32: Godless

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by Scumhook

I see the levels of order in the universe, and have a hard time believing it all just happened to explode in just the right way. @DJQuad made this point in the show thread from a few days ago.

I'm not advocating religion. Intelligent design is more where I'm coming from.

The same tools that try to explain the origin of our universe (science and reasoning) are the same tools that have created practically everything man made in this world. The factories, farming, cars, controlling electricity, cell phones, computers, clothing, shelter. Practically everything you use in your day was created, improved or understood using science and reasoning.

Now, look at the tools that are behind the idea of Intelligent Design (religion). Religion is based on made up stories with no bases in reality.

Science gives you an understanding of the universe and has a good track record with results that improve your every day life. Religion gives you fairy tales that keep being debunked.

When wondering which explanation for the origin of the universe is more correct, consider the source.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

The same tools that try to explain the origin of our universe (science and reasoning) are the same tools that have created practically everything man made in this world. The factories, farming, cars, controlling electricity, cell phones, computers, clothing, shelter. Practically everything you use in your day was created, improved or understood using science and reasoning.

Interesting point.

However every tool needs a worker to wield it...

Who wielded the tools that created the universe...?

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

Now, look at the tools that are behind the idea of Intelligent Design (religion). Religion is based on made up stories with no bases in reality.

Oh ffs Mikey, you're a smart bloke - religion is politics and has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. Jesus fucking pissed off the Jew priests and politicos of his day, so let's leave religion out of any further dicussion.

We're talking about who fucking created the universe or how it magically came into being thanks to a lucky explosion.

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

Science gives you an understanding of the universe and has a good track record with results that improve your every day life. Religion gives you fairy tales that keep being debunked.

When wondering which explanation for the origin of the universe is more correct, consider the source.

Science at one point in our history promised the Earth was flat. A wanker challenged this premise, and hey fucking presto (after proof was provided), the Earth is round.

Science is all about keeping an open mind, and never believing anything until it's a law.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that if you're gonna base your shit on science, then you'd better call it a theory unless you've got proof.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by Scumhook

Interesting point.

However every tool needs a worker to wield it...

Who wielded the tools that created the universe...?

The "tools" are the laws of nature, which we're still discovering. There is no "who" question that needs to be answered because there is no evidence that there is a who which has created anything.

In other words, you're asking who created the universe. I'm saying, how do it you it was created by a being? If we ever find evidence that the universe was created by a being, then we could ask and pursue the question "who is the being that created the universe". You're jumping the gun by asking "who?"

Until there is evidence that a being created the universe, you're speculating and anthropomorphizing the creation of the universe when you ask "who?"

Originally Posted by Scumhook

Oh ffs Mikey, you're a smart bloke - religion is politics and has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. Jesus fucking pissed off the Jew priests and politicos of his day, so let's leave religion out of any further dicussion.

We're talking about who fucking created the universe or how it magically came into being thanks to a lucky explosion.

Intelligent Design is a religious concept that you brought up earlier. Intelligent Design is Creationism. You can't bring that up and say that we're not talking about religion. Creationism is a religious concept promoted by religious organizations.

Intelligent Design was created as part of a scam to try and sneak Creationism into schools when the Supreme Court wouldn't allow Creationism to be taught in public schools.

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Scumhook

Science at one point in our history promised the Earth was flat. A wanker challenged this premise, and hey fucking presto (after proof was provided), the Earth is round.

No, it didn't. Science is a relatively new concept. When religion was explaining the laws of nature, it thought the Earth was flat or bowl shaped. As science emerged, it discovered that the Earth was round. I don't believe "science" ever promised the Earth was flat. Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Scumhook

Science is all about keeping an open mind, and never believing anything until it's a law.

Yes and no. Science and, more specifically, the scientific method is about hypothesis, tests and repeatability. An open mind will help you come up with new and creative hypotheses.

You're being to strict with your use of the word "law". Scientific laws and theories have specific definitions that are different that the casual English language definitions that we're accustomed to using.

Difference between scientific theory and scientific law. | PriusChat

Originally Posted by Scumhook

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that if you're gonna base your shit on science, then you'd better call it a theory unless you've got proof.

What was this statement in regards to?

[Scumhook]

Sheeeeaaatt

Mikey got game <3

I'm a bit too pissed ot have this discusson, bit i will continue tomorrw. mate.

i shall consider all that was presented, adn respond...

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

The "tools" are the laws of nature, which we're still discovering. There is no "who" question that needs to be answered because there is no evidence that there is a who which has created anything.

In other words, you're asking who created the universe. I'm saying, how do it you it was created by a being? If we ever find evidence that the universe was created by a being, then we could ask and pursue the question "who is the being that created the universe". You're jumping the gun by asking "who?"

Until there is evidence that a being created the universe, you're speculating and anthropomorphizing the creation of the universe when you ask "who?"

True, I am speculating that a "who" created the universe. Well, maybe not a "who" so much as a "what", but your point still holds. I feel that believing that everything just suddenly exploded out of nothing requires as much faith as believing in an entity creating it out of nothing. Yep, who made the entity is the next question; but doesn't that question also hold for "where did the stuff for the Big Bang to bang come from"?

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

Intelligent Design is a religious concept that you brought up earlier. Intelligent Design is Creationism. You can't bring that up and say that we're not talking about religion. Creationism is a religious concept promoted by religious organizations.

Intelligent Design was created as part of a scam to try and sneak Creationism into schools when the Supreme Court wouldn't allow Creationism to be taught in public schools.

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really like the term "Intelligent Design". Like many other things, it's a real bummer that the Christfags have corrupted it. This ties back to the above point about something creating the universe, as opposed to it all being a big fluke. I guess that is literally Creationism, however I'm not using it in the Biblical sense.

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

No, it didn't. Science is a relatively new concept. When religion was explaining the laws of nature, it thought the Earth was flat or bowl shaped. As science emerged, it discovered that the Earth was round. I don't believe "science" ever promised the Earth was flat. Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, maybe not "science" as such, but the recognised authorities of the day. I don't want to sidetrack the core discussion with my ignorance of how shit worked in the days of yore - it was more a point about how at one point people believed something, and then science discovered shit and now we know more. I was going to bring up the Higgs-Boson to illustrate this, but I just realised I'd rather ask you how you feel about it being dubbed "The God Particle"...

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

Yes and no. Science and, more specifically, the scientific method is about hypothesis, tests and repeatability. An open mind will help you come up with new and creative hypotheses.

You're being to strict with your use of the word "law". Scientific laws and theories have specific definitions that are different that the casual English language definitions that we're accustomed to using.

Difference between scientific theory and scientific law. | PriusChat

I think I used the word "law" as I intended. Relativity is still a theory, as we've been unable to prove it. Unfortunately I lack any evidence of you stating that atheism is a law, so I may have overreached in my semi-drunk endeavour to convert you from atheism to nothingism.

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

What was this statement in regards to?

This was in regard to me thinking you were stating that there is definitely no God. Would I be fair to say that's your stance? I know you have left room for the possiblity of there being a spirit world/afterlife/higher-power, but I'm not sure whether that's just theoretical room due to lack of absolute proof, or "real" room where you acknowledge that these things could be possible.

[Scumhook]

Mike, if I may call you Mike, and if truth be told, even if I can't - thank you for your frank and open discussion.

I feel somewhat as if you have been matching wits with an unarmed (or at least, an under armed) man.

You have given me food for thought, and I hope that others read this discussion and it sparks questions within their minds.

[MichaelApproved]

Originally Posted by Scumhook

True, I am speculating that a "who" created the universe. Well, maybe not a "who" so much as a "what", but your point still holds. I feel that believing that everything just suddenly exploded out of nothing requires as much faith as believing in an entity creating it out of nothing. Yep, who made the entity is the next question; but doesn't that question also hold for "where did the stuff for the Big Bang to bang come from"?

No, faith is not required. That's what's so awesome about science, we can test and prove our conclusions.

The belief isn't that something came from nothing. The current understanding is that something came from something else. That something else is not yet understood. Some people are calling it "nothing" but that's not the case. We don't understand what came before so some people think that means "nothing". Through further research, we hope to one day understand what came before the earliest known shape of the universe.

What's required is patience, not faith.

Originally Posted by Scumhook

I really like the term "Intelligent Design". Like many other things, it's a real bummer that the Christfags have corrupted it.

They didn't corrupt Intelligent Design, they invented it. They came up with the concept and infected your brain with it. We are all subjected to their fairy tales being interwoven in our brains. Their BS is engrained in the mainstream so much that it can be hard for people (including me) to separate religious nonsense from historical and scientific facts. Their BS is everywhere.

Originally Posted by Scumhook

Well, maybe not "science" as such, but the recognised authorities of the day. I don't want to sidetrack the core discussion with my ignorance of how shit worked in the days of yore - it was more a point about how at one point people believed something, and then science discovered shit and now we know more.

Those recognized authorities of the day were religious leaders. The people who believed something were religious people. Scientific discovery was countering the ignorant religious views of nature. It's an important distinction in this discussion.

Originally Posted by Scumhook

I was going to bring up the Higgs-Boson to illustrate this, but I just realised I'd rather ask you how you feel about it being dubbed "The God Particle"...

It's sad that scientific projects have to be put in religious context to get funding.

Originally Posted by Scumhook

I think I used the word "law" as I intended. Relativity is still a theory, as we've been unable to prove it. Unfortunately I lack any evidence of you stating that atheism is a law, so I may have overreached in my semi-drunk endeavour to convert you from atheism to nothingism.

Reread that link I sent. Theories and laws have equal footing in scientific language. They are used to describe nature in different ways but are both well established. One describes things while the other explains it.

Relativity is true even though it's labeled a "theory". We know Relativity is true based on countless experiments and the two massive explosions that happened over Japan.

Atheism is not a law, it's a way of defining one's nature with religion. Sadly, we define ourselves based on what we don't believe, not based on what we do believe.

http://www.dudelol.com/img/dont-expe...r-meeting.jpeg

Originally Posted by Scumhook

This was in regard to me thinking you were stating that there is definitely no God. Would I be fair to say that's your stance? I know you have left room for the possiblity of there being a spirit world/afterlife/higher-power, but I'm not sure whether that's just theoretical room due to lack of absolute proof, or "real" room where you acknowledge that these things could be possible.

God, spirit worlds, afterlife and other higher-powers are a man made concepts. Every one of those things were made up stories. Fantasies. None of those things have the slightest bit of evidence behind them. What does it matter if it's possible when it's a completely fictional story that's not based in reality?

Originally Posted by Scumhook

thank you for your frank and open discussion.

I feel somewhat as if you have been matching wits with an unarmed (or at least, an under armed) man.

You have given me food for thought, and I hope that others read this discussion and it sparks questions within their minds.

You're welcome. It takes a long time to write these responses. I try to source my data and double check the info before I repeat it. I'm happy to hear that it's worth the time and is giving you something to think about. It also helps keep my arguments on point and sharp. And, as you said, hopefully others will come across this information and it'll be helpful to them too.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

No, faith is not required. That's what's so awesome about science, we can test and prove our conclusions.

The belief isn't that something came from nothing. The current understanding is that something came from something else. That something else is not yet understood. Some people are calling it "nothing" but that's not the case. We don't understand what came before so some people think that means "nothing". Through further research, we hope to one day understand what came before the earliest known shape of the universe.

What's required is patience, not faith.

This made absolutely no sense to me. You're having faith in the meantime, hoping (that may not be the right word) that the science of matter, space, and time will one day be explained and therefore, scientifically-proven.

Faith in itself forms our beliefs regardless of religion.

[myq]

Originally Posted by DJQuad

Faith in itself forms our beliefs regardless of religion.

I believe this is a semantic discrepancy.

I believe the sun will appear to rise tomorrow, so someone might say I have "faith" that it will, when in fact, my belief is based on the evidence that for the past X number of days/years/eons, the sun has appeared to rise every day. I can't guarantee it will tomorrow (it could explode, the earth's orbit could dislodge, any number of things could happen), but most likely it will rise.

That kind of "faith," based on evidence, is not the same kind of faith that someone with religious faith has, so it doesn't seem useful to use the same word.

Perhaps I have misunderstood or mischaracterized what you were saying, but I read Michael as saying not that he knows for sure we'll ever learn the truth, but that there are truths that CAN be learned, through observation, through science. And there are other truths that canNOT be learned. Faith doesn't seem to enter into it for me.

Unless you are using a different definition of faith.

[DJQuad]

Originally Posted by myq

I believe this is a semantic discrepancy.

I believe the sun will appear to rise tomorrow, so someone might say I have "faith" that it will, when in fact, my belief is based on the evidence that for the past X number of days/years/eons

Were you there for eons to know that the sun will rise? What if it has only risen for the 34 years you've been alive? The only reason you think that it's been longer than that is in fact, faith.

Whether faith is based on so-called science or so-called a belief in some sort of God, it's still faith.