True Religion

[mrgreenbreeze04]

Do you believe that there is a one and only TRUE religion? Why or why not?

[green white]

yes. I think my religion is true. but i always respect other.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I believe religion altogether is simply a theory. There is no one true religion, because each group has their own take on the world around us, and because we are not supernatural, and have no real proof of what happened besides a few manmade books, we may never know.

[Gamma Male]

All religions are nonsense.

[CosmicNoodle]

All religions are nonsense.

I second this, in my opinion they are all logical-less, backwards concepts designed to turn people I to sheep, but that's just my opinion.

[Vlerchan]

Dawkins is the only god I need <3

[Gamma Male]

Dawkins is the only god I need <3

B-but how come there are still monkeys?!? HUH HEATHEN!?

[Bleid]

Do you believe that there is a one and only TRUE religion? Why or why not?

Given our current knowledge of the world, there would have to be.

Edit:

I second this, in my opinion they are all logical-less, backwards concepts designed to turn people I to sheep, but that's just my opinion.

To be fair, they aren't as you say, "logical-less." There's plenty of validly reasoned theology.

[thatcountrykid]

Every religion is both right and wrong. One person believes in God while another believes in Buddha. Religion is a personal experience.

[Miserabilia]

Every religion is both right and wrong. One person believes in God while another believes in Buddha. Religion is a personal experience.

Your intentions are good and I see what you mean but whyyyy do people always use Buddha in this comparison/example it's not the same thing as a god it's not even comparable ugh. :lol: sorry anyway

No I don't think there's a true religion because I do not follow any religion. I do not think there is a "true' beleif to any unanswerable question because any answer to the unanswerable question is neither right nor wrong.

[Vlerchan]

Given our current knowledge of the world, there would have to be.
I presume you're counting "atheism" as a religion here? I think I understand what you're saying then.

I disagree regardless. I doubt man has thought up the infinite number of possibilities that he would need to have thought up for the above statement to be true.

[Bleid]

I presume you're counting "atheism" as a religion here? I think I understand what you're saying then.

Not necessarily. Whether atheism is a religion is inconsequential.

I disagree regardless. I doubt man has thought up the infinite number of possibilities that he would need to have thought up for the above statement to be true.

Tell me if I'm incorrect, but I believe you're under the assumption my reasoning would be going something like:

"One of all possible beliefs must be true."

This would explain to me why you were talking about atheism (that there isn't a deity) and so forth, then it would explain your followup disagreement regarding the infinite number of possibilities.

[Miss Nova]

I consider science to be my religion. I don't really believe in anything that can't be verified using the scientific method. Religion, throughout history and up to this very day has been the cause for war, torture, terrorism, sexual discrimination, and I cold go on. I am not an athiest, I am agnostic. Until there is a legitimate scientific way to verify or falsify the creation of our universe (probably not in our lifetime, if ever.), I will continue to be agnostic.

[Bleid]

I consider science to be my religion. I don't really believe in anything that can't be verified using the scientific method. Religion, throughout history and up to this very day has been the cause for war, torture, terrorism, sexual discrimination, and I cold go on. I am not an athiest, I am agnostic. Until there is a legitimate scientific way to verify or falsify the creation of our universe (probably not in our lifetime, if ever.), I will continue to be agnostic.

Very respectable. I would like to clarify, however.

"I don't really believe in anything that can't be verified using the scientific method."

Nothing can be verified by the scientific method. In science, we use inductive reasoning. Induction provides us that our conclusions are likely. We can never truly verify them to be true. We just try to assume they're true because we have yet to demonstrate that they are false after many tests (experiments). The purpose of our experiments is to demonstrate falsity.

[CharlieHorse]

I think Google is the true god

[Babs]

I don't believe in any religion, however I'm sure most people who do believe their religion to be true, otherwise they probably wouldn't identify with that religion exclusively.

[Gamma Male]

Every religion is both right and wrong. One person believes in God while another believes in Buddha. Religion is a personal experience.

I can see where you're coming come and agree everyone should choose their own path and whatnot, but reality is not subjective.

If two people's opinions on objective reality directly contradict each other, they cannot both be right. It's impossible.

If I say 2+2=x, and you say 2+2=y, we can't both be right at the same time.

[Bleid]

I can see where you're coming come and agree everyone should choose their own path and whatnot, but reality is not subjective.

If two people's opinions on objective reality directly contradict each other, they cannot both be right. It's impossible.

If I say 2+2=x, and you say 2+2=y, we can't both be right at the same time.

Very well said. Completely agree. I'd just like to add that it's even more than only the same time. It's also the same respect (sometimes called the same sense).

Since I assume you're talking about the law of noncontradiction, here.

[thatcountrykid]

I can see where you're coming come and agree everyone should choose their own path and whatnot, but reality is not subjective.

If two people's opinions on objective reality directly contradict each other, they cannot both be right. It's impossible.

If I say 2+2=x, and you say 2+2=y, we can't both be right at the same time.

See the problem with this thread already is everyone is considering religious beliefs and being to be a physical entity. Perhaps they are not. I think religious entities like god or any other are simply spiritual. They are something that exists within the person. It's almost like instinct.

[Bleid]

See the problem with this thread already is everyone is considering religious beliefs and being to be a physical entity. Perhaps they are not. I think religious entities like god or any other are simply spiritual. They are something that exists within the person. It's almost like instinct.

Perhaps there is a distinction between a belief and the things that the belief is about, though?

I don't think anyone is arguing about people having beliefs, so much as people are arguing about whether or not a belief regards something that is true.

[thatcountrykid]

Perhaps there is a distinction between a belief and the things that the belief is about, though?

I don't think anyone is arguing about people having beliefs, so much as people are arguing about whether or not a belief regards something that is true.

No I mean people think that there must be one true, physical God but I'm saying that maybe there isn't. Maybe all religions are right because not of them are real. Maybe they are all just in the mind.

[DeadEyes]

There is no such thing as a true religion.

[Bleid]

No I mean people think that there must be one true, physical God but I'm saying that maybe there isn't. Maybe all religions are right because not of them are real. Maybe they are all just in the mind.

Could you go into more detail? I'm confused on this idea of God existing in the mind. Is this regarding a sort of panentheism?

[Miserabilia]

Could you go into more detail? I'm confused on this idea of God existing in the mind. Is this regarding a sort of panentheism?

I think he's saying that all religious rely on faith, which means none of them are "truer" than the other, they are all true to the person, by definition, but not objectively better than other religions.
Hope that makes sense.

[Stronk Serb]

I started dabbling into Slavic Paganism and realized that my ancestors were hippies and tree-huggers before it was cool. All their rituals were done in nature and they tried to preserve it. To my knowledge they didn't perform any sacrifices which is a plus too. I don't think it's true though. I'm still agnostic/atheist but the traditions of my ancestral tribes are fascinating

[Bleid]

I think he's saying that all religious rely on faith, which means none of them are "truer" than the other, they are all true to the person, by definition, but not objectively better than other religions.
Hope that makes sense.

I would still take issue with this strange idea of "true to the person," but that seems like a fair assessment. I won't sit here and argue against that to you, since you're not even the one saying that, if it is what he's saying. :)

[Miserabilia]

I would still take issue with this strange idea of "true to the person," but that seems like a fair assessment. I won't sit here and argue against that to you, since you're not even the one saying that, if it is what he's saying. :)

:lol: fair enough.
"true to the person" was my own terrible choice of words though, I'm not speaking for him.

[Living For Love]

Every religion is both right and wrong. One person believes in God while another believes in Buddha. Religion is a personal experience.

I couldn't have said it better. I don't think there's a "true religion", I believe mine is the right one, but any Muslim will think their religion is the right one, any Buddhist will think their religion is the right one as well, and so on. Basically, any person will stand up for what they believe and consider it the right theory, and the right path to follow, we only have to respect their views whether we're non-believers or not.

[thatcountrykid]

Could you go into more detail? I'm confused on this idea of God existing in the mind. Is this regarding a sort of panentheism?

I'm saying religion is personal. It's all most like an imaginary friend. They are very real and close to you but maybe not to others.

[Bleid]

I'm saying religion is personal. It's all most like an imaginary friend. They are very real and close to you but maybe not to others.

Fair enough. I can live with that.

As long as it's that it's specific to the person, as you mentioned, and isn't as though it's true objectively. I won't take any issue with someone's personal feelings and faiths, since they are admittedly, personal feelings and faith. :)

[dame]

the true religion i believe in :wub:
http://www.richmondclassics.com/images/True-Religion-Double-Stitch-Combo-Jeans-Denim-3-056536.JPG

[Buddy 912]

There is no true answer to this question.

[Aajj333]

No, just because there has historically been many many many religions even before the major ones today and for even one of them to be correct is impossible.

[Karkat]

I don't believe that, at least with what mankind as a collective species knows about the universe so far, it is possible to know for sure. Just as I believe it is impossible, at least "...", to know whether or not a higher power exists. And so on.

[Bleid]

I believe it is impossible, at least "...", to know whether or not a higher power exists

What justification do we have for this belief? I'm just curious. :)

[Miserabilia]

What justification do we have for this belief? I'm just curious. :)

I can't speak on ren's behalf, but I want to answer anyway.

I think the choice of word for "know" was not the best; religious people definetly "know" a hiher power exists.
I think ren's reffering to knowing scientificaly, or more objectively finding out the existence of a higher being, with measurement.

I myself don't beleive it would be impossible for such a measurement to be made, because I have no justification for that statement, but as I have never heard of such a measurement or scientific proof it seems merely unlikely to me that it will ever happen, given the nature of religion and lack of religious interest to actualy search for such a proof.

[Typhlosion]

Just as I believe it is impossible, at least "...", to know whether or not a higher power exists
What justification do we have for this belief? I'm just curious. :)

Hrm.

Not Ren either, but I always found the justification that we are constrained to our materialistic perceptions and that we cannot perceive anything meta-materialistic. Any sentiment caused by an entity, materialistic or not, will be perceived by our materialistic methods and bodies, so we could not notice its supposed meta-materialism.

[Karkat]

What justification do we have for this belief? I'm just curious. :)

I can't speak on ren's behalf, but I want to answer anyway.

I think the choice of word for "know" was not the best; religious people definetly "know" a hiher power exists.
I think ren's reffering to knowing scientificaly, or more objectively finding out the existence of a higher being, with measurement.

I myself don't beleive it would be impossible for such a measurement to be made, because I have no justification for that statement, but as I have never heard of such a measurement or scientific proof it seems merely unlikely to me that it will ever happen, given the nature of religion and lack of religious interest to actualy search for such a proof.

Hrm.

Not Ren either, but I always found the justification that we are constrained to our materialistic perceptions and that we cannot perceive anything meta-materialistic. Any sentiment caused by an entity, materialistic or not, will be perceived by our materialistic methods and bodies, so we could not notice its supposed meta-materialism.

Essentially what these guys said, though I do have more to add on.

Partially why I think this is due to our current understanding of the universe, etc. There are still TONS of questions we don't have answers to. There is technology to be invented, there are advancements to be made. While I could be wrong, I feel like as a whole, no one alive is capable of finding something measurable in the relative present.

So it's not so much that I feel it's impossible PERIOD, so much as it's impossible to date. Like seeing a broken bone inside of a person's body (probably a poor example, but eh) before the invention of x-ray technology.

[Malibu_Barbie]

I remember reading an article a few years back and it had a very interesting argument that religion was created by people (most likely hunter gatherers) atop a social hierarchy who wanted to control society below them through puppet gods (early religions were usually polytheistic). They convinced people that there were gods who created the world and claimed to be the only ones who could communicate with them. They enjoyed the offerings that people gave to these gods and made rules and laws that the people had to follow or else their gods would punish them.
Of course I'm not so sure of all this but I think it makes a great deal of sense.
(Please note I'm not trying to insult anyone here thanks!)

[Kahn]

Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. The finger can point to the moon, however, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?

Same principal applies to spirituality, in my opinion.

[Microcosm]

My opinion on religion has changed over the past few months. I used to think of religion as an explanation to the unexplainable unearthly things. However, I have now discovered that I think religion is more of a lifestyle that you accept and follow and it gives you some sort of contentment by practicing it.

[Uranus]

I believe there's one true one.
But I will not disrespect the others

[Dying Ember]

Every religion is both right and wrong. One person believes in God while another believes in Buddha. Religion is a personal experience.

I agree with you so much.

[tovaris]

I am curelty founding a politeistic religion of whict the main god is Börek.

[rogoshtalmour]

I consider science to be my religion. I don't really believe in anything that can't be verified using the scientific method. Religion, throughout history and up to this very day has been the cause for war, torture, terrorism, sexual discrimination, and I cold go on. I am not an athiest, I am agnostic. Until there is a legitimate scientific way to verify or falsify the creation of our universe (probably not in our lifetime, if ever.), I will continue to be agnostic.

So do you believe in evolution in terms of the change of kinds?

Very respectable. I would like to clarify, however.

"I don't really believe in anything that can't be verified using the scientific method."

Nothing can be verified by the scientific method. In science, we use inductive reasoning. Induction provides us that our conclusions are likely. We can never truly verify them to be true. We just try to assume they're true because we have yet to demonstrate that they are false after many tests (experiments). The purpose of our experiments is to demonstrate falsity.

and yet scientists teach many things as FACTS despite the fact that they are really just guessing. Its a question of language really. Its like calling black, white. Is black white well depends on what you think of black and white as. They are just words used to describe two ideas but there is no reason you can't use black to describe the way white appears or to use white to describe the way black appears except if you did it would confuse most people cause most people already associate white with white and black with black. Same thing here, they teach it as fact and people just accept it because its become the norm it doesn't make it the truth though. Truth and fact are two very different things by todays definitions anyway. I would argue you can't use the scientific method to prove truth but you can use it to determine all kinds of so called "facts."

Double posts merged. Please use the 'edit' or 'multiquote' buttons next time. ~Typhlosion

[Miserabilia]

and yet scientists teach many things as FACTS despite the fact that they are really just guessing. Its a question of language really. Its like calling black, white. Is black white well depends on what you think of black and white as. They are just words used to describe two ideas but there is no reason you can't use black to describe the way white appears or to use white to describe the way black appears except if you did it would confuse most people cause most people already associate white with white and black with black. Same thing here, they teach it as fact and people just accept it because its become the norm it doesn't make it the truth though. Truth and fact are two very different things by todays definitions anyway. I would argue you can't use the scientific method to prove truth but you can use it to determine all kinds of so called "facts."

So basicly
-facts aren't the truth
-science doesn't tell the truth
-it only tells facts
-which are not he truth

So science is just a lie? They aren't just "guessing".
A theorie needs substantial evidence and reasoning. Science uses observation, experimentation, and calculation together with logic to create a prediction of an outcome or a representation of the truth or a phenema.

[rogoshtalmour]

Right but lets just take one example. One of the theories of evolution is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So a species changed from one species to another over time. They teach this as a fact and several scientific schools have thought have come about from this theory. They have supposedly made all sorts of scientific discoveries based on it. And yet it can never be proven because it can never be observed because by their own admission it takes billions of years. So until we have a legitimate billion year old record kept by people showing the gradual change over billions of years it can never be proven. Even if they find the so called missing link you still have no way of knowing that the "missing link" was birthed by the less evolved creature that came before it.

As for logic have you heard the term from Nothing, nothing comes? Would you say its logical or illogical?

[Miserabilia]

Right but lets just take one example. One of the theories of evolution is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So a species changed from one species to another over time. They teach this as a fact and several scientific schools have thought have come about from this theory.

Yes. This is not one of the theories of evolution. It's describing the origin of birds using evolutionairy theory.

They have supposedly made all sorts of scientific discoveries based on it.

"supposedly" + "all sorts".
No, not really. Not even supposedly. I haven't heard any scientist claim that the evolutionairy origin of "birds' was the base of a scientific discovery. Since it's just a knowledge, they can't actualy take it and do an experiment with it. It's an assumption based on observable data.




And yet it can never be proven because it can never be observed because by their own admission it takes billions of years. So until we have a legitimate billion year old record kept by people showing the gradual change over billions of years it can never be proven. Even if they find the so called missing link you still have no way of knowing that the "missing link" was birthed by the less evolved creature that came before it.


Common misconception. Just because we haven't always had humans to keep records, doesn't mean that things not kept by humans are automaticaly just guessing, and can never be proven.
We have dating methods to determine age. We have countless evidence for age of materials and places. Same goes for anything we find.
Scientists don't just go "oh this sounds pretty in evolutionairy theory" , and make up a fact.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to actualy have a theory or new data published scientificaly? The amount of evidence, theory and argumentation you need to have behind it? The amount of controlls, experimentation, data?

As a matter of fact, scientific dating and measurements are more accurate than human record keeping; human history knows myths, adapted stories, and lies all throughout. It would actualy be more logical to say that human history is actualy harder to proove than the age of the earth, fossils, and evolutionairy theory, which are all based on objective data rather than human-kept records.


As for logic have you heard the term from Nothing, nothing comes? Would you say its logical or illogical?

No, and I don't see how it is relevant. Could you elaborate please?

[Vlerchan]

and yet scientists teach many things as FACTS despite the fact that they are really just guessing.
This is called twisting the truth. It is true that scientists don't know for certain their theories are true. I have no idea why you'd claim that such theories are "guesses" in such a case. What scientists do know with lots of their discoveries is that after rigorously testing their theories validity - to the extent that it almost seems like they are actually trying to prove themselves wrong in a lot of cases - that the theory still stands and that's a good indication that they are at least on the right track.

Its a question of language really.
Here's a random extract from a paper so you can check the language yourself.

[Emphasis Added:]

Background levels of surface ozone (O3) on continental scales are projected to decrease over most 26 regions as rising temperatures enhance global O3 destruction (high confidence), but to increase with 27 rising methane (high confidence). By 2100, surface ozone increases by about 8 ppb globally in the 28 doubled-methane scenario (RCP8.5) relative to the stable-methane pathways. All else being equal, there 29 is medium confidence that warmer temperatures are expected to trigger positive feedbacks in chemistry 30 and local emissions, further enhancing pollution levels. {11.3.5; Annex II}

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5-SPM_FD_Final.pdf

You see how it's all phrased?

Is black white well depends on what you think of black and white as.
I have no idea what language being a social construct has to do with any of this.

Same thing here, they teach it as fact and people just accept it because its become the norm it doesn't make it the truth though.
Amusingly, when I was studying physics at Irish leaving cert level, our teacher used to stop to point out the claims that had been dis-proven since the book had been published (2003). I would presume though that if you ever opened up a scientific journal you'd realise that science isn't this scheming monolithic entity that you are trying to characterise it as.

Here though. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories)

So until we have a legitimate billion year old record kept by people showing the gradual change over billions of years it can never be proven.
It can never be proven to be certain. It has been proven quite conclusively though.

As for logic have you heard the term from Nothing, nothing comes? Would you say its logical or illogical?
Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution.

[rogoshtalmour]

Yes. This is not one of the theories of evolution. It's describing the origin of birds using evolutionairy theory.

No, and I don't see how it is relevant. Could you elaborate please?

Well from nothing, nothing comes is an old philosophical argument basically just stating that you can't have something from nothing. Its hard to understand in some ways because you first have to be able to actually conceive of nothingness the problem with this is the moment you try to conceive of it you ascribe somethingness to the nothingness. Most people when trying to picture nothing in their minds will picture like a black void or maybe a white void even but even a black or white void is still something its not nothing. I have heard many Scientists say there was nothing and then nothing exploded and from that the universe was created.
Stephen Hawking says in his latest book The Grand Design that,

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

First off Gravity is something not nothing, secondly NOTHING can ever create itself because it would have to be in existence before it was in existence. It would have to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. This violates the law of non-contradiction. It would have to exist in order to create itself you see.
Might also be worth noting that as far as I know the only reason we even know gravity exists is because we have seen its effects with the motion of planets, stars, apples, etc. So if none of that was around how could gravity itself bring anything into existence? How could gravity itself exist since right now today it primarily exists as a force that attracts all objects to all other objects. This would seem to suggest if there was no objects then there would be no gravity or at the very least if there were no objects there would be nothing for gravity to attract.

[Vlerchan]

Well from nothing, nothing comes is an old philosophical argument basically just stating that you can't have something from nothing.
I have no idea why you presume there was ever nothing to begin with.

Time can't exist without an object. So there could not have been a time where the universe didn't exist.

[rogoshtalmour]

Forget about me the question is why did Stephen Hawking assume there ever was nothing and that in that nothingness gravity somehow still existed and created all that we see out of nothing. Stephen Hawking who is generally considered one of the most brilliant if not the most brilliant minds to ever have existed on this planet.
Also how do you know time can't exist without an object? The only way you could actually know that is if you were able to see an area where there were no objects and see that time ceased to exist there. Of course you are an object too....so this seems to be a practical impossibility.
Also just so you know I do not believe there ever was a time when there was absolute nothingness. I personally believe God was there. But that is not really what I was trying to discuss in these posts. I mean usually the moment I voice a belief in God I am met with at best ridicule and at worst outright hostility.

[Vlerchan]

Forget about me the question is why did Stephen Hawking assume there ever was nothing and that in that nothingness gravity somehow still existed and created all that we see out of nothing. Stephen Hawking who is generally considered one of the most brilliant if not the most brilliant minds to ever have existed on this planet.
Would you mind quoting the claims Hawkings made? Thank you.

I'm going to tell you in advance though that I don't really care what Hawkings thinks.

Also how do you know time can't exist without an object?
It's very nature requires an object to exist in tandem with it.

I personally believe God was there.
I presume this god is conveniently defined so that a cause isn't necessary?

[rogoshtalmour]

How is a cause not necessary. God by definition is the First Cause. The Law of Cause and Effect simply states that every effect must have cause it does not state that every cause must have a cause. The only people who think ever cause must have a cause are people that think the word cause and the word effect mean the same thing and they don't.

And I already quoted Hawking see my post above your post about me presuming there ever was nothing but I will quote it again.

Stephen Hawking says in his latest book The Grand Design that,

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

[Vlerchan]

How is a cause not necessary.
The Universe is a set of objects (Events).

Whilst all Events in The Universe require a cause that does not infer that the set itself (The Universe) requires a cause because a set does not have to possess the qualities it's objects do.

God by definition is the First Cause.
I hope you realise I'm not going to accept your faith-based answers.

I especially am not going to accept answers in which the actors are defined by you so that you can appear correct.

And I already quoted Hawking see my post above your post about me presuming there ever was nothing but I will quote it again.

Stephen Hawking says in his latest book The Grand Design that,

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Right. It lacked quotation marks so I didn't realise it was a quotation.

I of course can't understand this without context. But then as mentioned I don't care because I don't agree the universe required a cause or there was a time before it existed.

[rogoshtalmour]

Ok so you believe the Universe is Eternal and you do not believe in the Big Bang theory at all then correct?

[Vlerchan]

Ok so you believe the Universe is Eternal and you do not believe in the Big Bang theory at all then correct?
I like the idea that there's a cycle of expansions and collapses that extend infinitely backwards. This leaves room for the Big Bang to have occured.

But I honestly don't know and I don't claim to know.

[rogoshtalmour]

Ok so isn't it interesting that ultimately you too have to fall back on faith for what you believe?

[Typhlosion]

I like the idea that there's a cycle of expansions and collapses that extend infinitely backwards. This leaves room for the Big Bang to have occured.

But I honestly don't know and I don't claim to know.

Big crunch is currently not well supported by current models, unfortunately (I believed this too). It seems that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, rather than a retarded rate.

Forget about me the question is why did Stephen Hawking assume there ever was nothing and that in that nothingness gravity somehow still existed and created all that we see out of nothing. Stephen Hawking who is generally considered one of the most brilliant if not the most brilliant minds to ever have existed on this planet.
Also how do you know time can't exist without an object? The only way you could actually know that is if you were able to see an area where there were no objects and see that time ceased to exist there. Of course you are an object too....so this seems to be a practical impossibility.
Also just so you know I do not believe there ever was a time when there was absolute nothingness. I personally believe God was there. But that is not really what I was trying to discuss in these posts. I mean usually the moment I voice a belief in God I am met with at best ridicule and at worst outright hostility.

Luckily I was recently watching a debate between Dawkins and George Pell, a cardinal. This may answer the nothing from nothing problem. The interesting part is at 23:30, but the topic of the origins of the world starts at 20:50

(I'd also recommend watching the whole debate, it's very light-hearted and Pell is a nice guy, and isn't a radical)

y8hy8NxZvFY

Or, if you're lazy, anti matter and matter interact with each other by annihilation. What's proposed is the reverse: that from nothing, matter and anti-matter can form.


First off Gravity is something not nothing, secondly NOTHING can ever create itself because it would have to be in existence before it was in existence. It would have to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. This violates the law of non-contradiction. It would have to exist in order to create itself you see.

What qualifies as a thing?

[Miserabilia]

How is a cause not necessary. God by definition is the First Cause. The Law of Cause and Effect simply states that every effect must have cause it does not state that every cause must have a cause.

There are several flaws here.

Firstly, the law states that every effect in the universe must have a cause. It can claim nothing of the universe itself.

Secondly, every effect is also a cause.

Thirdly, this reasoning does nothing against the idea that the universe creates itself. It also does nothing to logicaly demonstrate god created it.

[Vlerchan]

Ok so isn't it interesting that ultimately you too have to fall back on faith for what you believe?
By "I don't claim to know" I mean "I don't believe anything".

What I pointed out as nonsensical remains nonsensical though.

Big crunch is currently not well supported by current models, unfortunately (I believed this too). It seems that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, rather than a retarded rate.
Right. I guess that's why I never see it brought up elsewhere.

Pity though.

[Dennis98]

Although I am Muslim ( but secular Muslim ) I think that only all Abrahamic religions are true religions ... And they have same God , but the way they see God and way they should pray is only different ...

[aceasarsalad]

I'm really educated and a proponent of empiricism. That means that science is what is true for me.

I understand why human beings created religion to help make sense of their environment. I used to be religious and was raised Catholic, but then I started to think for myself and I am very happy with my beliefs right now.

:)

[Leprous]

I think that there is nothing like a 'true religion'. People will always say their religion is the true one, but those are opinions. Let everyone believe what they wanna believe, and respect other religions. I (personally) think no religion is true, but that is my opinion.