[Grandmaster TSE]

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD - YouTube

very very good debate, enjoy!!!

[BrRsn]

http://i.imgur.com/B7WALZA.png

[duy-]

its a ridiculously one sided debate, but i can honestly understand where creationism comes from and i have no problems believing or entertaining intelligent design. but throw in noahs ark, adam and eve, 4000 years old, marriage between only men and women and pretty much the rest of the bible and you lost me. what did i take from the debate on kens side? if i make my own religion, be VAGUE as possible when making the outline so it would be harder to disprove down the road.

[Gucci Mane]

i havent watched the video yet, but is ken ham arguing the christian religious bit about how the world came to be?

[duy-]

yup
cliff notes:

bible should be taught in school again
our current science books arent really the facts, theyre only "observational science" what we interpret
earth is 4000 years old
there were only 7000 "kinds" of animals, all on noahs ark
the earth was flooded for a whole year
and oh yeah my favourite, you cant tell how old something is because YOU were never there in the past to observe it age... classic. how do you know? you werent there

[blue_noise]

religion- only believe 1 truth. and that's god's words. the evidence is not true because you were never there. also name drop like crazy just to show religion have a lot of supporter. if these smart people believe in creationism then it must be true. if all else fail quote a verse in bible. question the radioactive dating method, cause it is very skeptical.

[bballguy]

Bill Nye the science guy intro - YouTube

[falcon]

I don't even know who this Ken Ham character is? How did he get a debate with Bill Nye? As a Christian, I found that debate to be a terrible representation/explanation of what we believe. He does not speak for everyone, just FYI.

I consider myself to be a Evolutionary Creationist. IE; I believe God created the earth, but also allowed for things to "evolve" to what we know today. I also believe in an old earth, not all Christians believe the earth is 5000 years old.

At the end of the day we can argue on and on, but it's really just semantics that don't matter in the end. The basis of Christianity is believing that Jesus was the son of God who came to earth, died on the cross and rose from the grave. To quote the Bible; Romans 10:9 "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

[Manic!]

I don't even know who this Ken Ham character is? How did he get a debate with Bill Nye? As a Christian, I found that debate to be a terrible representation/explanation of what we believe. He does not speak for everyone, just FYI.

Ken Ham is the founder of the Creation Museum located in Petersburg Kentucky.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Creation_museum_triceratops_saddle.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Creation_Museum_10.png/800px-Creation_Museum_10.png

[CRS]

My brain just committed suicide after this....

I asked 22 self-identifying creationists at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate to write a message/question/note to the other side. Here’s what they wrote.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-17944-1391576906-9.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-30002-1391576851-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr03/5/0/enhanced-19479-1391576850-9.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28374-1391576852-17.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-27109-1391576856-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-25788-1391576883-10.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-17067-1391576868-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-17838-1391576892-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-16553-1391576896-6.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-17243-1391576896-16.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr03/5/0/enhanced-21214-1391576907-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-19270-1391576914-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-27562-1391576936-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-30391-1391576914-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr07/5/0/enhanced-14977-1391576919-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-27824-1391576921-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr07/5/0/enhanced-12602-1391576927-22.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28351-1391576927-8.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr07/5/0/enhanced-14517-1391576929-9.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-18627-1391576933-2.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-27763-1391576934-13.jpg

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio)

[SkinnyPupp]

http://i.imgur.com/CmjqJbx.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/7SraFnr.png

http://i.imgur.com/VuyZ1HD.jpg

[SkinnyPupp]

My brain just committed suicide after this....

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio)
The best one (for those uninterested in clicking a buzzfeed link):

http://i.imgur.com/u61dKxB.jpg

[CRS]

The best one (for those uninterested in clicking a buzzfeed link):

http://i.imgur.com/u61dKxB.jpg

I just spent 5 mins adding the images.

I noticed that there seems to a strong correlation of people that believe in creationism and misunderstanding the word "their", "theory", and "thermodynamics".

[z3german]

The best one (for those uninterested in clicking a buzzfeed link):

http://i.imgur.com/u61dKxB.jpg

She has crazy eyes, kind of looks like she could be that clingy girlfriends mom

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEfp_PkAbJBnCnIvAaM_N7aOnEvnUO7 NFaOoEPMjn8exavKxme

[SkinnyPupp]

I actually feel sorry for the guy... He believes SO STRONGLY and is so single-minded. He is devoting his life to spreading his religion, and why? Because he happened to be born on a piece of the earth where the people in power have long been indoctrinated with the same beliefs. No reason other than that.

People who believe they have the answer are so clueless. He doesn't have the answer, nor does the muslim, the jew, the buddhist, mormon, scientologist, or anyone else. They have their own beliefs, and that is GREAT for them. But they shouldn't spend effort trying to get people to follow THEIR beliefs.

Like Bill Nye said... just look for the EVIDENCE. We're going to constantly be seeking it out, and that pushes us forward. We will probably never have the answer, if there is one, and that is FINE.

As for the debate itself, at first I was against it. I thought nothing good could come from reasoning with a religious person. After all if they were reasonable, they wouldn't be religious. However I think this reached a pretty big religious audience, and if anything, Nye making this guy look bad makes religion itself look bad. Sure most people will be like the ones in the buzzfeed post, but I'm sure there are young christians who still aren't 100% indoctrinated who can still think logically and go "wait a minute, everything they are teaching me is completely absurd and couldn't possibly be true". So I think it was worth doing this time.

[PJ]

Watched it live yesterday.

I've always been agnostic, but what I found interesting was when each side was asked unanswerable questions, it was like..

Nye: I don't know the answer. But I WANT to know. I WANT to find out! If you can prove my views wrong, do it! I challenge you to, and welcome it!

Ham: God did it. End of discussion.

There may never be a clear answer, but it was pretty evident that Bill's points were very sensible and concise, while Ham seemed to be on the defensive the whole time with vague and dismissive comments.

[CharlesInCharge]

The rulers of the empire seek to turn people into degenerates to better control and muniplulate them. The last thing they want is for citizens of countries to uphold religious values that go counter for their goals of world domination and the enslavement of humanity.

The brain washing of Darwin (which looked at human life as a species and that its okay for the king of the jungle to murder other humans with no remorse) and Marx (in which power is concentrated in one persons hands and to distribute food) was the perfect recipe to bring about the greatest number of murders on this planet.
[One can further study this in the documentary called, The Bloody History of Communism.]

The attack on religion is obvious with Islam, and the false Jews that are paraded in our corrupt governmental power structure.
With Christianity that is practiced in the Americans and Europe... its these little debates, to larger misuse of god for wars of profit, to the grosses of human acts like raping and molesting your children if you decide to go to church!

U.N. report sheds light on the global sex scandal ruining the church by allowing clergy to molest and rape tens of thousands of children with impunity
PressTV - UN slams Vatican over child sex abuse (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/02/05/349356/un-slams-vatican-over-child-sex-abuse)

[falcon]

Just to clarify "the church" is in regards to the catholic church not the Christian Church. We could start another long debate, but Catholics are not Christians. They are Catholics. It IS different and we do not believe the same things.

Just to make that clear.

[GGnoRE]

lmao at some of those people with dumb questions

"because science is by definition theory - not testable, observable, nor repeatable ..."

They might as well hold up a sign saying "I'm ignorant"

Science promotes constant questioning to find greater truth about the nature around us. Religion makes it a sin to even question.

[Grandmaster TSE]

http://i.imgur.com/nXRq7Ie.jpg

[m3thods]

http://i.imgur.com/CmjqJbx.jpg

That stretch of back and forth where Ken kept saying "wellllll, there is a book.........."- I think I facepalmed a dozen times.

[Excelsis]

2 idiots arguing each other lol

[m3thods]

^What's your take? Just curious (not going to debate- but I was just wondering).

[rsx]

Religion and any superstition in general is for the insecure and delusional.

[Manic!]

Just to clarify "the church" is in regards to the catholic church not the Christian Church. We could start another long debate, but Catholics are not Christians. They are Catholics. It IS different and we do not believe the same things.

Just to make that clear.

Why do some Protestant denominations not consider Catholics to be Christians, and how do you refute them? | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-some-protestant-denominations-not-consider-catholics-to-be-christians-and-how-)

[The_AK]

this one is pretty intelligent too

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-15285-1391576908-9.jpg

[Foralark]

Below is an entire playlist relevant to this topic. Each episode is about 10 minutes long.

Click the top left corner to pick your "episode." Watch in order or hop around.

I highly recommend episode 10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy. It was made later in the series, but I think its a good place to start.

Our Origins Made Easy - YouTube

[classified]

^another video to watch to add to that list is "The Root of all Evil"

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

science and religion are just two perspectives of the same thing.

Both are skewed on their own respective axis.

by religion I don't mean a particular religion... like Christianity. If anything Christianity is amongst of the most skewed religions.

for those of you who heavily rely on the scientific perspective of this world... an example of a skewed science is the science of any science that has been accepted as true, then refuted some time later, and another truth is accepted (time is not of importance [as it is highly subjective], could be replaced by next month's scholarly article, or next decade, or next million years).

it's just that when you're living in a petri dish, it's a lot easier to identify your surroundings within that enclosed dish, than to go out and find a creator which is beyond the next 10 levels of environment which surround the dish, which surrounds you.

everything is basically some very complicated twisted form of semantics.

there are no universal truths or falses, when talking about existence from the highest/greatest perspective, which encompass all other forms of existence.

in my opinion, bill nye should be sided with a group of scientists, and that religious dude, should be sided with a buncha different religions. and they can only debate with common ground within their groups.

Christianity does not represent religion or spirituality. it would be like picking a single random thing on this planet, to represent all of earth and life. Christianity is just a slice of the pie.

anyway, they're arguing two different things with two different tools.

the model of the debate is flawed and skewed as well.

[Wykydtron]

Bill Nye should debate William Craig. 2 intellectual minds with the same "if you prove my view wrong with evidence, I will be more than happy to give it up" mentality. Only problem, is that they might just agree on too many things.

If you don't know who Craig is, look up the argument that he has been defending for the past 20ish years. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. What I love about it is that if tone down the theistic wording that Craig can use in his premises, the conclusion doesn't say God. The conclusion only states that it is a being with similar properties that God has in a mono-theistic style of religion. Really makes you think.

[RRxtar]

Just to clarify "the church" is in regards to the catholic church not the Christian Church. We could start another long debate, but Catholics are not Christians. They are Catholics. It IS different and we do not believe the same things.

Just to make that clear.
Um No.

Catholics ARE Christians. But not all Christians are Catholics.

The foundation of all Christianity is the belief in Christ. The foundation of Catholicism is the belief in Christ. There are several other groups of Christians with their own unique spin, but their foundations are all the same: Christ

Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican, and more are all forms of Christianity.

[AzNightmare]

I saw this a while back, and posting this because it was an interesting read, and maybe another way of looking at life:

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replies, “why, of course. There has to be something …after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later. “Nonsense,” says the other. “There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?” “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths.” The other says “This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short.” “I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here.” the other replies, “No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere.” “Well, I don’t know,” says the other, “but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us.” “Mother??” You believe in mother? Where is she now? “She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world.” “I don’t see her, so it’s only logical that she doesn’t exist.” To which the other replied, “sometimes when you’re in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her.” I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality….

[CRS]

My brain just committed suicide after this....

I asked 22 self-identifying creationists at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate to write a message/question/note to the other side. Here’s what they wrote.

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-17944-1391576906-9.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-30002-1391576851-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr03/5/0/enhanced-19479-1391576850-9.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28374-1391576852-17.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-27109-1391576856-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-25788-1391576883-10.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-17067-1391576868-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-17838-1391576892-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-16553-1391576896-6.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-17243-1391576896-16.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr03/5/0/enhanced-21214-1391576907-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr02/5/0/enhanced-19270-1391576914-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-27562-1391576936-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-30391-1391576914-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr07/5/0/enhanced-14977-1391576919-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-27824-1391576921-1.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr07/5/0/enhanced-12602-1391576927-22.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-28351-1391576927-8.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr07/5/0/enhanced-14517-1391576929-9.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr06/5/0/enhanced-18627-1391576933-2.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-02/enhanced/webdr05/5/0/enhanced-27763-1391576934-13.jpg

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio)

I see flagella disagrees with my post.. Just curious why.

[heisenberg]

only had enough time to listen to half, but ken doesnt have much on bill really. bill is open to changes, on the other hand ken seems to be a train going in only one direction

[Gucci Mane]

yup
cliff notes:

bible should be taught in school again
our current science books arent really the facts, theyre only "observational science" what we interpret
earth is 4000 years old
there were only 7000 "kinds" of animals, all on noahs ark
the earth was flooded for a whole year
and oh yeah my favourite, you cant tell how old something is because YOU were never there in the past to observe it age... classic. how do you know? you werent there

lol. anytime religion is brought into a debate, its no longer a debate...

[Lomac]

Where would someone who believes in the Big Bang Theory but also believes in a higher power fall under in this debate? Religious is probably the wrong word but I have a couple friends who are spiritual and yet believe most of the scientific theories about evolution and how the universe created and whatnot.

Being religious/spiritual doesn't automatically mean you're an ignorant deep-rooted Southern USA Christian who believes dinosaurs tended human babies a hundred years ago. That's one of the things that bugs me when I read science v. religion threads... most people here or anywhere else equates anyone who says "I believe in God/Buddha/Xeno/Your Mom" with being out of touch with the rest of the world.

And going further OT here, religion isn't the source of the majority of the wars on Earth over the centuries... it's the nonacceptance of someone else's faith that helps fuel it. And atheists telling a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Scientology member that what they believe is bullshit is tantamount to the same thing.

[ntan]

I don't think Ken Ham was arguing that "observational science" is non-factual; in fact, he agrees with Bill Nye that they are.

His argument is that you cannot use "observational science" to predict "historical science."

Imagine you're watching a flowing stream of water; the water's flow will be greatest at the source, and it'll slow down as you're further and further away (And the rate at which the water slows down may be non-linear- ie. not at a constant rate). Based on "observational science," we're predicting the past based on the knowledge we have cultivated in the past 200-300 years (which, in the example of the water flow, might be towards the end).

At least, that's my take on it. (And no, I'm not christian, and I also believe in evolution).

[m3thods]

^I'm not sure you could use the river example in this case (though I know what you mean by it).

In the river example, observational science would tell you that water flows fastest at it's source. So in the end you'd figure out that water flow isn't constant along the length of the entire river.

I'm not sure if there are any examples that you can pull that take a "short" amount of time (as in not thousands/millions of years). Ken Ham does have a point that you really can't assume things like continental drift or sediment deposition happen at a consistent-enough rate to say that it applies in the past as well. That said, Ken Ham's only source of evidence is The Bible, which to me is unsatisfactory (as in they're (Creationists) happy with that explanation, as opposed to using the scientific method to find better evidence).

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Where would someone who believes in the Big Bang Theory but also believes in a higher power fall under in this debate?

the big bang does not encompass all of existence of all of eternity, which is infinite in both directions.

the big bang only encompasses a fraction of our observable universe.

the big bang is simply a cavitation.

a cavitation is just the expansion of space within another space (any engineers here should know what a cavitation is fairly well).

all of our science only explains things WITHIN a SMALL PART of the cavitation. a small little bubble in the eternal cosmos of existence.

a higher power is almost a given. i don't mean a bearded guy (although it's plausible lol). A higher power can be anything... dark energy, dark matter (although I think those are still insignificant in the larger picture).

To a bird, a higher power could be the wind the earth generates on its surface to provide their wings lift. That's a really crappy example only looking at things directly observable. but you guys get my drift.

as for an "intelligent" higher power... intelligence is subjective. when systems are viewed from a bigger perspective, they all appear intelligent (ex. the gaia theory, another... really short sighted crappy example... trying not to go too cosmic. people tend to not be able to conceptualize things they cannot see lol).

[Lomac]

How did I know Ulic would respond to my post. lol

By using the Big Bang Theory reference, I merely made use of that as an example of not believing in the assumption that the world was created in seven days. Whether the Universe is infinitely larger than the cavitation we can explain, I don't think we'll ever know (within our own lifetime, anyway), though I'm of the belief that our own expanding Universe is merely part of something even larger (I suddenly get the image in my mind from Men in Black of various aliens playing marbles with different solar systems within each one). And although I'm also of the belief that it's merely unknown scientific means behind the untold pressures and chemical reactions that created our Universe, I'm perfectly open to the possibility that there very well may be some variation of Zeus in control of literally everything that goes on... though I feel that if it's true, it's not going to be some physical being and rather some strange combination of unknown elements and chemicals and who knows whatever else.

[falcon]

I know it's probably useless, especially on a site like RevScene. But.. if you truly do not believe in God but are open to understanding the views and reasons Christians do, these videos are a very good watch. It's called the Skeptics Forum from a local Church in Surrey called Village. I've been attending there for about two years, and it's nothing like any Church I've been to during my short 25 years on the planet. And goes over everything form "If God exists why is there suffering," "Why should I trust the Bible," "Isn't faith the opposite of reason and science," and a few more. If you have an open mind and want to hear a very intelligent person speak about them (unlike this Ken Ham character), watch them.

Village Church Surrey BC - Skeptics Forum 2012 (http://www.myvillagechurch.org/page.taf?id=247)

Skeptics Forum 2012 on Vimeo

Isn’t faith the opposite to reason and science? on Vimeo

At the very least watch the 2 min. video at the top. And if you only watch one long one watch the Faith VS. Reason and Science. Much better explanation than Ken Ham's, and answers a lot of questions in this thread from a Christians point of view.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Whether the Universe is infinitely larger than the cavitation we can explain, I don't think we'll ever know (within our own lifetime, anyway), though I'm of the belief that our own expanding Universe is merely part of something even larger

i gotta ask, if we "know" our universe is expanding (or appears to be, could be some sorta perspective illusion)... what the hell are we expanding INTO?

nothing? nil? that... "nothing/nil" (if u choose to call it that) is still something. as soon as you are able to label it... it... it exists.. it's SOMETHING.

I'm almost absolutely certain that finite, beginning, and end are merely mortal/human concepts.

there was no beginning and there is no end. things have just always been around. existence has been around for all of eternity. the concept is something humans cant understand.

i'll just throw this in anyway, cuz it relates to the topic... we live in a fractal universe. fractals are apparent at every level of existence as far as the scientific community is concerned. if you just look at the mathematical equations for fractals, then it becomes very apparent, that the inherent nature of fractals is eternal... forever in both directions. fractals are everywhere because it is the most effective way to cram "infinity" into a formula that isn't monstrously complex.

anyway your MIB marble example, although cartoonish, is a very crude example of fractals. if you were to zoom out of the alien playing marbles, there would be another alien playing marbles. and so on so forth forever.

recursive, fractal universe is apparent in science, and has been long explained by hindus and buddhists (and probably other religions that i have yet to study).

there are no ultimate creators. there are only ultimate creators subjective to which enclosed system you are looking at. there's always another system above or below. infinite. recursive.

religion nor science can ever explain those things.

everything is just a smaller version of something bigger (conceptually and in the role they play, ignoring physical appearance)

one doesn't have to look to the stars and cosmos to see infinity. One can just look within and perceive infinity within the mind.


lol i realise i am stomping on both science and religion (as science types will disagree because it hasnt been proven and is not "observable" nor testable... and religious types... well my story doesn't align with all religions). but if you drop all the semantics and stories for both sides, you can clearly see they're talking about the same thing.

[ntan]

^I'm not sure you could use the river example in this case (though I know what you mean by it).

In the river example, observational science would tell you that water flows fastest at it's source. So in the end you'd figure out that water flow isn't constant along the length of the entire river.

I'm not sure if there are any examples that you can pull that take a "short" amount of time (as in not thousands/millions of years). Ken Ham does have a point that you really can't assume things like continental drift or sediment deposition happen at a consistent-enough rate to say that it applies in the past as well. That said, Ken Ham's only source of evidence is The Bible, which to me is unsatisfactory (as in they're (Creationists) happy with that explanation, as opposed to using the scientific method to find better evidence).

I think we're in agreement, but just to be clear:

Ken Ham is arguing that we're looking at such a small slice in time, and we're basing our "observational science" to predict "historical science" aka the past.

Imagine if we're living during a period of time near "the end of the flow", then it's hard to predict what has happened in the past, or "near the source of the flow". Like you said, things may not progress linearly through time- aka water flow faster at the source. So our "observational science" only has a small glimpse of the river, yet we're trying to predict the flow of the overall river (by extrapolating what we can observe).

It's a shame he only follows-up that argument with The Bible...

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

^
what you guys are both talking about are chaotic systems. the butterfly effect.

our instruments and minds are unable to predict the past or future with great precision because the systems in place are chaotic (chaotic in the scientific sense, so sensitive to change, that the smallest change can result in the biggest change in the far future).

there are very few constants that we know of (if they are even constants, perhaps they're constants only in our short time frame perspective). To be able to accurately say what exactly has happened in the distant past or future at a precise time is near improbable... if not impossible.

what you observe and test and measure, are only relevant facts that matter NOW. in the past or future, those facts may be different and environmental and situational settings will be vastly different.

it is the reason why it has been so hard to predict the future using past and present info. the further out you go, the more off accuracy you are by a lot.

this applies to a lot of things, just to name a few... the weather system, the economic markets, human action. and of course the flow of a river.

the river example you can just look at water flowing down any path. the path is not predictable. every little spec of dust can divert the water in some chaotic path. over millions of years, it would be impossible to predict which way the water will go, and how it will carve a river into the earth. this goes forwards and backwards.

i think the inherent problem is science deals with the facts of now, and what matters now. and religion tries to define eternity. which of course is ambiguous and, i don't even think the collective knowledge and computing power of all humans that have ever existed can answer that question LOL.

nothing stays in one state forever, nothing is permanent, everything is ever changing and morphing (all systems in place, all entities, all religions, sciences, ideologies, everything that exists, physical or not)... that mixed in with a choatic system... good luck predicting or solving anything at a cosmic level (or beyond your own level).

[SkinnyPupp]

I know it's probably useless, especially on a site like RevScene. But.. if you truly do not believe in God but are open to understanding the views and reasons Christians do, these videos are a very good watch. It's called the Skeptics Forum from a local Church in Surrey called Village. I've been attending there for about two years, and it's nothing like any Church I've been to during my short 25 years on the planet. And goes over everything form "If God exists why is there suffering," "Why should I trust the Bible," "Isn't faith the opposite of reason and science," and a few more. If you have an open mind and want to hear a very intelligent person speak about them (unlike this Ken Ham character), watch them.

Village Church Surrey BC - Skeptics Forum 2012 (http://www.myvillagechurch.org/page.taf?id=247)

Skeptics Forum 2012 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/48123456)

Isn’t faith the opposite to reason and science? on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/49285427)

At the very least watch the 2 min. video at the top. And if you only watch one long one watch the Faith VS. Reason and Science. Much better explanation than Ken Ham's, and answers a lot of questions in this thread from a Christians point of view.
Christianity has been twisted and manipulated to suit different needs over thousands of years. This is just the newest twist, and they got you to follow. All they are doing is picking the good bits they like, and leaving out the rest because it's inconvenient. There are plenty of other parts of the bible that people ignore because it doesn't suit their needs.

And I have nothing against that. But like any other religion, I am not going to debate it or argue about it. It just is what it is, like any other religion or belief.

[m3thods]

I think we're in agreement, but just to be clear:

Ken Ham is arguing that we're looking at such a small slice in time, and we're basing our "observational science" to predict "historical science" aka the past.

Imagine if we're living during a period of time near "the end of the flow", then it's hard to predict what has happened in the past, or "near the source of the flow". Like you said, things may not progress linearly through time- aka water flow faster at the source. So our "observational science" only has a small glimpse of the river, yet we're trying to predict the flow of the overall river (by extrapolating what we can observe).

It's a shame he only follows-up that argument with The Bible...



I get what you mean. I know where you're trying to get to with respect to the river example, and perhaps I went a step ahead and just said that "eventually you'll figure out that rivers don't flow at the same rates along their paths" as per the eventual observation of a river with time and exploration.

But yes it's very unfortunate that Ken Ham basically trolls by saying "well there's in fact a book" blah blah blah.

To me at least, the debate shows that Creationists are happy with whatever the Bible says, instead of doing what a mainstream scientist would do and try everything in their power to explore for a better explanation than "I don't know" or "The Bible says so".

[trd2343]

For those who don't believe in a god, where exactly do you think science is leading you to?

Meaning, if you don't believe God or a god created the universe, what do you think science is trying to achieve by studying the past of the universe?

(I'm by no means challenging anyone, nor do I have an answer, just want to see what are people's views)

[trd2343]

I don't think Ken Ham was arguing that "observational science" is non-factual; in fact, he agrees with Bill Nye that they are.

His argument is that you cannot use "observational science" to predict "historical science."

Imagine you're watching a flowing stream of water; the water's flow will be greatest at the source, and it'll slow down as you're further and further away (And the rate at which the water slows down may be non-linear- ie. not at a constant rate). Based on "observational science," we're predicting the past based on the knowledge we have cultivated in the past 200-300 years (which, in the example of the water flow, might be towards the end).

At least, that's my take on it. (And no, I'm not christian, and I also believe in evolution).

Never thought of science like that. Thanks!

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

For those who don't believe in a god, where exactly do you think science is leading you to?

Meaning, if you don't believe God or a god created the universe, what do you think science is trying to achieve by studying the past of the universe?

(I'm by no means challenging anyone, nor do I have an answer, just want to see what are people's views)

lol science just helps you adapt to your current environment faster than evolution does.

you can say science is hyper evolution.

it will lead us to goddom. we ourselves will become gods over whatever is below us that we oversee.

in some ways, hyper evolution also helps you control the direction you wish to evolve in. you can create your own image and destiny, or at least try to.

science detaches our dependency from mother nature. I would like to think the more technologically advance something is, the more independent it is from nature. the less it relies on nature for anything. at some point you become an independent being, separated from nature in all ways... "god".

i mean, that is the inherent definition of technology right? every step you take up in the tree of technological advancement, is one less thing in that stands in our way that nature has put there.

come to think of it, a master of technology, would be the master of mother nature.

technology will make nature our bitch. With but a stroke of a pen, or push of a button, or a thought, we will be able to manipulate nature like an artist does an empty canvas.

[falcon]

Christianity has been twisted and manipulated to suit different needs over thousands of years. This is just the newest twist, and they got you to follow. All they are doing is picking the good bits they like, and leaving out the rest because it's inconvenient. There are plenty of other parts of the bible that people ignore because it doesn't suit their needs.

And I have nothing against that. But like any other religion, I am not going to debate it or argue about it. It just is what it is, like any other religion or belief.

Believe what you want to believe, but I'm also assuming you didn't watch it. Believing in science and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

It takes more faith for an atheist to believe that we came from nothing, through random events that lined up perfectly over billions of years than it does to believe in a Divine Creator.

[classified]

Ulic you literally described exactly what i think on this page, mind blown.

[m3thods]

For those who don't believe in a god, where exactly do you think science is leading you to?

Meaning, if you don't believe God or a god created the universe, what do you think science is trying to achieve by studying the past of the universe?

(I'm by no means challenging anyone, nor do I have an answer, just want to see what are people's views)

You would figure out the origin of "everything" (cause of big bang to the eventual creation of life from inorganic components). That's why mainstream science is trying to figure out the origins of the perceivable universe.

[trd2343]

lol science just helps you adapt to your current environment faster than evolution does.

you can say science is hyper evolution.

it will lead us to goddom. we ourselves will become gods over whatever is below us that we oversee.

in some ways, hyper evolution also helps you control the direction you wish to evolve in. you can create your own image and destiny, or at least try to.

science detaches our dependency from mother nature. I would like to think the more technologically advance something is, the more independent it is from nature. the less it relies on nature for anything. at some point you become an independent being, separated from nature in all ways... "god".

i mean, that is the inherent definition of technology right? every step you take up in the tree of technological advancement, is one less thing in that stands in our way that nature has put there.

come to think of it, a master of technology, would be the master of mother nature.

technology will make nature our bitch. With but a stroke of a pen, or push of a button, or a thought, we will be able to manipulate nature like an artist does an empty canvas.

I think I understand what you are saying and agree with you. But over the course of studying science, there will be some who study for the sake of studying, they just want to know more.

Scientists study the universe because they didn't believe it just came into existence. They believe there's a reason to it. Scientists are still studying because there are more to uncover. However, can we say that there can only be two outcomes of this path? Either there is indefinite amount of things to uncover, or we've uncovered everything. It's saying, either an infinite reason, or a reason without a reason.

Wouldn't both in this case be equally unscientific?

[trd2343]

You would figure out the origin of "everything" (cause of big bang to the eventual creation of life from inorganic components). That's why mainstream science is trying to figure out the origins of the perceivable universe.


My question would be, what defines to be an "origin"?

[SkinnyPupp]

Believe what you want to believe, but I'm also assuming you didn't watch it. Believing in science and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

It takes more faith for an atheist to believe that we came from nothing, through random events that lined up perfectly over billions of years than it does to believe in a Divine Creator.
That's the thing about religion, it's a man made concept that has everything to do with ego. It is written by people to give people a reason to think they are the center of everything. God created earth for us to live on. It is all about us.

It doesn't take "faith" to accept that we're nothing more than a collection of species living on a planet. There are a seemingly infinite number of possible planets with an infinite number of possible species living on those planets. They were possibly created the same way we were... like you say "random events". These random events gave us earth, just as they gave all these other planets to these other species.

That's not "faith" that is simply detaching myself from my ego. I don't need to be the center of everything. I am fine with just being me for 80 years or whatever it is. Then I'll go back into the earth, and be part of whatever else is comprised of my matter.

[m3thods]

My question would be, what defines to be an "origin"?

Well, for us mainstream scientists/humans, that would be the big bang (or rather how it came about).

If you're a creationist, the origin is the 6 days that God spent creating the heavens and cosmos.

If you're looking for a deeper answer- that's the point of my reply to you. Mainstream scientists are trying to use the tools at hand (it's up to you whether you believe they are "usable" enough to provide answers that are good enough) to figure out the origins of the universe which is believed to be the Big Bang.

It's very easy for us to theorize that something/someone created the Big Bang event, or just straight-up created everything at once because we don't/can't understand the "cause". Mainstream scientists are basically using their finite time on what we call Earth to figure out the many mysteries of the universe using the (possibly flawed) tools at hand.

[trd2343]

Well, for us mainstream scientists/humans, that would be the big bang (or rather how it came about).

If you're a creationist, the origin is the 6 days that God spent creating the heavens and cosmos.

If you're looking for a deeper answer- that's the point of my reply to you. Mainstream scientists are trying to use the tools at hand (it's up to you whether you believe they are "usable" enough to provide answers that are good enough) to figure out the origins of the universe which is believed to be the Big Bang.

It's very easy for us to theorize that something/someone created the Big Bang event, or just straight-up created everything at once because we don't/can't understand the "cause". Mainstream scientists are basically using their finite time on what we call Earth to figure out the many mysteries of the universe using the (possibly flawed) tools at hand.

I guess my question would be, what cause the cause, that cause the cause that cause the cause.....

At what point do we say, this is "The Cause", or is it an infinite cause?

What does it mean to understand the "cause"?

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

However, can we say that there can only be two outcomes of this path? Either there is indefinite amount of things to uncover, or we've uncovered everything. It's saying, either an infinite reason, or a reason without a reason.

Wouldn't both in this case be equally unscientific?

you're going to have to elaborate more... i don't really get your question kinda... I don't understand how an infinite reason or a reason without reason (you cant find the reason because it's infinite)... how is that unscientific?

you can look at fractals, fractals were discovered by humans and we were able to recreate them with mathematical formulas. they are infinite, but are they unscientific? the math explains why they are infinite, but there still is no origin or end. fractals are very mathematical and sciency if you will.

why is it if something is infinite or point of "ultimate" origin unreachable, then it is unscientific?

perhaps it is particular ideologies within science that are flawed. lol.

which leads me to below...

My question would be, what defines to be an "origin"?

Well, for us mainstream scientists/humans, that would be the big bang (or rather how it came about).

If you're a creationist, the origin is the 6 days that God spent creating the heavens and cosmos.

I would think that... once you uncover an "origin", you immediately realise that is not the origin. lol.

like anything in life. once you get to the bottom of it, and open that last door, you only realise that your discoveries have added another layer of complexity. another door is waiting to be opened.

it's like tracing a path back... take you for example... where did you originate from? your mothers womb... that's the origin... is it? but what about your mother? and we can do this infinitely, till the "big bang".
But really, where did the big bang come from?

science is trying to trace our steps back to the big bang and confirm the big bang for certain. I'm sure when that happens, it won't be a very satisfying answer, because they'll have some component of the theory or law, that begs us to ask where that component came from, and then the recursive pattern continues.

religion "understands" that there is no beginning or end to eternity, and just accepts it. (edit: actually i should say, religion accepts that there is no beginning or end, without needing to understand it... religion accepts the fact that there is no end all understanding of it).


a shitty analogy can be an infinite mountain to climb... one group of people choose to climb the mountain and trace and figure out every step of the way, ever climbing, forever... they see a top of a mountain, and they want to reach it.

another group of people claim that top of the mountain is a false top, beyond that top there are an infinite amount of tops... they accept that they can never get to the end, and just leave it be.

of course they have different views, and different ideologies. but i mean... yah... u get my drift?

sure one satisfies curiosity more than the other. but really at the end, who's more right? lol, i can't say either are.

I just understand within the short reaches of mankind, both ideologies have existed to pave a "balanced" path for us to advance forward.

one could not possibly exist without the other. Even if we have mastered our "observable" universe, and ponder what lays beyond, there will always be room for imagination and religion. those things won't ever go away.


I guess my question would be, what cause the cause, that cause the cause that cause the cause.....

At what point do we say, this is "The Cause", or is it an infinite cause?

What does it mean to understand the "cause"?

I don't think there will be any point we say this is the absolute cause... or infinite cause. because there will always be doubters on both sides of the battle.

there is no meaning to understand the cause (well, you are wiser? lol). you can only understand the cause so far as you can see. but there's always more to see. it's up to you to choose when to stop looking.

[m3thods]

To the mainstream scientists, the origin is the Big Bang, period-stop. The more they "find out" about it's origin, they more they can deduce whether it was a single random event, or if something caused it. If something caused it, it would be reasonable to suggest that there was something before the Big Bang.

Edit: Ugh I wish I can thank more than once. Thanks Ulic for explaining in depth what I could never explain even in a rudimentary form.

[trd2343]

you're going to have to elaborate more... i don't really get your question kinda... I don't understand how an infinite reason or a reason without reason (you cant find the reason because it's infinite)... how is that unscientific?

you can look at fractals, fractals were discovered by humans and we were able to recreate them with mathematical formulas. they are infinite, but are they unscientific? the math explains why they are infinite, but there still is no origin or end. fractals are very mathematical and sciency if you will.

why is it if something is infinite or point of "ultimate" origin unreachable, then it is unscientific?

Fractals is beyond the scope of my knowledge, so unfortunately, I have no comment regarding that. I would assume you were referring to something like a mathematical formula that goes toward infinity, like 1/x ?


science is trying to trace our steps back to the big bang and confirm the big bang for certain. I'm sure when that happens, it won't be a very satisfying answer, because they'll have some component of the theory or law, that begs us to ask where that component came from, and then the recursive pattern continues.

Yup, the recursive pattern continues. But at some point, would we not wonder whether this recursive pattern will end, or does it keep going forever?

religion "understands" that there is no beginning or end to eternity, and just accepts it.

Hmm.. from my understanding religion understands God as the beginning. But that's another topic.


a shitty analogy can be an infinite mountain to climb... one group of people choose to climb the mountain and trace and figure out every step of the way, ever climbing, forever... they see a top of a mountain, and they want to reach it.

another group of people claim that top of the mountain is a false top, beyond that top there are an infinite amount of tops... they accept that they can never get to the end, and just leave it be.

of course they have different views, and different ideologies. but i mean... yah... u get my drift?

Yup, but the climbers don't know it though. Had they knew the mountain was infinite, I don't think anyone sane would climb it. So the mountain could be infinite or finite. But no one knows.

So why did they climb the mountain? To find out if the mountain was infinite or finite? But they can't prove the mountain is infinite, because the definition of infinite is that it keeps going forever and ever.

It's like an infinite reason vs the finite reason. An infinite reason never ends, because there's always going to be a reason. A finite reason will end, but unfortunately we'll have to accept the fact that "the reason" is there in the first place, meaning a reason without a reason.

In this case, wouldn't both be unprovable? You can't prove an infinite reason, nor can you prove a definite reason.

edit: I meant to say infinity is unscientific because it's unprovable, at least I can't figure out how to. But on the other hand, isn't that the defintion of infinity?

[rsx]

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang - YouTube

Big bang theory isn't really what you think it is.

[trd2343]

^(not directed at you, just the video)
An eternal universe, as in it has always existed, or eternal as it keeps going forever and ever?

If it has always existed, shouldn't that mean our future has existed as well?

If it is going forever, then how do we prove whether it has an infinite past or not?

[Wykydtron]

I am not familiar with fractals, so I can't comment well on that area. But in the realm of the infinite, it is impossible to have an actual infinite. There are potential infinites, and actual infinites. The world is full of potential infinites. Actual infinites just cannot be. They create contradictions with themselves. Just look up a thought experiment called Hilbert's Hotel. It is just one of the justifications that is used, and defended by William Craig in defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument (an argument that leads to a higher power using modern day science). At the moment, the Kalam is the most written about theory for the existence of a creator in natural theology. There are brilliant minds who try to take it down, but they just cannot.

One of my favourite examples that show the contradictions of actual infinites is Hilbert's Hotel. Say you have an infinite # of rooms in a hotel, all occupied. And every single infinite person wants to check out. They do, and the hotel is now vacant.
Now, say you have the same hotel, all rooms occupied again. The people in rooms 1,2, and 3 are staying, but from 4 to infinity check out.
Infinite - infinite = 0
Infinite - infinte = 3

Now I'm not claiming to know everything, but just a few of the points that I have learned.

[phantom x]

Religion and any superstition in general is for the insecure and delusional.

Perfectly said
Posted via RS Mobile

[noclue]

^ I forgot who said it maybe napoleon but he said:"Religion is the only thing stopping poor people from rioting and killing the rich as it gives them hope"

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs)


for those of you who don't "understand" fractals, the video from 1:40 to 2:09 is a visual demonstration of what a fractal is.

basically recursiveness, and similarity no matter what scale u look at it from.

like if u are super zoomed in or super zoomed out, you cannot tell, because they look the same. and it goes like this both ways.

Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is a very classic example of a fractal.

or the most famous modern example
2010: A Mandelbrot Odyssey (FractalNet HD) - YouTube
the Mandelbrot set

those are mathematical formulas put visually.

crude examples of fractals in nature are like... branches of a tree, forks of a river, fork of lightning, icicles, snow flakes, etc the list goes on forever.

examples of "pragmatic" fractals (i duno what else to call em), are like...
one example:
are cells in a body, forming a system.

people in a society (cells), forming a system.

err atoms that make up molecules, that make up planets that make up solar systems that make up galaxies, that make up super clusters that...etc etc.


^(not directed at you, just the video)
An eternal universe, as in it has always existed, or eternal as it keeps going forever and ever?

If it has always existed, shouldn't that mean our future has existed as well?

If it is going forever, then how do we prove whether it has an infinite past or not?

yes, i get what you mean. and there's plenty of research trying to figure out what you just asked. quantum physics, multiverse, holographic universe, reading the surfaces of black holes... all those point to the fact that our future already exists. or some version of our future.

your question begs me to ask the question... how do we know fractals are infinite? how can we prove it? we know because of the mathematical formula. the concept of it.

nothing is provable... this falls back on one of the threads i started a while ago saying religion and science rely on the same axioms.

eventually all proof rely on some axiom within a system. those axioms basically state that for the structure or system to work, there are a few things that just have to "be" without solid proof. mathematical axioms are the most common.

your ultimate proof that you are looking for, is the same as the "ultimate" origin that others are looking... good luck lol!


Yup, the recursive pattern continues. But at some point, would we not wonder whether this recursive pattern will end, or does it keep going forever?

don't you already wonder that now? LOL. I already wonder that even knowing fractals never end or never start.

i mean, lets just think of the mathematical equation. i, ulic, stick that equation into a computer and simulate it. the computer whirs and boom. the fractal appears. now i can zoom in step by step, or zoom out step by step... and i can hold onto forward or backwards button for the rest of my life and I will never find a beginning or end.

i can put in a number to zoom into any point of any time, and it will appear instantly.

now... when did the fractal appear? and how is it eternal, even though I started it? did me putting the equation into the computer give birth to some eternal entity? but how can that be? there was a beginning, i put it in, i started it... yet, after it exists, the beginning is no where to be found.


Hmm.. from my understanding religion understands God as the beginning. But that's another topic.

Yes, god is the beginning of most if not all religions. but all stories have beginnings... you can't start a story without a beginning, it would make a pretty bad story :p

I would think when they say god is the beginning, they don't mean definitive ultimate beginning. they kinda mean it like in the fractal sense. as long as you keep looking upwards, god is always at the next level. so in some sense, he is the beginning of every level below "him". but when looking up, he is infinite.

don't think of "god" as some dude, or being... if you take "god" as some conceptual mathematical formula, it all makes sense... or it makes better sense.


So why did they climb the mountain? To find out if the mountain was infinite or finite? But they can't prove the mountain is infinite, because the definition of infinite is that it keeps going forever and ever.

they climbed it for the same reason you choose to stare at a girls cleavage when she bends over. curiosity. even if it's super familiar or you KNOW the result. you still gotta do it.

k bad example. lol. but yeah curiosity. you just wanna experience it first hand. even if they never reach the top of the mountain, they'll find lots of exciting things along the way, and those things more than make up for the effort of the trip.


It's like an infinite reason vs the finite reason. An infinite reason never ends, because there's always going to be a reason. A finite reason will end, but unfortunately we'll have to accept the fact that "the reason" is there in the first place, meaning a reason without a reason.

In this case, wouldn't both be unprovable? You can't prove an infinite reason, nor can you prove a definite reason.

yeah, it's unprovable in that sense.

but then this goes back to my fractal example... i think some point in time, perhaps a fractal equation for how the universe or cosmos is structured will emerge... that will be all the proof you need. you won't need to search or look in every crevasse across the span of the cosmos to prove anything or disprove anything. it will all be simply laid out to you in some formula.

i mean, when i tell you there's a song that never ends, and i sing part of it to you... you're not gonna keep singing it just to prove there's no end, or find an end right? you just know.


I am not familiar with fractals, so I can't comment well on that area. But in the realm of the infinite, it is impossible to have an actual infinite. There are potential infinites, and actual infinites. The world is full of potential infinites. Actual infinites just cannot be. They create contradictions with themselves. Just look up a thought experiment called Hilbert's Hotel. It is just one of the justifications that is used, and defended by William Craig in defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument (an argument that leads to a higher power using modern day science). At the moment, the Kalam is the most written about theory for the existence of a creator in natural theology. There are brilliant minds who try to take it down, but they just cannot.

One of my favourite examples that show the contradictions of actual infinites is Hilbert's Hotel. Say you have an infinite # of rooms in a hotel, all occupied. And every single infinite person wants to check out. They do, and the hotel is now vacant.
Now, say you have the same hotel, all rooms occupied again. The people in rooms 1,2, and 3 are staying, but from 4 to infinity check out.
Infinite - infinite = 0
Infinite - infinte = 3

Now I'm not claiming to know everything, but just a few of the points that I have learned.

I see a flaw, which i'm not sure if anyone has ever addressed.

in the hotel, they say it is infinite, rooms 1 to infinity. but... that means there's a start... room 1.
shouldn't the rooms be 0 to infinity, and then 0 to negative infinity. there's no... "start" otherwise it wouldn't make sense. if there's a start, then there's an end, because the start of something, is just the end of something if you look backwards. and direction is subjective.

also, numbers don't always "work" or define the same things in every system.

this again is a crude example:
in rudimentary math, 24+24=48 right?

but in time, 24hours into a cycle, +another 24 hours, equals 48 hours, but the result is the 24th hour of the next cycle... so if you just single out the result, you get the same thing. there's more than one axis in this scenario.

or 60 seconds into a minute, plus 1 second, is not 61, but 1. it restarts at it's own level, but adds another to some other level.

where as in basic math, you can keep adding and it just keeps going higher. or keep subtracting and it keeps going lower, and you'll never see the same number again (although you see the same pattern repeat).

these examples seem kinda stupid, but i can't really think of how else i can explain it.

but if you take into account that numbers don't define the same things in different systems, then... it really depends if you know which system you're counting in lol.

^ I forgot who said it maybe napoleon but he said:"Religion is the only thing stopping poor people from rioting and killing the rich as it gives them hope"

napoleon was also a very pragmatic man. i would hire him to lead my armies into battle, but i'd never hire him to teach philosophy.

[classified]

^ I forgot who said it maybe napoleon but he said:"Religion is the only thing stopping poor people from rioting and killing the rich as it gives them hope"

I think this is completely wrong. Religion makes people complacent with where they are, there is loopholes in almost every religion to justify committing a crime (or murder) in one way or another and still get into heaven.

Lets say i told you after 50 years i would give you immortality,all the gold, riches you could ever want. Think what you would spend those 50 years doing? Are you going to purse being rich? Probably not. Then take someone who thinks this is the only life they will live, would they not take life more seriously and make everyday count and try to be rich?

[trd2343]

yes, i get what you mean. and there's plenty of research trying to figure out what you just asked. quantum physics, multiverse, holographic universe, reading the surfaces of black holes... all those point to the fact that our future already exists. or some version of our future.

your question begs me to ask the question... how do we know fractals are infinite? how can we prove it? we know because of the mathematical formula. the concept of it.

nothing is provable... this falls back on one of the threads i started a while ago saying religion and science rely on the same axioms.

eventually all proof rely on some axiom within a system. those axioms basically state that for the structure or system to work, there are a few things that just have to "be" without solid proof. mathematical axioms are the most common.

your ultimate proof that you are looking for, is the same as the "ultimate" origin that others are looking... good luck lol!

That's what I'm trying to get across too, if I'm understanding you correctly. In the end, whether it's god, a mathematical formula, or an intellectual being, or a theory, the end result is, that some "thing" has to be without proof.



don't you already wonder that now? LOL. I already wonder that even knowing fractals never end or never start.

i mean, lets just think of the mathematical equation. i, ulic, stick that equation into a computer and simulate it. the computer whirs and boom. the fractal appears. now i can zoom in step by step, or zoom out step by step... and i can hold onto forward or backwards button for the rest of my life and I will never find a beginning or end.

i can put in a number to zoom into any point of any time, and it will appear instantly.

now... when did the fractal appear? and how is it eternal, even though I started it? did me putting the equation into the computer give birth to some eternal entity? but how can that be? there was a beginning, i put it in, i started it... yet, after it exists, the beginning is no where to be found.

I'm not a mathematician, but I'm not sure if you can prove infinity/infinite with an equation. Aren't all equations infinite, but an infinite equations haven't been known to exist? y = x can to infinity both ways, but that doesn't mean a y = x infinite line exists right? Simulating it and having already exists is two different things?





they climbed it for the same reason you choose to stare at a girls cleavage when she bends over. curiosity. even if it's super familiar or you KNOW the result. you still gotta do it.

k bad example. lol. but yeah curiosity. you just wanna experience it first hand. even if they never reach the top of the mountain, they'll find lots of exciting things along the way, and those things more than make up for the effort of the trip.

yeah, it's unprovable in that sense.

but then this goes back to my fractal example... i think some point in time, perhaps a fractal equation for how the universe or cosmos is structured will emerge... that will be all the proof you need. you won't need to search or look in every crevasse across the span of the cosmos to prove anything or disprove anything. it will all be simply laid out to you in some formula.

i mean, when i tell you there's a song that never ends, and i sing part of it to you... you're not gonna keep singing it just to prove there's no end, or find an end right? you just know.


But one would question, how do you know the song never ends? Unless you're the creator of the song. There's also a slight difference in saying a song never ends, as in it starts, and it keeps going forever, vs, the song never ends, as in, the song keeps going forever whichever way you go. It's like saying, the universe can keep going forever, vs, the universe extends infinitely both towards the past and the future. I think those two are different things.

The point I want to bring out is, in the end, everyone climbing the mountain will be accounted to the question, what do you believe in? Is there an end to this mountain, or the mountain goes forever? (either you come to a cause where you accept that's the ultimate cause, a cause without a cause, OR, a cause that goes on forever)

Neither is provable, and either requires just the same amount of "faith" as the other.

The focus (or what I'm trying to say) is not how you get to that answer, but what you do with that answer. You can get there by mathematical formula, , biological observation, logical thinking, or you could get there by guessing or making up some weird creature, but in the end, you'll arrive at an answer where you can not prove. Sure, getting there using a mathematical formula looks more intellectual and logical, but it's the same in the end. You have to make that leap of faith and say, it is what it is, it's there, this is the end, and I have accept that it just exists.

Even if someone finds the ultimate equation that solves everything in the universe, one will always ask why was it there in the first place. It will never stop. Until one accepts the fact that it's just there. Doesn't that take just the same amount of faith as to saying god just exists? Again, you may get there differently, but in the end, everyone will have to make that leap.


don't think of "god" as some dude, or being... if you take "god" as some conceptual mathematical formula, it all makes sense... or it makes better sense.

If both god as some dude, and god as some conceptual mathematical formula, both of which, there's no way to prove the cause of its existence, what's the difference in believing either one?

[Verdasco]

cant we just all get along... and not argue?!!!?? the ppl who believe creationism are such a happy bunch of people, reminds me of people at church, they are always happy in every way! Can't we just good human beings instead of debating who is right.. lol

[trd2343]

^
I don't think anyone's not getting along, we're just sharing ideas and views.

While we are on this topic, does true randomness exists? (according to the definition of random).

[PeanutButter]

What is the proposed thermodynamics rebuttal to evolution? It was mentioned a few times in the pictures.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

That's what I'm trying to get across too, if I'm understanding you correctly. In the end, whether it's god, a mathematical formula, or an intellectual being, or a theory, the end result is, that some "thing" has to be without proof.




I'm not a mathematician, but I'm not sure if you can prove infinity/infinite with an equation. Aren't all equations infinite, but an infinite equations haven't been known to exist? y = x can to infinity both ways, but that doesn't mean a y = x infinite line exists right? Simulating it and having already exists is two different things?






But one would question, how do you know the song never ends? Unless you're the creator of the song. There's also a slight difference in saying a song never ends, as in it starts, and it keeps going forever, vs, the song never ends, as in, the song keeps going forever whichever way you go. It's like saying, the universe can keep going forever, vs, the universe extends infinitely both towards the past and the future. I think those two are different things.

The point I want to bring out is, in the end, everyone climbing the mountain will be accounted to the question, what do you believe in? Is there an end to this mountain, or the mountain goes forever? (either you come to a cause where you accept that's the ultimate cause, a cause without a cause, OR, a cause that goes on forever)

Neither is provable, and either requires just the same amount of "faith" as the other.

The focus (or what I'm trying to say) is not how you get to that answer, but what you do with that answer. You can get there by mathematical formula, , biological observation, logical thinking, or you could get there by guessing or making up some weird creature, but in the end, you'll arrive at an answer where you can not prove. Sure, getting there using a mathematical formula looks more intellectual and logical, but it's the same in the end. You have to make that leap of faith and say, it is what it is, it's there, this is the end, and I have accept that it just exists.

Even if someone finds the ultimate equation that solves everything in the universe, one will always ask why was it there in the first place. It will never stop. Until one accepts the fact that it's just there. Doesn't that take just the same amount of faith as to saying god just exists? Again, you may get there differently, but in the end, everyone will have to make that leap.



If both god as some dude, and god as some conceptual mathematical formula, both of which, there's no way to prove the cause of its existence, what's the difference in believing either one?

this is an older thread i started
http://www.revscene.net/forums/682466-science-religion-but-under-same-umbrella-faith-crazy-thought.html

you are describing exactly what I am describing. many people didn't get it.

but yeah, i agree with you, at some point, you get to an area in which you must face the same decisions that you stated... Faith is what you're talking about (not religious faith, but trust or confidence in something in which you have no direct "proof").

[trd2343]

^
I followed thread when you created it and thought it was one of those few thought-provoking thoughts that was enjoyable to read on Revscene.

I think I would see why not many people get it. On a microscopic level (our daily lives), science uncovered so much for mankind, that it's easy to take that and also apply it to the macroscopic level (the whole universe). The world that we live in have so far has been built up on the fact that everything has a cause and effect. So naturally, science fits in to our daily lives and makes everything logical. But when we dive deeper into its root, or a on a bigger scale, we realize that in the end, there's going to be an element of faith.

It's undeniable, that science is more logically sound, which also makes it attractive to people because it makes sense, but when apply to the grand scheme of things, the whole universe, the beginning, it requires just as much as faith to say a god exists and created it.

What I feel is the debate between religion and science is not so much whether the evidence are real or not, or how the universe came about. The notion of god/intellectual being means there's a purpose to the being that created the universe. The notion of science/mathematical formula means that the universe is heading towards a direction that's strictly guided by a set of rules and formula.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

^
While we are on this topic, does true randomness exists? (according to the definition of random).

no. Not according to the research done on chaos theory. things only appear random at the level you view it at. but over time, or from a higher perspective, things seem organized again. there's always a pattern which can be mapped out, given enough time and enough cycles.

Our known universe is very organized and structured.

the saying "order arises from chaos" is... literal.

^
I followed thread when you created it and thought it was one of those few thought-provoking thoughts that was enjoyable to read on Revscene.

I think I would see why not many people get it. On a microscopic level (our daily lives), science uncovered so much for mankind, that it's easy to take that and also apply it to the macroscopic level (the whole universe). The world that we live in have so far has been built up on the fact that everything has a cause and effect. So naturally, science fits in to our daily lives and makes everything logical. But when we dive deeper into its root, or a on a bigger scale, we realize that in the end, there's going to be an element of faith.

It's undeniable, that science is more logically sound, which also makes it attractive to people because it makes sense, but when apply to the grand scheme of things, the whole universe, the beginning, it requires just as much as faith to say a god exists and created it.

What I feel is the debate between religion and science is not so much whether the evidence are real or not, or how the universe came about. The notion of god/intellectual being means there's a purpose to the being that created the universe. The notion of science/mathematical formula means that the universe is heading towards a direction that's strictly guided by a set of rules and formula.

yes, you are right.

but then i have to ask... how do you define purpose? purpose is subjective. meaning can be injected to anything depending on your perspective, even your OWN perspective can change and the "original" purpose changes.

Which makes me think at some macroscopic scale, there are no absolutes. I mean, absolutes imply permanent. and it's very obvious nothing stays in a permanent state forever... even things like purpose.

[SkinnyPupp]

These are funny

http://i.imgur.com/clzZUHl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FH5RaqK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/qvq7Zyr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xlJS6Zh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CVFm5wT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/oL4Gdy8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ceTKKC5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/x5LAc5H.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0dF861w.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7iM8vm7.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/w7T6LiL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2nXV2wP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2jJPKA0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5hiu83U.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rJRFs41.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/F5vqjHW.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OErNBxf.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SbSj75y.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/sZoKO16.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TDw35wM.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/H406cER.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ARV2GEz.jpg

[strykn]

i gotta ask, if we "know" our universe is expanding (or appears to be, could be some sorta perspective illusion)... what the hell are we expanding INTO?

nothing? nil? that... "nothing/nil" (if u choose to call it that) is still something. as soon as you are able to label it... it... it exists.. it's SOMETHING.

I'm almost absolutely certain that finite, beginning, and end are merely mortal/human concepts.

there was no beginning and there is no end. things have just always been around. existence has been around for all of eternity. the concept is something humans cant understand.

i'll just throw this in anyway, cuz it relates to the topic... we live in a fractal universe. fractals are apparent at every level of existence as far as the scientific community is concerned. if you just look at the mathematical equations for fractals, then it becomes very apparent, that the inherent nature of fractals is eternal... forever in both directions. fractals are everywhere because it is the most effective way to cram "infinity" into a formula that isn't monstrously complex.

anyway your MIB marble example, although cartoonish, is a very crude example of fractals. if you were to zoom out of the alien playing marbles, there would be another alien playing marbles. and so on so forth forever.

recursive, fractal universe is apparent in science, and has been long explained by hindus and buddhists (and probably other religions that i have yet to study).

there are no ultimate creators. there are only ultimate creators subjective to which enclosed system you are looking at. there's always another system above or below. infinite. recursive.

religion nor science can ever explain those things.

everything is just a smaller version of something bigger (conceptually and in the role they play, ignoring physical appearance)

one doesn't have to look to the stars and cosmos to see infinity. One can just look within and perceive infinity within the mind.


lol i realise i am stomping on both science and religion (as science types will disagree because it hasnt been proven and is not "observable" nor testable... and religious types... well my story doesn't align with all religions). but if you drop all the semantics and stories for both sides, you can clearly see they're talking about the same thing.

ulic does it again

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18jmf7dng73j0gif/original.gif

[Excelsis]

what most of you don't realize is that your perceived reality is not the ultimate reality

if you go on the journey of increasing your level of consciousness then you'll begin to realize what this whole thing means more and more

majority of people get stuck with one thing and they are not able to see the reality of it

like if you could look at war, disease, death as "bad" things in your perceived reality, when the ultimate reality of it is that those things don't exist

lower energies don't take part in the ultimate reality

so science has some things which are truthful put together with some lower energies and the same thing with religion, which is why the truth is never found if you try to make your point of perspective the right one..

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x1fBD4QSn8A/UlRWONvMrMI/AAAAAAAAHCI/BNp_24yQrFM/s1600/Consciousness.gif

The higher you move up the more you see..