Views: 8,814,659 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
10-16-18 08:50 PM
Guest:

0 users reading What are your beliefs? | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - What are your beliefs? New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 13 14 15 16
Marionumber1
Posted on 07-28-16 09:51 AM Link | #75017
Posted by xkitten
how so?

it works in most ways, why can't it work there?


The burden of proof is not on someone to disprove the claim. I could make any number of claims that I pull out of my ass, and it's not up to other people to prove me wrong.

fiver
Posted on 07-28-16 10:07 AM Link | #75019
yeah, but it makes sense in some way, at least.

I don't see the universe rapidly expanding out of nowhere. it has to happen by some force. sure, the universe could've always existed, but I'm pretty sure that invalidates people saying that "God couldn't have been there from the beginning, that doesn't make sense!"

in all, nobody will ever really figure out what happened
-fiverpost™
[image]

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-28-16 10:23 AM Link | #75023
Posted by xkitten
yeah, but it makes sense in some way, at least.

I don't see the universe rapidly expanding out of nowhere. it has to happen by some force. sure, the universe could've always existed, but I'm pretty sure that invalidates people saying that "God couldn't have been there from the beginning, that doesn't make sense!"

in all, nobody will ever really figure out what happened


My point, which I made earlier, is that religion does not make more sense than the universe always existing. So there's no intrinsic justification for it that would reverse the burden of proof.

StapleButter
Posted on 07-28-16 10:32 AM Link | #75024
There is no proof that either religion or the 'universe has always existed' theory are wrong or right. Keep it in mind. Simulations or whatever hint towards a Big Bang event, but it's still a theory, nobody was there to watch it happen.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 07-28-16 06:58 PM (rev. 2 of 07-28-16 11:00 PM) Link | #75064
What do you mean by "theory"?

It drives me crazy that in a scientific discussion, people like to unknowingly downplay the definition of a theory by thinking it's just a "guess" when a theory is the best, well-substantiated explanation and can also predict. If it's officially a scientific theory, it's the best explanation for observed phenomena. Note that usually, when there is a scientific theory for phenomena, there is only one of them.

Just because "nobody was there to watch it happen" doesn't mean there is no evidence for it and we should automatically assume it's some guess, just as how a court gathers evidence for a crime they personally have not experienced, or how forensics work. Heck, first-hand evidence may not even be the best evidence since human memory has been shown to be really flawed. Scientists conclude of a certain big bang event (by the way, it's not a literal explosion) with a good amount of observational evidence by seeing galaxies moving away from each other at a rapid pace (Hubble's law), observing cosmic microwave background radiation, an abundance of primordial elements, and more.

Science can always be wrong, but it operates on confidence levels (like statistics), and sciences are very certain that something akin to a mass expansion happened back then.

Religion has never been "proven" wrong, but there isn't anything that religion explains well. If we apply Occam's razor (which is making the least assumptions), we can neatly remove any supernatural explanation for the current phenomena we experience in this world. I therefore consider myself atheist, a pretty hard one at that.

StapleButter, I need to bring up Russell's teapot.

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.


Basically, this sums up my thought on religion in general. There are so many of them, all of them not probable (likely from human imagination), and it's convenient to ignore them all.

One more thing

Posted by StapleButter
But it's very unlikely that the Earth and all the shit on it occured 'by luck'. All the forms of life are based on DNA that we don't even understand. That has to be the feat of a superior intelligence.

Posted by MusiMasta
Yeah I'm more of this. Just how the universe was made is going to be a question, because it being "luck" is just too much of a coincidence.


Your arguments are flawed. The link below is basically what you're arguing, and it's pretty much the same arguments intelligent design/creationists use against evolution: it's complex so there must be a designer behind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Luck is indeed a big factor, but natural selection and how this world, the natural world, came to be isn't pure chance. There is no "coincidence", it just happened. I don't think there's a point in questioning why we came to be. I believe we just happened and we really have no reason to exist.

Another flaw I see in your arguments, just because the chances of it occurring is small doesn't mean that there is a designer, or "it possibly couldn't have happened".

If you were to shuffle a standard deck of 52 cards and lay it out, one by one, the probability of getting that particular order of cards is 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. It would be silly to argue that just because probability is small, it shouldn't happen or some outside force led it.

fiver
Posted on 07-29-16 10:40 AM Link | #75130
deck of cards =/= the universe/earth/evolution

it's kinda unfair to compare to that, tbh.

anyway I just don't see how particles exploding out of nowhere (when hardly anything existed, either, it apparently was supposed to be the size of a period.) could happen without something leading it. that's basically my thoughts about the big bang not making any sense
-fiverpost™
[image]

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-29-16 10:43 AM Link | #75133
Posted by xkitten
deck of cards =/= the universe/earth/evolution

it's kinda unfair to compare to that, tbh.


How is it unfair? The selection of a deck of cards and the universe's development are random events.

anyway I just don't see how particles exploding out of nowhere (when hardly anything existed, either, it apparently was supposed to be the size of a period.) could happen without something leading it. that's basically my thoughts about the big bang not making any sense


As I've pointed out, it does not make less sense than an omnipotent and omniscent being, which also has to exist out of nowhere.

fiver
Posted on 07-29-16 10:45 AM Link | #75135
Or it could've always been there. There's that argument too, and I think that a being makes the most sense to me.

and it's unfair simply because you're comparing something that is extremely small to the chances of evolution and the universe and all

but yeah, I see your point
-fiverpost™
[image]

Tahcryon
Posted on 07-29-16 10:49 AM Link | #75139
Posted by xkitten
[...]and it's unfair simply because you're comparing something that is extremely small to the chances of evolution and the universe and all[...]

I don't think that's how probability works.

____________________


[04/15/2018]gridatttack: I still think the whole smg2.5 team are still in middle school lol
[04/15/2018]gridatttack: and they are 14yrs old
__________

cosmological: There's no one in Russia who doesn't agree with Putin, probably because his ideas are that great



Marionumber1
Posted on 07-29-16 10:52 AM (rev. 2 of 07-29-16 10:53 AM) Link | #75141
Posted by xkitten
Or it could've always been there. There's that argument too, and I think that a being makes the most sense to me.

and it's unfair simply because you're comparing something that is extremely small to the chances of evolution and the universe and all

but yeah, I see your point


A god adds unnecessary complication. Scientific theories of the universe start with basic matter and energy, and through a series of random events over an incomprehensible amount of time, complexity arises. That requires fewer assumptions than the most complex being possible always existing. Perhaps it seems unlikely that complexity could arise from simple matter, but it's all physically possible, and I don't think any of us can really grasp the amount of time there was for it to take place.

StapleButter
Posted on 07-29-16 10:54 AM Link | #75144
there's a question it doesn't solve, though


where does the 'basic matter and energy' come from

it can't just magically start existing out of nowhere

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-29-16 10:56 AM Link | #75147
Posted by StapleButter
there's a question it doesn't solve, though


where does the 'basic matter and energy' come from

it can't just magically start existing out of nowhere


Whether basic matter and energy, or a god, something had to exist out of nowhere. That's been my point all along - religion and science both require that paradox. But science requires fewer assumptions to begin with, and as LeftyGreenMario pointed out, Occam's razor would imply that makes it the correct explanation.

StapleButter
Posted on 07-29-16 11:00 AM Link | #75148
There is no 'correct' explanation here, noone was there back then to watch it. You can only say "X is simpler so it's more likely" but we know zero for sure. Saying "it is the correct explanation" is similar to religious zealots pretending their religion is the right one and the others are wrong.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Marionumber1
Posted on 07-29-16 11:01 AM Link | #75151
Posted by StapleButter
There is no 'correct' explanation here, noone was there back then to watch it. You can only say "X is simpler so it's more likely" but we know zero for sure. Saying "it is the correct explanation" is similar to religious zealots pretending their religion is the right one and the others are wrong.


There is some correct explanation, even if we can't prove it. I said, "Occam's razor would imply that makes it the correct explanation."

fiver
Posted on 07-29-16 11:01 AM Link | #75152
Well, technically, those who believe in a religion naturally think that their's is right and others is wrong. Why would they believe in said religion if they thought otherwise?

but still, no excuse for trying to go and brainwash people into your religion, let them believe what they want to
-fiverpost™
[image]

StapleButter
Posted on 07-29-16 11:03 AM Link | #75154
Posted by Marionumber1
There is some correct explanation, even if we can't prove it. I said, "Occam's razor would imply that makes it the correct explanation."

if you can't prove it, you can't say it's "correct" or "incorrect", sorry.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

fiver
Posted on 07-29-16 11:03 AM Link | #75155
I believe he was pointing to the word "imply", meaning he wasn't stating it was correct, it's simply what he believed
-fiverpost™
[image]

StapleButter
Posted on 07-29-16 11:06 AM Link | #75156
Posted by xkitten
Well, technically, those who believe in a religion naturally think that their's is right and others is wrong. Why would they believe in said religion if they thought otherwise?

nope, just because they believe into a religion doesn't mean they have to be narrow-minded. You get people who even start questioning their religion, convert to something else, etc...

Posted by xkitten
I believe he was pointing to the word "imply", meaning he wasn't stating it was correct, it's simply what he believed

implication =/= belief

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

JakoNintenCraft
Posted on 07-29-16 11:07 AM Link | #75157
Posted by xkitten
but still, no excuse for trying to go and brainwash people into your religion, let them believe what they want to

Speaking of religious brainwashing, ISIS is really screwing people in the head with their twisted ideology. I'm not saying that they're bad because they're Muslims, but are bad because they are stretching Islam into a gigantic blood-thirsty machine seeking followers to destroy other religions and prove theirs "supreme". Those guys give Muslims a bad rap and I have friends that are Muslim that won't tell others because they'll think that they're terrorists plotting the next 9/11. Even people who don't even follow Islam but are of ethnic descent from the Middle East are now ashamed of their history because of those bozos.

____________________
Irony is the spice of life.

You're inside a simulation, of a simulation, inside a simulation, of a simulation, inside the Matrix, inside a taco, inside a taco, within a Taco Bell, that's inside a KFC, within a mall, that's INSIDE YOUR BRAIN!; inside another giant simulation!


Marionumber1
Posted on 07-29-16 11:08 AM Link | #75158
Posted by StapleButter
implication =/= belief


I used the principle of Occam's razor, which implies the simplest explanation is correct, as a justification for my belief.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 13 14 15 16

Main - Serious discussion - What are your beliefs? New reply

Page rendered in 0.026 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 26, rows: 228/228, time: 0.015 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2018-07-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.