religion

[Toofliss]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im just curious but why haven't you found that the pursuit of knowledge and science is the best way to find the answers you are looking for?

The way you talk about it, Toofliss. You make it sound as though you think the universe is a marvelous place and that there is many things to be discovered about it.

yet you seem to reach to the church, who have offered no evidence while it insists you stop searching for the truth and simply have faith, to wait to die, to find the answers to whats out there.

I am only saying the truth that you seek cannot be found by a person who knows nothing more than whats outside of his church.

If you want the answers, I would wager the people actually going to space are the people that you should be looking to.

Exploring your inner self is as important as the universe but when claiming to have real concrete answers as to where we are from or where we are going, you can listen to people who have evidence to back their claims, or people who ask you to simply believe them.

for myself, I choose the former.

If it isn't a coincidence, maybe in a thousand years science will figure out what the answer is. Maybe not. Religion, barring the arrival of the lord and savior (or whatever the fuck it is) will never.

The universe IS a marvelous place. So much so, that it's so incredibly perfect in so many different aspects, that it became statistically impossible in my mind that it came about through chance. I didn't look to religion to come to this realization. I looked carefully at the world around me. Scientists used to do this same thing. Look at the world around them and come up with their own hypothesis on why something was. I chose to do the same thing rather than believing what I was told. Challenge everything and look at ALL options.

AFTER I came to that realization, that someone/thing put all these rules into place, then I started looking for more answers. Having given 10+ years to definitively believing there was no God (or super intelligent creator), I figure I deserve to at least give a little segment of my life to investigating the other possibility. Mind you that this was the furthest thing from possible in my earlier years.

Science wants to rule out a creator because we simply can't wrap our minds around it being a possibility. It's a tough pill to swallow. Equally tough to swallow is the concept that with the odds being ridiculously against all of this happening by chance, that we are the biggest powerball winners ever.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The universe IS a marvelous place. So much so, that it's so incredibly perfect in so many different aspects, that it became statistically impossible in my mind that it came about through chance. I didn't look to religion to come to this realization. I looked carefully at the world around me. Scientists used to do this same thing. Look at the world around them and come up with their own hypothesis on why something was. I chose to do the same thing rather than believing what I was told. Challenge everything and look at ALL options.

AFTER I came to that realization, that someone/thing put all these rules into place, then I started looking for more answers. Having given 10+ years to definitively believing there was no God (or super intelligent creator), I figure I deserve to at least give a little segment of my life to investigating the other possibility. Mind you that this was the furthest thing from possible in my earlier years.

Science wants to rule out a creator because we simply can't wrap our minds around it being a possibility. It's a tough pill to swallow. Equally tough to swallow is the concept that with the odds being ridiculously against all of this happening by chance, that we are the biggest powerball winners ever.

There's that word again.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's that word again.

Really? Ignoring the fact that I pointed out a outrageous amounts of "peer-reviewed" scientific theories that are later proven to be either completely wrong, or just wtf were people thinking with these theories? The ones I gave are only the tip of the iceberg. You really think there isn't any fallacies just based off the fact so many scientific theories have been discredited over the know history of people creating scientific theories? This one is just right no matter what? Even more considering the amount of evidence to prove on the contrary? I have to say, at least the one thing God has going for him, he has never had anyone that can prove he doesn't exist, which the belief in God has been around since the discovery of known history.

Basically, if I was a betting man, in inconsistency among people that are supposedly "the most intelligent people" would not be getting my money based off of historical inaccuracy.

[Toofliss]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's that word again.

You keep trying to misconstrue my posts.

(powerball) Your chance of winning the lottery on a single ticket is one in 175 million.

Oh shit, I used the word chance. Would you prefer me to substitute the word odds?

The odds of all this world coming about in the perfect combination is 1 in a hugeeeeeeeeeeee fucking number. So what is that chance?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

The odds of all this world coming about in the perfect combination is 1 in a hugeeeeeeeeeeee fucking number. So what is that chance?

A huge number that's still much smaller than the number of stars in the universe, still smaller than the number of stars that have planets.

[Toofliss]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A huge number that's still much smaller than the number of stars in the universe, still smaller than the number of stars that have planets.

It is? Could you provide either of those numbers for me?

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A huge number that's still much smaller than the number of stars in the universe, still smaller than the number of stars that have planets.

this is just science trying to use its current knowledge to make a guess for people who want to know, Toofliss, but on February 2, 2011, the Kepler Space Observatory Mission team released a list of 1,235 extrasolar planet candidates, including 54 that may be in the "habitable zone."[8][9][10] Based on these latest Kepler findings, astronomer Seth Shostak estimates that "within a thousand light-years of Earth" there are "at least 30,000 of these habitable worlds."[11]

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

Also the Drake Equation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Usefulness

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this is just science trying to use its current knowledge to make a guess for people who want to know, Toofliss, but on February 2, 2011, the Kepler Space Observatory Mission team released a list of 1,235 extrasolar planet candidates, including 54 that may be in the "habitable zone."[8][9][10] Based on these latest Kepler findings, astronomer Seth Shostak estimates that "within a thousand light-years of Earth" there are "at least 30,000 of these habitable worlds."[11]

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

Also the Drake Equation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Usefulness

Seriously last post since this thread is going no where but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

We should've encountered some of these *****s by now. Where dey at?

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seriously last post since this thread is going no where but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

We should've encountered some of these *****s by now. Where dey at?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A huge number that's still much smaller than the number of stars in the universe, still smaller than the number of stars that have planets.

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”