"... it must be frustrating for the proponents of creationism to watch their best shots fall short, time after time after time.To avoid further embarrassment, I propose a solution. A simple (and not very original) test any creationist or believer in intelligent design can apply to see whether his latest 'proof' of the workings of the Divine Hand actually is proof, or just another bit of wishful thinking.The Way to Prove God Did ItWhat GDI* proponents need, if they're ever going to make any headway in this argument is something that goes like: 1. The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon... 2. This is because... (scientifically valid argument here) 3. Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Divine Fiat, because... (another scientifically valid argument here). 4. This can be tested by means of the following experiment... (Exhaustive description of experiment, including an explanation of how it addresses the problem. Note that the experiment will have to be ingeniously designed to eliminate all other explanations for the phenomenon apart from GDI). 5. If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment. 6. We ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above). 7. Therefore we conclude that GDI. 8. We invite others to assess our arguments, repeat our experiment, and verify the results for themselves.If creationists can come up with something like that, then they may expect to be taken seriously in science. So far, they're not even close. Nobody -- not one single individual among all the writhing, pullulating hordes of creationism -- ever has, so far.*God Did It"
Some of you guys may be pleased to know that this thread has in fact made me consider my faith more seriously. Like, I know in my heart that God exists (please, no smart-arse remarks on this), but asked myself: why do Christians and other religions believe what they believe about Him? So to try and answer that question I'm reading a book on basic theology.I also just finished reading 'The Year of Living Biblically' by AJ Jacobs; its a non-fiction following Jacobs' attempt to live according to the bible for 12 months - at the start he's a secular-living agnostic. I won't give away what happens incase anyone wants to read it, but I will say that I was surprised given some of his comments throughout the remainder of the book too.I am very keen to have a crack at the Dawkins book as well at some point. Will keep you posted on this.
No it won't, because if it did make perfect sense then it would already be accepted as proven fact, when it is not. Otherwise no-one in the world would even believe in God, would they? If we already knew how the existence of everything could come from nothing by completely naturalistic means? Think about it.
Ask any scientist in the world today how the existence of everything could have come from nothing, and I guarantee they will say "I don't know." or they might give some kind of theory, but it's just that, a theory, based on speculation and guesswork.
But, good on you, Flea, for questioning. I don't know what answers you will get, but it's an important thing for people to do.May you see the light! :sunnies:
pretty much everyday this idiot writes a letter to the editor, anyone else get the same thing in their local paper?
As I say, I'm not trying to read myself out of my faith. As dirtyape says, the belief in a religion is different than a belief in God. But I think its good to question what you believe. I think when you stop questioning stuff you can go stale, and I don't plan on letting that happen
Think about this; how can everything NATURAL spontaneously arise from NON-NATURAL, ie. nothing? It would have to have had the involvement of something supernatural, logically.
I've got a few crazy thoughts running around in my mind about our existence too, I was thinking the other night.. what if the universe is one gigantic science experiment, our universe is but a bubble in some huge cosmological laboratory and we are being studied by supernatural/otherwordly beings. Now that's a pretty out there idea :eek:
I've never understood where the hell this argument comes from. it is way past strawman, and so far beyond fatuous, that a new word is almost needed.
I don't care if you disagree, I probably disagree with a lot of your Nietschze-inspired beliefs
Learn to walk before you run.
I've been over them both with Psyche, but he declines to engage on them.
Definitely. The measurable universe only "exists" in that energy is not evenly distributed. if all the mass/energy in the universe was evenly distributed it would no longer exist in the sense that it would be impossible to measure ( and there'd be no-one to measure it).
Think of an infinite n-dimensional sheet...
Because of the way the big bang is described, we think of it in terms of an explosion, i.e a rapid expansion of energy from a single point. a point = 0 dimensions. That's how our brains work.
The waterwheel idea is kinda right, as long as you factor in that the waterwheel itself is made from differences in energy.The hunt for the grand unified theory of everything is fascinating. You can see conceptually how all the little bits and pieces tie in together. I can't wait till it all falls into place. I have a suspicion that once it is known it will seem almost trivial.Don't forget we're talking concepts here. Trying to find human ways to describe a reality that goes far deeper than we can see.
Einstein thought religion was childish.
Both Friedman and Lemaître had found that the universe must be expanding. Lemaître went further than Friedman, since he concluded that an initial "creation-like" event must have occurred. This is the Big Bang theory as we know it today, and this is why he is credited with its discovery.Einstein at first dismissed Friedman and then (privately) Lemaître out of hand, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory, helping both the theory and priest get fast recognition.
Most cosmologists and astrophysicists today agree that the big-bang model of the origin of the universe is accurate. Ever since Einstein published his theory of general relativity, more and more of those scientists have also acknowledged, however reluctantly, that a universe with a beginning is very strong evidence for the existence of a "beginner." After all, a beginning demands a cause. And a cause demands a being that can create the cause-perhaps an infinite being, but certainly a being beyond time and space.Einstein recognized that his theory implied a creator of some type. After Hubble demonstrated in 1929 that some 40 galaxies were indeed receding from one another as the theory predicted, Einstein begrudgingly accepted the "necessity of a beginning" and "the presence of a superior power."
"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." -- Albert Einstein
This is commonly 'spouted' by the intelligent design advocates, but in fact it is fundamentally wrong. Sounds like you're parroting Hugh Ross, who is an intelligent design lecturer and astronomer. Now, I've included astronomer because it's very important blah blah blah blah blah
The Creationist/Intelligent Design misunderstanding of the term 'theory' just serves to reflect their total estrangement from the scientific community. There is Cell Theory, which explains the structure and function of cells. Yet no one questions the existence of cells; or Atomic Theory, or Gravitational Theory, yet these are not questioned, yet Evolutionary Theory, whose evidence is just as robust, is questioned. Take the evolution of the eye, for example. As Carl Sagan said: "What is impossible in a hundred years, may be inevitable in a billion." The human eye took almost four billion years to evolve.
You have been called on this. It is concerning that in one moment you will deny your beliefs and the next try to defend them. This is an inconsistency which give me (at least) concern about the validity and sincerity of your statements.
Also, how can your be so cocksure about eternal bliss. You may well (according to the doctrine) be going to eternal damnation for your denial. That's not eternal bliss, sounds more like eternal blisters. There is no evidence that the 'soul' isn't tied into consciousness. Once we lose consciousness, the soul is essentially void.
There is a good argument about First Cause, basically that if God could have existed forever, why couldn't physical matter.
The non-supernatural assumption is far less difficult than assuming the position of a Creator (including all miracles).
The Big Bang is just one moment in the cycle of the Universe.
Through extrapolation, science can successfully describe an elemental pre-Big Bang universe.It long-winded and involves conservation of Mass-Energy which essentially illustrates that it doesn't arise ex nihilo.
Mass and Energy can both change their forms, but when all factors are considered and combined, mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed: the total amount of mass-energy in the universe remains constant. Careful empirical observations have completely confirmed this Law. Thus, the conclusion that the universe always existed, even in the singularity which became the Big Bang. Therefore the notion that the universe was created out of nothing is theological rather than scientific. The universe always existed, but as we see it today it had a 'beginning' in the Big Bang. Comprende?
As for myself, I'm not just limited to Scientific knowledge. I read widely around philosophical and religious issues as well as scientific literature. However, I consider I can discern the bullshit reasonably well, and science really is a candle in the dark!
I dont think he's learned to crawl yet
Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi
The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank.--Dante Gabriel Rossetti
If there were no God, there would be no atheists. --G.K. Chesterton
I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.--Abraham Lincoln
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. --Francis Bacon
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. - J.B. Phillips
If we were to judge nature by common sense or likelihood, we wouldn't believe the world existed. --Annie Dillard
Without God man has no reference point to define himself. 20th century philosophy manifests the chaos of man seeking to understand himself as a creature with dignity while having no reference point for that dignity. --R. C. Sproul
Even in ordinary speech we call a person unreasonable whose outlook is narrow, who is conscious of one thing only at a time, and who is consequently the prey of his own caprice, whilst we describe a person as reasonable whose outlook is comprehensive, who is capable of looking at more than one side of a question and of grasping a number of details as parts of a whole." ~ G. Dawes Hicks
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.--C.S. Lewis
A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol. --Deitrich Bonhoeffer
You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. --Napoleon Bonaparte
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior. -Vox Day
Humanism or atheism is a wonderful philosophy of life as long as you are big, strong, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five. But watch out if you are in a lifeboat and there are others who are younger, bigger, or smarter. --William Murray
Hardon Collider
Also, the ignore tool is amazing.
Sure, if you can't come up with any intelligent argument in response to someone, it is certainly easier just to ignore them.
Although it's fair to say Einstein did not believe in a "personal" God. In any case, i'm not sure why Einstein's opinions on religion should matter to anyone; they were just that, his opinions.
I have already posted a very good article in your 'Multiverse' thread that you never responded to, which explains why infinite physical matter eternally existing is impossible.
So Einstein went from having a dislike of religions, to admitting his mistakes and completely supporting and endorsing the scientific theory of a Catholic priest. What a good dude.
Recently, Richard Dawkins claimed that all life on Earth, originated from a one-cell organism that was delivered to the planet by intelligent alien beings.
Are you kidding me? 'Spouted' by Intelligent Design advocates? The fine-tuned physical constants that govern the universe is COMMON KNOWLEDGE. If anyone of those physical constants had been even a tiny bit different, no planets would exist, no stars would exist, no carbon-based lifeforms would exist (and these physical constants were around before carbon-based lifeforms probably even existed in the universe)So WHO or WHAT designed those laws?
Again you are deluding yourself. The majority of intelligent people that believe in God also accept evolution - the inventor of the Big Bang theory was a religious priest for crying out loud. The 'Father of Modern Genetics', Gregor Mendel, was a deeply religious scientist. It is not hard to accept that nature, and all natural processes including evolution may be product of God's creation. The difference is, one belief says that the evolution of the universe and life has purpose and meaning; whilst the other belief says that the universe has no meaning or purpose whatsoever.Tell me then, if the universe seems to have been designed for life to evolve and inhabit it (in the first moments of the Big Bang when the structure and uniformity of the physical constants were locked into place) - which belief is more rational? If the universe is a product of chaotic randomness with no purpose, then why is the universe itself not completely random, chaotic and unintelligible to beings like us? If there is no purpose to the existence of the universe, why does the universe bother to exist at all?
I honestly don't give a flying fuck what you think my beliefs are. I'm not currently religious, but some kind of 'supremely intelligent force or being' that set the existence of everything that encompasses physical reality into motion - is still the most plausible explanation for the existence of the universe no matter what other crazy theory you pull out of your ass to try and justify this amazing universe we live in.
First you say that there is no evidence that the soul isn't tied to consciousness, then you try to claim that once we lose consciousness the soul is void. Yup, that makes sense and I can see that you have definately thought that one out very carefully.
I have already posted a very good article in your 'Multiverse' thread that you never responded to, which explains why infinite physical matter eternally existing is impossible.We already KNOW that TIME itself began with our universe, so how the fuck could anything physical have existed eternally outside of our universe? Whatever that 'force' is that existed outside the constrains of time logically then must have been 'supernatural', not physical.
There are so many people who would disagree with you (excluding the miracles part)Ultimately, the idea of an infinite universe or a finite universe are both quite absurd. But the idea of an infinite universe or infinite set of multiverses is just signifcantly more improbable than the alternative.
Besides, it has recently been discovered that the universe is 'flat' - which made way for a new discovery, that the universe will continue expanding forever, never declining back into a "Big Crunch" or any other theory for the ultimate end of the universe. In essense, this makes your idea of an infinitely "expanding and contracting" universe impossible, sorry to say.
The Law of Conservation of Energy are physical constants that were a PRODUCT of the Big Bang, they did not exist before the Big Bang - where did you get that retarded idea from?
I'm a bit more open to some atheistic ideas these days though, I quite like the idea that if the theory of "multiverses" were true, I might get the chance to experience life on a completely different planet in a completely different universe, but unfortunately there is a ton of evidence to the contrary that I can't ignore which points out the impossibility of this "sci-fi fantasy". I have to say though, fanatical atheists like you are just a joke to me now. I can't take any of you seriously anymore - they come up with all kinds of batshit-crazy ideas about the universe, any kind of idea that excludes a Creator, no matter how absurd or implausible, simply because they do not want to admit to the very real possibilty that our universe was created.
I understand though that there are some people who just don't like the idea that our universe was created, and try to avoid it at all costs - so I don't get too bent out of shape about it anymore. I still have to have a bit of a chuckle at how utterly deluded some of them are though
Don't respond to any of my posts douchebag.
Cant ignore him. If I ignore him, he wins."the road to Auschwitz was built by hate but paved with indifference" - Sir Ian Kershaw
All this proves is that Einstein evaluated the theory on it's merits - not on it's source. What does it matter where a theory comes from unless you are in the habit of being intellectually prejudiced?
He was intelligent. People like to hear what intelligent people have to say. They tend to have informed perspectives.
Proof? Oh, that's right - who needs proof huh?
And if those constants were not valued as they are then you would not be around to ask the question of who set them.
Why is the anthropic principle so hard for religious people to grasp? The universe exists as it does because if it didn't exist this way then you would not exist either! You can only exist in a universe with these parameters.
Simple, if it didn't exist as it does you would not exist to ponder why it exists at all. The fact that you exist only proves that the universe is capable of existing in such a way that allows you to exist, nothing more.
I think you are missing something fundamental. And I think that is that you appear to think that the observable universe is actually the entire universe. You believe there is no possibility of the universe existing in any other state other than what you see around you. And therefore the universe must be intelligently designed for how else would such a cosmic coincidence occur?
If you replace the single observable universe with infinite universes of differing permutations of cosmic constants than our universe occurring becomes an inevitability.
And to think I actually constructed a "bat-shit crazy" hypothesis that adequately describes gods existence in a multi-verse model. What's more, my hypothesis is a certainty. Good thing you religious types don't like this Multi-verse stuff, as my hypothesis pretty much claims that a "god" must exist in a multi-verse.
Ummm, those two things actually correlate. If there is no proof the soul isn't tied to consciousness (i.e. the soul may be tied to consciousness) then losing consciousness would mean the soul was void.What is this soul thing anyway? Define please.
No we don't, you're making an assumption. We know that observable time begun with the universe. We know NOTHING about what occurred before that, and whether time existed or not.
And why is the idea that complex organisms cannot exist naturally unless they are created by an infinitely more complex creator is much more probable?
"Discovered" was it? As in it is an absolute fact huh? lol. Sorry I shouldn't laugh, but really dude do you think cosmologists regard such things as being absolute truths?
Scientific opinion has moved towards a flat Universe and the latest data confirm this with greater certainty than ever before. Another result of the study is the prediction that the Universe will continue its steady expansion, which started at the Big Bang, and will not collapse into a "Big Crunch". "It's a tremendously exciting result - and one that will mean rewriting the text books on the history of the Universe," said one of the research team, Professor Peter Ade at Queen Mary College, University of London. The research is published in the journal Nature and in an accompanying commentary, Wayne Hu, of the US School of Natural Sciences, New Jersey, said: "The Boomerang result supports a flat Universe. A perfectly flat Universe will keep on expanding forever, because there is not enough matter to make it recollapse in a 'Big Crunch'."The research backs the inflation theory of the Universe put forward in 1980, which suggests that the whole of the cosmos expanded from a single tiny point at the Big Bang. At that time, and for a short while after, space was curved because it was confined in a small region. However, the Universe's expansion has been so great that space has now been stretched to the point that it is essentially flat.
