comment by Falmaria (U19849)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb Zombie (U20351)
posted 53 seconds ago
Why? After all aliens doing an experiment is plausible in your head so reward and punishment as a men his of obedience makes perfect sense

The notion of hell in a persons mind is what makes it exist.

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

That's why many atheists have issues with religious folk. That they'd invent the concept of hell or an angry god who'd send people there if people weren't obedient.

Ridiculous.

Regarding the aliens thing, it's not something I believe in. Just curious to see what people would think if they found out there really was no meaning to life or some father figure watching over them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't half go on about a God you don't believe exists




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

Well, this thread is about that....

comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 3 minutes ago
if aliens turned up, claiming that they made humans would be a great tactic. They'd be seen as gods effectively and would have an easier time controlling the masses. Might even convince them to build pyramids or something


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


Which would prove religous people right surely? After all the motion of God is in essence a supreme being, aliens would certainly be supreme compared to us.

Certainly if they did create humans then a god is simply a creator. Would make sense they set rules etc and even sent prophets who were aliens really hence the miracles attributed to them

Unless they didn't create, in which case they would be creation too


Fact is it still makes more sense than the chance theory

comment by Robb Zombie (U20351)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Falmaria (U19849)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robb Zombie (U20351)
posted 53 seconds ago
Why? After all aliens doing an experiment is plausible in your head so reward and punishment as a men his of obedience makes perfect sense

The notion of hell in a persons mind is what makes it exist.

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

That's why many atheists have issues with religious folk. That they'd invent the concept of hell or an angry god who'd send people there if people weren't obedient.

Ridiculous.

Regarding the aliens thing, it's not something I believe in. Just curious to see what people would think if they found out there really was no meaning to life or some father figure watching over them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't half go on about a God you don't believe exists




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

Well, this thread is about that....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL. This is why you are such a soppy boll.ox

OP is about defence secretary and bombing ISIS

*excuse me syria

comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 21 minutes ago
"In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 21 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very fascinating.

Yes there will always be people who won't believe what they can't physically see/ hear/ feel and so choose not to accept the existence of a Creator but if you just take a look around you, you will know that one does exist. I think the Bible says something along the lines of: the works of God are manifested in all visible creation ie people, animals, plants, landscapes.

As is suggested in the quote in the above comment, it is no accident that we are here. Many people will use the argument that science shows that a Creator does not exist but I believe, as this quote suggests, that science actually does point towards one.

I think that because of the advancement of science and technology many people are more reliant on this than an invisible entity which is harder to understand - yet has ALWAYS required faith in order to believe long before mankind's recently increased level of knowledge.

comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
"In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 21 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
What can happen, will happen.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Unless they didn't create, in which case they would be creation too

----------

So if the creator isn't the created, how did he become. I know it's chicken and egg tackle, but I'm

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Shinjisshin (U1700)
posted 17 minutes ago
Unless they didn't create, in which case they would be creation too

----------

So if the creator isn't the created, how did he become. I know it's chicken and egg tackle, but I'm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The obvious question to religious folk, who created the creator?

I guess that's where the faith comes into it, believing in somebody that defies logic.

who or what created matter, physics, space and time?

how old is the universe, and what was there a week before it was created?

how big is the universe and what's a half mile past the edge of it?

feckme, let's just go to the pub.

comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 3 minutes ago
who or what created matter, physics, space and time?

how old is the universe, and what was there a week before it was created?

how big is the universe and what's a half mile past the edge of it?

feckme, let's just go to the pub.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess they are the questions we all want to know the answer to

I enjoy discussing space and time myself, especially over a doob and a beer.

"A lot of quotes there are from Eric Metaxas who incidentally is not a scientist rather a writer and TV host."

At least it's not a garage owner this time...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/02/not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-big-rip-how-the-world-will-end

Can we not just play daesh isis at football?

666

Number of da beast.

What if Satanists start kicking aff?

Sometimes, I think we ask too many questions. Knowledge is good but so is wisdom and if we don't have the wisdom to use our knowledge wisely then is our pursuit of knowledge always worthwhile? There will always be questions that we'll never get the answers to. Perhaps we should just accept this and try and live life without hurting one another; something that those fanatics can't seem to get into their thick heads. They clearly lack wisdom amongst other things.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I saw daesh isis are coming after hamas,as the nutty isil move through Egypt................Israel will be pleased,and that should confuse some trying to understand and learn from our jihai maddies.

I hate Israel,back hamas,and now daesh isis are threatening Palestinian hamas,but I understand the west has created isis,who murder muslim shia,to protect muslim's,in the name of islam.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh,why can't the UK and USA move ground troops in to make it simple,or bomb some muslim v can hate the crusader infidel,and keep it simple.

No way should the British people/troops start a mass bombing campaign in Syria,or anywhere,and no way should western troops risk their lives there.

It is their problem,so let them sort it,as the muslim and leftist spokepersons remind us.

Until the UK see's islamist invaders coming over the hill,keep our powder dry,my friends,and focus on removing the radicalized recruiters from the UK,and if muslim's want to go off to join islamists,that is their fate,and they never come back in to our land.

comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by 1 Father-1 Love-2 Reds (U13312)
posted 0 seconds ago
Sometimes, I think we ask too many questions. Knowledge is good but so is wisdom and if we don't have the wisdom to use our knowledge wisely then is our pursuit of knowledge always worthwhile? There will always be questions that we'll never get the answers to. Perhaps we should just accept this and try and live life without hurting one another; something that those fanatics can't seem to get into their thick heads. They clearly lack wisdom amongst other things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what separates us from other species.A thirst for knowledge and understanding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet other species still display better sense than ours does a lot of the time and make humans look like animals in comparison. Wisdom is the key.

MUDD

Did you really say the Catholic faith taught Catholic's to abuse and rape kids?
Now I am from an Ulster Protestant background,and If I said that,it would be a hate crime.

Weird how MUDD can learn from and understand one faith/political group,but has no time for Christian's,apparently.

Ignorance and intolerance,in the name of understanding and tolerance...........cobblers.

Mudd
You say the media never reports muslim's speaking against islamists.That is just LIES.
We see and hear muslim's condemn islamists all the time.
I have read some decent stuff from you Mudd,but you are way off the mark on this thread.

So Britain sells arms to ISIS. Then ISIS kills Britons. Then Britain wants to bomb ISIS.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator