or are there things existing that we cannot see? If things exist that we cannot see, did they just create themselves???

Dawkins - the God of the Atheists (eh, Spikey!) - once wrote that it is possible that we came from mud. Now where did I read that before????

[bluefete]

ok so if alluh ent believe in ah god what about supernatural stuff like obeah, spirits , jins etc?

what does one have to do with the other?
you are just listing phenomena that we do not currently have explanations for
sinple as that
there was a time when moving objects in the sky were supernatural...so were thunder and lightning......

MGMan & Duane, hear dis nuh: If I gave you a statue and you asked me where it came from and I said no one made it, would you call me crazy?????

so based on your logic...........where did your god come from?????

You stated earlier that it is illogical to say that God always is because it negates the same argument I am making which is that things were created.

The human mind cannot understand how God can always be. The great "I am". God never said he "was". He who always is created all. Where did God come from? You ask him when you get the chance. As far as I am concerned, God always existed. Illogical? Not from my perspective.

Albert Einstein was the man who tried to place limits on God's work by stating that light cannot travel faster than 186,282 miles per second.

About 3 days ago came news that there may be something that travels faster than light. Scientists are in a conniption because now one of the major theories of speed will have to be redacted.

Nonetheless, the Bible says that when Jesus comes "he will gather his elect from the uttermost parts of the earth to the uttermost parts of heaven." (Mark 13:27; Matthew 24:31).

This means that long after we are dead or maybe even before, mankind will discover the technology to enable warp drive or even time travel. This is the only way that we can reach the "uttermost parts of heaven". Places we can barely see in space via telescope will become a regular run for our great, great, great, great, great grandchildren.

Maybe the technology already exists ( those strange red lights in the sky at night) and we only now being gently broken in by the nation-states who have it.

[MG Man]

so u saying the human mind cannot comprehend 'god always is / always was / whatever
in the same way, your mind cannot comprehend matter spontaneously being created out of nothing....the feeble notion of god is your mind's feeble desperate attempt to explain its own insignificance
and why u insist on quoting the bible, when the koran is much better at explaining stuff?
surely you must know that...........

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Dawkins - the God of the Atheists (eh, Spikey!) - once wrote that it is possible that we came from mud. Now where did I read that before????

primordial soup

for the millionth time, please go and read up on Abiogenesis

unless you plan to read and understand quantum physics, you are hardly in a position to denounce it

by the way, "God of Atheists" is an oxymoron

[MG Man]

duane he's not going to read it............

[rspann]

The best thing about God,is that he does not need any confirmation, support,defence or proof from anyone for his existence.God is infinite and cannot be understood or defined by finite minds.

No rspann. You are clearly in awe of something greater than you, and (don't get me wrong) there is nothing wrong with that.
However, your statement is wrong. The best thing about God is that He ensures that there is no proof of His existence... no one is forced to accept Him... we, the created, can live our lives and share in His Creation without being burdened by the demand to acclaim Him (except for mediahouse, of course)...
...the best thing about God is that He leaves us free to choose to acknowledge Him, free to approach Him however we see fit, to call Him whatever name we think best...

That is what Love is. Giving freely, accepting freely.

I agree with most of what you say Spike,but you contradict yourself with that point about God ensuring no proof of his existence.Isn't his creation (the created)proof of his existence?If you believe in the bible,which to me ,it seems that you do,Doesn't Romans 1.20 say that God is revealed through his creation?even saying the word creation gives the idea someone has to do the creating.

[MG Man]

i think d spike was speaking in general terms.......in any event, it's been said too many times here......you canot use the bible to vaidate things written in the bible.........

[rspann]

MG,be careful before bluefete or megadoc tell you to read Psalms 14;1

[MG Man]

unlike those two loonies, I have an open mind, and I read the bible with an open mind
I also read Hawking, Dawkins, Hitchens, plus the fictional works of the masters including Herbert and Asimov...........
The more I read the bible, the more I'm convinced it's one terribly scripted work of fiction
nothing has inspired me
I never read it from the view of a skeptic, but the skepticism grows with every page

If I weren't so lazy I would learn arabic so I could read the koran too.........luckily I have family who can recite, translate and interpret it for me.........and good grief I daresay it's just a revamped bible, largely stealing from the old testament

I like the hindu texts tho...if you gonna make up nonsense, at least put in some colourful characters and some epic battles the way they did...at least its entertaining

[Seeker]

I have some questions for most of you and I am not attempting to read 200 plus of this :-

1. Do you believe in God??

2. Do you believe that the Bible is written by men inspired by God??

3. If you don't believe in (2) then how do you know about God??

4. Does everything in this world happen by chance??

5. Are there any occurrences on earth and in your life that you cannot explain?

6. Give an opinion on what will happen to you when you die??

7. Why most does bawl "my God" or Jesus Christ" when allyuh bounce yuh big toe??

8. Do you believe that we have to give an account for our actions when we leave their world??

Religious topics always been a hot bed. It has always been the believers vs non-believers. However its my humble view that spiritualism is more important than secularism (spell-check? wait is that a word?). For after I suffer in this life, why should I suffer in the next??

D Spike is right. We are given the freedom of choice and what we choose is our business.

[bluefete]

Dawkins - the God of the Atheists (eh, Spikey!) - once wrote that it is possible that we came from mud. Now where did I read that before????

primordial soup

for the millionth time, please go and read up on Abiogenesis

unless you plan to read and understand quantum physics, you are hardly in a position to denounce it

by the way, "God of Atheists" is an oxymoron

duane he's not going to read it............

Well I did, MG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Morse and MacKenzie have suggested that oceans may have appeared first in the Hadean eon, as soon as two hundred million years (200 Ma) after the Earth was formed, in a hot 100 °C (212 °F) reducing environment, and that the pH of about 5.8 rose rapidly towards neutral.[23]

Doesn't the Bible state that the waters covered the earth before the land appeared??? Genesis 1:7

"Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygenless atmosphere through the action of sunlight. These would combine in evermore complex ways until they formed coacervate droplets. These droplets would "grow" by fusion with other droplets, and "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, and those that do not become extinct. Many modern theories of the origin of life still take Oparin's ideas as a starting point."

Although the "sun" was not created until the 4th day, there was "light" on the earth prior to that or maybe this soup did not start to develop until the 4th day. Maybe this light from far distant objects helped the "primeval soup". My point is that the Bible gave a general description of how God did his work. Thousands of years later, scientists are now "guessing" their way through.

"In 1952, in the Miller-Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins."

Shades of Frankenstein????


"This means that oceans and continental crust existed within 150 Ma of Earth's formation."

Genesis 1:9 " And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear: and it was so."


All these scientists are doing is taking God out of the equation and saying that these things happened all by themselves.

[bluefete]

MG,be careful before bluefete or megadoc tell you to read Psalms 14;1

You are a bit late, Spannie. We did that already a looooonnnggg time ago.


Psalm 14:1 " The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

[rspann]

The bible is a book that was compiled from the original Jewish and greek scriptures and was translated from the original languages,also some of the original books were left out to give us what we have today.While there may be some things added in for better reading(all in italics)and there are somethings that make no sense in the English,such as Isaiah 65;11,Basically it remains the word of God for millions of people,but you have to have faith to believe it.Without faith,it becomes a collection of books.The other thing is,as christians and good Jews know,There is the holy spirit to reveal it's words to you.You cannot understand or believe it's words without that,and any one reading it should get the same message.The reason there is one bible but 2000 christian religions,is because men have interpreted the bible on their own.It remains still as The most widely read and most inspiring book ever.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

duane he's not going to read it............

Well I did, MG.

you read everything there is on Quantum Physics? wow! you are more gifted than megadoc1!!!!!

[pioneer]

Now how this translates to present society? People still fear death, they afraid god mighten be pleased and so they would burn in hell.

the christian preaches a gospel that says that all our sins are forgiven
through the work done by Jesus Christ and that our faith in Jesus,is what pleases God not what we think we can do(not our own works) plus anyone who believes receives the gift of eternal life ....now why fear death? If one has faith in jesus God is pleased with him

People fail to realise when you die, you cease to exist. I am yet to have substantial evidence that there is an afterlife, i have never seen/heard dead relatives or friends.

but do you have substantial evidence that there is no afterlife ? I guess not because you confess that " I have never seen/heard dead relatives or friends"
so it all comes down to what you believe.....

Which is why i believe the truth doesn't exist.

[sensiman]

It remains still as The most widely read and most inspiring book ever.

According to those who read it.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

It remains still as The most widely read and most inspiring book ever.

According to those who read it.

well I know people of other religions who've read the Bible and still feel their holy book is still the most inspiring.

Muslims say the Qu'ran is the most inspiring, Hindus say the Bhagavad Gita is the most inspiring, Jews say the Torah is the most inspiring.

And I know Christians who've read other holy books including the Qu'ran, Torah, Gita etc and still feel the Bible is the most inspiring.

I know people who've read MANY MANY books and still think Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is THE most inspiring book ever written.

So it's clearly not a matter of the book, but rather the FAITH the reader has in what he is reading that makes it the most inspiring.

[d spike]

Isn't his creation (the created)proof of his existence?

Doesn't Romans 1.20 say that God is revealed through his creation?even saying the word creation gives the idea someone has to do the creating.

Yes, "the creation is the fingerprint of the Creator"... but I'm afraid it isn't 'proof' in the logical sense of the word. The logic of using the existence of an artifact as proof of the existence of an artist depends solely on the acceptance of the fact that such an artifact is made by such an artist...
"God is revealed through His creation" is not precisely the same as "being evidenced by"... "reveal" is a beautiful word... it comes from the Latin re vellum which means to draw back the veil... Faith provides the vision to see that which one's faith is focused on.

[rspann]

sensiman,of course to those who read it,you cant be inspired by something you didn't read.duane, thats what i said,it's the faith in it is what makes it inspiring otherwise it's just academics.spike, I think it's clear that for there to be a creation there has to be a creator,otherwise we can't call it creation.There are people who know the bible cover to cover ,and yet it has no impact in their lives,because they,like the pharisees use it just to show thier knowledge.By the way,the torah is part of the bible,the jews have the tanakh,which means Torah-law,which is the first five books of the bible,the N is for Neviim-prophetsand the K-ketuvim,which are the writings not attached to a prophet like chronicles,psalms proverbs Job,etc

[d spike]

it don't matter, at this point I was only interested in your opinion

Why? Because you are truly interested in what I have to say? Fat chance...
You just want to pick holes in what I have to say - well, knock yourself out, kiddo... you have provided more than enough material to amuse Tunerland for a long time... and certainly enough material for me to assist in introducing any topic on pseudo-christianity or Christian fundamentalist errors.

The bottom line in any argument with you is your belief as a fundamentalist, and the basis of this very belief denies you the possibility of maintaining a debate on religious beliefs.
Fundamentalism has one basic rule:
1. This belief is the right one.
This rule means all other beliefs are wrong. This rule also means that the scripture used to base one's faith on is true, correct, perfect... for to consider otherwise would mean rule#1 is wrong.
Therefore you HAVE to believe that the Bible is focused on one thing, the same as your faith... one "message"... one complete... book. You weren't fooling anyone giving lip-service to the concept of the Bible being multiple writings - you still treat the Bible like one entity. Hence the reason why you cannot accept the basic truth about the Bible - different books, different authors and different reasons for writing those books.
The irony of this situation is that the one compelling fact that explains why they all deserve to be compiled together, that explains what binds these diverse books together, is the one truth you will not accept: these books were compiled because they were all considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit - and the folks who decided this were the RC boys...
I know your knee-jerk reaction will be to deny this by saying they weren't considered Roman Catholic at the time... that the Catholics came around much later - but that would be just more codswallop on your part... and I can prove it (but I will leave that for later )

they all wrote the same thing, its not like they were in disagreement like the crap you posted to suggest such, its a cool story though but I think you placed it wrongly...the various writers of the bible are not in disagreement.......(thats what you were suggesting).
however, "if He is what various writers of differing outlooks, religious beliefs, and cultures wrote of Him" is really an issue of our faith in what they said

I say what you write is codswallop, and you say what I write is crap... the only difference is that I know what I am talking about, while you are just parroting what someone told you to pacify you when your possessed girlfriend freaked you out...

[d spike]

I think it's clear that for there to be a creation there has to be a creator,otherwise we can't call it creation.

Quite right... for THOSE who think of it as a creation!
As I said in my response to you:

Faith provides the vision to see that which one's faith is focused on.

[bluefete]

Isn't his creation (the created)proof of his existence?

Doesn't Romans 1.20 say that God is revealed through his creation?even saying the word creation gives the idea someone has to do the creating.

Yes, "the creation is the fingerprint of the Creator"... but I'm afraid it isn't 'proof' in the logical sense of the word. The logic of using the existence of an artifact as proof of the existence of an artist depends solely on the acceptance of the fact that such an artifact is made by such an artist...
"God is revealed through His creation" is not precisely the same as "being evidenced by"... "reveal" is a beautiful word... it comes from the Latin re vellum which means to draw back the veil... Faith provides the vision to see that which one's faith is focused on.

Can an artifact come into existence by itself? Without a creator? Can a canvas be painted without an artist? Do the brushes just appear and decided to paint on the canvas without human support?

[bluefete]

I think it's clear that for there to be a creation there has to be a creator,otherwise we can't call it creation.

Quite right... for THOSE who think of it as a creation!
As I said in my response to you:

Faith provides the vision to see that which one's faith is focused on.

Without a creator, there is evolution. The notion that things appear by "magic" or always existed in some form (isn't this how God is?) and adapt to their environment over time.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I think it's clear that for there to be a creation there has to be a creator,otherwise we can't call it creation.

Quite right... for THOSE who think of it as a creation!
As I said in my response to you:

Faith provides the vision to see that which one's faith is focused on.

Without a creator, there is evolution. The notion that things appear by "magic" or always existed in some form (isn't this how God is?) and adapt to their environment over time.

smh



science and magic are not the same.
miracles on the other hand...

[meccalli]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM_awdHevx4
Miracles..They're all around us.