Schouwenaars

I agree. The same situation with actors. Some actors get so much fame and are so adored, they risk discouraging kids who feel they can't live up to the lofty standards. You will disqualify the majority of people in science when they feel like they won't measure up. People should stop praising famous actors.

I suggest you don't take anything literal at first, but that you start with interpreting all. Do you say that everyone who doesn't take the bible totally literal, isn't a christian? Because then there is only a tiny fraction left of everyone who calles themselfs christian in the world, especially europe. My parents, for exemple, are one of the most religious people i know personally. But they absolutely don't take the bible totally litteraly and they believe in the big bang and evolution. Even our priest does. And it is hard to say a priest is less christian than you. Because that's the only thing that matters in his life. He has totally sacrificed his life to god. More then 70 now. Btw: i can give some verses from the bible who can cause trouble when taken literal. Like this: http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html Please neglect the sarcasm in the letter. And don't start with saying: 'you should see that different' or 'he meant that different'.

Unless you one takes every word in the bible litterally, one can perfecly believe in the Big Bang AND being christian at the same time. Because then it's only a matter of what YOU believe god has done, how and when. And one can be a christian without taken the hole bible litterally.

He can at least start with destroying satan and all his fellow demons. Then there would be less evil in the world. Why doesn't he do that. And because he's omnipotentional he can of course take all evil away for ever. If he can't, he is not omnipotent. Pretty simple.

Don't valleys typically have rivers running through them? Water has a tenancy to collect in valleys due to gravity. I'm not saying water erosion couldn't cause massive changes over millions of years I'm just saying that if a valley already exists wouldn't it be logical for rain-water to collect there and form a river? You can test erosion yourself: take a bag full of sand and make a height difference. Then let water flow from the high side to the lower side. If you continue to do this some time, you'll see that the water makes a deep hole and that, if you capture the water, there will be transported sand too. Now imagine this on a larger scale and over millions and millions of years. And there you have your valley! And yes the rain water is also collected in the river, wich makes it even more powerfull, so that the proces goes faster.

@rontiger I find it very amusing that you first use science to try to prove your point, and you say science is dead a few lines later. Besides, Kurt Godel didn't proof science cannot understand the universe. He only proved that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers, and that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. However, science is much more than that. Maybe you should first take a better look at what he really says. If water erosion can create hills, mountains and valleys, why can't it not form the grand canyon? And even if it didn't form the grand canyon, it surely did form thousands of mountains and valleys. If you don't believe that, you should go and take a look at the valleys in switzerland. It's pretty clear there. In every valley there is a river in the middle, that has formed the valley. Then the ultimate question: what exacly do you call science?

what or who is/are irreconciliable?

do you understand that against Gods standards you are evil...... and if he did what you recommend you would not be here. Why would i not be here?

Hi Schouwenaars, Since you claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the word, which is better: To accept the truth and live as if there are no real right or wrong actions, or To live a lie and pretend that there are real right or wrong actions? I don't remember you answering this question. I've also asked you: If it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it doesn't affect the survival of mankind, would it be wrong? You've been asserting that every moral rule has a survival element, but surely if that is the case this question should be easy to answer. That question depends on each person. choose the one you will be the most happy with. And it doesn't mean that if actions might be not 'bad' from origin, that you should do them. Raping is hurting other people. And hurting your own people is not very helpfull. Survival is also based on trust on each other. And i don't think you build a relation of trust if you rape that person. For nowadays of course it doesn't really have a big infuence on the survival of the whole human rase. But not hurting people is an instinct that comes from the far away generation who survived because they had the same instinct. Because they were able to multiply, we still have the same instinct. Of course there are always people who don't have that instinct. But that's because everyone is different. "That question depends on each person. choose the one you will be the most happy with." ....and which one are you most happy with? Living a rational life and embracing what you espouse and living it out, or living a moral life by pretending that your actions are actually right or wrong? What about those you interact with? Would you prefer them to treat you as if there isn't really any right or wrong? That the only difference between eating pork or eating you is a vestigial evolutionary legacy that no longer applies? Or would you prefer that they consider their actions toward you as having real moral significance? In terms of rape: you're still not answering my question. Suppose it were possible to rape someone in such a way that it has no effect on human survival, would it be wrong? You've sidestepped this question by simply assuming things about rape which aren't necessarily true. Let me give you an example: I read once about a dentist who used to rape his female patients while they were under anaesthesia in his dental practise. Apparently he had done this many times and was never caught because the women didn't know they were raped. He didn't hurt anybody and didn't break any trust either. The victims simply didn't know that they were victims. Is this wrong? Why? How did it affect the survival of mankind? You should first realise that because i say morality isn't absolute does not mean everything is allowed now. We now have moral rules inside us wich we have to folow. The only thing we discuss is where they come from and why. About the rape question, i thought i explained that, but i will try it again for you. Rape is hurting people. Hurting people was bad for survival long time ago. The ones who didn't hurt people, were more likely to survive and pass there DNA. In that DNA is then the 'not hurting' thought, if i can describe it like that. Now we still have that thought inside us because we have the DNA of the ones who survived. Because of this, some rape is wrong, although it doesn't effect the survival of our species now. Then look at it at a larger scale: if everyone would rape, then it is a matter of survival, even now. Because of this, the dentist has done wrong. I hope i made it clear finally.

Why would that be? I believe morality has a beginning but i don't say God does not exist.

Maybe it is because your english isn't your mother tongue, but that response makes absolutely no sense, but I will try to respond to what it appears you're saying. So if there are cases where murder doesn't have to be based on survival, the question remains, why is murder bad or good? It was good for our forefathers, but not good now? When did murder become immoral? And why would it make a difference if you murder one person or 100? Why is it not a matter of survival on small scale but is a matter of survival on a big scale? Again, that makes no sense. Sorry, but you seem to trying to hold on to an argument you can't support ard are just making up the rules about morality as you go. You really can't make a case for your position and nothing I feel any thinking person needs to take seriously. It appears indeed that i'm not quite good at making my point clear in english. Murder was morally 'bad' for our forfathers, SO it is still now. And with forfathers i mean really really long ago. Not just some generations. But of course, that it comes from our forfathers is related with evolution theory. So if you don't accept evolution theory, it is impossible to agree with this concept. (wich i don't obligate anybody to) the large-small scale is also not meant the way you took it. It was an answer to when you said murder isn't always about survival. On small scale (some persons) it is indeed not. but on larger scale (millions or billions of people) it becomes a treath. And if it is a treath to the continue of mankind, it is a matter of survival.

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit. and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics. so you trow away quantumphysics however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics. so i suggest you trow away your computer too then... This topic has veered way off from a discussion on morality, but I think that discussion seems to have run it's course. Please don't take offense, but your argument about computers running on quantum physics is a really bad argument, because you're equivocating. Quantum physics is the study of physics on the quantum level. Quantum physics can also mean the actual physical workings on the quantum level itself. The way you're making your argument is by switching between the two definitions and this is an equivocation. It is the actual physical workings that's operative in the computer and not the theories and mathematical models comprising the study of quantum mechanics that's operative in the computer. If we remove your equivocation your argument looks as follows: Shiloh denies the big bang. The Big Bang is supported by the THEORIES of quantum physics. Computers work by the OPERATION of quantum physics. Therefore Shiloh should deny his computer. See the problem? I understand what you try to say. You're right in a certain way, but a computer really works because quantum theories also. No, computers do not work because of man's theories and speculations about the physical world, they work because of the operation of physics. Nature doesn't rely on our theories, instead our theories are merely attempts at explaining what nature already does. Your argument doesn't even work from a computer design aspect. A degree in quantum cosmology is most definitely not a prerequisite for studying electronic engineering and going on to design and build computers. So in every practical sense, neither big bang theory nor it's encompassing scientific field has contributed anything to the existence and operation of Shiloh's computer. Use of a computer, thus, doesn't require belief in any of the theories of quantum cosmology. I explained this in my previous post, before yours.

The quantum fog is used as a describtion of a size. Everywhere, but on a very very very small length. The thing i described is quantum fluctuation: In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small values of t (time). This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs. I thought you were referring to QVF. The quantum vacuum isn't nothing in the sense of "Not any thing". It's a highly energised state and as such it's inaccurate to say that particles come from nothing. I thought the post you quoted explained that?

That's the wrong question. The question you should be asking is if it is okay or moral to kill a human being when it is not a matter of survival. For example, if someone cuts me off in traffic and I follow that person home and kill them. Since that was not a matter of survival, would you say it is moral or immoral? This isn't about whether or not we can justify our actions based on what animals do. The issue is whether or not one can pin what is right or wrong simply on survival. I can think of many scenarios where people murder others for reasons that are not in any way connected to survival. Same response as Luftwaffle: it doesn't has the be a matter of survival now (on small scale). It was because our forfathers survived with this instince or 'moral rule', they multiplied and spreaded that instinct. It was once a matter of survival, that we still have in us. And of course, this exemple will not make the difference of the survival of mankind. But if everyone would think like that, we would not survive. So on large scale it is a matter of survival.

Hi Schouwenaars, Since you claim that there is no such thing as right or wrong in any real sense of the word, which is better: To accept the truth and live as if there are no real right or wrong actions, or To live a lie and pretend that there are real right or wrong actions? I don't remember you answering this question. I've also asked you: If it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it doesn't affect the survival of mankind, would it be wrong? You've been asserting that every moral rule has a survival element, but surely if that is the case this question should be easy to answer. That question depends on each person. choose the one you will be the most happy with. And it doesn't mean that if actions might be not 'bad' from origin, that you should do them. Raping is hurting other people. And hurting your own people is not very helpfull. Survival is also based on trust on each other. And i don't think you build a relation of trust if you rape that person. For nowadays of course it doesn't really have a big infuence on the survival of the whole human rase. But not hurting people is an instinct that comes from the far away generation who survived because they had the same instinct. Because they were able to multiply, we still have the same instinct. Of course there are always people who don't have that instinct. But that's because everyone is different.

Ok i'm glad it was an other definition of light. Some people would really think God is physical light. Now i can only agree with you.

You are correct that there cannot be any time before the beginning of time in our universe. But outside our universe, in the multiverse if it exists, time continues and has existed before the beginning of time in our universe.

The sun is a star...you can't have night and day or life for that matter without the sun. If you argue otherwise, you shun science and rest your entire argument on faith and the supernatural. Which is ok, jiust have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Actually God is light. His glory can illuminate the earth without the need of a sun, which is what happened. God is the lifegiver for all life on this planet. Not even photosynthesis can operate with God's permission. You're not a Christians so this something you can't understand. If God is light, then God is made out of photons (light=photons with frequency of 400-700 nanometres) . But gravity for exemple applies to photons. So God is manipultive. Like actually a black holes sucks in God? And if i make a chest surrounded by 2metres lead and i make it vacuum, then god cannot be or go there. Seems rather strange, not?

I like to guess when we will have understand the DNA completly and we will create other life as we like to.

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit. and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics. so you trow away quantumphysics however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics. so i suggest you trow away your computer too then... This topic has veered way off from a discussion on morality, but I think that discussion seems to have run it's course. Please don't take offense, but your argument about computers running on quantum physics is a really bad argument, because you're equivocating. Quantum physics is the study of physics on the quantum level. Quantum physics can also mean the actual physical workings on the quantum level itself. The way you're making your argument is by switching between the two definitions and this is an equivocation. It is the actual physical workings that's operative in the computer and not the theories and mathematical models comprising the study of quantum mechanics that's operative in the computer. If we remove your equivocation your argument looks as follows: Shiloh denies the big bang. The Big Bang is supported by the THEORIES of quantum physics. Computers work by the OPERATION of quantum physics. Therefore Shiloh should deny his computer. See the problem? I understand what you try to say. You're right in a certain way, but a computer really works because quantum theories also. Like: why do elektrons (elektricity in pc) always takes the shortest way without having been there before? And please make it more clear, because i still don't really see the main problem. Quantum theories describe the operation of the quantum. The quantum makes his computer work. The theories appear (tested and proved) to be quite correct. The quite correct theories describe the big bang. I don't see the problem.

The quantum fog is used as a describtion of a size. Everywhere, but on a very very very small length. The thing i described is quantum fluctuation: In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small values of t (time). This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs.

You say it well. Killing other is not immoral for the universe. Only for us humans. If i kill an other human, do you really think my cat or dog will mind? He'll just sit there. And the planet will not stop spinning of i steal someone's money. Only humans care. And why do you think the court will make the right decision? Here in Belgium, the court decided it's legal in some circumstances to do euthanasia on children. The court acts different in all the different countries. In some arabic countries it's justice of someone gets decapitated for stealing. Court's decision... And have you ever asked yourself the question why you are eating the flesh of a pig, and not of a human? Why is it less immoral to kill a pig to eat than a human? And if the court system was right, then why do some serious criminals get free because of some faults in the procedure? Besides, how do i violate the 'universal moral law' (if it exists) when i drive 140km/h on the highway? (speed limit is 120km/h) i can get a serious punishment for that. Or in Michigan a woman isn’t allowed to cut her own hair without her husband’s permission. When she does, she commits a crime. Seems legit...

How is it even possible that H2O stops being water? whenever H2O will go out its licuide state, temperature on earth has to be very high or very low. In both circumstance, we'll be death before the H2O has even transformated a little bit. Only on a large scale, as i mentioned before. I already said we cannot predict with certainty both the momentum AND place of a particle. We only have probabilities for that. And this microscopic scale is the basic for everything.

You're right shiloh, in fact for the universe there is no difference. The only thing that makes us think it is bad, is because it is written in our genes like that. Why can you more easely kill a bug than a baby? They both are living beings. Or when dogs have bitten someone, they will be euthansied. Why don't we kill people if they bite someone else? Because it's our own species. It's bad for the continueing of our own kind. Like why do we eat meat of pigs and not from humans? Because it harms our own species. For every morallity you can find a survival reason.

Chance has many connotations. Well, if you believe what he says: "I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm - not all - that religion used to fill." ~Bill Gates Bill Gates isn't always right. i'm sure you will agree. Nothing has been scientificly proven by him. By the way he lived more than 140 years ago. Then most people still believed stars were just little dots in the sky. Unless it's math, most proven things from 100 years ago don't really count anymore and have been disproven or heavy criticised. And because there might not be proof yet for creation of life without god, doesn't mean it cannot be or cannot be proven in the future. And life has been made already in a lab: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html Besides, life on earth might seem organised, but look at the inside of a star or a quasar. Then it isn't so 'organised' any more. It's a total mess. And even if you might think that is 'organised', then look at the quantum world. Everything there has to do with possibilitys and chances. There are no certaintys. And if there are no certaintys, how can there be order and structure? Like the existence of 2 different states of something at the same time: http://www3.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-mechanics.html