Because you say that the multiverse "cop out [...] *clearly* cannot be proven". Yes, this is completely illogical.

The multiverse thing(or "many worlds interpretation") states that the universe "splits" in several versions (or "branches"), all legitimate and real, but that cannot interact with each other. That's what "parallel" means. They don't converge. Otherwise, they wouldn't be "parallel". Hence, yeah, we cannot, by definition, detect any "parallel universes". That means "it's scientifically proven". Hawking believes, as far as I can understand, that it's just a propabilistic formulation. Which is the most rational thing to assume and give it a day, unless of course you're not obsessed on reenacting SG-1 on real life. Of course, these days, for many people "proof" means that the maths work out...I am entitled to my opinion that, if you say that the universe splits in "branches", I require you to go and bring me proof that other branches are actually physical. Go bring me a rock from the alternative universe. Notice, I say *physical*. That other branches, not communicating with out own, actually *exist*, not as a theoretical possibility, as a reality. Otherwise, it's just bad sci-fi poppycock.

'SteveDeFacto' said:

You are trying to rationalize something that is obviously fiction but this is just going to lead you back to where you started. Embrace the truth and forget the lies you were taught as a child because they will lead you no where. A large majority of the people on the internet are atheist because it is the most logical assumption when you have access to an infinite source of information like the internet. The only people who believe in god are those who have been taught it from a very young age and who do not have the information to realize the truth.

If I told you that I had an invisible pink hippo living in my apartment you would think me crazy because it is an outrageous claim. If I showed you strong evidence such as a bag full of invisible hippo poop you would have to accept it as truth. God is a magic man in the sky which is an extremely outrageous claim and should require strong evidence but there is none…

Infinite source of information on the internet?
1) If God exists, 1 property of God has to be omniscience. Otherwise He's no longer God now is He?
2) Since every word about God in this thread is likely (though admittedly not guaranteed) to be examined with a fine tooth comb, may I point out that you just made the internet a God of sorts?
2.5) We all have God(s). We all believe in and worship something. If there is a God with the characteristics He would have, no wonder He's not thrilled that we choose other stuff instead of Him as our God…
3) There is not infinite source of information on the internet. Only what we have put on it up to any given point in time…

The internet is for[font=Verdana, sans-serif] all intents and purposes infinite. There is more information right now on the internet than you could ever read in a life time and it is expanding at a faster rate than you can read.

I don't think of the internet as a god I just think of it as a compilation of all human knowledge though like us it is still in it's infancy.

The internet is for[font="Verdana, sans-serif"] all intents and purposes infinite. There is more information right now on the internet than you could ever read in a life time and it is expanding at a faster rate than you can read.

No, it's about 3 petabytes data. Most of it porn and spam. Most information is the same repeated thousands times over.

It really is nothing compared to knowledge and information that has been, is, and will be carried out by traditional means; vision, books,speech,music,direct contact, etc etc.

I love the internet, but please, every new shiny toy we find we make it as the best thing since sliced bread.

Btw, you have "infinite resources of data" and you still haven't figured out that many,many people that believe in God don't believe in a "magic man in the sky"?

Seriously, "magic man in the sky"? Wtf? Where is that man? Does he have a beard? Is he really in the sky? Which direction? Can he slalom through the satellites? Can the lice in his head be factored into prime numbers? Does he watch "The Apprentice"? Seriously? That's your best shot? You're picking the stupidest of all the stupid versions of religion so you can have an easy target? "Magic man in the sky"? No. Just. No.

I also love it how an atheist uses phrases as "embrace the truth". Seriously? Last time I was an atheist, we didn't really consider ourselves to hold any kind of absolute "truth"...You'd make a very good tele-evangelist, should you consider to change careers, honestly.

"THERE IS NO GOD! I READ IT ON THE INTERNET!"

Oh man, I soooo love these threads. Especially when the religious start trying to bend science to fit. I do envy zealots their one trait. The absolute certainty that what they believe in really does exist despite much proof to the contrary. The rest of the world are losing out on that one for sure. But if I wanted to live the rest of my life in some fantasy land that doesn't match reality, I'd probably go with the hardcore drugs option tbh.

It really is nothing compared to knowledge and information that has been, is, and will be carried out by traditional means; vision, books,speech,music,direct contact, etc etc.

The difference is that the internet allows instant access to all this knowledge. Unlike books, vision, speech and direct contact.

You wish to learn how to implement a graphics algorithm? Repair your washing machine? Health advice? A good restaurant? A travel guide? The results of a football match? Compare ten different translations of the bible side by side? Coordinate twenty research teams scattered around the world in a single, large project?

Just imagine how you'd go about doing all that stuff back in 1981. The internet has changed the way we access and interact with knowledge. It's a huge equalizer matched only, maybe, by the invention of printed type.

I don't think of the internet as a god I just think of it as a compilation of all human knowledge though like us it is still in it's infancy.

How long before the appearance of the first internet-worshipping cults and the eventual singularity when the internet will collapse into a self-aware entity?

The absolute certainty that what they believe in really does exist despite much proof to the contrary.

Wait, what?

Are you reading a different thread?

Who are this "religious" people here, when they have expressed *certainty* that what they believe is reality, and what proof exists to the contrary?

Seriously, give an example. You just barged in this thread and threw in some flares. What proof exists, and in contrary to what? I'm genuinely interested.Let's start a real dialogue for once.

But if I wanted to live the rest of my life in some fantasy land that doesn't match reality, I'd probably go with the hardcore drugs option tbh."


Ya, seriously.

The following, though not 'proof', leads me to be a Theist:

1) The Big Bang - Before this, time and space as we know it did not exist. There cannot be infinity time, because infinity exist nowhere in reality. If the universe were infinitely old, radiation would not exist as the half-life would have gone to zero. But, this presents a problem for Atheism because out of nothing, nothing comes. So there must be a causality to this creation that is spaceless and timeless. God fits this description well.

2) Intelligent Design - Not only did the Universe come into being, uncaused and out of nothing to the Atheist, but it so happened to be, by chance, fine tune to an incredible finite set of variables to allow for human life. Small changes in the weak force or polar bonding (all are field forces Einstein could not find a reason for 'why' they were the strengths that they were) would result in a universe that did not allow for human life. I compare this random set of creation to someone putting all the parts of a Rolex into a bag and shaking it for millions of years, expecting that at some point during that million year shake that the pieces would all come together to form a new rolex perfectly set to the current date and time. Here, the idea that God exist is about as probable as this scenario.

3) Objective Moral Values - Rape and Murder of a small child, such as in the case of Jessica Lumsford and John Cooey (sp?) is wrong. End of story. Anyone who says this act was not objectively morally wrong is a crazy person. But, how can you have an objective moral value without a higher power that makes such actions objectively immoral? The fact that evil exists requires objective moral values to exist.

4) Personal experience. I'm sure this will be mocked, but my personal experience affirms to me that God does exist.

4) Personal experience. I'm sure this will be mocked, but my personal experience affirms to me that God does exist.

This is actually the only "proof" for me. I have felt it, the "presence of God", whatever you want to call it, and no I wasn't "hearing voices", and no I don't believe something *just* because "it's written", and no I don't go around telling people how to live their lives based on what I believe, and no, I never, ever mention God or Jesus in a debate about science or politics or even morality, when it's clear that the parties are not interested in that sort of thing(I may mention science in a debate about God, as I have).

That is it. It's a belief. Neither logical, nor illogical. It's not a fucking geometry problem. I want to believe, and I do, that life(my own and others') is not entirely chaotic and random and meaningless. That it makes sense in a fundamental level. If one wants to label it "illogical", or equate it with "magic man in the sky"(fucking genious!), or assume I don't believe in,say, evolution(in which I very strongly do), or believe I have anything in common with people that treat religion as a commodity to sell or be purchased or enforced or conquered, or use it to spread their politcal angedas or personal aspirations, or hate, racism, ignorance, anti-science sentiments and war, or think I want to convert anyone(I don't), or think I want to prove anything(I don't, and I can't), one can go right ahead. As of now, it makes absolutely no difference to me. SteveDeFacto can continue talking to his imaginary "crazy religious person XYZ" construct he has manufactured in order to avoid dialogue with the real me(or any other person of faith). I am a regular 28 yrold, socialist, anti-racist, like science very much, like girls very much, like sex very much, I believe in Jesus and God in a non-monolithic and non-scary way, I believe the Bible,the Koran, the Torah describe pretty much the same things as far as God, from different perspectives(duh!), like different recipes given to different patients by the same doctor, I chose my perspective to be Christianity and it's entirely personal, have very little to no superstitions, and I have found my own personal frame where all of this make perfect sense. I ask nothing more from anyone. And that is all, really.

And I don't have a magic flying hippo in my basement. I've checked.

1) The Big Bang - Before this, time and space as we know it did not exist.

It doesn't make sense to say 'before this' in that context.

Doesn't modern physics think that time stops at the centre of a singularity? If so, what state do you think time would be in at the centre of the big bang?

2) Intelligent Design - Not only did the Universe come into being, uncaused and out of nothing to the Atheist, but it so happened to be, by chance, fine tune to an incredible finite set of variables to allow for human life. Small changes in the weak force or polar bonding (all are field forces Einstein could not find a reason for 'why' they were the strengths that they were) would result in a universe that did not allow for human life.You should read about the Anthropic Principle.

how can you have an objective moral value without a higher power that makes such actions objectively immoral?Quite easily. (Most atheists are really bad in this area, though - they usually adopt something resembling a Christian morality and hope that nobody asks them what makes it OK for them to do that).

If so, what state do you think time would be in at the centre of the big bang?


So, if time was "stopped" at the "centre of the big bang", how did it get...unstuck? Generally this sort of thing makes little sense to me. The "Big bang" implies action, change. Thus implies the flow of time.

You should read about the Anthropic Principle.

A question...I understand the Anthropic Principle quite naturally when it is about planets- that is, there are possibly millions of planets even only in our galaxy, and life on Earth exists simply because of statistics; we know there are many planets, in one of them it simply happened. I understand it as far as the universe goes, if I can phrase it correctly, that is, we observe life simply because in this particular time the universe cas home to a point where life can be created. I don't understand it as far as the general picture of the laws of physics goes; as far as we know, there is only one universe and one set of laws(if those laws are changing during the lifetime since the big bang, they are just special cases of a more general law; in any case, there are physical laws). So why are the physical laws the way they are and allow emergence of more complex forms(hydrogen,carbon,oxygen,stars,planets,life forms and so on). We can imagine uncountable sets of laws where no order would emerge, ever. What is the answer to this?