Bigirimana Interview

[jimileysbaldhead]

I used to believe in God until I went to Sunderland for the first time and thought " the whole theory is flawed because no bugger would have created this and then reflected how pleased he was "

I then became a Quaker....knock on a few doors then back home for me oats.

 

[Colin Sharpe]

lol, indeed - the universal forces of nature don't always create things of great beauty - they are certainly uncaring and 5under1and is the proof !

 

[Viceroy]

Bigi. Ba. Shola and Sammy.

We have a few contenders for nicest guy in the Premiership. All of them are deeply religious. Almost makes you think religion might be a good thing some times

Ive been thinking that myself...It appears religion aint so bad... every religious person I know is happy and kind.

 

[Freddd]

We are already down to a pretty simple set of values (quantity of gravity, number of spatial dimensions, atomic binding force, rate of expansion, quantity of dark matter and cosmic resonance) that are finely tuned to create our universe - unbalance one of these and you end up with unworkable results such as one huge black hole or everything as hydrogen atoms - could it not be argued that the tuning of those numbers is evidence, not of a God in the crude imagined anthropocentric sense, but of a deciding essence that created everything ?

Right, so far the complexity of the universe has been cited for and against the existence of God.

The theory you propond is essentially to solve one mystery by creating another. The universe is complex and we can't fully explain why it is the way it is. You certainly can tender the explanation that it's like this because god (however you wish to describe him/it) made it this way. That really just raises the questions: who is this god bloke, what made him and why is he the way he is ?

Creating 3 unanswerable question to solve one very difficult question isn't what I would call progress

 

[Viceroy]

Science doesn't in any way undermine the basis for believing in God. It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God through science, or even give a hint one way or the other.

You can of course prove that the muchof the contents of the Bible and many other holy books cannot be literally accurate but that is another thing entirely.

Best post I have ever seen!!!!!!!!!!

Warm Pouch has fallen into the trap of sneering from ignorance.

Lol at the "I disagree" retort, It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God through science, or even give a hint one way or the other.

What part of that can't you grasp? don't so ignorant you miscreant.

 

[Viceroy]

Hmm, don't find that particualry convincing. If you are willing to suppose that God exists, I don't see any reason to think that he would be insufficiently sophisticated to create all the complexities of the universe. If you are going to propose the existence of a being for whom no evidence exists, I don't see why you need to place any limits on his attributes.

Also, in fairness, it is worthwhile remembering that our current scientific view of the universe is as limited with respect to explaining the existence of the universe as is the religious viewpoint.

The scientific theory is that there was a Big Bang and everything followed more or less explicably from there. Ask any physicist why there was a Big Bang and his answer boil down to "It just happened."

The religious theory is that God existed and made certain decisions and that everything follows more or less explicably from there. Ask how or why God exists and the answer is that "He just does."

Both limited theories at the end of the day. The scientific one has the advantage of greateer predicitive power, but only, of course, until God chooses to intervene. Teh religiuous one caters for God's intervention but does so on the most dubious of bases.

MATE!!!!!


YOU HERO, I wish everyone was as fair and balanced as you. Reading this made me smile.

 

[Viceroy]

we are already down to a pretty simple set of values (quantity of gravity, number of spatial dimensions, atomic binding force, rate of expansion, quantity of dark matter and cosmic resonance) that are finely tuned to create our universe - unbalance one of these and you end up with unworkable results such as one huge black hole or everything as hydrogen atoms - could it not be argued that the tuning of those numbers is evidence, not of a god in the crude imagined anthropocentric sense, but of a deciding essence that created everything ?

oh my ****ing god!!!!!!!!!! Amazing comments

jizzz everywhere

rep everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

Best post I have ever seen!!!!!!!!!!

Warm Pouch has fallen into the trap of sneering from ignorance.

Lol at the "I disagree" retort, It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God through science, or even give a hint one way or the other.

What part of that can't you grasp? don't so ignorant you miscreant.

How are things up there in your ivory tower? Thankfully Freddd can have a difference of opinion with someone without behaving like an absolute twat. now run along you little runt.

 

[Viceroy]

How are things up there in your ivory tower? Thankfully Freddd can have a difference of opinion with someone without behaving like an absolute twat. now run along you little runt.

But the only reason we are even having this exchange is YOUR initial closed minded ivory tower attitude.

Don't be a dick if you can't handle being treated as such.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

Ah, but you do it quite well.

Essentially:

a. our only basis for beleiving in God is the contents of certain holy books (some would disagree with this);

b. we can show that, where they deal with the physical universe, the contents of those books is not remotely literally accurate;

c. while supernatural matters are by their nature incapable of proof, the fact that the holy books are inaccurate when they deal with matters that can be checked makes them of very doubtful relaibility with respect to matters upon which they cannot be checked;

d. belief in God accordingly not only requires a willingness to beleive in that of which there is an absnece of evidence, but to place reliance on sources known to be unreliable.

I'd probably edge away from the teachings being only being "holy books" as teachings can take many formats. Generally though you understand mine and many others standpoint. I always find it interesting to read a scientists (particularly a physicist) thoughts on these matters. Many believe that a scientist will automatically feel religion or belief in greater beings is absolute nonsense. However what you actually find is that its a pretty even split because they understand better than anyone that our knowledge does not expand far enough to give definitive answers.

I think what many people miss (like Viceroy) is that essentially you cannot be right or wrong on this subject. you can merely choose a standpoint and then advise why you feel that way. We could pick holes in each others standpoint all day long, but can do it respectfully. And we can do it full in the knowledge that we cannot actually be wrong because nobody knows!

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

But the only reason we are even having this exchange is YOUR initial closed minded ivory tower attitude.

Don't be a dick if you can't handle being treated as such.

Now now you just go **** yourself (we have no evidence whether this is possible or not but I'd like you to try). Don't intervene in other peoples discussions if you are only going to be a cock end about it. Its likely that they will tell you you're a cockend afterall.

Close minded? The irony is amusing. You seem to have a problem with people who think religion is a load of bullshit. Whereas I have no problem with people who think religion is not a pile of bullshit and have said as much. You probably need to gain an understanding of what closed minded means before commenting further.

I am more than happy having pleasant discussions with rational people like Fredd regardless whther we have different standpoints. Its called being a grown up, you might get there eventually.

 

[Viceroy]

Now now you just go **** yourself (we have no evidence whether this is possible or not but I'd like you to try). Don't intervene in other peoples discussions if you are only going to be a cock end about it. Its likely that they will tell you you're a cockend afterall.

Close minded? The irony is amusing. You seem to have a problem with people who think religion is a load of bullshit. Whereas I have no problem with people who think religion is not a pile of bullshit and have said as much. You probably need to gain an understanding of what closed minded means before commenting further.

I am more than happy having pleasant discussions with rational people like Fredd regardless whther we have different standpoints. Its called being a grown up, you might get there eventually.

I have a problem with blind ignorance, that is all. If you offered a well considered viewpoint then that's fine but saying stuff such as...

" I find the whole subject of god a bit laughable given what we know in terms of science", it's just incredibly ignorant, science doesn't disprove a higher creating force, disregard religion, I am merely talking about the concept of a higher level of creating force, it could be an undercurrent that pervades through all reality, it is impossible to define. I am not saying God exists or doesn't exist, I am agnostic and rational, but you cant claim to be scientific and then just completely disregard rationale... it's counter productive and so infuriatingly haughty that I couldn't resist commenting on it. Dont you realise how frustrating it is when people act like they are rational when they are forming their entire view on a false pretence? Believe what you want just try to be less childish about it.


Also you said "I think what many people miss (like Viceroy) is that essentially you cannot be right or wrong on this subject. " which made me laugh as I haven't missed that at all, that is my entire point, it is impossible to know whether we are right or wrong so it makes sense to be open regarding the issue. YOU are the one that immediately closed off your viewpoint "Not getting into this. Lets just say I disagree! ". Don't you realise how that comes across? Fredd responded with a very solid response and you batted it off like it was irrelevant, it wasn't an opinion... he was correcting your misconception.

You are basically a massive hypocrite without realising and now you have got your panties in a twist because you haven't been able to wriggle out of it and you even contradicted yourself...

Grown up? I think you have a lot of growing up to do yourself.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

I have a problem with blind ignorance, that is all. If you offered a well considered viewpoint then that's fine but saying stuff such as...

" I find the whole subject of god a bit laughable given what we know in terms of science", it's just incredibly ignorant, science doesn't disprove a higher creating force, disregard religion, I am merely talking about the concept of a higher level of creating force, it could be an undercurrent that pervades through all reality, it is impossible to define. I am not saying God exists or doesn't exist, I am agnostic and rational, but you cant claim to be scientific and then just completely disregard rationale... it's counter productive and so infuriatingly haughty that I couldn't resist commenting on it. Dont you realise how frustrating it is when people act like they are rational when they are forming their entire view on a false pretence? Believe what you want just try to be less childish about it.


Also you said "I think what many people miss (like Viceroy) is that essentially you cannot be right or wrong on this subject. " which made me laugh as I haven't missed that at all, that is my entire point, it is impossible to know whether we are right or wrong so it makes sense to be open regarding the issue. YOU are the one that immediately closed off your viewpoint "Not getting into this. Lets just say I disagree! ". Don't you realise how that comes across? Fredd responded with a very solid response and you batted it off like it was irrelevant, it wasn't an opinion... he was correcting your misconception.

You are basically a massive hypocrite without realising and now you have got your panties in a twist because you haven't been able to wriggle out of it and you even contradicted yourself...

Grown up? I think you have a lot of growing up to do yourself.

I'm not reading all that bollocks, you've already proven yourself to be a twat so I don't need further evidence. Keep your nose out of others conversations if you don't like the content.

 

[jimileysbaldhead]

You must log in or register to see images

" May your God go with you "

 

[Freddd]

I'd probably edge away from the teachings being only being "holy books" as teachings can take many formats. Generally though you understand mine and many others standpoint. I always find it interesting to read a scientists (particularly a physicist) thoughts on these matters. Many believe that a scientist will automatically feel religion or belief in greater beings is absolute nonsense. However what you actually find is that its a pretty even split because they understand better than anyone that our knowledge does not expand far enough to give definitive answers.

I think what many people miss (like Viceroy) is that essentially you cannot be right or wrong on this subject. you can merely choose a standpoint and then advise why you feel that way. We could pick holes in each others standpoint all day long, but can do it respectfully. And we can do it full in the knowledge that we cannot actually be wrong because nobody knows!

I'll leave you and Viceroy to settle your differences.

The point you make about the frequency of religious beleif amongst physicists because they understand just how hard the universe is to understand is interesting. My own comment would be that there is no real reason to beleive that the universe should be something we're capable of understanding.

Our brains evolved (I'm just going to treat evolution as a given) to give us a competive edge over the rest of the predators on the African savannah. As it turns out, it's not just useful for making spears, fires, tinned vegetables, etc, but can solve a lot of really tricky problems. There's no real reason to think, though, that it shoudl be able to understand everything, or that there is something particularly special about anything it can't understand.

The woodpecker's beak evolved to allow it to bore into solid tree trunks. You wouldn't expect it to be able to bore through steel, though, and you wouldn't think there's something amazing about steel just because it is impervious to the eveolutionary advantage that a woodpecker developped. In the same way, there's no reason to think our eveolutionary advantage should be all powerful or that there is something inherently mysterious about something that is too tricky for us to understand.

 

[Agent Bruce]

Sorry guys, this is a FOOTBALL forum and all the religious comments are getting out of hand.

I'm going to have to close the thread.

Apologies to everybody that made football comments.