The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Oh, I would. I know what peer-review means, and I know how it works. Make sure only your buddies review your paper, and then all you need is a bit of power to mute anyone who wishes to challenge you.

In an age of global information sharing and protected free speech, good luck with that.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Well, in this case the universe has always been here, is here, and will always be here.

Well, in this case a very simple question: where did stars come from? A star have a limited supply of energy. Once it burns out, it dies. The energy star radiated is spent. Since you love "law of conservation of mass/energy", then why there are stars? If universe existed forever, they should be all dead and everything should be frozen to absolute zero. In order to maintain "neverending universe" theory, it looks like there should be an unlimited supply of energy somewhere.
Another problem is that in "neverending universe" theory, it should be filled to the top with sentient life. Even with infinite small chance of appearance of life and infinite small chance of that life becoming sentient AND infinite small chance of that life not destroying itself, during infinite amount of time, there should be infinite amount of such occurences - there should be other lifeforms, or at least a plenty of evidence of their existence. Which isn't the case currently.
Also, why are there radioactive elements? They have limited lifetime, and if universe existed forever, there should be no radioactive elements left. "Big Bang" theory doesn't have those problems - it explains existence of current stars and it explains lack of other lifeforms, and (AFAIK) it doesn't break "conservation of mass/energy" principle. Your theory requires an unlimited source of energy somewhere, someothing that relights stars, and something that kills all lifeforms and erases evidence of their existence. I'd say "big bang" is more reasonable.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Well, in this case a very simple question: where did stars come from? A star have a limited supply of energy. Once it burns out, it dies. The energy star radiated is spent. Since you love "law of conservation of mass/energy", then why there are stars? If universe existed forever, they should be all dead and everything should be frozen to absolute zero. In order to maintain "neverending universe" theory, it looks like there should be an unlimited supply of energy somewhere. Another problem is that in "neverending universe" theory, it should be filled to the top with sentient life. Even with infinite small chance of appearance of life and infinite small chance of that life becoming sentient AND infinite small chance of that life not destroying itself, during infinite amount of time, there should be infinite amount of such occurences - there should be other lifeforms, or at least a plenty of evidence of their existence. Which isn't the case currently. Also, why are there radioactive elements? They have limited lifetime, and if universe existed forever, there should be no radioactive elements left. "Big Bang" theory doesn't have those problems - it explains existence of current stars and it explains lack of other lifeforms, and (AFAIK) it doesn't break "conservation of mass/energy" principle. Your theory requires an unlimited source of energy somewhere, someothing that relights stars, and something that kills all lifeforms and erases evidence of their existence. I'd say "big bang" is more reasonable.

It is quite obvious that you do not understand the laws of conservation of mass and energy. Nothing is spent, nothing is destroyed, everything is merely converted or transformed from one form to another.

There is plenty life in the universe, but remember how big it is. In fact, they say that there used to be life on mars, or there could have been.

As for the rest, everything is recycled. The key is the black holes, that lie at the center of all galaxies, and assure a complete recycling.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H It is quite obvious that you do not understand the laws of conservation of mass and energy. Nothing is spent, nothing is destroyed, everything is merely converted or transformed from one form to another.

It is obvious that you do not understand how big is "infinite amount of time" for universe that "always existed".

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H As for the rest, everything is recycled. The key is the black holes, that lie at the center of all galaxies, and assure a complete recycling.

YOu have not answered my question. How stars are created in universe that exists according you theory? HOW is everything "recycled"? WHY are there still radioactive elements? If you can't explain, your theory is not reasonable.
Another problem is that (as I understand it) your universe requires violation of 2nd laws of thermodynamics - once energy got transferred from one body to another, you can't simply "extract" it back. In order to exist, your universe requires "perpetuum mobile". Big bang requires nothing.

It does not violate the second law, because the universe is an isolated system. Since it entails everything, nothing can escape, where would it ?

The second law of thermodynamics expresses the existence of a quantity called the entropy of a system and states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_laws

It is important to note that isolated systems are not equivalent to closed systems. Closed systems cannot exchange matter with the surroundings, but can exchange energy. Isolated systems can exchange neither matter nor energy with their surroundings, and as such are only theoretical and do not exist in reality (except, possibly, the entire universe)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

I'm surprised they mention this on there. I'm glad they do, maybe they will get back on the right track. This also disproves the thermal death of the universe ... another ridiculous theory.

As for recycling, see black holes, they are the key.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H As for recycling, see black holes, they are the key.

I could say "rabbits are the key", and that would make as much sense. If you can't explain the mechanism, it is a fantasy/cheap excuse added in order to make your theory "work". Where is the proof? You also ignored additional questions.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H As for recycling, see black holes, they are the key.

Your position isn't very different from positions of most ignorant/stubborn believers. You dismiss theories that "doesn't make sense to you", and you offer incomplete theories instead, plus you don't even try to investigate theories that "doesn't make sense" to you. I definitely wouldn't call this being "open-minded" or "philosopher". Not knowing something is okay, but when you don't know something, haven't investigates/studied it, don't even try to get more info, and yet claim that you "understand" it and that "this theory is rubbish" that's ignorance.

My theory is complete, but I don't think it will matter to you. You only want to believe in what they tell you, and to feed you things called 'proof' and you accept them without question. You're the one who hasn't done research. I have, and I understand it. It's impossible for me to write out my whole theory in a thread. I'll write a book about it and post it. I may release it online. It will not be labeled science tho.

Black holes are like giant shredding machines on a sub-atomic level. Look them up, try to understand, then you might understand. Just ignore the bits about singularity or what happens at the center. Look at 3D images of them, and try to understand. They are shredding machines, they have an input and and output, nothing is destroyed, nothing is created, everything just transforms or changes. The proof is in the data and the way you understand it.

I understand that this is an old post, but it seriously caught my attention (just about anything like this does these days ):

Originally Posted by SL00b The story of one human life only begins at birth if you make that an arbitrary assignment, because that life is influenced by things that come before, like the life of the parents... life of the grandparents... history of a culture... history of a civilization... evolution... history of the solar system... Big Bang. Likewise, a human's story doesn't simply end at death, because like ripples in a pond, that life influences events far after it is gone.

So…butterfly effect? Great, so effectively everything is predetermined. No action you do could have been done otherwise.

…get in a car crash? Sorry, there was nothing you could have done to prevent it at any time beforehand, it was destined to happen.

…failed that test you needed to pass in high school? Sorry, it couldn't have happened otherwise, like it or not.

…painting a picture that you hope will turn out nice? Sorry, it's already determined exactly what it will look like, and how people will react to it, like it or not.

…nice knowing that everything you will do in your life has already effectively been decided in advance, like it or not, isn't it?

This is the main beef I have with the strictly scientific worldview. It's beyond disempowering; it practically drains me of any confidence in anything. I don't understand how other people can stand it; do they just play dumb and not think about it? Do they even realize the implications? I'm amazed that this hasn't come up at all in any significant way in this recent discussion.

…although now I suppose I've set off the chain reaction of responses that will probably inevitably turn this thread into a free will/determinism debate. Either that or a series of lash-backs at me for posting this in the first place, which IMO is more likely.

The scientific world view is more deterministic than any of the religious world views? What rubbish!

My problem with religion has always been the one you claim for science. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient being then it means everything we do is predetermined by him. Religious folks often say "it was part of HIS plan" when they can't explain things.

Science didn't say everything you do is predetermined - one poster said something and you somehow assume that means all of science says things are predetermined?

Predetermination isn't a scientific question but rather a philosophical one.

MrCode is determined to believe that he is predetermined to believe in predetermination.

Originally Posted by brianL MrCode is determined to believe that he is predetermined to believe in predetermination.

Yup, that's the best way to put it

I don't really understand where he sees all this determinism. I mean where I see infinite possibility he sees that everything is already set and cannot deviate from The Plan ... whoever made it.

Especially since one of the arguments against determinism is the scientifically proven-to-be-random behavior of subatomic particles.

@MensaWater

For clarification: I don't think of myself as being religious…more stuck in the middle between the two, actually. I don't really buy into the whole "God created the universe and is omnipotent/omniscient" thing, but all the same I don't like the strictly scientific worldview because of what I stated above. The idea is that everything happens for a reason, and those reasons are beyond our "control" (at least in the sense that they are necessary for anything to happen at all, e.g. the laws of physics). Humans are physical entities just like everything else in the universe and are thus subject to the same laws that govern them. How does that not suggest predetermination?

I suppose you might be right that the question is more of a philosophical one, but it can still be informed by scientific research.

EDIT:

one of the arguments against determinism is the scientifically proven-to-be-random behavior of subatomic particles.

Is it really random, or is it just that we don't have the means (yet) to properly model the behavior of subatomic particles deterministically?

I think I should just abandon this thread. brianL pretty much hit the nail on the head; I honestly doubt anything's going to break me out of my little rut, at least not here.

Of course, that'll probably be easier said than done, now that the spark has been lit…

Is it really random, or is it just that we don't have the means (yet) to properly model the behavior of subatomic particles?

It's really random. Their behavior is modelled according to probabilities. This is very well-established.

It's possible that this, like anything else in science, could be overturned in the future, but there's absolutely no reason to predict that that would happen.

For sure radioactive decay is random, see:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/