BF2S Forums Could Extraterrestrial Intelligence Sway Religious Beliefs?

Oh man shifty never ceases to disappoint

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I still haven't seen anything in the Bible, other than the concept of God, "Proven" false. Everything just connects! There are so many explanations for the reason the Earth is the way it is now in the Bible.

Here a funny question. Why did Adam live 900+ years? Earth was different, and things that took "Billions of years" to make like the Grand Canyon happened in no time when you get a bigass flood that wipes everything out. That also explains why we have oil now, and why we have the oceans we have, etc.

I go to Wednesday night Bible study and we learn some pretty cool stuffed that's backed-up. I just never take notes I record all the studies though, maybe I should put 'em on youtube.

Try reading "Origin of Species" sometime, it's pretty interesting. Of course, Darwin flies directly in the face of your bible classes, but yeah, worth the read.

Annnnyway...

Just don't be so touchy, everybody bashes Christians but I rarely see Muslims or other religions bashed as hard. I think it's a post-Catholic world domination shitty feeling everybody in the Western Hemisphere has.

LOL I think Islam gets bashed harder than anything else around here, but only by a select few. Christianity is more generalised in it's bashing.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-01-26 00:07:52)

-Sh1fty- wrote:

No but seriously, I don't understand how a bing bang makes sense. "So first, we had nothing and that nothing MAGICALLY evolved from a little cell to 6 billion humans, a motherfreaking huge earth with diverse and complex ecosystems and weather.

All this from nothing...

sure

From a non-religious point of view, it makes more sense that it was somehow created by somebody or something than it just magically materializing.

lol nothing -> something

makes perfect sense

Shifty is right on this point. Science is completely stumped as to what happened before the big bang. We are supposed to accept that there is no "before" the big bang, because theoretically time didn't exist before the big bang. That's about as hard to prove as the existence of God. Maybe even harder...

Last edited by EVieira (2011-01-26 04:13:38)

AussieReaper wrote:

EVieira wrote:

That's about as hard to prove as the existence of God. Maybe even harder...

I know where I'd place my $

They aren't antagonists. The big bang does not disprove God. Its just that when he said "And let there the light" and hit the switch, there was a really  big bang.

Noone can prove how the universe was created. It's interesting to hear ideas about it and I'd wager the majority of people hold some belief as to how they think it came about. But we will never know for sure.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
thanks captain obvious

presidentsheep wrote:

Science isn't stumped. It just hasn't developed the understanding required, yet. People are working on stuff like this though, unlike proving the existence of god.

So far, yes physicists are stumped. The theories that try to even begin explain what happened before the Big Bang are still completely on the imagination point. At this point, there isn't not much difference from the faith that God exists in terms of proof.

But, just to be clear here, I'm not suggesting that the big bang never existed or a science vs bible discussion. My point is that there is plenty of things that science relies on faith, because it hasn't been prooven yet. Like the physics of black holes, singularities or the Higgs boson (although this last one should be proven or disprooven in the next couple of years thanks to the Large Hadron Collider).

eviera there's a big fucking difference between hypotheticals/theories and 'faith', too.

faith is blind, irrational, unempirical... the others are decidedly not

Last edited by Uzique (2011-01-26 05:01:41)

For those who actually have some scientific knowledge beyond that of a gorilla, it's almost certain that we will never know what happened at/before the big bang, what caused it etc. Beyond the realm of science. All signs point to Planck time (BB+10^-43 sec) as the hard limit of our theories.

Poseidon wrote:

I don't get why people get pissed at others for ragging on Shifty when he intentionally posts this shit just to get flamed.

Ragging is for women

Shahter wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Uzique wrote:

eviera there's a big fucking difference between hypotheticals/theories and 'faith', too.

faith is blind, irrational, unempirical... the others are decidedly not

No, fanatics and ignorantes are blind, irrational and unempirical. If all faith was like that, then all scientists would atheists. Which is clearly not true, as most scientists belong to one religion or another.

so, the ability of some scientists to live with religious shit now makes is less irrational? how? there are people with split personality disorders one of whos personalities may be beleaving being elvis prestley - should we now assume it possible that elvis still lives?

I never said anything like that. But everyone who has faith has to be completely blided, irrational and unempirical about it? That's a very crappy stereotyping and assumption of everyone who goes to church as if they were all irrational idiots.

Uzique wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Uzique wrote:

eviera there's a big fucking difference between hypotheticals/theories and 'faith', too.

faith is blind, irrational, unempirical... the others are decidedly not

No, fanatics and ignorants are blind, irrational and unempirical. If all faith was like that, then all scientists would atheists. Which is clearly not true, as most scientists belong to one religion or another.

Faith in one aspect is beleiving in something that you can't really proove, at least not yet. The Higgs boson is a leap of faith, and if it doesen't exist that will destroy a large portion of the current particle and gravity physics model.

the massively important part taht you are missing eviera is that theories such as the higgs-boson particle are built on a framework of logical assumptions... it's a rational, reasoned process. spirituality isn't - there is no way to be 'logical' about faith. it is inherently illogical. and what are you trying to say: that faith is made somehow rational for the majority because scientists can hold conflicting opinions? we're human beings, it's entirely possible to be interested in empiricist science and to have an inner spirituality. our conscience is never black/white. it doesn't, however, colour the 'concept' of faith itself.

There is a huge framework of logic to faith, philosophers and theologists have been studying faith, religion  and spirituality as far back as Aristotle. Unfortunately I don't have the theological background to put up any decent argument for that, but look it up if are curious. Or talk to a decent rabbi about it, it'll make a good debate excercise.

What I'm trying to say is that if you don't have faith, you made a logical argument for it. But that doesn't mean all the others who have faith are irrational. Just because science can't proove it doesn`t make having a religion or a belief system illogical. There are plenty of things science doesn't explain, and many more that scientists only "believe" works a certain way. In other words, we all have doubts. But just because a person believes in an after-life, for example, doesn't make him or her irrational. We'd still think the world was flat if we always thought all people with different beliefs were crazy.