Religion made by man

[cjlhdevil]

 

Its funny how most christans that i know, atomaticly think that if athiest were to be confronted with proof, that we would convert. I know i wouldnt. Sure i would belive there was a god, if there was enough proof. But i wouldnt worship it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I had the technology and knowledge to create a world which is inhabited, I wouldn't see the possible pleasure or usefulness (other than an ego-boost) to have my creations worship me multiple times a day. It'd get pretty boring and unoriginal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And don't tell me "God has his own ways", because if God is wise at all having lived for an infinite amount of time, I'm sure he doesn't need an ego-boost. Just make a huge 2km white statue made of an unbreakable material in the middle of a desert which displays you as a human, that'll make them believe. It will also zap anybody who tries creating pagan religions, so everybody will worship you and there wont be needless crusades and other religious wars claiming tens of millions of lives.

Dude don't lie you know you would love to have a mini civilization to watch evolve depending on how you treat them.

[Matthews1]

 

 

Its funny how most christans that i know, atomaticly think that if athiest were to be confronted with proof, that we would convert. I know i wouldnt. Sure i would belive there was a god, if there was enough proof. But i wouldnt worship it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I had the technology and knowledge to create a world which is inhabited, I wouldn't see the possible pleasure or usefulness (other than an ego-boost) to have my creations worship me multiple times a day. It'd get pretty boring and unoriginal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And don't tell me "God has his own ways", because if God is wise at all having lived for an infinite amount of time, I'm sure he doesn't need an ego-boost. Just make a huge 2km white statue made of an unbreakable material in the middle of a desert which displays you as a human, that'll make them believe. It will also zap anybody who tries creating pagan religions, so everybody will worship you and there wont be needless crusades and other religious wars claiming tens of millions of lives.

Dude don't lie you know you would love to have a mini civilization to watch evolve depending on how you treat them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i agree every man dreams of power accept for maybe jesus (if you bieleve gahndi and a few select other. personnaly i think it would be great to have my own small tiny civilyzation(spelling) anyway i also think that there is yet no way to prove or disprove the big bang theore.

[crimsonking]

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course religion is made up by man. I have pondered all the questions of life I can think of and none of the religions really make any sense when you think about them. Like how 'god' created himself how exactly is that possible? and if it is possible couldn't we have created ourselves? If it isn't possible who created God? and who created the creator of God?

 

 

 

It just goes on and on.

[Matthews1]

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course religion is made up by man. I have pondered all the questions of life I can think of and none of the religions really make any sense when you think about them. Like how 'god' created himself how exactly is that possible? and if it is possible couldn't we have created ourselves? If it isn't possible who created God? and who created the creator of God?

 

 

 

It just goes on and on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i have had the same thought because in christianity they believe that before man there was nothing but if there was nothing what was god... i guess its one of the things that will never know

[Guest Double_Edged]

I do believe in god. Evolution isn't true at all. I believe that that the earth is less that "Billions of years old" Here is my explanation. (I take no creditwhatsoever)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions. (Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are not disputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whose micro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The universe is billions of years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mutations create or improve a kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural selection has creative power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this section we will deal with the first of these assumptions. The others will be dealt with elsewhere. If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In childrenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s fairy tales, we are told: frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In modern "science" textbooks we are told: frog + time = prince

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In nearly all discussions and debates about evolution that I have held at universities and colleges, I ask the evolutionists how certain things could have evolved by chance. Their answer is nearly always "Given enough time..." Time is the evolutionistsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution becomes obviously impossible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"How can you prove IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m wrong?" I say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Okay," I admit, "youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"No!" you say. "Casio didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make the Databank watch until twelve years ago."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While we still canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing in this debate. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[marpit59]

Each evidence stands independently: it only takes one to prove the earth is young.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then doesn't it stand to reason that if one was to find proof that the earth was older then you say, that is just as valid...? One piece of evidence to prove the earth is young... one piece of evidence to prove the earth is old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm in no position to prove you right or wrong, thats up to the individual, but your logic in that statement creates a HUGE contradiction.

[Death_By_Pod]

Again whenever this kind of stuff pop's up, there is always scientific miss-information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting a beginning of the universe (It does not prove the big bang theory in itself but it is a strong indicator):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Cosmic Background Radiation - This is the part in time where light could move around the universe freely (it was too hot beforehand), it is basically an image of temperature distribution near the beginning of the universe which the big bang theory successfully made predictions for.

 

 

 

2. Hubble's Law - Basically shows that stars around us are all moving away, therefore showing that there must be a beginning if you reverse time.

 

 

 

3. Ratio of Primordial Elements - The big bang model can successfully tell you how much hydrogen, helium and other small atoms there are in the universe that otherwise could not be explained.

 

 

 

4. Universe Evolution - The big bang can describe the types and distribution of galaxies over time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are 4 very big things that the model can describe and anyone who thinks that it is flat-out wrong must realise that it has predicted all of our cosmology so far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This also shows that there is an age of the universe which is around 14 billion years which is in agreement of observations; also destroying the creationistÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s argument without having to talk about evolution.

[bs_johannes]

Ok, for once, im gonna take my time and look it all up, i'll be back in a few days.

[Bubsa]

 

 

I think it was Thomas Aquinas who refered to religion or God being the beginning including the Big Bang.

 

 

 

Indeed if you had the original Big Bang, even with two single particles, how did those particles first form? And how did they get in that space? And where did that space come from?

 

 

 

Aquinas said it was obviously God. But if you're arguing like that, then you could argue: Where did God come from? If he came from another God, where did that one come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thinking along those lines - that there must have been a beginning - and if a God was responsible, then I'd infer that that God must have always been existant and outside the realm of this universe, an 'all powerfull being' as some people say. The cause and effect rule has to have started from somewhere (otherwise we would never get to today) and the cause of that beginning must be exempt from this rule if it is to make any logical sense (imo at least). :) Tricky aint it? :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first cause argument contradicts itself.

 

 

 

If some things don't apply to the rule, why does the big bang need to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is is that it contradicts itself.

 

 

 

And if the Big Bang is a scientific theory, then it has to be said that it is scientifically possible for particles to appear out of nowhere. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

[bs_johannes]

First of all, if you apply E=mc2 you can say that particles appear out of nowhere, aslong as there's energy. If there's nothing it's not possible. The big bang suggests that after the universe reached singularity it banged. It didnt bang out of nothing, it banged because to much matter was concentrated at once point and no other forces then its own gravity existed in the entire universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh dear, im to tired to line up facts in an order that makes sence..

[HugATree]

 

 

 

I think it was Thomas Aquinas who refered to religion or God being the beginning including the Big Bang.

 

 

 

Indeed if you had the original Big Bang, even with two single particles, how did those particles first form? And how did they get in that space? And where did that space come from?

 

 

 

Aquinas said it was obviously God. But if you're arguing like that, then you could argue: Where did God come from? If he came from another God, where did that one come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thinking along those lines - that there must have been a beginning - and if a God was responsible, then I'd infer that that God must have always been existant and outside the realm of this universe, an 'all powerfull being' as some people say. The cause and effect rule has to have started from somewhere (otherwise we would never get to today) and the cause of that beginning must be exempt from this rule if it is to make any logical sense (imo at least). :) Tricky aint it? :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first cause argument contradicts itself.

 

 

 

If some things don't apply to the rule, why does the big bang need to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is is that it contradicts itself.

 

 

 

And if the Big Bang is a scientific theory, then it has to be said that it is scientifically possible for particles to appear out of nowhere. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some quantum particles do this. Anyway the big bang theory doesn't say nothing existed before it, therefore something doesn't need to "appear" out of no where, if the energy in some form or another has always existed.

[HugATree]

I do believe in god. Evolution isn't true at all. I believe that that the earth is less that "Billions of years old" Here is my explanation. (I take no creditwhatsoever)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions.

As we will see the faulty assumptions are invented by creationists because they can't conform to the scientific method.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals.

 

 

 

Wrong. Thats abiogenesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mutations create or improve a kind.

 

 

 

Been observed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural selection has creative power.

 

 

 

As much a creative power as a hole in the ground has thats filled with water. If some animals dont fit the environment its likely going to die.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In childrenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s fairy tales, we are told: frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In modern "science" textbooks we are told: frog + time = prince

 

 

 

What science books have you been reading? What you're describing has nothing to do with science or evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter.

Has nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

 

According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.

Order and chaos are subjective, science deals with the objective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly.

All I've seen in your post so far is dishonesty, this seems to be a trend in creation "science", if things don't go your way spread as much false information about your opposition. Evolution is very much a science, I wonder if creationists know what science is since creation science is just religion pretending to be science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.

 

 

 

Logical fallacies are hardly reasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days. Then, approximately 4400 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a worldwide Flood. This devastating, year-long Flood was responsible for the sediment layers being deposited (the water was going and returning, Gen. 8:3-5). As the mountains rose and the ocean basins sank after the Flood (Psalm 104:5-8, Gen. 8:1), the waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon. The uniformitarian assumptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Pete_the_Viscous]

As anyone who's read any of my posts on religion will know, I'm not religious. I do, however, believe there was a great flood; I don't believe it was so catastrophic as religions tend to say it was, though. I base my assumptions on the fact that most major religions (not including new major ones, like mormon-ism) mention a great flood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously there's the Bible one. The ancient Greeks had a story about one, after which the Earth was repopulated by two people........ who did it by throwing stones over their shoulders; the "bones of their mother", metaphorically. The nordic peoples had a flood story... I don't remember it, though. Hindus seem to believe in one; the mayans believed that an early race of imperfect people were wiped out by a flood; various american indian tribes had flood myths; I hear that the Zoroastians believe in a flood myth; I've got a very dodgy eskimo source which suggests that they did, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pygmy peoples have something about a chameleon bleeding water all over the world, out of which the first people came. I know there was an aboriginal Australian one.. again, I don't remember it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, let's find a website on it... http://www.neopage.com/know/flood_myths.htm Here's one, but don't take what it says as necessarily being true (and by that I mean being the correct story, not being factual).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, people from all the (then) inhabited continents of the world have flood myths, and--to my knowledge--they won't have had contact with each other at the time. The christian flood story is predated by most of these by ages... so we can forgive the fact that its in the Bible ;) (joking: I don't have anything against the Bible... it's full of good intentions, I'm sure).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps global warming (ie, coming out of an ice age) caused an unusually large amount of ice to melt and covered a lot more of the world with water than normal. Whatever; I think it likely that there was a great flood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MORE ON TOPIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm absolutely, completely, posetively sure that religion is made by man. That doesn't mean it can't be true... I think that (if it is true, which I won't contend: it might be, and we'd all be kicking ourselves in our house) it's because we (by which I mean you, if you're religious) make it so. Sounds fanciful, but most religious beliefs are, in my oppinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, everyone here, including the religious people, must admit that religion is made by man... maybe not your own; that one's true. All other religions in the world, however, must be false, and so made up by man. One could argue that they're made up by "the devil"/"naughty little sprites"/"various other, outlandish gods"/"women" etc, but... .. yeah, shut up, I don't have all the answers.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Some quantum particles do this. Anyway the big bang theory doesn't say nothing existed before it, therefore something doesn't need to "appear" out of no where, if the energy in some form or another has always existed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To expand on that, you can create particles so long as energy is conserved; the universe will randomly produce pairs of particles with opposite properties (say and electron and a positron), pretty much matter can come in and out of existence which is called quantum fluctuation. If these fluctuations occur next to a black hole and say a particle fell in (in this case the positron) the positron will annihilate with the singularity to reduce it in energy (and therefore the radius of the hole, as the radius is in proportion to the energy). This means that a particle was released (as well as any particles along the edge of the back hole as it reduced in size), this called HawkingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s radiation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks hug for the evolution thing, I couldn't be bothered responding to such an abortion of a post.

[bucky]

Honestly, Double_edged's post was the stupidest thing I have ever read on this forum (and that's saying something ) :roll: . Sorry for the flaming but the arguments he used were completely fallacious. I would go on but Hug a tree has already said everything I would (thanks for doing all the work :D). I dearly hope noone else believes those statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is not to say I don't believe in God. I don't think a satisfactory scientific theory of the existence of everything means there is no God who started everything off. I am agnostic as to God's original existence, but I don't think he would have any impact on our lives today if he did exist, and I do not believe in any religion. The way I see it, how can you be sure that what you believe in is right if there are so many conflicting ideologies? I think religion is somewhat arrogant that way, and also in the way most of them think that we are the most important thing in the universe and that it was created for us. It only takes 5 minutes of contemplation of the night sky to realise just how utterly insignificant we are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The idea of hell (with regards to Christianity) is also a big problem with me. How does anyone deserve to go there for eternity, just for not loving Jesus, especially when so many people may not have even heard of him? (I'm talking like hundreds of years ago here.) And if they don't, whydoes God allow it to happen?

[meadowmont]

HugATree, you only provided evidence against one of Double_Edged arguments, on all the others you basically said ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅNu-uh,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[HugATree]

HugATree, you only provided evidence against one of Double_Edged arguments, on all the others you basically said ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅNu-uh,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Mayjest]

Ok, looks like it's time I stept in again. but first...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, everyone here, including the religious people, must admit that religion is made by man... maybe not your own; that one's true. All other religions in the world, however, must be false, and so made up by man. One could argue that they're made up by "the devil"/"naughty little sprites"/"various other, outlandish gods"/"women" etc, but... .. yeah, shut up, I don't have all the answers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's quite funny, I like it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals.

 

 

 

Wrong. Thats abiogenesis.

 

 

 

Ok, we're going back to the big bang here. There was just atoms. No organic matter possible for the building of life - i.e. no protein. At the moment, there are many different kinds of proteins, the most simple one that we know about has over 600 amino acids in it (they're not all different, it's just a special pattern). I had to study this for my philosophy, so I should remember it. A bloke called Harold Morowitz was commissioned by NASA to work out the minimum amount of amino acids required for a protein to form (and hence, form life). I suppose they wanted to know so they know what they're looking for on Mars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before I go further, the generally accepted scientific/mathematic odds for nigh-on impossible are 1/10^15. That's pretty low. A 1/10^50 chance is so low that it wouldn't happen in 15 billion years (similar to the way we work out the odds of a dragon drop, 1/256 from steels, or whatever). Morowitz worked out that the odds of this protein forming from randomly moving, joining, separting (etc) atoms is 1/10^236. I'd say it's fairly unlikely that life formed out of the random atoms involved in the big bang. The big bang can account for the universe, and evolution can account for life since it started, but there is a huge hole in between these.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And don't start going on about the 'God of gaps'. I don't believe the big bang happened, and I don't believe that evolution got us anywhere either (though it does work today, even though it's minute).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, a couple of you seemed anxious about how I disproved the big bang. I thought of this one by myself after watching a program with Stephen Hawking on. I've put it to the head of physics and all the physics students in my sixth form, as well as the entire philosophy class. I also tried this out on another forum, on Ferion.com (space-type game) None has yet come up with a a sucessful answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My reply depends on the constant of time. Most believe that time is a constant. However, the Big Bang teaches (at least, I was taught it all those years ago) that it was the start of time. That's probably untrue, but I blame it on having a crappy physics teacher in Year 9. Anyway. You know how in movies or books, time supposedly stops, but some can still move (like in X-Men2)? Well, time hasn't stopped. As shown by the fact that some can still move (yet those who were frozen do not remember anything of that tiime, as far as they're concerned, there was no gap in time), our perception of time is based on movement. If everything in the universe (including the microscopic waves and whatnot) were to suddenly stop moving, we would have no idea. They could stop for as long as they want, and we wouldn't realise. When it all restarted, we would carry on as usually, with absolutely no idea. Typing this could have taken 150 years if time kept pausing, but as far as I know it's taken me 10 minutes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how does this relate to the big bang? If time is a constant, then why did the dense cluster of atoms that started it all choose to expand/explode then? The TV show I mentioned earlier seeked to 'teach' how the dense cluster of matter suddenly started expanding. Apparently, there was another form of matter that, instead of attracting matter through gravity, it repelled other matter, thus forcing the ball of matter apart. Luckily for Stephen Hawking, this matter then decayed incredibly quickly, leaving on background radiation. As far as I'm concerned that part holds even less water than the rest of the argument. But, if it was that matter, then why did it start expanding then? Why didn't it start expanding 100 years previously? Why did it even expand at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I am NOT placing a 'God of the gaps' here, as you accused me of earlier. I neither know nor care how God created the world, the point is that we are here, and have a job to do on this Earth before we leave it (no, I'm not talking about 'God has a plan', I mean the Great Commission - a job given to every human on this Earth). What concerns me is why this theory (which can be disproved) is taught as solid fact, while all religious theories are 'theory'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'm serious about that. When we did evolution, we were told during the teaching that it was a theory. GCSE exams, no mention of the word 'theory'. It was treated as fact. With the Big Bang, we were told 'This is how the world was made, anything else is bollocks'. Again, no mention of the 'theory' of the big bang. In RE, when we did Hindus they specified several times on the exam paper about it being a 'theory' (e.g. how does the Hindu theory of creation compare with...). Thats what annoys me most about this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, going all the way back to the first page, and the actual question. Was religion made by man? To anwer this I shall use the film Dogma, a brilliant;y underestimated film in my opinion. In it, the 13th Disciple (Chris Rock) says something like - "That's the problem with religion. They took a good idea, and built a belief structure around it." Meaning: the basics about Jesus being Christ, Muhammed being the prophet etc are all fine. The problem is when religion is created around it. Though in this instance he was referring to religion as in the Dogma of the Catholic Church (the order of service, how they elect the Pope etc), instead of religion in general. So maybe Dogma wasn't as good an answer as I though it was. Oh well...

[HugATree]

Scientific theories are explanations of the evidence supported by the evidence, they are falsifible. Religious "theories" aren't even that, they are stories.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

 

 

 

Ever heard of the First Law of Thermodynamics? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the theory that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, the first law of thermodynamics is merely a statement of the conservation of energy (what he^ said). The first law of thermodynamics is, in fact, delta U = delta Q + delta W, where delta means "change in", U means internal energy, Q means energy change due to temperature difference and W means energy change due to work done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might hear otherwise on the internet, but this is what it is in physics lessons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I don't want to be involved in this sort of discussion, so I'm not going to wreak my horrible justice on anyone for being wrong (in my oppinion); instead I'm going to watch, and try to enjoy it.

[Matthews1]

Scientific theories are explanations of the evidence supported by the evidence, they are falsifible. Religious "theories" aren't even that, they are stories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i agree how do you know that the ible wasn't just some fantasie novel that was pretty popular back in the day and some crazy people started to believe in it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kinda like dungeons and dragons

[meadowmont]

I put my response to HugATree in a new topic, since it was out of place in this one. The link is http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=1546813#1546813

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back on topic, The Bible was held up as fact when it was written, if it was not fact, many people would have had the opertunity to set the records straight. Also the devotion with which it was copied from it's begining speaks to the value it had to people.

[Savior]

Note- I'm not very religous

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My theory on everything is that during the aztec and mayan time ( also egyptian...) Aliens came and visited us and mated with us. How else could we have evolved so fast? How else could we have made the pyramids? I think Jesus might have been one of these "advanced beings" and was just using technology or just his brain when he was healing us mere humans. People saw this , wrote a book, presto religion is born. Yes I believe there is other lifeforms in the 630 sextillion planets out there. Or maybe im crazy, I don't know....

[HugATree]

 

 

 

Back on topic, The Bible was held up as fact when it was written, if it was not fact, many people would have had the opertunity to set the records straight. Also the devotion with which it was copied from it's begining speaks to the value it had to people.

 

 

 

By that reasoning the vedas scriptures are also fact, just believing doesn't mean asserting it as fact will make it fact.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Yes: if something being unchallenged for a long time makes it true, then surely other religions (most of which have been around longer than Christianity) are also true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, whilst I'm usually one to go on about the ridiculous things that some Christian people do (I'm talking only about extremists, here), it is, I'm sorry to say, not as extreme as people from some other religions. Those people have a devotion that most Christians can't match... does it make them right?