Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on August 9, 2011 at 9:36pm

Im curious is your Doctorate in sanitation?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on August 9, 2011 at 3:14am

the universe is still referred to as infinite

No it isn't. I don't think I have ever heard that coming from any reputable source.

 

If the universe was created by an explosion of some object, and everything was created by that object, then that object would be everywhere and still exist.

I don't think I understand you here... If you detonate a hand grenade, the hand grenade is not "everywhere". Also, we are not sure if there was an explosion or not. The big bang theory is rather poorly named in that it currently only indicates a rapid expansion after a certain length of time... before that time, no one is claiming to know what happened.

 

An evolutionist by definition does not beleive in creation.

Actually, evolution says nothing about the creation of life from non-life(either by natural or supernatural means). So no, your definition of evolutionist is wrong. Evolution only explains how changes can lead to speciation.

 

It has also been all but proven that the stages of the creation of universe happened in the same order as they did in the story of creation.

I'm sorry, I'm not so sure about that... lets take a look at the order of creation in the bible:

Earth and "heavens", light, the firmament(?), plants, sun and moon and stars, living beings(animal), people(not Adam and Eve). 

I'm sorry but that is not the "proven" order of how the universe was created. I'll point out the first point and let other people do the rest. Age of the universe: 13.5 to 14.5 billion years. Age of the Earth: 4 to 4.5 billion years. In order for the earth to be composed of more than just hydrogen, stars MUST of been present before the earth formed in order to build these other molecules using fusion. Therefore: stars and light were created before the Earth. Bible does not accurately depict the beginnings of the universe.

 

On Adam and Eve... Been proven wrong, right?

It also hasn't been proven right. If I say there is a teapot orbiting the sun, midway between the earth and mars, you would reject that because there is no evidence of it. Similarly, I reject your implicit assertion that Adam and Eve existed because they have not been proven to not exist.

 

How exactly did it happen that before modern science, anyone was able to accurately portray the order of events in the creation of the universe?

As shown above, they didn't accurately portray the order of events in the creation of the universe...they got it totally wrong.

 

God? I believe so... 
Aliens? Maybe...

Aliens are more probably than God. Why? Life has started at least once in our observation(us and the rest of life on earth) so it is not unreasonable to assume it might happen elsewhere also. On the other hand, there is no evidence of any gods existing, so it is reasonable to assume that none exist.

 

This is all you hope for?

Hope has nothing to do with it. If I got what I hoped for then Heaven would be full of consequence free pleasures like drugs, sex, and high speed internet. But alas, hope has nothing to do with what exists. I believe what I believe because the evidence has lead me to that belief.

 

There is also another possibility...

I hope you are not saying that each possibility has an equal chance of being correct? I think you are more sensible than that so I won't even comment on it. However, I still don't understand why you have chosen Christianity rather than some other religion. Is it because you read the bible and found it to describe the universe better than other religious texts? I have heard the Quran contains no contradictions, wouldn't that mean it makes more sense than the bible? Also, why do you feel the need to just accept one of the existing answers. What is wrong with saying "I don't know"? you have already done it for some things.

 

No mans belief's are anymore open for ridicule and being called myth and fantasy until SOMEONE proves beyond ALL (not reasonable, But all) doubt that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I have two things to say here. First, I disagree, I think reasonable doubt is cause enough to dismiss something as fantasy, at least until it is no longer reasonably doubted. Second, if you believe in the Christian God, does that mean a Muslim's beliefs are not valid? Why? If they are valid because you do not KNOW beyond ALL doubt that your god is real, then you are infact an agnostic theist.

 

I am afraid we may have different definitions of Atheists and Agnostics. I won't go over it again here as it appears that Stephen may of already discussed this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max Powers on August 9, 2011 at 11:31am

I have always found the notion of heaven to be quite contradictory, the thought that when one dies, we are given what we want. What if we wanted heaven to cease to exist, should we reach such a place, would it simply stop existing because that is what my ideal heaven would constitute? A heaven free afterlife!?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on August 9, 2011 at 7:48pm

What if Hitler went to heaven and wanted all the non-Aryan people to go to hell? Quite contradictory indeed, although if God is indeed all-powerful, he could make it work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on August 9, 2011 at 7:49pm

Liam got a hefty dose of atheist attitude the other day on another thread, we promised we would behave when he came back.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on August 9, 2011 at 3:18am

I believe there is a God. I Believe that he created everything.

but you have no evidence of this. so...

 

I believe atheists believe that the universe created itself.

then that's the second thing you believe that's not true (that there is a god being the first).

how can the universe create itself? it has either always existed or was created out of nothing (see Lawrence Krauss) or out of chaos (see Sean Carroll, Anthony Aguirre, and Matt Johnson) or perhaps along the lines of one of the multiverse hypotheses- Chaotic Inflation, or Smolin Selection.

 

I also believe that agnostics are to lazy and/or mentally unequipped to believe in anything no matter what. I therefore have no interest in dealing with agnostics.

alright. i disagree with you. but. alright.

 

Quantum mechanics allow for a universe to spontaneously create itself.

no it doesn't. who told you that? where are you getting your information from?

QM stipulates that quantum fluctuations in the vacuum energy of "nothing" can give rise to universes. for a universe to create itself it must already exist before it can cause itself to exist. this makes ZERO sense. again, where are you getting these notions from?

 

It also requires that that everything can be measured.

i'm not sure what you mean when you say that QM "requires" that everything be measured. are you saying we're required to actually measure it? or are you saying that QM requires that we be able to measure it in principle? cite your sources. anyway, if the first, that we may lack the technology to actually measure the universe doesn't mean that we can't in principle do so. and, since there's no reason to think that we can't measure the universe in principle...

it hardly matters though. when cosmologists refer to the universe as "infinite" they mean infinite not in the conversational sense of going on forever, they mean it in the physical sense (meaning of or having to do with physics) of being finite but unbounded.

the universe can be measured. objects whose light left 13.7 billion years ago and began traveling to us are now about 46.5 billion light years distant. this marks the boundary of the observable universe. the unobservable universe, the space beyond the light horizon, is at least 10 to the 10^30 times the size of the observable universe. that means 46.5 billion light years X 10^(10^30). this brings up another important meaning of the word "infinite" in physics. physicists use the symbol ∞ to stand in for "a very large number" and so in that sense the size of the unobservable universe can be referred to as infinite with no problem.

 

 

If the universe was created by an explosion of some object, and everything was created by that object, then that object would be everywhere and still exist.

i have to again ask where you're getting these notions.

no "object" "exploded" the Big Bang was an expansion from a infinitely dense infinitely small but non-zero point. this is not properly called an object and nor did anything explode in the sense of a supernova explosion and certainly not the way a firecracker explodes.

anyway, the most recent research suggests that the Big Bang was an evolutionary step in the universe, that nothing was created at that point. again, the most recent research suggests that something came before the Big Bang. we just can't "see" beyond that point right now because our understanding of physics doesn't penetrate beyond the Plank time. 

 

One of the first things people from religious families learn as children is "God is everywhere".
If god created the universe, and god is everywhere... And Something exploded and created the universe, and its everywhere... Whats the difference?

well. IF something exploded (it didn't) and created the universe then this would be something we would have evidence for. this would be night and day next to "god", something for which we have zero evidence. so, what would be the difference? you'd be violating Occam's Razor. why posit a god when our naturalistic account of the universe works just fine without god?

 

On to creationism. I am NOT a creationist. A creationist by definition does not believe in evolution. Only an idiot would not believe in something so logical and probable... almost proven even.

and yet while accepting the evidence for evolution you deny the evidence from physics and cosmology that undermine your faith in god. but perhaps you're just unaware of this evidence. that certainly seems to be the case judging by the notions you have of physics and cosmology.

 

On the other hand, I also am not an evolutionist. An evolutionist by definition does not beleive in creation.

this is just false. there are plenty of theistic evolutionists. indeed, since most people on the planet are theists of some stripe and most accept the evidence for evolution, most people are theistic evolutionists. they accept that evolution occurs but believe that god ultimately created the universe, they have a belief in creation.

 

The story of creation says that god created the world in 7 days. That has been proven wrong.
It has also been all but proven that the stages of the creation of universe happened in the same order as they did in the story of creation.

again i have to ask where you're getting these notions from. but i also have to ask if you've actually read Genesis before. you're really prepared to assert that science has "all but proven" that earth was created before light, that the stars were created after Earth, that vegetation on land existed before animals in the sea, etc.? no. this is what Genesis would read like if it had been written and/or inspired by a transcendent creator deity.

 

On Adam and Eve... Been proven wrong, right? No.... It hasn't

are you serious?

 

In the story of creation, God created man and woman on the sixth day. "Man and Women he created THEM" it says.
Then he rested on the seventh.
Then... Chapter two... He creates Adam and eve.

this is false. you need to study the bible as more than an exercise in apologetics. i recommend Richard Elliot Friedman's Who Wrote The Bible? for a great expostion of the Documentary Hypothesis (sometimes called the JEDP Hypothesis

the two stories are indeed of the same thing, they're just from two of the four sources that make up the Pentateuch. the editors threw the two versions of the story together, adding bits here and there in order to make it flow better (not flow "well" because it still doesn't flow. the changes are often abrupt and jarring). an example of how it works can be seen here in the two flood stories. which leads me to point out that there isn't just one "doublet" (that's what the twin versions of the stories are called by scholars), there are many. from the link above, and taken from Friedman's book, in addition to the two creation stories:

"There are three stories of a patriarch traveling among pagans and pretending his wife is his sister. There are two stories of Moses striking a rock to produce water. There are two versions of the Ten Commandments (one in Exodus, one that Moses recaps in Deuteronomy) with slightly different wording. There are, in fact, a lot of these doublets."

 

So why does it repeat itself here? The only logical conclusion is that these are two separate incidents.

'fraid not...

 

Next piece of biblical evidence... After Adam and Eve were banished, they and their sons went to a place called Nod... Where Cain took a wife. Did he marry his sister? No... He married one of the woman or decedents of the first creation of man and woman. That section of the bible is not real clear on specific timelines....

you're citing as biblical evidence something that isn't actually in the bible at all and that you admit the bible isn't clear on? please point to a chapter and verse that says that Cain married "one of the women or the descendents of the first creation of man and woman." you're creating a bible all your own where the story doesn't say what you'd like it to.

 

How exactly did it happen that before modern science, anyone was able to accurately portray the order of events in the creation of the universe? Either they were damn good at guessing, or someone told them.

or, as we've seen, it's not an accurate portrayal at all.

 

Why Do I believe its god?

i haven't the foggiest idea. i was hoping you would give me a good reason, but, with all due respect to you as a fellow human animal, you don't seem to have any to be honest.

 

Think about the life of an agnostic. Never really believing in anything.

what? agnostics believe in plenty of things. they believe in love and honor and friendship and charity and kindness and the value of family and all sorts of other things. they just don't believe in god.

do you believe in extraterrestrials?

"Think about the life of an agnostic [on the question of extraterrestrial life]. Never really believing in anything. "Could be [true]... [Maybe not]... and until there is proof... I'm gonna ride the fence" They live in this piss-hole of a world and believe that it is everything there is. Who the hell wants THIS to be it?" why is rational skepticism so abhorrent to you when it comes to your unevidenced god but perfectly fine when it comes to other questions?

 

Now the Atheists. They have thought about it. They have picked a side. they believe something without tangible evidence... Just like Religious people.

what? maybe that's a typo (it is late after all). i read you a saying that atheists BELIEVE something without tangible evidence. what is it that you think that someone who doesn't believe in gods believes without tangible evidence? an atheist is an atheist because they find the evidence lacking. you don't seem to have an understanding of the burden of proof.

if i were to assert that my arm is made of green cheese you'd take one look and say that it appeared to be made of flesh, bone, and blood. it would be absurd of me to say that you were believing in something without tangible evidence insofar as you rejected my assertion that my arm is made of green cheese. it would be up to me to provide evidence of my assertion. and until such time as i could, it would be perfectly right and rational for you to withhold belief that what i assert has anything in common with objective reality. surely you can see this. indeed, you do the same thing with the claims of other religions. why is it that you withhold belief regarding the claims of Islam or Mormonism? it's because they have no evidence that would lead you to accept their claims. so why is it that it is right and proper for you to do this and it's wrong for me and those like me to do this with regard to your religion? simply because it's your religion? that's called special pleading. you're maintaining a double standard.

 

We have decided that there is a God of some sort or anther

you do so without evidence.

 

We believe that there is an afterlife.

you do so without evidence

 

We believe that if we behave, believe, and show our faith by our acts, we will be eternally rewarded with never ending happiness.

you do so without evidence

 

To close... I could be wrong. There could be no after life. this crap-hole could be it. I could be wasting me time. The Atheists could be right.... And y'all know what? You can be pleased for eternity while the worms eat your face.

I could also very well be right. At which point.... Sucks to be you bru...

all this talk about "could" be right. i don't care about "could", what difference does it make whether it is possible you're right? what matters is whether it's probable you're right. and we have no reason to think what you believe is at all probable.

 

There is also another possibility... I could be right, but have chosen the wrong religion... At which point, guess I'll see you in hell.

you don't see it do you? since there are thousands of gods out there and thousands of religions, you've almost certainly chosen wrong and even if there is a god, you're going to that god's hell.

since none of you faithful have any way to adjudicate the claims you make, eschewing evidence as you do, then you have no way to claim that any of your faiths is more probable than another.

 

No mans belief's are anymore open for ridicule and being called myth and fantasy until SOMEONE proves beyond ALL (not reasonable, But all) doubt that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

but that means that you're due the same ridicule that you heap upon atheists and agnostics, by your own admission you are.

anyway, this is just not how it works. proofs in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt are the purview of mathematicians. the rest of us go by shadings of probability. and you do too. otherwise what leads you to the claim that your religion is true whereas all the other religions plus atheism are false?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brandon Hale on August 9, 2011 at 3:26am

It has also been all but proven that the stages of the creation of universe happened in the same order as they did in the story of creation.
So scrap the word "day" and change it for "stage". Guess what... Its accurate according to science.

I need to see some sort of reference for this.  In all my years of studying science, I have never heard science agreeing/supporting the sequence of creation given in the Bible.  [1. Create Universe (mainly just the Earth and empty space) and creating light; 2. ??? 3. Suddenly: land... suddenly vegetation; 4. The Sun, the moon, and all other stars+planets in the universe; 5. Birds and sea critters; 6. animals+human overlords.]

 

Before I get to what science actually deems accurate,  I want to address the glaring logical impossibilities.  Light was created before the sources that emit the photons for light were created (stars/"the Sun").  Light could not be present without something to emit the photons, thus this cannot be accurate simply by logic alone. Another, problem is day/"stage" 2.  I do not even know what the Bible is saying here:

 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” ⁷ So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. ⁸ God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

 

I know the water below is talking about the oceans, lakes, etc, but what is the "water above [the vault]"?  {vault==sky}  I have heard nothing about any water "above the sky"; perhaps the tribesmen wrote that to explain the blue color of the sky. 

 

That brings me to What science really says about creation.and the origins of life.

 

None of that even faintly resembles the story of creation.  So, I would definitely like to see your source that tells you the creation is "accurate according to science."

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on August 9, 2011 at 5:14am

What bible are you reading?

Skeptics Annotated bible calls it a "Firmament"

Just for interest's sake: the LOLcat bible calls it a ceiling (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher Phelps on August 9, 2011 at 4:48am

I really liked what you had to say but Stephen hawking has explained with great detail that there was no object for a big bang there was simply nothing. Simply think of the nothing as a black whole the black whole that we know today is a star imploding in itself causing a gravitational pull that not even light can escape. Nothing is faster than the speed of light. When entered into a black whole it will actually stop time. Also think of a man wanting to build a hill out of flat land he must take out of the land to make the hill the universe is the same way there are both an equally large amount of positive and negative particles in space therefore space is equal to zero which means that it all equals out to nothing also think of a coffee u can't really have a cup of coffee made already for u u have to make it yourself first with the coffee beans then water and maybe even some milk and sugar but if u was to travel to the atomic level and down to to the sub atomic level you enter a world where things are popping into existence out of nothing. So with all that in mind back to the begining where we have a black whole if u have no time before the big bang then how can u have time to create a whole universe in 7 days? Also with the coffee thing and the hill if there was nothing in existence and things can be made out of nothing then the possibility of there being a god creating the universe is not a reliable answer which also means there would be no heaven or afterlife either. It makes me want to appreciate my life that I have now a little more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher Phelps on August 9, 2011 at 5:09am

Im simply talking about m theory

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher Phelps on August 9, 2011 at 5:27am

Yeah but u do have to agree that Stephen hawking does make a pretty valid point.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on August 9, 2011 at 9:56am

Well, Stephen, Matt and Nelson has pretty much covered most of what I wanted to say, so I won’t fill this thread up with repeating loops, but I did want to add my 2 cents on a couple of matters:

1-I wholeheartedly disagree with your view of Agnostics and Atheists (the three above explained it ever so well).

2-The bible and science proving the same story notion… again, not sure how you came to this conclusion.

3- I too am having difficulty understanding how you cannot be a creationist.  As I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) you just don’t seem to believe in the Intelligent Design Theory to explain how life got to the point of where it is today.  You can still be a creationist and believe in evolution, The Who and the How argument, God created everything and Evolution was the tool he used to accomplish it.  But then that also rips holes in the bible’s story, but people have tried to make modern understanding and ancient text coincide with each other (which I also don’t buy, but that’s a whole other debate).  Ultimately you still believe a god created everything, not on the same wavelength of ID followers, but still in a creator none the less.

4- The last comment I wanted to make was a reply to this statement:

“Why Do I believe its god?
Think about the life of an agnostic. … They live in this piss-hole of a world and believe that it is everything there is. Who the hell wants THIS to be it?

Now the Atheists. … they also believe this is it... Same goes... Honestly... This is all you hope for?”

It has nothing to do with wanting or hoping this to be our only life, it has to do with accepting the facts as they are and coping with them.  The fact that you used the word “want” as if you have a choice in how things would be, tells me that part of you (perhaps even subconsciously) is still trying to cope with the possibility that yes, this is it, we get at an average of 70ish years if we’re lucky and then the worms eat our faces.   The whole point of religion is to want a better existence after this one ends.  Our strongest instinct is for survival, so is it so strange to assume that base primal instinct also governs our thoughts?  That the fear of death and/or the need to survive is so strong that we trick ourselves into buying into a story that would grant us eternal happiness (which Christian heaven also sucks ass, check out my blog to hear my opinion on that matter)?  Atheists simply accept the reality that this is it, after we die that’s all, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.  Sure we would all want to believe that there is a Happy Land in the sky and know that we will be happy forever… but there is no evidence to support the fact.  And continuing with this line of thinking, we would much rather live the life that we are certain we will experience to the fullest, rather than limit and restrict ourselves from enjoying and living a life that a holy text deems wrong, when it makes no sense to abstain from them (as long as your actions hurt no one). 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page