Stephen Hawkins: Theists Are Cowards Who Are Afraid Of The Dark.

[da_vinci]

the big bang theory begins with a dense and hot state of mass energy, it does not explain where it came from, or how long that state existed before expanding.  

Does "God" (gazillion times more complex "creature") automatically becomes an "explanation" in this case? Or is it a situation where just a gap of information still exists? (oh yes... theists doesn't like "gaps", they doesn't like 'em so much that they wrote a book that explains EVERYTHING perfectly without any gaps and questions. That book even explains itself. What a smart move, eh?).

[tbombz]

Does "God" (gazillion times more complex "creature") automatically becomes an "explanation" in this case? Or is it a situation where just a gap of information still exists? (oh yes... theists doesn't like "gaps", they doesn't like 'em so much that they wrote a book that explains EVERYTHING perfectly without any gaps and questions. That book even explains itself. What a smart move, eh?).

define god?

biblical god, or just a thinking being responsible for creating the universe?

in either case, the definition of god still contains "the creator", and everyone who believes in such a thing also understands his existence to be incomprehensible.


if your asking me if god exists, fuck, i dont know if he does or doesnt.

but science sure as hell can not explain the universe.

[Mr. Magoo]

Theres am ambiguity in saying that everything that exists has a cause, and saying that there is a cause for everything that exists. The cosmological argument trades on that ambiguity. Analogous to saying "1. every person that exists has a mother, 2. so there must be a mother for every person that exists." 1 follows from 2 (if there was a mother for every person that exists (i.e. super mother), then every person that exists would have a mother) but 2 does not follow from 1.

If I could figure out how to type the universal and existential quantifier, I would write it out in logical form to note the ambiguity.

[tbombz]

you assert god would be complex.

why not simple?

hmmm...

seems you like to make guesses at things then pretend those guesses are facts..

[JBGRAY]

The real fear is that there is nothing...we just have our one life as a blip..and thats it.  Fear of absolute oblivion is not being exactly cowardly, it might be one of the scariest things to contemplate.  Imagine....a great person like Mother Theresa or Gandhi or General Patton   get the same "reward" as a Jeffrey Dahmer or Jerry Sandusky.  It seems somehow...unjustified.

For me, I want to believe that there is God and Heaven and an eternal afterlife and that walking on the "narrow path" will grant me access to Heaven.  However, logic dictates that men do not rise up from the dead.....that seas do not open up to create paths for people......that snakes do not talk.......that people do not walk on top of water.

Now, if a Rapture happens or the oceans turn to blood, then yes...by logic, I will assume that this particular religious doctrine is true.

In the meantime, perhaps I should just live my life to the fullest that I can.

[tbombz]

Theres am ambiguity in saying that everything that exists has a cause, and saying that there is a cause for everything that exists. The cosmological argument trades on that ambiguity. Analogous to saying "1. every person that exists has a mother, 2. so there must be a mother for every person that exists." 1 follows from 2 (if there was a mother for every person that exists (i.e. super mother), then every person that exists would have a mother) but 2 does not follow from 1.

If I could figure out how to type the universal and existential quantifier, I would write it out in logical form to note the ambiguity.

every human being(common definition) was born by a woman(mother), therefore every human being that exists has a mother whom it was born from.

[B_B_C]

You re just a poor, ignorant, badly raised lost kid with a low self esteem, the end of a lineage of sinners. There is no doubt in my mind nobody would give you the time of the day in real life. You re just an immature and hurt little child who wants to get noticed by adults but dont know how. 

a diarrhea of words and a constipation of thought

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=402694.0

[tbombz]

The real fear is that there is nothing...we just have our one life as a blip..and thats it.  Fear of absolute oblivion is not being exactly cowardly, it might be one of the scariest things to contemplate.  Imagine....a great person like Mother Theresa or Gandhi or General Patton   get the same "reward" as a Jeffrey Dahmer or Jerry Sandusky.  It seems somehow...unjustified.

For me, I want to believe that there is God and Heaven and an eternal afterlife and that walking on the "narrow path" will grant me access to Heaven.  However, logic dictates that men do not rise up from the dead.....that seas do not open up to create paths for people......that snakes do not talk.......that people do not walk on top of water.

Now, if a Rapture happens or the oceans turn to blood, then yes...by logic, I will assume that this particular religious doctrine is true.

In the meantime, perhaps I should just live my life to the fullest that I can.

you cant imagine a world in which the bible is just a story book but yet a "god" still exists?  this is not a possibility to you?

you never witnessed a man rise from the dead. have you ever witnessed an event without a cause?

[gcb]

"physicists believe the universe is governed by scientific laws. these laws must hold without exceptions, or they wouldnt be laws. that doesnt leave much room for miracles... or god"



this guy understands that quantum mechanics is based on the idea that the laws of physics break down at the quantum level


and yet he says stupid shit like that


lol

What a stupid statement. The laws do not break down - we simply don't understand them entirely. The laws we now understand are simply an approximation.

[da_vinci]

define god?
biblical god, or just a thinking being responsible for creating the universe?
in either case, the definition of god still contains "the creator", and everyone who believes in such a thing also understands his existence to be incomprehensible.
if your asking me if god exists, fuck, i dont know if he does or doesnt.
but science sure as hell can not explain the universe.

"God" is an unseparatable variable from a religion, and religion is a DOCTRINE, so it has some kinf of a "book" that explains "God". If you think you came with your own "idea" of god than think again lol.. Well actually yeah.. if you'd be persistent enough - you could come up with some kind of new wave religion too (with your own explanation of god).

So people who "believe" in god automatically assume the explanation of it is "incomprehensible". Is that because they haven't even tried or is there some other reason?

And if you think science does not explain the universe, I can assure you - there's nothing out there that explains it more ACCURATELLY, unless you could suggest something more stable and reliable than mathematics and logic. Can you?

And if science does not explain EVERYTHING (oh my...who could've thought that it wasn't going to propose - "I am science, so I can explain everything, leaving no space for any doubt." like religion does) it does not mean something insanely more complex and completely unprovable like friggin "god" automatically becomes an "explanation". If you think so, I suggest to refresh your common sense (at least).

[A Professional]

Hey TooManyDongz...
Why are you such a nasty character? What kind of man post his pics for all to see and then proceeds to shamelessly describe in detail what its like to get fucked up the ass by an old exploitative pedophile. You are seriously debased... less than pig shit on the bottom of my shoe. You truly have no standards or sense or morals.

[tbombz]

What a stupid statement. The laws do not break down - we simply don't understand them entirely. The laws we now understand are simply an approximation.

mass-energy can never be created nor destroyed.

virtual particles.

how is that law in any way compatible with that fact ?

 


and please, give me an example of how it would be possible to arrive at a "all encompassing universal theory of everything"  

[Mr. Magoo]

every human being(common definition) was born by a woman(mother), therefore every human being that exists has a mother whom it was born from.

lmao, cute attempt at trying to sound smart without understanding a word of my post.

Note the difference between saying #1 "For every object X, there is an Object Y, such that X is caused by Y" and saying  #2 "There is an object Y, for every object X, such that X is caused by Y". The 1st follows from the 2nd. The 2nd does NOT follow from the first. The cosmological argument seeks to draw 2 from 1 (since everything that exists has a cause (#1), there must be a cause for everything that exists (#2), and that cause is 'God'). Analogous to the mother example. Every person that exists has a mother (#1). It does NOT follow that there is a mother for every person (i.e. a "Super Mother) (#2). If There was a super mother, then 1 would follow. But 2 does not follow from 1. The Cosmological argument trades on an ambiguity.

[johnnynoname]

btw, I have a message to deliver from someone who is reading this thread:

""between SMM cut and pasting and Tbombz thinking he has an iq above 68, I am splitting my guts laughing" signed, avesher"

[PJim]

lmao, cute attempt at trying to sound smart without understanding a word of my post.

Note the difference between saying #1 "For every object X, there is an Object Y, such that X is caused by Y" and saying  #2 "There is an object Y, for every object X, such that X is caused by Y". The 1st follows from the 2nd. The 2nd does NOT follow from the first. The cosmological argument seeks to draw 2 from 1 (since everything that exists has a cause (#1), there must be a cause for everything that exists (#2), and that cause is 'God'). Analogous to the mother example. Every person that exists has a mother (#1). It does NOT follow that there is a mother for every person (i.e. a "Super Mother) (#2). If There was a super mother, then 1 would follow. But 2 does not follow from 1. The Cosmological argument trades on an ambiguity.

So you mean to tell me, Tdongz was talking nonsense?

[tbombz]

"God" is an unseparatable variable from a religion, and religion is a DOCTRINE, so it has some kinf of a "book" that explains "God". If you think you came with your own "idea" of god than think again lol.. Well actually yeah.. if you'd be persistent enough - you could come up with some kind of new wave religion too (with your own explanation of god).

so if i, or somebody, came up with a religion that was based around an incomprehensible god, limited the description of him to supernatural creator, and said nothing more...    then at that point you would accept it as a posibility, but not up untill that point?

So people who "believe" in god automatically assume the explanation of it is "incomprehensible". Is that because they haven't even tried or is there some other reason?

by definition the supernatural is incomprehensible. does that not make sense to you? if not, why?

And if you think science does not explain the universe, I can assure you - there's nothing out there that explains it more ACCURATELLY, unless you could suggest something more stable and reliable than mathematics and logic. Can you?

there certainly isnt. though if god does exist, god would certainly be a more accurate explanation, since it would be all encompassing

And if science does not explain EVERYTHING (oh my...who could've thought that it wasn't going to propose - "I am science, so I can explain everything, leaving no space for any doubt." like religion does) it does not mean something insanely more complex and completely unprovable like friggin "god" automatically becomes an "explanation". If you think so, I suggest to refresh your common sense (at least).

did i say that god exists? did i say that because science cant explain reality that god exists? i never said either. science cant explain reality. tis all ive said. and its a fact. by the way, you keep asserting god is "insanely complex", and on what ground may i ask? how did you come to know this ?

[tbombz]

lmao, cute attempt at trying to sound smart without understanding a word of my post.

Note the difference between saying #1 "For every object X, there is an Object Y, such that X is caused by Y" and saying  #2 "There is an object Y, for every object X, such that X is caused by Y". The 1st follows from the 2nd. The 2nd does NOT follow from the first. The cosmological argument seeks to draw 2 from 1 (since everything that exists has a cause (#1), there must be a cause for everything that exists (#2), and that cause is 'God'). Analogous to the mother example. Every person that exists has a mother (#1). It does NOT follow that there is a mother for every person (i.e. a "Super Mother) (#2). If There was a super mother, then 1 would follow. But 2 does not follow from 1. The Cosmological argument trades on an ambiguity.

   who is using the cosmological argument ?  did i contradict your post ? or did i offer an alternative ? 

[PJim]

I wish you'd stop with these absolutes.

[tbombz]

I wish you'd stop with these absolutes.

which absolutes?

[PJim]

which absolutes?

"science cant explain reality"

[tbombz]

"science cant explain reality"

oh, it cant. certain things are absolute. a circle is a circle. 1+1=2.  science, which depends on empirical data, can never speak on metaphysics. any assertion about the cause and origin of the universe and its laws its necessarily out of ignorance. science can certainly explain the mechanical cause and effect of the universe to the extent which causality exists, but beyond that point there is no grounds for experimentations.

[Nomad]

derp...atheists are just another form of hipsters. OOOH LOOK AT ME I DONT BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU BELIEVE I AM SPECIAL FUCK YOU YOU AR STUPID.

A scientist has calculated that there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes' Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/08/highereducation.uk1

[G_Thang]

[che]

[suckmymuscle]

dishonest ? you just claimed to have explained "what caused the first cause" 

  You are an even bigger shitbag than I previously thought...

SUCKMYMUSCLE