Tiles I have to disagree morality comes from us and religion used it for its own purpose, we would never got this far, if we would slaughterer each other long before religion occurs.

Dooley you cannot reject something which isn't there we humans have a big problem dealing with reality because we know that we are going to die and ultimately that our species will also die in the future and that even this planet we call earth will be gone in some billion years.

When it comes to something out of nothing I can also ask why is there so much nothing out of something ? Every moment galaxies blow up or like Andromeda is heading towards our galaxy and I think you can image the result of a collision.

The fact that people invented a god or gods is for comfort and also I kind of wanting to be enslaved for eternity. Do yourself a favor and say its just your faith and do not claim that reasonable people should consider you comforting idea for scientific research. What is religion does is making the world small and just about us but the reality is that the universe doesn't care about your comfort or your believe it never has and never will, it just is.

And I say it again just because it is comforting for you is doesn't make it true, for civilization to survive religion must die because most of the big religions want the world to come to an end.

A forword , first of all

The Heisemberg's principle of indetermination entails that vacuum does not exist

What we call vacuum , it is , according to the theory, a region of space full of energy

Since the theory of relativity claims that energy and mass are the same stuff than vacuum is also full of matter

This matter is made of the so called " virtual particles "
The virtual particles are actually " real particles " same as proton, neutrons and electrons , except for the fact that their life spam is very short and their density is very low
For this reason they do not have a pratical effect on our dayly life but they do exist and more important they exist everywhere and every time

This is the theory, let's go to the experimental evidences

The most famous experiment is the Casimir effect

You put two thin plates , face to face , in the vacuum
The plates start vibrating

Further evidences come from the movement of the electrons in the vacuum
Yo can get accurate results , only assuming that the elctrons collide with some particles even though according to the istrumentation the region should be void of matter

You might assume that you can achieve this result only on the earth but it would fail in the deep space

However an amazing confirmation came some years ago

Universe is not only expanding but it is even accelerating

Consequently a repulsive force must exist which exceeds the attractive gravitational force of the galaxies and of the dark matter ( assuming it exsists)
In other words the universe is full of a repulsive dark energy

The density of the energy of vacuum is , as I said , very low but if you multiply its density by the volume of the universe you get an enormous repulsive force
Thus this strange form of energy \ matter which can be detected in lab, is actually everywhere

As far as our discussion is concerned I would emphasize the following point.

The existance of the energy of vacuum and of the virtual particles has been predicted by the theory before any experimental evidence
In other word its exsistence is part of a physical theory which does not entail the need of a creator

The question is

Can this false vacuum turn into ordinary matter ?

Nobody can seriously answer this question

Exactly. A creator doesn't make sense anyways. Why would a being create things, that ultimately after billions of years of interaction cause us humans to come into existence and then in return ask for worship?

Better yet, why would it promise us heaven? It's crazy and we all know it, some just won't admit.

Cheers

So the Quran itself claims to be written by god? And there is no evidence that it really has been written by god?
The Quran is no evidence.


I think we agree now that evolution is not about the origin of life, so mentioning the unlikely possibility of an intelligent designer would be like saying the earth is flat in a French lesson


I must admit that I didin't expect that answer. So you believe in creationism AND evolution?


So Hitler is bad but national socialism is good?


Can you tell me the name of one of these scientists?


We don't know exactly how life came into existence. In school I have not yet been taught any of the many theories, so I think I will never be taught one. So what makes your hypothesis, that a wizard made it without even telling where that wizard comes from, so special that it should be taught as truth?


Complexy and beauty aren't any evidences for anything. If a jar falls down and you see the way how complex the shards are spread around the floor, do you think that an intelligent being must have aranged them?


You are the one who claimes something and must prove it, not vice versa. I already posted a disprove for god (that one with god changing his perfect opinion).


But as humans can influence in that process, god would have to know how humans will act. That contradicts to a very basic claim of your religion, the free will.


Feelings are a mixture of hormones and thoughts. What's so special about them?
And you already soid it, I could make my friend take a lie detector test, to prove or disprove whether he really likes me.


"...but keeps the final decision with the leader"
That sounds like a dictatorship with advisers.


"I arrest you in the name of the allmighty god!"
"I arrest you in the name of science!"
Which one could make people obey better?


So I just have to circulate some rumours about Allah and if someone believes that I disproved the Quran? That sounds easy.


I'd most likely think that he uses magic tricks, but first let's come a prophet doing miracles at all


Moral feelings are made by evolution and selection. Because if we wouldn't have morality and would kill each other humanity wouldn't have survived. What exactly this morality is, is mostly rather acquired. If people get taught you shall not kill, but if god wants you to you must kill, people might kill in the name of their god with good conscience. So there is no absolute morality. But the majority of all people would call that the murderer insane, because his morality differs too much from the common.






Why not?? But god could??

[quote]Better yet, why would it promise us heaven? It's crazy and we all know it, some just won't admit. /quote]Crazy? I admit that if there was a definition of crazy, having a creator would be crazy, but there is nothing wrong with crazy.

Of course, believing that matter came into existence of its own accord, then became alive and started to study itself is not crazy at all. That is completely normal.

[quote] that ultimately after billions of years of interaction cause us humans to come into existence /quote]God is not bound to time like we are, billions of years is nothing to Him, He has a completely different frame of reference.
[quote]The virtual particles are actually " real particles " same as proton, neutrons and electrons , except for the fact that their life spam is very short and their density is very low/quote]Im sure that other particles exist, but it then just shifts the question to : Where did THOSE particles come from?

Eventually any particle at all either:

1)always existed
2)was created

Option 1 does not work for my brain, if it works for your brain perhaps you are a different species of homo sapien than me, but I cannot imagine or conceive of any particle not having a beginning.


[quote]The Heisemberg's principle of indetermination entails that vacuum does not exist/quote]The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only states that very small things cannot be precisely located, it is a far leap to assume that it prohibits a vacuum.


[quote]Well this is just a different mind set, my mind knows that matter couldn't have come into existence by itself.

Why not?? But god could??/quote]It makes sense to me that God could exist from eternity, but it does not make sense that matter could exist from eternity.

I'm still a little fuzzy on this part. This is one of the arguments most often used for the existence of God. Again, just considering it logically, some people cannot imagine a particle having always existed but have no problem with an omniscient omnipotent entity having always existed. A particle would have had to be created to be in existence, but not a universally supreme entity.

Just not sure I understand the logic behind that...

Actually these particles in the vacuum are pairs of particles and antiparticles that are created from energy and then annihilate each other emmiting the same amount of energy they were created from.


That is illogical.

One thing is to discover a previously unknown form of matter \ energy
an other thing is to predict its existance

One thing is to claim that different form of matter \ energy might exist
An other thing is to claim that they " must " exist

You can believe it or not but this is exactly what Heisemberg's principle of indetermination entails
The Heisemberg's principle goes far beyond the simple uncertainty about the position \ speed of a particle , as you seems to assume

Nobody can conceive of any particle not the having a beginning

The difference between an homo sapiens and a fundamentalist is the following

An homo sapiencs accept the scientific evidences even in case they are not intuitive
the fundamentalist does not

If one thing changes or converts into another and later is able to change back, that way something can sort of 'have always' been there. Just not in the same shape, but it's still there without any form of true creation.

In my opinion adding a God to such an equation only makes things more complicated instead of less complicated.

Certainly more supernatural than it probably is.

Cheers

Tiles,
I just want to say that I think you missed the point of my example of morality. Let me re-phrase it.

You claim that religion is bad, because it seeks to control people. That's fine, If that's all religion does, then it is bad. However, what scientific proof are you using to conclude that something is bad or good?

I agree that murder is bad, but I believe this because I feel it. Do you also feel that murder is bad? If so, is that enough, or do you need to somehow 'prove' that murder is bad?

I also agree that forcing people to 'believe' something is wrong, I don't even think it can be done. Do you agree with this? If so, why? I believe it is wrong to force someone to believe in something, because I would not feel good if someone did it to me. Why do you think it's wrong to force someone to believe in something? Have you seen 'proof' that this is bad?

My point is that some truths are things that are self evident, and do not meet the criteria for being proven or disproven.

I am not trying to argue that we need religion in order to have morality.

Lukas, I will respond to your comments, just not now. It's 2:00 am...