WTF is a universal truth regarding behaviour?!

I stand by what I said on the other thread - IDIOT SAVANT - but mostly IDIOT!

 

Jumble the words up and it'll still mean the same thing, absolutely nothing but it sounds good!

"truths regarding universal behaviour relates to morality"

 

What like stating that the 'Pope is a **** and a Paedo'? As some of the anti-everything brigade on here have done on many occasions

 

Are you a proponent of The Divine Command theory? Perhaps you're not as much of a Kant as I thought.

 

I'm not sure how you can advocate moral universalism w/out divine edicts if that is what you mean?

 

Something being absolutely right or wrong regardless of times or societies.

 

Excellent, and did God create the Universe(s)?

 

It is a least a possibility - as I keep trying to tell you.

"Bearded bloke creates world" is a story - and a pretty $hit one at that

 

I have issues with your use of the word 'the'.

 

It could not have created itself in empty space could it?

Les

 

More a proponent of Divine Comedy!

 

Can you give an example - I am on tenterhooks!

Absolute truth - what next?!

 

lol

 

..

 

Chris Moyles is a tosser?

 

By Christ, that's the most sensible and correct thing you've said since you've been here.

 

Well actually, given enough 'time' and in accordance with M-theory and the Uncertainty Principle (see Quantum Mechanics), it could have created itself, ex nihilo. It might well feel counter intuitive to meter animals, but, that's why we have mathmatics.

 

Phew!, glad you amended that, thought you were accusing me of something!

So yes, the Pope being a paedo **** is complete fabrication, just like the story of those children living on an island. But to use that story as a point of reference showing that without religious morals society will fail?

I would argue that religion can also lead to immoral acts. There are many documented cases where religious cults have abused people in the name of their religion and led to mass suicides because it will put them closer to God. Form our point of view it seems immoral, but to them it was their "moral duty" to commit these acts. So who's right?

 

Something travelling at more than the speed of light in a vacuum, that is absolutely wrong. Morals, well they are only right or wrong from your perspective.

The origin of this iteration of the Universe is something yet to be (maybe never) determined. However, the same problem applies to God, how did he create himself? If you allow for an ever present God, then you must allow for an ever present Universe, surely you can see that?

Geezer

 

Yes but there is such a simple law that I remember from my science education at school- "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed!" That may appear simplistic of course, but has that one gone by the board now?

I find that the notion of a singularity appearing in a total void is every bit as difficult if not more even to accept than the possible existence of someone powerful enough to set it all off in the first place.

Les

 

Hooray! back on topic!

According to Hawking, nothing existed, no time, no space, no matter, no energy. According to his calculations, the singularity did not appear in space, rather space began inside the singularity.

 

Yep, it's a tricky one!

 

Don't see why one should follow the other.

If you really think about it all, the scientists may well be right about the big bang in the first place, the expanding universe is a good indication of that of course. Was that bang initiated by an all powerful being, he would have to be pretty good to do it all starting from nothing of course.

To my mind there is no reason why evolution should not also be correct, we see enough evidence of lifeforms adapting as necessary to changing situations during all those billions of years. That necessary form of adaptation could well have been initiated by the chap who set off the bang-he would have been clever enough! Come to think of it, He would of course have been fully capable of "intelligent design" even. Why not? In such a case, everyone would be right, except that the scientists have not yet found the definitive answers to all these mysteries. They may or may not be allowed to of course.

What is really interesting is how such a perfect balance has been achieved in nature and life in general, and also the way the Universe formed over the aeons. How the rules of nature have allowed all the planets and stars to form from gas and dust and energy after the initial exciting start. So much has to be just right, all those laws of nature, forces such as gravity being just right too. Could that be an accident?

Did all this happen by chance I wonder? Even Darwin had to think a bit hard about that one!

When I look at all that, it seems to me that what we do know and see at the moment can tie in whichever way you want to believe happened at the beginning. Trying to say that Darwin's evolution counters religious beliefs does not seem to be correct in fact.

The only thing thats sticks is how it all started from nothing, if it actually did of course! And if there was a lump of matter to start it, where did it come from?

You have to make your own choice of course, and neither way can be proved right or wrong so far. You have to be guided by "faith", either in a God, or in science.

Les

 

Happens all the time, read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect The effect is caused by particles doing just that. The law you state is true but not very well stated in that form. Once you realise that energy and mass are interchangeable then it becomes untrue when stated like that. The sum total of matter in the universe is actually zero, its just broken into matter we have evolved to see and most of our observable universe is made form and anti matter. It is an interesting question as to how the uneven distribution occurred and you could earn yourself a Nobel by explaining it comprehensively

 

I saw a sign outside a church which read:

"C H - R C H... There's only one thing missing".

I'm not sure 'C H P R O O F R C H' is even a word.

 

What's a singularity but a word for something we cannot fully comprehend, just like 'God'?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?searc...opic+principle

Have a go at this.

 

Using the word God confuses the uninitiated, Tony. 'Singularity' is succinct, 'God' generates pages and pages of absolute drivel.

 

So what are you trying to say? Please spell it out to me.

 

You still haven't answered who created God

Evolution is proven, even the church has admited that, so there certainly is no reason as to why you shouldn't think it correct!

However, it is at odds with the religious view of the world, because we are evolved from a common ancestor with apes, not formed as we are now.

A perfect balance in this Universe. Possibly lots of others, or that the Universe is in a continual cycle, many previous ones may have been impossible for life. The fact we can exist proves only that this is suitable for us, not that it's a coincidence that it's suitable, if that makes sense.

Actually, it does! If you follow the bible, quran etc. then evolution is a no no.

And so we are back to where did the creator come from?.......

Geezer