The universe came from nothing, right, due to this flux, that, er ...
Right - because laws like gravity exist, ok, the universe came from nothing, and, right, er ...

See ... there's this formula, right, which, well - it's quite complicated, but god definitely doesn't exist, ok, and because of this formula, see, nothing isn't actually nothing, and, right, er ...

*whine*
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 10:42, 95 replies)

Its beyond our comprehension
We are born into a world where, in order for something to exist it has to be made out of something that already exists. As humans we can only understand the concept of converting one thing into another.

So the prospect of the universe just forming out of literally nothing is just not something we can understand, or probably ever will.
(Boom- Clicks on NSFW links at work., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 10:54, closed)

I understand it

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:07, closed)

so do I
and I like it that way.
(waxdart hello., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:07, closed)

Conversely, everything Christianity teaches is truth of the highest order

( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:17, closed)

No.
But that's been covered already in this QOTW.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:24, closed)

It's just that the "argument from personal incredulity" is a particular favourite of religionists
...just because you don't understand the science, doesn't mean it's bullshit
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:29, closed)

Yes I know I was poking fun, with a dig at militant atheists.
I know a few who are incredibly sneering and condescending about relgious people "believing", but will not accept the fact that eventually the scientific explanation of the origins of the universe equally rely on just belief since they haven't figured it out yet, and at it's core it seems paradoxical, or at the least to suffer from the same infinite regression that theistry does.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:37, closed)

Yeah I know
Still, there's a massive difference between "I believe that natural forces brought the universe into being" and "I believe that the universe was brought into being by an anthropomorphic deity who loves me and takes a personal interest in my life, despite not leaving a single shred of evidence as to His existence".

Personally I found Hawking's last book (in which he disproved the existence of a Creator) to be very tough going and I struggled with the science of it, so I called my mate who works at the LHC and he explained it in more laymanesque terms, and it's far more intellectually satisfying than "Er...God did it."
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:49, closed)

Gosh!
Hawkings actually DISPROVED the existence of a creator?!

That's impressive. I thought he just got as far as "very probably".

Like Dawkins. Et al.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:51, closed)

Well we're splitting hairs here
He didn't disprove the existence of a "god", but the maths shows that "he" wasn't involved in creating the universe. Which is why I said "creator", rather than "god".
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:58, closed)

I'm not sure I'm getting you here.
So - "because of maths, right, there's no creator"?

Seems a bit cultish to me.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:01, closed)

It's called Occam's Razor
On the one hand there is a theory put about by religionists that the universe was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing (yet invisible and insubstantial) being which frankly raises more questions than it answers (Who made God? Where does he live? Why is there no evidence of his existence?) and a set of equations that explicitly show that the universe could come into being without someone to "light the blue touchpaper" then the one that follows the "laws" of nature and doesn't presuppose an inexplicable deity is the one I'm going find infinitely more credible. Nothing cultish about that in the slightest.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:10, closed)

As I said above - scientific theory suffers from infinite regression just as a creator theory does.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:18, closed)

Except that science is testable, while religiobollocks is not
Like, for example, the discovery of cosmic background radiation proved that the Big Bang happened.

I also think it's absolutely hilarious that someone defending the creator theory can dismiss the scientific theory as "cultish". Do they have a different definition of "cultish" on your planet?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:25, closed)

I think you're confusing religion with the concept that there may be a creator.
The way that I was taught to approach science was to do so with an open mind, as opposed to accepting answers before they'd been disproved. Which, as we keep coming back to, isn't the case with the creator theory.

Such zealous and myopic devotion to any particular school of thought is often referred to as "cultish".

It's the men in white coats vs the men in black dresses.

I have never heard a band of scientists produce good music, aside from Dr Brian Cox, obviously.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:41, closed)

A creator theory *is* a religious concept
and one which requires either a huge amount of supporting evidence (of which there is none) or a huge amount of blind faith. The scientific theory doesn't. There's having an open mind and there's deliberately distorting the argument to incorporate your world view.

I don't have a "zealous and myopic devotion to any particular school of thought", I've just looked at the evidence provided by both sides and plumped for the one that doesn't have to bend the facts to support a bronze-age myth. To imply - as you do - that science is really a massive con perpetrated on the world by the men in white coats, well that really is myopic and zealous.

I have no idea what the hell music has to do with it, but even in that you're wrong: "Things Can Only Get Better" is a musical abomination that really should have been strangled at birth.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:20, closed)

Exactly wrong.
A creator theory is NOT a religious concept. The religiousness of it comes from the surrounding ritual and mythology.

A creator theory is just that - a theory.

I have not implied anything - merely pointed out that science - just as creator-theorists do - requires the belief that the followed school of thought is correct.

What music has to do with it was - and for this I apologise - my being flippant - "soul" in music such as James Brown, gospel, dirty rock n' roll, reggae, gospel and country, as opposed to approaching it as just the realisation of a sonic mathematical complex.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:50, closed)

First line of wikipedia: Creationism (my bolding)
"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being."

It seems that you're out of touch with popular opinion on this one.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:01, closed)

No.
That's CreationISM.

Simply accepting that there is a theory that there is a creator - or, indeed - actually believing there is a creator - is not creationism the religion. It's simply accepting that there is a theory that there is a creator - or, indeed - actually believing there is a creator.

It's proper noun verses noun territory.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:21, closed)

The theory of creation, or the theory that there is a creator *is* creationism.
There's no difference; the invocation of a supernatural creator places it clearly within the bounds of religion. Sorry, but you're arguing on the side of the nutjobs here, no matter how much you try to distance yourself from them.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:37, closed)

I'm not arguing anything.
As I have said, repeatedly.

You seem desperate to label me as a god-botherer and to damn me for it - good luck with that - you would be wrong to.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:24, closed)

Just pointing out there is no non-religious theory of creation
and that you certainly seem to be on the side of the men in black dresses
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:45, closed)

Yes there is.
That of "I think that a creator created the universe, but I'm not going to celebrate, mythologise, or ritualise such".

I don't seem to be on anyone's side, and I don't know why you would perceive such. Just because I don't like ice cream doesn't mean I like chocolate.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:07, closed)

Yet said creator would have to be a supernatural entity
Or at least outside the bounds of nature as we know it. Whether you worship a god or not, believing in one places you firmly back in the religious camp. Besides, it was you who posted the "men in white coats/men in black dresses" stuff, and from what you've posted, you're definitely not on the side of the scientists.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:14, closed)

You still appear to be confusing theism
with religion.

The two are quite different, I assure you. It is possible to be a theist without being religious, and, indeed, one can be a creationist without being a Creationist.

I am neither, have never expressed allegiance to either, and I don't know why on earth you think I am more inclined to one or the other.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:18, closed)

Religion and theism are pretty close
"Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine."

"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe."

You might be thinking of "deism".
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 21:59, closed)

not necessarily

( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:39, closed)

Yes, necessarily.
In order to create the universe, a creator would have to exist outside said universe, violating the "natural" laws of this universe, hence supernatural.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 22:02, closed)

What about
Dr Dre or even at a push Doctor and the Medics?
(andythepieman Is surfing the waves of indifference on, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:13, closed)

Doctor Feelgood

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:02, closed)

isn't Occam's Razor
the theory that the most obvious answer is usually the right one?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:22, closed)

Not quite
It's more like the simplest answer is usually the right one

Closer in meaning to the Sherlock Holmes quote: "Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:27, closed)

simplest answer is usually the right one
Like "god made it."
(waxdart hello., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:18, closed)

Sadly, God is a fictional character which raises all sorts of complications.
The simplest answer is that the universe happened.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 22:04, closed)

Generally...
It's the answer requiring the fewest assumptions is the correct one.
The belief that an intelligent force existing outside the universe with the complexity required to create said universe in whatever manner requires more assumptions/leaps of faith than the belief that it occurred naturally.
(The Bloody Awful Warsaw Concerto, Wed 19 Jan 2011, 20:28, closed)

You're assuming that the word "believe" means the same to both groups
But it doesn't.

From a scientific perspective, "believe" means that you accept something as the best explanation so far found, because of its explanatory power and consistency with other theories, evidence and hypotheses. But the belief would end the instant that a better explanation is presented, or that experiments proved that it was wrong.

Religious belief is very different. Facts, explanations and consistency are irrelevant; what matters is a) did I read it in the Holy Book or hear it from a Holy Man, and b) does it fit my pre-existing (and inviolate) world-view.

An example is the Turin Shroud: dating tests suggested that it was made in the 14th century*; religious commentators said that this was irrelevant as they persist in their faith that it is a holy relic.

So to say that people believe in the Big Bang is NOT the same as saying that others believe in God or Heaven.

We should really use different words for the two concepts -- but the same is true of many words, such as "energy", "theory" and even "or", which have a subtly different meaning to science than they do in everyday use.

* The point does not depend on this being correct
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:33, closed)

Once again, the creator concept and religion are being confused.
Personally, I'd say that the two schools ask very different questions - science asks "How?" and religion asks "Why?"

But as I said, it's just poking fun at militant atheists - you know - the humourless ones that won't allow anyone to think differently to them and shout anyone who does down - like Dawkins and his gang.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:45, closed)

I love the concept of "militant" atheists
I look forward to getting my gun, helmet and uniform any day now
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:21, closed)

Indeed.
Quite a lot of religious people feel the same way.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:50, closed)

Well there are plenty of militant religionists
You know, who actually kill people, instead of writing books
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:05, closed)

Wasn't Stalin an atheist?

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:22, closed)

Ooh, narrowly avoided a Godwin there
But the pertinent question would be: did he kill people in the name of atheism or communism?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:43, closed)

in the name of being a nutjob

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:02, closed)

both are fine
It's when you start to kill people cos they do not believe in the same god the SAME way. Not even killing a person for having different Jew or Muslim God.

But Jesus lovers killing each other cos a few hundred years ago there was a war about it some such. Die fucker, you don't love Jesus in the correct right way.

nutjobs.
(waxdart hello., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:26, closed)

I like this
basically because if it comes to making a choice between keeping an open mind (because it's ultimately unprovable) and being an angry, ranting absolutist, I know whose side I'm on, whether the ranting absolutist be atheist or religious.
(jennymnemonic, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:53, closed)

The irony is that it's very easy to change a "militant" atheist's mind:
Show them some evidence.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:03, closed)

Of course science can't explain everything
Yet.

But that's better than saying "stop thinking about it and just BELIEVE". Do you think you'd be sitting at a computer if that attitude prevailed, or do you think you'd be in a hut somewhere, trying to knit your own socks out of grass?
( MatJ LOOK, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:36, closed)

Hahaha aren't you the one who keeps making snide, personal comments about me?
Oh yes - yes you are.

See above reply to Emvee for an apology of the intended discourse.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:38, closed)

All right
I see the reply.

And yes, I am.

Edit: Feel free to make a few about me. This is the internet, after all.
( MatJ LOOK, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:47, closed)

Nah you're alright.
Your existence doesn't really concern me that much, thanks.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:54, closed)

That’s how stinking theists present the argument.
The Big bang theories have nothing to do with existence of god.

The complete lack evidence for the existence of any of the gods, deities, fairies, ghouls, ghosts, pixies and midgets does though.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:38, closed)

By all means have a go at God...
but leave the fucking pixies out of it, the poor little fuckers have enough to deal with as it is.
(don5nake, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:33, closed)

Why do the pixies get a pass?
Little so-and-so's keep hiding my car keys. And crashing my computer 0.2 seconds before I press "save". And managing to do all this while not existing. Stick it to 'em, I say.
( Amish Information Systems hates misplaced, commas, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:46, closed)

My monitor has 1920 x 1200 pixies
I've no idea what you are going on about!
(waxdart hello., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:30, closed)

midgets certainly do exist - I got horribly bitten by a cloud of them in Scotland.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:49, closed)

fucking Scotland!
There's our problem.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 18:24, closed)

yeah, you know that's right, and ...
... your post is like a totally verbatim crib from any number of articles in the scientific literature.
(haberman is singing in the changes, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:46, closed)

.
Although it is amusing seeing people take such a...religious view of science. Especially in the rather controversial realm of climate science there is much talk of the Science being "settled" and facts being "unquestionable". Science doesn't work like that. The "Big Bang" is just a theory, and there is as much concrete evidence for it as there is for a big, beardy man in the sky. To blindly accept science is just as pointless as blindly accepting religion. Nothing is valid if it doesn't stand up to questioning.
(Boar is dreaming of get rich quick schemes..., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:48, closed)

Precisely my point.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 11:53, closed)

you took up a lot of space not to be able to make that point at all.

(waxdart hello., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:31, closed)

Now this is bullshit
There's evidence for a Big Bang.

There's no evidence for a beardy man in the sky.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:00, closed)

big bang
there certainly was a big bang

I heard it
( spingers, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:17, closed)

Just after the Big Bang
there was a Big Cigarette, a Big Shower, and a Big "Well, I guess I'd better head home then."
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:20, closed)

I once saw a video of a big bang.



Fnarr
(kebabking - salad and garlic mayo pls, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:22, closed)

There's a fine but important distinction between "proof of" and "evidence of". There is no proof that either the Big Bang happened or of any beardy man in the sky. There is evidence for both.

Which evidence were you thinking of specifically?
(Boar is dreaming of get rich quick schemes..., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 12:37, closed)

As noted above
Cosmic background radiation, discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. Turn your TV to a dead channel, and 1% of the static you see is actually echoes of the Big Bang.

Beardy man evidence please?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:24, closed)

The TV is evidence of the big bang?
How do I create a control, and turn on a TV outside the universe?
(sabre-tooth monkey, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:27, closed)

you cant get outside the universe. when you go there is becomes inside the universe.

(waxdart hello., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:33, closed)

Bollocks.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:57, closed)

That is somewhat of an oxymoron
Science is not blindly accepting anything, nothing can be accepted as science without repeatable proof. Whereas the religious folk, with their "faith" want you to blindly accept whatever they tell you with no proof. They actually argue that no proof is better, because that means you have more faith. The circular argument that the bible(or insert whatever religious text), is the word of god, because god says so, is just a bit too far for me.
(M61A1 CUPID- STUNTS, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:38, closed)

To blindly accept science..
This is true, it's surprising, nay, unnerving how many sceintists are not open minded and it takes great resolve to convince them that their currently held beliefs are actually disprovable as in line with scientific method.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 18:02, closed)

Keep going everyone!
Perhas we can settle this once and for all! And we can all say we were there when Mankind finally figured it out!
(sabre-tooth monkey, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:26, closed)

HOORAY!

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:50, closed)

!
There was one guy and the question said "describe your chair", and he just wrote "what chair?". That was literally all he wrote!! He got an A.
( browser still relating boring anecdotes into a void on, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:57, closed)

www.b3ta.com/questions/bullshit/post1045391
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:23, closed)

As someone who does teh sceince for a living I think I am in a minority. I couldn't give a flying fuck how the universe started. We're here now, let's enjoy ourselves.

4.5 billion years is a long time ago, get over it.

I like the bits of science that make useful things that make our lives better and pays the bills. Big bangs, worm holes, black holes... all very nice, but it's not going to fill my hot tub full of hip hop hunnies.

And if Stephen Hawkins is so bloody clever how come he doesn't put that big brain of his to something useful? Like building himself an exo-skeleton, or developing green energy technologies? Why is it there are thousands of engineers and scientists out there working everyday to solve real world problems that affect the future of our planet and these naval gazing ass clowns hog all the science lime light?

*ends rant, takes pills, goes to happy place*
( Draconacticus Reject shampoo. Demand real poo!, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 13:55, closed)

I'm not too sure what branch of teh sceince you do.
is it biology?
(waxdart hello., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:39, closed)

ass clowns
The proper name is proctologists
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 18:05, closed)

Loathe as I am to get involved...
I don't think anyone who's looked into it seriously claims there was nothing before the universe. Of course, before isn't really a concept that makes sense, nor is 'outside' the universe which I've been asked about before, it's jsut so alien to our realm of comprehension that we can't even begin to speculate. The universe almost certainly didn't start with nothing, it's just that we, as creatures of the universe, aren't equipped with the tools to talk about about what it did start with, for given values of what.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should remain silent or some bollocks like that.
(WarneMarsh My priority for frivolity begets quality jollity, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:26, closed)

I thoroughly agree.
As I detailed above, it's more poking fun at those who condescend or sneer at those with a different belief system or explanation network.

Obviously, when things start to get fighty and guns are pulled, it becomes more of an issue, but this is just the internets, and as such, fun.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:33, closed)

Science works on belief too (in parts)
It's how regression approximation works. You *believe* something is approximately a particular number but you can't prove it because the equations go on forever. A bit like PI being a neverending, non-repeating value. You only theorise that it is non-repeating and neverending. Who knows?
( betpet is the fun in dysfunctional, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:52, closed)

Errr, no
Pi does go on forever. There are some lovely proofs. History may be bunk, but don't you be badmouthing maths.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
(WarneMarsh My priority for frivolity begets quality jollity, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:55, closed)

Yeah
Why bother trying to find out the answers to tricky questions?

Why don't we just take Vag's word that a magic man in the sky did it and leave it at that?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 14:45, closed)

Please - do point out where I gave my word that a magic man in the sky did it?
Or that I even suggested such?

Oh - oh I didn't.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:25, closed)

So what's your point, exactly?
Why do you have such a problem with science? Why do you spend so much time on here disparaging it and defending its abusers?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 15:47, closed)

I think what he's defending
is being open-minded and humble as to the status of one's personal beliefs, rather than being arrogant and condescending.
(jennymnemonic, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:00, closed)

Precisely this.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:08, closed)

Yet you post in such an arrogant and condescending way
Perhaps that's the issue here.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:15, closed)

I respond to patronising, ill-informed accusations strongly, such as "just because you don't understand science", yes.
I don't see how that's arrogant or condescending, though. Particularly in light of my apology of the post being clear that it was just a bit of fun and having a dig.

Just a bit of a laugh - that's all - a bit of teasing.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:21, closed)

So you made an arrogant and condescending OP here
in response to...well, nothing. You just fancied a pop at atheists. Now you claim it's just a bit of fun and you're just teasing. But when atheists do it, that's what makes you angry. Right? Just so I'm clear on this.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 21:01, closed)

He doesn't
He seems to have a problem with the 'militant atheists' who go as loony as the 'militant theists' when the subject of religion is brought up.

I create universes on my PC all the time. They start with a big bang (turn the power on) and the characters I have created from dust (1s and 0s) live their lives based on the rules I have created for their universe. Does that make me God? Probably in their eyes (assuming they have such a concept).

If someone tries to make a religion based on my creation of the universe and slip some laws in with a number of misquotes along the way, that doesn't suddenly mean that I don't exist. It just means someone has tried to explain things and (possibly) tweaked things to their own ends.

Fundamentally, outside the universe, we have no idea really. A few theories and some educated guesses based on a few calculations based on some observations made within this universe but that's it really.

One has a decent (albeit slightly flawed) approach to the answer. The other is more philosophical in approach.

My guess is that they're all wrong. We're all on the back of a giant turtle that's swimming through some cosmic ether between universes. ;)
( betpet is the fun in dysfunctional, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:04, closed)

I don't really know what a militant atheist is
How do they differ from regular atheists? Do they not believe in God more?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 16:18, closed)

No, they're just more militant in their views
like militant feminists are.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 18:08, closed)

That's not what I'm saying at all
I'd be the first to advocate trying to figure it all out, but when it comes to things like the origin of the universe, I don't think an answer we'd understand is even possible. Even if it turns out the M-theorists are, in some sense, 'right', and the universe was born in a collision bettwen 11-dimensional membranes in M-space (I saw it on horizon, I'm not going to pretend any genuine knowlefge), does that make us any the wiser? It's just words for things we can never get our heads round - we are so bound up in time and space that even general relativity is a bit of a headfuck.
(WarneMarsh My priority for frivolity begets quality jollity, Tue 18 Jan 2011, 17:06, closed)

nevermind the white coats in the sky and big bangs in black dresses and such and so forth
what's up with the indent on the posts?
I never understand why it wanders around the page, seemingly of its own accord. It surely has something to do with who is being replying to or posting.
Nevertheless I certainly enjoyed it being vertical - please continue vagabond and emvee, you seemed to be the ones to conjure it into this state.
Maybe it was excited?
(dyllon nice beaver., Tue 18 Jan 2011, 20:57, closed)