I'm not sure he's ignoring the whole conversation. It's more that he doesn't accept our scientific observations and theories. Which means it's hard to debate on anything as he points out that all that we present as facts are just theories (which is right but it's the very principle of science, you can't prove anything most of the time, you just elaborate a theory describing perfectly the universe you know until something new blow it up).

But I disagree with the point you're making with faith here. Old gods were believed to be true but also "proven". At the time of ancient Greece, there was no discussion about the existence of gods, the fact that the sun goes up and down was by itself a proof, so be it for the lightning, proof of Zeus wrath.

Faith is an essential part of modern religion because people know there can't be any proof of god's existence, but it was not the case when we had limited knowledge of our world ^^

And I agree with your interpretation of thermodynamics laws. Entropy is a question of energy and order. Nothing to do with complexity. In fact how would you even define complexity?

Oooooooooooook...
Well if you go this way we can't discuss anymore ^^

Of course it's a theory, but it's a very solid one. It explains everything we know. It might not be true, in fact the whole science we know is probably wrong, but it explains everything we observe CURRENTLY.

You're actually denying the assumption that Helium and Hydrogene are fusing together in the stars. But spectroscopy allow use to know in a very precise way stars composition. And this theory may be just an assumption, but it explains EXTREMELY WELL the composition of the universe as we observe it. It explains it so well that it is now a worldwide consensus.

I have neither the time nor the energy right now to look deeper in the article you provide about another theory than fusion. You may be right. As I said, we'll probably prove that what we know is wrong in a few decades, that's the main purpose of physic sciences: to be demonstrated wrong and then go further. Maybe your theory explains better the lithium mystery I don't know.

But the theory I'm providing is without any doubt the actual consensus at the moment. So it is a proof in my point of view.
If you need another example of simple things creating something complex then just think about life and evolution: we come from monkeys (not exactly I know but you know what I mean xD), so the complex comes from the simple. Same for most chemical reaction involving fusion, or complex formation.

That's rather extreme for sure. But I don't think he deserves death (from a justice point of view). He deserves lifetime jail (real one).

Why? Because if he's guilty he will live an horrible live (I don't even want to imagine what happens to pedophiles in prison) and pay every day for his crime. And if he's innocent he'll still be alive if his innocence is ever proved.

The fact is that a dead man or a man in jail for the rest of his life both causes no threat to society. One costs some money yeah, but that's not a huge amount at all.
And you can never be "perfectly sure" that somebody is innocent. Even DNA lies sometimes you know

Ok I was a bit upset in my last post so I'll answer you in a more calm and polite manner. Sorry for my previous behaviour.

I understand what you're saying. So I have an easy example to prove you're wrong:

What are you made of? Atoms. Elements, chimical elements. Where do they come from? Stars.

How are they made? It's EXTREMELY SIMPLE! An incredible amount of mass causes a huge pressure in a star and leads Helium and Hydrogene to fuse to form more complex elements.

So here you are. It's wrong to assume that "The only way that complex things are made in the universe is that something more complex caused them to exist as they do." Everything is made from the smallest and most simple elements existing: Helium and Hydrogene.

As I said, you're confusing energy and complexity, for sure anything created contains less energy than what it's made of. That's the base of entropy. But it can be far more complex!

So as simple things can be combined in order to create complex ones, the rest of your reasonning is no longer true.

 

Ahah! Well you sure are fun =D

I hope I'll be able to meet you one day. And maybe we'll never have to choose between our two ideologies, cause it seems we don't have much in common here but our faith in a currency system not in the hands of banks

You definitely don't understand anything.
First you confuse complexity and intelligence. It has nothing to see.

"Everything we have found shows that what is produced is at least slightly, bun mostly largely, degraded from what has made it (entropy)."
Totally wrong. It just means that energy naturally splits. Again you confuse intelligence to energy but they are not linked.

"This means that not only does the universe have purpose, but it has intelligence, as well."
Wroooooooooooooooooooong...
So has we're made out of startdust, stars have intelligence? And a purpose too? Cause it's from that that we come... And as we evolved from monkeys, it means that monkeys have a purpose too?

You're not logical dude.

Whatever the dictionary, there is actually at least 4 definitions of God. Not that I can't look into a dictionary, more that I wanted HIS definition of God. And you perfectly know that. Just try to discredit me by being sarcastic.

Here is my definition for example:  a god is a supernatural being existing solely thanks to the faith of human beings.

Not your common definition no?



For me a god is a supernatural being existing solely thanks to the faith of human beings. So gods exist as long as some humans have faith in them. Not sure it's the same definition for you.

Could you define the word God?

Wil, I think you represent everything I hate in this world 

We argued a bit in the climate diniers thread, but I think definitely that people like you and me can't cohexist. We should fight until one of us is dead cause 

Approved. that's exactly what I meant by saying I'm agnostic. Saying that the question of divine existence or purpose is not answerable by humanity.

How narrow minded and false your commentary is 

Here is a small link to understand how wrong you are: http://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if-the-worlds-population-lived-like/

Problem is just the way of life, not the number of humans. The "low IQs people" as you say, are the only one correctly managing Earth resources, while your incredibly intelligent Americans are consuming 4 times the resources the Earth can provide.

Stop blaming the others for your own incapacity to live in a sustainable way buddy. Assume the fact that you're killing the world in which your children will have to live, you'll be responsible for it, not the Africans.

Wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooong!!!

That's just the shit that the "American dream" wants you to believe.

Go to Forbes list of 500 richest people and look a bit. Yes there is bill gates. He's the first one. Great. Ellison and Slim too ok.
Now look at the others: most of them are from a rather rich family. That doesn't mean they did nothing, that just means that the richest families continue to become richer and richer.

Because you're living on the same world than me... Which means your beliefs potentially have an impact (and may have a strong one) on me.

So everything in the Bible must be followed?

I'd just like to ask a question:

What would happen if there was like 1000 people in a room, 1 of them has a tremendous amount of food, 10 of them have enough food to it as they wish and the rest of them are starving?

Well the rest of the people would kill the one with so much food and eat as much as they want.

Why aren't we doing it in our word? The difference between what I said and our world is that it's like a huge room with 7 billions people from which 1 billion has just enough to eat to live correctly and 6 billions have nothing they can rely to. While a few hundreds people have so much we can't even see them belong what they possess.

It would be time to remind them that they "possess" nothing. Not if the rest of the world wants or need it.

Well, as I said, it would be the same thing in case one's life was the only one. Because if there is only one human in the universe, if the universe has no purpose then the purpose of the human is the only purpose in the whole universe. So it's rather identical to it being the purpose of the universe.

But with 7 billion souls in the world, it's another story...

I suppose it's a rhetorical question if you have the slightest knowledge of what happened in Europe only few centuries ago, or what's currently happening with islamist extremists in Europe 

I may be wrong but I think he's saying that's a law of God, so that there is no hate in his speech, it's just that it is as it is. In his point of view, you can't even think about discussing a law written by God. So he doesn't hate atheists, but they should all be killed.

Dude! What's your religion? I want the same! Eternity of sex and alcohol! That's what I call paradise ^^

Nope, because the one side being annihilated will still be able to annihilate the other side. That's the main point of the nuclear submarines. They can stay under water for months if not for years and launch hundreds of nuclear bombs every where on the planet, no matter the good or bad shape of the side owning the submarines!