Holy War

[dohminator]

To be honest, Catholicism is awful. The only reason I support their existence is they have exorcists and I may need one some day.

To be honest, Catholicism isn't much worse than most religions.  The main problems with them being no contraception, no abortion, hating on gays, and last and not least, not handling mumped up priests.  I guess it's hard for me to hate on them too much having grown up as one, which is the opposite of how it usually happens.  Of course I think the fundamentalists are way worse, but different perspectives. 

Of course I think they are all full of crap, so in the end its all a comparison of which is the biggest turd. 

[the KHAN!]

To be honest, Catholicism is awful. The only reason I support their existence is they have exorcists and I may need one some day.

To be honest, Catholicism isn't much worse than most religions.  The main problems with them being no contraception, no abortion, hating on gays, and last and not least, not handling mumped up priests.  I guess it's hard for me to hate on them too much having grown up as one, which is the opposite of how it usually happens.  Of course I think the fundamentalists are way worse, but different perspectives. 

Of course I think they are all full of crap, so in the end its all a comparison of which is the biggest turd. 

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

[dohminator]

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any.  Why should I believe in something without proof? 

Or let's put it into more scientific terms.  H0:  There is no god.  - disprove that

[Rage Against the McKee]

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any.  Why should I believe in something without proof? 

Or let's put it into more scientific terms.  H0:  There is no god.  - disprove that

There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.

[dohminator]

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any.  Why should I believe in something without proof? 

Or let's put it into more scientific terms.  H0:  There is no god.  - disprove that

There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.

How so?

[pike]

I grew up as one as well....hate the cac out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any.  Why should I believe in something without proof? 

Or let's put it into more scientific terms.  H0:  There is no god.  - disprove that

There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.

Disagree

[Rage Against the McKee]

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any.  Why should I believe in something without proof? 

Or let's put it into more scientific terms.  H0:  There is no god.  - disprove that

There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.

How so?

Because scientifically speaking, there had to be matter for the big bang to occur. Where did that matter come from?

[skycat]

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any.  Why should I believe in something without proof? 

Or let's put it into more scientific terms.  H0:  There is no god.  - disprove that

There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.

How so?

Because scientifically speaking, there had to be matter for the big bang to occur. Where did that matter come from?

1. How can theists insist that God is eternal, but that matter had to have come from somewhere?

2. Matter always existed. (link) God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any.  Why should I believe in something without proof? 

Or let's put it into more scientific terms.  H0:  There is no god.  - disprove that

There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.

How so?

Because scientifically speaking, there had to be matter for the big bang to occur. Where did that matter come from?

1. How can theists insist that God is eternal, but that matter had to have come from somewhere?

2. Matter always existed. (link) God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

The matter was just there? Nothing created it? It just formed the universe by chance?

The big bang theory simply states that the universe is expanding, therefore in the past, it must have been infinitely small. It cannot and does not explain the creation of the universe.

[the KHAN!]

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

I'm a Protestant.

[CNS]

I grew up as one as well....hate the crap out of the Catholic Church. It's too reliant on tradition for traditions sake and boring as hell.

What do you identify as now, just for curiosity

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier in this thread and have yet to receive any.  Why should I believe in something without proof? 

Or let's put it into more scientific terms.  H0:  There is no god.  - disprove that

There being a God make much more scientific sense than the big bang occurring with no catalyst.

How so?

Because scientifically speaking, there had to be matter for the big bang to occur. Where did that matter come from?

1. How can theists insist that God is eternal, but that matter had to have come from somewhere?

2. Matter always existed. (link) God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

The matter was just there? Nothing created it? It just formed the universe by chance?

The big bang theory simply states that the universe is expanding, therefore in the past, it must have been infinitely small. It cannot and does not explain the creation of the universe.

This is exactly what keeps me on the side of this line that I am on.

[dohminator]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.

[ArchE_Cat]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.

The not yet complete theory proposed in this article just raises more questions. In, fact in raises questions about another universe.

 A particular problem is that of entropy. For the previous universe to have have collapsed, it's entropy would had to approach an absolute minimum. For our universe as we approach t=0 we approach infinite density and temperature at a finite point in time (yes, the article points this out). We have observed that our universe expanded from the infinite density and temperature to where we are today, and as the expansion continues entropy approaches a maximum limit. So basically entropy goes from 0 to positive infinity for our universe as we know it. If the proposed new theory is assuming that the previous universe is a somewhat backwards model of our universe, it still doesn't explain what happens at t=0 or t=infinity, it just shows that at that time the rules of the current model no longer apply.

Our current universe model will eventually become too cool to sustain life because it expands forever. So this gives us only a few options. 1) something we have no idea about happens at t=infinity in order to to reverse the process back toward the minimum of entropy. 2) the previous universe has completely different constraints (volume? mass? energy? limits of entropy?). 3) our current model is farther off then what we think. Either way this new theory just raises more questions ,could be good, could be bad.

The reason it could be bad is that our model may become skewed because we don't have enough info. And, we may never have enough info. For the theory of relativity to work light must travel at a finite rate. This means the light from things that have already happened an extremely long time ago may never reach us. Inflationary theory attempts to resolve this but by assuming that the bounds of the observable universe expand faster than the universe itself. We have not been able to verify this, and if inflationary theory is correct, it still means there is a limited range of the universe we can see.

It will be interesting to see how small or big of a step this proposed new theory actually is.

[the KHAN!]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.

Just out of curiosity, do you like to use Philosophy to look into this God discussion or are you strictly a science guy?  

[dohminator]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.

Just out of curiosity, do you like to use Philosophy to look into this God discussion or are you strictly a science guy?  

I do enjoy philosophy, but I would say that my own reasons for disbelief come from a scientific background, and I'm less familiar with all of the current philosophical arguments.  Maybe that is something I need to remedy.  

Edit: and I guess there is the philosophical aspect of how do we know things to be true, but yeah, I haven't really thought much about the philosophical arguments and looked into them as much.  But then again, philosophy tends to just go round and round. 

[dohminator]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

Woah, it looks like the actual science is advancing on this subject. See, that's the cool thing about science, they don't stop trying just because they reach a tough a spot.

The not yet complete theory proposed in this article just raises more questions. In, fact in raises questions about another universe.

 A particular problem is that of entropy. For the previous universe to have have collapsed, it's entropy would had to approach an absolute minimum. For our universe as we approach t=0 we approach infinite density and temperature at a finite point in time (yes, the article points this out). We have observed that our universe expanded from the infinite density and temperature to where we are today, and as the expansion continues entropy approaches a maximum limit. So basically entropy goes from 0 to positive infinity for our universe as we know it. If the proposed new theory is assuming that the previous universe is a somewhat backwards model of our universe, it still doesn't explain what happens at t=0 or t=infinity, it just shows that at that time the rules of the current model no longer apply.

Our current universe model will eventually become too cool to sustain life because it expands forever. So this gives us only a few options. 1) something we have no idea about happens at t=infinity in order to to reverse the process back toward the minimum of entropy. 2) the previous universe has completely different constraints (volume? mass? energy? limits of entropy?). 3) our current model is farther off then what we think. Either way this new theory just raises more questions ,could be good, could be bad.

The reason it could be bad is that our model may become skewed because we don't have enough info. And, we may never have enough info. For the theory of relativity to work light must travel at a finite rate. This means the light from things that have already happened an extremely long time ago may never reach us. Inflationary theory attempts to resolve this but by assuming that the bounds of the observable universe expand faster than the universe itself. We have not been able to verify this, and if inflationary theory is correct, it still means there is a limited range of the universe we can see.

It will be interesting to see how small or big of a step this proposed new theory actually is.

Yeah, we may never pin it down to exactly what happened, but there are possible scientific explanations that don't require a god to exist. 

[CNS]

I absolutely love science.  love it.
trust me.  I would actually prefer it be able to fully explain everything. 

admittedly, I havent done much reading on this subject, however it just seems that everything that gets explained, now our eventually, will still leave the question "what about before that?", or, "and what initiated that?". 

if there was a side to root for, in my mind, it would be science, however I just donny t think it will ever eliminate those types of questions.

[PoetWarrior]

edit:  I asked for proof of god's existence earlier

 You love.

[PoetWarrior]

I haven't really thought much about the philosophical arguments and looked into them as much.

You should.

[dohminator]

I absolutely love science.  love it.
trust me.  I would actually prefer it be able to fully explain everything. 

admittedly, I havent done much reading on this subject, however it just seems that everything that gets explained, now our eventually, will still leave the question "what about before that?", or, "and what initiated that?". 

if there was a side to root for, in my mind, it would be science, however I just donny t think it will ever eliminate those types of questions.

No,  it won't, but why does a god have to be the answer for what happened before everything.  I don't think science should ever give up looking, but it will get harder and harder to explain things as we reach the edge of what we can discover, but there is no indication that anything needed a supernatural force to come into being.  Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all. 

On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?   

[CNS]

great point

[pike]

I absolutely love science.  love it.
trust me.  I would actually prefer it be able to fully explain everything. 

admittedly, I havent done much reading on this subject, however it just seems that everything that gets explained, now our eventually, will still leave the question "what about before that?", or, "and what initiated that?". 

if there was a side to root for, in my mind, it would be science, however I just donny t think it will ever eliminate those types of questions.

No,  it won't, but why does a god have to be the answer for what happened before everything.  I don't think science should ever give up looking, but it will get harder and harder to explain things as we reach the edge of what we can discover, but there is no indication that anything needed a supernatural force to come into being.  Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all. 

On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?   

Must have been another God 

[the KHAN!]

On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?   

Welcome to philosophy!

I would posit that a God capable of creating this universe would transcend time and space. Of course the question remains...did something create him outside the boundaries of the Universe? I don't know....

[yoga-like_abana]

On that note, what happened before God? how did God come into being?   

Welcome to philosophy!

I would posit that a God capable of creating this universe would transcend time and space. Of course the question remains...did something create him outside the boundaries of the Universe? I don't know....

SMOKE MONSTER!

[PoetWarrior]

Why would God decide to make it look like He had no hand in it at all. 

You're funny.