I guess I was wrong...

[catbirdseat]

The First Law of Thermodynamic says the energy is conserved, or the total energy of the system plus the surroundings is a constant.

 

The following website answers your question more adequately than I could hope to do:

 

Source

 

"The law you cite, applies only to 'closed systems', i.e. where nothing can be added or subtracted from the 'specimen'. Obviously if you apply the law to an empty box, then open the box and dump in a handful of sand, or quarks, or energy, you don't expect the law to apply, because the system is not 'closed'.

 

It is not known whether the universe as a whole is a closed system now at present. As far as conditions preceding and at the very moment of the 'big bang', we can only speculate whether the universe was closed, or open (to another, larger system), or whether the First Law (or lots of other laws) even applies under those extreme conditions."

[Bug]

Sheesh. You guys are all screwed up. If you are going to be atheists, at least read Nietze's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. That way you won't sound so lost. There is no scientific explaination for the existence of God or the non-Existence of God. Same is true of the beginning of our world. What is infinity? Where did God come from? Neither one can be explained except through convoluted philosophic girations.

And if you are going to insult christians, know which ones you are insulting. Getting to heaven through good works is Mormon. And God used to be a man like us and so we can become a God like him - also Mormon.

We will get to heaven through grace and we can acknowledge our love for our saviour through the intercession of priests and the pope - obviously catholic. The strong arm of social injustice was as prevelant as humans are imperfect. It doesn't matter wether religion ever existed or not. Man would still fight and kill over percieved differences.

We are saved by grace alone and can bring others to the truth by establishing a relationship with Christ and allowing ourselves to be used as instruments of His good works. Protestant

We don't know where we came from or how we got here but based on our faith in science we are going to refute all faith in religious doctrine. Scientific atheist ala CC.COM.

Like I said, to be a good atheist requires a lot of complex reading. Otherwise you are just another ignorant waif waiting to be wafted by the next gust of wind.

Seriously though, if you want a good read about why we should be atheists, read Nietze' 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. No one says it better.

[minx]

First of all nowhere does "science" say that you can't create something out of nothing.

 

Actually, CBS, there is a First Law of something-or-other that says that matter can neither be created or destroyed. This basically says that you can't create something from nothing. Energy doesn't come from nowhere, it is made by burning coal, or oil, or the sun's radiation, etc. Any science geek's have the actual name of what I am thinking of? I want to say First Law of Thermodynamics, but I don't think that's right.

 

Check this out on the First Law of Thermo: geek info.

Roark

 

roark that's the first useful thing you've said in this thread. good job.

[HRoark]

First of all nowhere does "science" say that you can't create something out of nothing.

 

Actually, CBS, there is a First Law of something-or-other that says that matter can neither be created or destroyed. This basically says that you can't create something from nothing. Energy doesn't come from nowhere, it is made by burning coal, or oil, or the sun's radiation, etc. Any science geek's have the actual name of what I am thinking of? I want to say First Law of Thermodynamics, but I don't think that's right.

 

Check this out on the First Law of Thermo: geek info.

Roark

 

roark that's the first useful thing you've said in this thread. good job.

 

I told you to shut up a few pages back. I thought it was useful, but it didn't take.

 

Roark

[iain]

Like I said, to be a good atheist requires a lot of complex reading. Otherwise you are just another ignorant waif waiting to be wafted by the next gust of wind.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear?

[Stonehead]

Well, once you have the primordial element, hydrogen, then helium is produced and all the other elements up to iron on the periodic table are formed under gravitational coalescence and burning when a star forms and ignites. The elements heavier than iron are produced during the explosion of a supernova when the gravitational forces overcome the force of expansion caused by the generation of heat. Sounds pretty damn convenient, doesn't it?

 

Different principles may appear when you're talking about a singularity. You're saying that matter can neither be created or destroyed. Matter is conserved but it can be transformed. Some scientists have said that all of the matter in the universe was supercondensed to a 'singularity'. In such a state, matter would no longer be possible as matter. It would be stripped down to pure energy, and energy itself would be raw and undifferentiated; variations like gravity and light would not have emerged. Time would not yet be real; for there can be no time before zero; neither would space make sense in the context of a question like "what was there before the big bang?" Physicists reply, "There's no 'there' there. There's no 'then' then." Space and time, matter and energy, sprung into existence at the moment of creation; "before" that moment the concepts do not apply.

 

So, creation yes. But creator, not necessarily.

[Bug]

Like I said, to be a good atheist requires a lot of complex reading. Otherwise you are just another ignorant waif waiting to be wafted by the next gust of wind.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear?

Only Catbird. All I am saying is, if you are going to argue in public you should have some basis other than a discipline that does not address your question. In other words, science does not refute nor substantiate religion. The basic questions still exist in both. To argue the ultimate question of where we came from, you should consult some of the brilliant minds of our culture who devoted their lives to the question. Without a firm basis for your beliefs, you will likely be swayed by the next good motivational speaker and the next,.......................

No insult intended to the good people of CC.COM

[Stonehead]

• "If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him."--Voltaire (1694-1778)

US report foretells of brave new world

 

"A draft government report says we will alter human evolution within 20 years by combining what we know of nanotechnology, biotechnology, IT and cognitive sciences. The 405-page report sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and Commerce Department, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, calls for a broad-based research program to improve human performance leading to telepathy, machine-to-human communication, amplified personal sensory devices and enhanced intellectual capacity.

 

People may download their consciousnesses into computers or other bodies even on the other side of the solar system, or participate in a giant "hive mind", a network of intelligences connected through ultra-fast communications networks. "With knowledge no longer encapsulated in individuals, the distinction between individuals and the entirety of humanity would blur," the report says. "Think Vulcan mind-meld. We would perhaps become more of a hive mind - an enormous, single, intelligent entity."

 

• "Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?" - Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm (1844-1900)
   
  
• "Perhaps God is not dead; perhaps God is himself mad." - Laing, R. D.
   
  
• "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use." - Galilei, Galileo

And, Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus perhaps has the last words:

 

"My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)

 

Where one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent."

[catbirdseat]

Damn, I just had a scary thought - a mind meld with HRoark - the horror, the horror.

[Bug]

I thought that was your other avatar.

[minx]

First of all nowhere does "science" say that you can't create something out of nothing.

 

Actually, CBS, there is a First Law of something-or-other that says that matter can neither be created or destroyed. This basically says that you can't create something from nothing. Energy doesn't come from nowhere, it is made by burning coal, or oil, or the sun's radiation, etc. Any science geek's have the actual name of what I am thinking of? I want to say First Law of Thermodynamics, but I don't think that's right.

 

Check this out on the First Law of Thermo: geek info.

Roark

 

roark that's the first useful thing you've said in this thread. good job.

 

I told you to shut up a few pages back. I thought it was useful, but it didn't take.

 

Roark

 

yeah and you're someone i really listen too

[scott_harpell]

Like I said, to be a good atheist requires a lot of complex reading. Otherwise you are just another ignorant waif waiting to be wafted by the next gust of wind.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear?

Only Catbird. All I am saying is, if you are going to argue in public you should have some basis other than a discipline that does not address your question. In other words, science does not refute nor substantiate religion. The basic questions still exist in both. To argue the ultimate question of where we came from, you should consult some of the brilliant minds of our culture who devoted their lives to the question. Without a firm basis for your beliefs, you will likely be swayed by the next good motivational speaker and the next,.......................

No insult intended to the good people of CC.COM

 

Thanks Bug. I would never presume to lay into the theory of Evolution as I know it takes years and years of studying to understand. Likewise, I would suggest you at least read the 'theories' you are trying to refute...Generally a good idea.

[Thinker]

Cracked asked: But how does the theory of evolution comfort us and keep us from feeling guilty?

 

Thinker said: A very interesting question. The associated question: Why does religion try to make us feel guilty? is even more interesting.

 

IMHO, the severe feelings of guilt that Christianity has instilled in millions of people is counterproductive to living a joyous life (fyi, joy is one of the fruitages of the spirit...that's somewhere in the New Testament). When one steps out from under the oppressive bonds of "Christian" guilt, life takes on a whole new meaning....I've seen it happen many times.

 

That begs the question, is 'Christianity' in it's modern form anything like Christianity was in the first century?

 

Scotty said: Thank you! I agree. Modern Christianity is nothing like it was in the first century. I try to subscribe to the 1st century ethic, but admittedly, it is tough. Look at who Christ was. He was oppsed to big churches and prefered small philosophical chats by the fire. He abhored money and was enraged by the desecration of the temple by the money changers. The list of differences goes on, but I assure you that there are Christians who know this and are trying to fix this problem. Likely this problem originated in the creeds of Calcedon etc. where the first kinds of orthodoxy were created. Thanks for the question.

 

Scott, how can you possibly think the belief system you have today could be anything like the one that existed 2000 years ago? Divine Revelation? I would seriously be interested in hearing about the unique evidence you may have. (And the argument that an all powerful god would not allow that to happen has been proved false over and over.)

 

The scriptures you hold in your hand today have been altered so much by the reigning religious (and political) powers over the last 20 centuries that they likely bear very little resemblance to the originals, especially in the area of controversial dogma...the most important aspects of Christianity.

[Bug]

Like I said, to be a good atheist requires a lot of complex reading. Otherwise you are just another ignorant waif waiting to be wafted by the next gust of wind.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear?

Only Catbird. All I am saying is, if you are going to argue in public you should have some basis other than a discipline that does not address your question. In other words, science does not refute nor substantiate religion. The basic questions still exist in both. To argue the ultimate question of where we came from, you should consult some of the brilliant minds of our culture who devoted their lives to the question. Without a firm basis for your beliefs, you will likely be swayed by the next good motivational speaker and the next,.......................

No insult intended to the good people of CC.COM

 

Thanks Bug. I would never presume to lay into the theory of Evolution as I know it takes years and years of studying to understand. Likewise, I would suggest you at least read the 'theories' you are trying to refute...Generally a good idea.

What theories am I refuting? I personally think that evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of species. I suspect humans evolved from some other species. So far there is no absolute proof. Regardless, the question and answer have no bearing on the pertinance of religion nor on the existence of God unless you are holding fast to a strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Oh, I guess I did say that there are numerous Biblical passages that warn against a fundamentalist approach to interpreting the Bible. Is that what you are referring to? If so, start with Romans chapters 1-12.

Again, I have no intention of insulting you or anyone else on the board. These are my beliefs after having studied physical anthropology, social scientific anthropology and religious studies. I also had a few classes in geology and a few in astronomy and physics. The only people I find myself disagreeing with are the people who say science and religion do not mix. Mythologies have always been based on emperical evidence. Before "science" a society's knowledge was stored in it's mythology. It was the source of hunting knowledge, plant knowledge, spiritual knowledge etc...

Science is just a secular manifestation of the same desire to know why things work the way they do. The methodolgy is not all that different from the way mythologies were created and changed over time. What really changed our perspective on science vs religion was literacy. With literacy, everything is frozen unless the interpretation is left open. That was the value of parables. They read the interpreter.

If it is atheism that you choose to follow, at least read the person most people hold to be the most brilliant atheist ever. Nietze. Using science to refute religion or using religion to refute science will only illustrate your lack of knowledge of one or both. Sorry if that pisses you off. It isn't an original idea.

[catbirdseat]

Let is not be said that He has not revealed himself to the pious and receptive in recent years. We have as examples Joseph Smith, The Reverend Jim Jones, David Koresh, and now we have Pat Robertson saying it was revealed to him that Bush will win in a blowout come November.

[Thinker]

I wonder if Jeebus nailed as many babes as Joseph Smith! That guy was a machine!

 

Scott said: Probably not. As a devout Jew, I would assume that he remained chaste till death.

 

I beg to differ. As a devout Jew, marriage would have been of extreme social and religious importance for Jesus. In order for the man Jesus to carry any respect, i.e. have any basis for 'preaching' and teaching, he would have had to have been married.

 

There is a growing number of scholars who believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that she was the holy grail...the one Jesus meant to pass the church on to. Peter was extremely jealous of Mary Magdalene (this fact is supported in the scriputes you have today), and the theory goes that he worked hard to exclude her from the church after Jesus' death. Peter was supposedly the first Pope (and most likely the leader of the Christian church after Jesus' death), and subsequent Popes worked very hard to remove all evidence of Jesus' marriage to MM from the scriptures. In addition, they rewrote the scriptures to subjugate women in the church, and in society in general....a very wise political move.

[cj001f]

Ok. I will say this once again. Yes; people try and find solace in religion, but that doesn't mean that is the way it is supposed to be. Do you think that the Inquisition was also the way Christianity was supposed to be? Regardless, any attempt to be wholy Christian is, in itself a bastardization of the perfect example.

Scott-

People don't try to find solace, they do. Organized religions are creations of man - arguing about perversions, superiority, original intent, etc. is absurd to me.

[catbirdseat]

There is a growing number of scholars who believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that she was the holy grail...

Damn, that's news to me. What a provocative idea, that the all the misogynistic characteristics of the Church were decended from a simple case of jealousy.

[minx]

There is a growing number of scholars who believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that she was the holy grail...

Damn, that's news to me. What a provocative idea, that the all the misogynistic characteristics of the Church were decended from a simple case of jealousy.

 

yeah that sounds just about right. par for the course if you ask me

[scott_harpell]

Cracked asked: But how does the theory of evolution comfort us and keep us from feeling guilty?

 

Thinker said: A very interesting question. The associated question: Why does religion try to make us feel guilty? is even more interesting.

 

IMHO, the severe feelings of guilt that Christianity has instilled in millions of people is counterproductive to living a joyous life (fyi, joy is one of the fruitages of the spirit...that's somewhere in the New Testament). When one steps out from under the oppressive bonds of "Christian" guilt, life takes on a whole new meaning....I've seen it happen many times.

 

That begs the question, is 'Christianity' in it's modern form anything like Christianity was in the first century?

 

Scotty said: Thank you! I agree. Modern Christianity is nothing like it was in the first century. I try to subscribe to the 1st century ethic, but admittedly, it is tough. Look at who Christ was. He was oppsed to big churches and prefered small philosophical chats by the fire. He abhored money and was enraged by the desecration of the temple by the money changers. The list of differences goes on, but I assure you that there are Christians who know this and are trying to fix this problem. Likely this problem originated in the creeds of Calcedon etc. where the first kinds of orthodoxy were created. Thanks for the question.

 

Scott, how can you possibly think the belief system you have today could be anything like the one that existed 2000 years ago? Divine Revelation? I would seriously be interested in hearing about the unique evidence you may have. (And the argument that an all powerful god would not allow that to happen has been proved false over and over.)

 

The scriptures you hold in your hand today have been altered so much by the reigning religious (and political) powers over the last 20 centuries that they likely bear very little resemblance to the originals, especially in the area of controversial dogma...the most important aspects of Christianity.

 

Have you researched this? I have. Wouldn't there be numberous historical faults then? Then you could jsut disprove it right then and there. There is evidence there were written versions "Q" writen just a few years after the death of christ and that these were compliled to create the synoptic gospels. That is the reason that many of the verses in the gospels are very similar. So like i said. Read up on it and mabe you will open your mind.

[Dru]

religious link

[scott_harpell]

Ok. I will say this once again. Yes; people try and find solace in religion, but that doesn't mean that is the way it is supposed to be. Do you think that the Inquisition was also the way Christianity was supposed to be? Regardless, any attempt to be wholy Christian is, in itself a bastardization of the perfect example.

Scott-

People don't try to find solace, they do. Organized religions are creations of man - arguing about perversions, superiority, original intent, etc. is absurd to me.

 

You are still missing the point. Whether or not they do or dont (hell I agree many do). They shouldn't and that is precisely the point.

[icegirl]

I just read "the Davinci Code" good book... somehow this topic reminded me of that

[Thinker]

T said: Scott, how can you possibly think the belief system you have today could be anything like the one that existed 2000 years ago? Divine Revelation? I would seriously be interested in hearing about the unique evidence you may have. (And the argument that an all powerful god would not allow that to happen has been proved false over and over.)

 

The scriptures you hold in your hand today have been altered so much by the reigning religious (and political) powers over the last 20 centuries that they likely bear very little resemblance to the originals, especially in the area of controversial dogma...the most important aspects of Christianity.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Scott said: Have you researched this? I have. Wouldn't there be numberous historical faults then? Then you could jsut disprove it right then and there. There is evidence there were written versions "Q" writen just a few years after the death of christ and that these were compliled to create the synoptic gospels. That is the reason that many of the verses in the gospels are very similar. So like i said. Read up on it and mabe you will open your mind.

 

Is that all you have to base a your whole life's devotion on? The mystery man Q is highly contorversial....a theoretical person....likely an avatar of Trask.

 

No documentation has ever been found that anyone ever actually saw or met Q, and the theory of Q didn't even arise until the 19th century. There are numerous technical and literary problems with this theory, too, that I don't think anyone here really wants to read about.

 

That's really reaching....

[scott_harpell]

T said: Scott, how can you possibly think the belief system you have today could be anything like the one that existed 2000 years ago? Divine Revelation? I would seriously be interested in hearing about the unique evidence you may have. (And the argument that an all powerful god would not allow that to happen has been proved false over and over.)

 

The scriptures you hold in your hand today have been altered so much by the reigning religious (and political) powers over the last 20 centuries that they likely bear very little resemblance to the originals, especially in the area of controversial dogma...the most important aspects of Christianity.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Scott said: Have you researched this? I have. Wouldn't there be numberous historical faults then? Then you could jsut disprove it right then and there. There is evidence there were written versions "Q" writen just a few years after the death of christ and that these were compliled to create the synoptic gospels. That is the reason that many of the verses in the gospels are very similar. So like i said. Read up on it and mabe you will open your mind.

 

Is that all you have to base a your whole life's devotion on? The mystery man Q is highly contorversial....a theoretical person....likely an avatar of Trask.

 

No documentation has ever been found that anyone ever actually saw or met Q, and the theory of Q didn't even arise until the 19th century. There are numerous technical and literary problems with this theory, too, that I don't think anyone here really wants to read about.

 

That's really reaching....

 

Uhm Q isn't a person. It is a text. Mabe you should read it before you dismiss it. Why is it controversial? Because you say it is? It is the accepted explanation for believers and non-believers.