Does anyone find it a bit ironic that the Big Bang Theory is a very convincing argument for intelligent design?
Post anything that you want - a story, a secret, a confession, a fear, a love - anything. Post twice if you'd like. And then share the site with your friends.
Does anyone find it a bit ironic that the Big Bang Theory is a very convincing argument for intelligent design?
Published by
PChis
Tags: by PChis, popular post, question, religion
27 comments:
yes!!! iknow, basically the big bang theory bases itself aroudn the fact that there was some point of super high energy and everything started from that.....
so that means if we believe in intelligient the design, then we basically just believe that a superior being created that super high density point of energy, i mesan it's stupid to think that out of like, lunar rays or dust and crap that the point of energy existed
Yes and no... big bang theory leaves room for a supreme being that set all existence into motion; however, "intelligent design" asserts that there is a great engineer that carefully designed (suprise) all aspects of the universe as we know it. The idea that the universe is a well-made and maintained swiss clock of sorts. So... supremem being?... perhaps. Intelligent design? Doubtful since humans and countless other things are not well designed. You gotta imagine that we wouldn't have such an enormous blind-spot if we had been designed so well... it's not hard to fix, just a slight angular adjustment and our eyes have no blind spot. Men and women have nipples. Do men's nipples serve a purpose? Not really, but they exist because in the first little bit of fetus development, all fetuses are female and develop nipples, whether or not they go on to grow a penis and/or vagina. Ask our "great engineer" why guys have nipples, all people have a blindspot, and why Panda bears have a useless bony knob on their paws.
most mammals also have a functionless bone in their penes.
For every argument for intelligent design there is one against.
Unexplainable start of the universe?/Eternal punishment, loving God paradox.
Seemingly irreducible complexity?/Can he heat a burrito so hot that hehimself could not eat it?!
Maybe God just likes ambiguity?
you're totally forgetting the appendix. an organ in the human body that isn't connected to anything and is completely useless for anything except contracting appendicitis.
yeah, so humans have existed a long time, and organs become dormant, who's to say that guy's nipples never had a purpose?
Define, a "long time" because last time I checked, most other creatures have been here WAY longer than we have. But you know, fossils could be wrong, and maybe life DID start with humans. Maybe I'm just being naive...
whoa, guys, you seem to be mixing up two very different things.
Those things would be intelligent design (the term I used), and Christianity.
While the latter is generally the only religion that seems to partly pushing intelligent design, it doesn't mean that ID=C.
The first just says that there is a creator that made everything (because everythign is complex blah blah blah).
Without the big bang, you can do apply the same logic you apply to god to the universe. If god has always existed, why doesn't it make sense that the universe could have always existed? The thing is that something made that ball that exploded into the universe and is currently causing it to expand at a accelerating rate.
As to "useless" body parts and as to what's "well designed," who are we do say what is "well designed."
Plus I don't think ID says that everythign was well designed it just says things are way to complicated ot not have been designed as they are (correct me if I'm wrong).
As to the loving god/eternal punishment "paradox," and the omniscienct/free will "paradox," it seems most christians get it. It sure sounds like a paradox, but then again so does the trinity, so does atman is Brahman (to branch into the Upanishads). Perhaps they're wrong, or perhaps we just aren't looking at them right.
Just because they're wrong doesn't mean there isn't some creator out there that made our universe.
So basically, if god didn't make that thing that went bang what did?
By the way, even the Pope has said that ID isn't science and doesn't belong in science classes. So for the good of the group lets not bring that one up.
Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards Deism. No one can explain how what we've got got here, so God is the perfect explanation. But then if you start assuming God has an active say in how things run around here you run into obvious contradictions mixing omniscience, omnipotence, and human freewill (believe me I've thought about this a lot). So either God isn't all powerful (but then how could he have created the universe), he isn't all knowing (an all powerful guy-in-the-sky that doesn't know what he's doing is absolutely frightening), we don't have freewill (not an option in my book), or my favorite, God doesn't preform miracles or meddle with his creations once they're out of the oven. Sure he /could/, but why the heck would he if everything he made is "good"?
Yep, Deism all the way.
Truth is, pchis, that the "If god didn't make the big bang, who did?" Well, then who made god. Oh, god's been there for all time? Why can't the universe have been there instead. It's a circular argument for both sides, except that if god is the supreme and comforting being that he is in the Christian Bible (he's rather vengeful in old testimate lore) why is there so much pain. If he is real, intelligent design is real, and the christians are right about the after-life, god has a pretty sick sense of humor.
^^anonymous, WHY DO I EVEN TYPE THINGS.
The whole point of my big bang analogy was that the universe was created via this large explosion, so it couldn't have always been there.
The big bang is something almost universally accepted in the scientific world like evolution.
The Pope sure did say ID isn't the true answer, but then again I don't really think god exists, therefore I don't really think the Pope is infallible.
Plus the pope can only speak for catholics, not eastern orthodox, any of the protestants, or anyone else who isn't a catholic for that matter.
I actually don't believe in free will. I think we're all just one giant simulation programmed out, like god's big computer game. Whether it's god's or chance's I really don't know, but I hope we find out some day.
"I actually don't believe in free will. I think we're all just one giant simulation programmed out"
Then how could you possibly punish someone for a misdeed if all there actions were already ordained? How could anything be called good or bad if there's no hope of changing it for the better? I'm going to kick you in the face tomorrow at school but you can't possibly blame me becasue it's already programmed out, I can't help it.
pchis is my favorite guy-w/-a-name
^ i believe theyre referred to as "admins" or "contributors", but guy-w/-a-name is cool too ;-)
one day i'll let yaz in on a REAL secret
(when i think you're ready)
If you kicked me I'd tackle you, cause hey, I'm programmed to do that too.
We have to live like we have free will, just like we generally live under the assumption that tables are solid even though we know that they are almost completely empty space.
That analogy breaks down, but I hope you get the point. We have to believe we have free will, but we really don't.
oh, and thank you anonymous, I love to entertain.
Yes, he might be my favorite guy-with-a-name too. I love it when he puts on his arrogant, haughty voice.
Muchos amore P.
(I think I just mixed languages, but you get the point.)
I'll play you inside God's video game any time.
ok, i'm going to say a comment on the whole "god used to be vengeful" thing by way of an story.eh-hem
When you are a child and not well developed you can't always understand the things your parents do. if you fell down and skinned your knee and your parents tried to put antiseptic on it, you would yell with pain becuase getting that stuff out hurt. but later, you understood that the pain meant the bacteria were being killed and that it was preventing an infection, etc, etc.
moral of the story? we didn't understand things when we were less developed to know that everything wasn't god's fault and that what appeared to be painful was actually helping. not that painful things always help, but that should mere mortals really try to understand what an omniscient being does? sure, but trust and love is involved as well. plus faith.
"I'll play you inside God's video game any time."
Ahah! This wins.
I'll take you any day in God's video game.
...and there will be no accusations of "ZOMG H4X!!11!"
Take it like a man.
Or an anonymous. Whichever you prefer.
"we didn't understand things when we were less developed to know that everything wasn't god's fault and that what appeared to be painful was actually helping."
That's making the assumption that we've evolved morally in the last 2000 years which I would argue with strongly.
[anonymous from 4 above]
primitive men didn't have morals, they had to kill to survive, which caused the development of a fear-based religion, hence an immature view of god.
we have morals, don't be a cynicist. everyone knows killing is wrong unless they become mentally unbalanced. everyone does bad things, but that doesn't mean we don't know the difference. we feel guilt, most of the time, unlike primitive men, who didn't.
I'm sorry, but evolution doesn't occur over 2000 years.
We haven't much evolved since the ancient hunter/gatherers. we just figure something out, and then we teach our children, and it recurses over and over.
We've discovered a faster way to evolve, it's called education.
So I'd say primitive men did feel guilt, at some things. It just depends on what their society (whether that be a society as we see it or just their direct kin group or what have you) taught them they should feel guilty about.
I believe it is hardwired not to kill other people if we don't have to in most humans, but then again how would we go about proving that.
"everyone knows killing is wrong unless they become mentally unbalanced."
Or join the army.
"primitive men didn't have morals...we feel guilt, most of the time, unlike primitive men"
Humanity was pretty much exactly the same strucutrally as we are today. Sure their nutrition was worse and they didn't live as long, but they most certainly had codes of laws, taboos, and general ideas of right and wrong. Maybe their ideas don't jive with modern Christianity, but seeing how the first laws were codified over 4000 years ago there was obviously morality involved long before that.
It just makes me mad when people think we need Jesus to be moral individuals. Any reasoning creature can look aroud him and see what's moral and what's not and he doesn't need a book or a prophet to do it for him.
I would just like to say that in the case of the army, there's killing and there's killing.
Generally when we say "killing is wrong" we mean when it is done for petty gain or for no reason at all. Whether or not you think a war is fought for petty gain is your beef with the war. Fighting for the country is certainly a...
I think you know where this thought is going.
wow, sats aren't gone yet. I'm typing that then bloop it's all gone.
Post a Comment