Now there you go again, tossing out atheist talking points, "fill in the gaps with God." You atheists fill in the gaps with.... nothing. Nothing at all. You make up astonishing miracles to account for the Anthropic Principle. Hey, all those finely tuned constants, such as the gravitational constant, are nothing special. We're just in the "right universe" of the "multiverse." And you atheists pretend to be scientific? Really? Nothing made everything, including matter, energy, information, correspondence, elegance, beauty, love. That's not science. That's pure fantasy. How many miserable lives have been transformed, such as prisoners, who converted to Christianity and found new and much brighter lives for themselves? Many thousands if not hundreds of thousands. Now how many miserable lives have been transformed by atheism? "Oh wow, I just got out of prison after my conversion to atheism and I'm a changed man." - Who said that and when and where was it ever documented? The answer is: NEVER. http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com
But you have not the slightest problem yourself believing that all matter, energy, information, correspondence, elegance, immutable physical laws, beauty, and love came from .... nothing? Please provide scientific evidence of such a phenomenon which has actually been observed and documented. But I suspect you have no problem with the "multiverse" as an outlandish, absurd explanation for the fine tuning of physical constants? You have more faith in NOTHING than any Christian has in our Creator. You atheists relentlessly cite the Bible and attack it without answering questions on your absurd, anti-scientific claims. You ignore scientific observations which largely refute your nihilistic contentions and shout, "Bible, Bible, Bible." tsk, tsk. Unintelligent and the very fount of ignorance you deplore in all who disagree with you. Now, if you would be so kind as to explain how NOTHING established the gravitational constant, the strong force constant, the weak force constant, the electromagnetic constant, the velocity of light, the velocity of sound, and the immutable natural laws which fill physics books, everyone reading this thread will appreciate it, I assure you. And we will all be impressed with your intellectualism, which you feign by your condemnation of everyone else's ignorance.
Really? What is the Big Bang? Something from... what, exactly? Don't play your word games. Answer the question. The Big Bang from WHAT ! ! And how? The Big Bang is not a "concept," religious or otherwise. It is the reality. If you don't even know that, a discussion with you is utterly pointless, which I suspect is the case.
Unlike creationists I don't "play games". Study astrophysics and cosmology, then get back to me; otherwise a discussion would indeed be pointless. ~fini~
Oh but I have studied astrophysics and cosmology. I have corresponded with the late, eminent astronomer, Carl Sagan, have you? I critiqued several of his books and wrote to him via his publisher. In response to the points I made, showing his glaring errors, and left-wing politics, which did not belong in any science book, the best he could do was to ask me to buy his latest book. I had never bought any of them, but rather checked them out at the local library, inasmuch as I had no intention of fattening the wallet of an already very wealthy leftist agnostic. And yes, you do "play games." You play word games, as all atheists and all leftists do. You dismissed the Big Bang, or creation of something from nothing, by pretending that it is a "religious concept." I repeat, no it is reality. It is well accepted, primarily as a result of Arno Penzias' discovery of cosmic background radiation, for which he earned the Nobel Prize. Incidentally, I sold Sagan's letter on e-Bay for $75. (Voyager 2 showed that) Mars was a place. - Cosmos, page 121 For only $265,000,000 in taxpayer dollars, you learn that "Mars was a place." Sublime, no? What shall we do with Mars? If there is life on Mars, it belongs to the Martians. - page 130 "The Martians." Yes, don't take anything away from "the Martians." If we wished we could build Orion now. - page 206 Project Orion was a plan to explode hydrogen bombs against a plate of a spaceship to power it to... the stars. Sagan said we will return to the stars: "We have begun the long journey home." His was a spectacular fantasy. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars? - page 243 Do you worship the sun and the stars? Made sense to Sagan. There may be a million worlds in the Milky Way Galaxy alone that at this moment are inhabited by beings very different, and far more advanced. - page 260 On page 301,Sagan uses the Drake Equation and states that this number is not "a million worlds" but rather ~10 and as "small as 1." One, ten, a million, what are five or six orders of magnitude among pretentious Leftists. The information in the nucleus of our cells would fill a thousand volumes. - page 267 On page 57 of Pale Blue Dot, Sagan laments "much poor planning." So which is it, elegance shown in cell nuclei and astronomical spectroscopy, or "much poor planning"? Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still. - page 93 I will leave you with Sagan's most profound statement in Cosmos: "Sex was invented." - page 338 Please tell everyone WHO was the "inventor," Cosmo Kramer?
Why are you taking Sagans work to be scientific journal instead of informational novel and opinion? I read those books for entertainment and to expand imagination....Sagan was primarily an entertainer who happened to be a scientist as well. Focusing on the later to debunk it the former is disingenuous and transparent politics.
Cupid isn't using the Bible.. He's using the Amplified Bible. According to Maimonides, that the first chapters of Genesis contain stories meant to advance an understanding of universal, ethical monotheism, rather than scientific explanations for creation.
Because that's where the evidence points. And because it doesn't add the same problem one step back. If there was a God necessary for the universe to be created, where did this God come from? Where did HE get created? Folks who believe this fantasy don't have any problem with saying he always existed or he exists outside the universe, you know, whatever they have to say in order to avoid the same logic trap they just used on others. So this idea gets us nowhere because it's the same idea slightly adjusted to go along with a different set of biases and personal emotional beliefs.
If that story makes you feel important who am I to rain on your charade. But I digress; apparently you have not studied enough considering current BB theory does not suggest the universe came into being from nothing. Better luck next time. Moving on
Please stop playing the same word games your other atheist pals do by claiming "that's where the evidence points." The finely tuned physical constants are elegant evidence. They do NOT point to originating from nothing. The elegance of spectroscopy which amazed Carl Sagan did NOT point to originating from nothing. There is NOTHING in the domain of science to suggest that matter, energy, order, information, beauty, and love can all simply POP into existence. Only your fantasy can pretend such things. Only your atheist fantasy. Scientific discovery must never begin with preconceived notions, such as exclusive naturalism. Yet that is precisely the grave error you and all your cohorts make while feigning an intellectualism which so completely eludes you, but which you so vehemently and angrily claim for yourselves. tsk, tsk.
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not claim to know that there was no creator of the universe, merely that there has yet to be a shred of evidence to support such a notion. Beauty and love are NOT associated with the fundamental and immutable physical laws of nature which do not require any human involvement or understanding to exist. OTOH, beauty and lover are associated with our particular form of sapience and in my opinion at least are as motivated (created) by our underlying biological processes. No, I don't have any problem with the "multiverse" hypothesis, equally I have no problem with a variety of "creator" hypotheses. The multiverse hypothesis is a philosophical extrapolation of some pretty hairy but (so I'm told) elegant theoretical math. But, yes I do have far more faith in NOTHING than the christian et.al., concepts of a creator of the universe being directly involvement in individual human lives. Huh? My refutation of metal age scriptures are not based on "anti-science (?) but the fact that the authors were profoundly ignorant of the natural world in which they lived. Likewise the medieval architects of the vast majority of religious dogma that defines both the object of worship and the rituals and strictures associated with that worship. My perspective on the bible and other scriptures is that they contain the sum of the contemporary wisdom of their authors whilst also revealing the depth and breadth of their ignorance. The irrefutable fact is, that the supposed inerrant "word of god" was in fact written by men. As an agnostic atheist, I do not claim to "know" what came before the big bang. NOBODY does. OTOH, what we do know today is that the Big Bang explains a process and makes precise predictions which to-date have been supported by observational evidence, while also accommodating a variety of independently arrived at theories such as special relativity. As to the nature and balance of the physical forces of the universe, it isn't rocket surgery to understand that if they weren't as they are, it would be a different universe and we would certainly not exist. I believe that the precision of balancing forces within our universe is like water seeking its own level, and the process of creation was self organizing, ergo our universe's observed "elegance". Nary a god to be necessary in any of that. BTW, you seem offended that we humans are and have always been ignorant. Why is that?
That is terribly inaccurate, and you know it. You simply reject any evidence which does not support your faith... in NOTHING. The elegance of everything, inerrant natural laws, submicroscopic particles to the furthest reaches we can visualize on powerful telescopes of all kinds, energy, correspondence - all these things point to an intelligent designer, and NOT to... nothing. The "multiverse" nonsense has not a shred of evidence to commend it. Not a shred. So naturally you have "no problem with it." The Scriptures were written as historical notes, and guidelines by which we should live and worship our Creator. You refer to the "natural world" as in the naturalistic tenets of science. If knowledge confers such wisdom, as you infer, then why do modern humans continue to torture, and butcher, and hate? Shouldn't your enlightened, modern community have overcome all of these primitive behaviors? Oh yes, you atheists and agnostics have a ready answer. "Religions" are the great sin. 20th Century atheists prove you dead wrong. They tortured, starved, and murdered over 100,000,000 humans. In contrast, the Islamic terrorists have killed only a few hundred thousand, and Christians far, far fewer, notwithstanding your references to the Crusades, which took place in the 12th Century. Now please this: In the nineteenth century, Charles Bradlaugh, a prominent atheist, challenged a Christian man to debate the validity of the claims of Christianity. The Christian, Hugh Price Hughes, was an active soul-winner who worked among the poor in the slums of London. Hughes told Bradlaugh he would agree on one condition. Hughes said, “I propose to you that we each bring some concrete evidences of the validity of our beliefs in the form of men and women who have been redeemed from the lives of sin and shame by the influences of our teaching. I will bring 100 such men and women, and I challenge you to do the same.” Hughes then said that if Bradlaugh couldn’t bring 100, then he could bring 50; if he couldn’t bring 50 then he could bring 20. He finally whittled the number down to one. All Bradlaugh had to do was find one person whose life was improved by atheism and Hughes - who would bring 100 people improved by Christ - would agree to debate him. Bradlaugh withdrew!
That is TOTALLY incorrect, and you know it. Simply because you reject any and all such evidence does not and will never negate the profound volume of evidence, which many scientists and even atheists have found so compelling. More inane wordplay on your part. You reject the Bible because, you said, it was written by ignorant metal age men. Now you put your words and ideas on me. I understand completely the definition of ignorance. It's the degree of ignorance that is material, and your degree of ignorance is quite substantial. For that reason, and for your inability to generate worthwhile ideas, you must now join whoever it was that I first put on my Ignore List. ~ciao
No matter how many PhDs you have after your name, some things are fundamentally unknowable. I'll explain. The observable Universe is huge, 46 billion light years in radius. That's the distance light would travel in 46 billion years and light travels at 186,000 miles/second. Nevertheless, as vast as the Universe is, the observable parts of it, are finite. If the observable Universe is finite so is the information available to us. What does this mean? It means what happened prior to the "start" of the Universe and it's subsequent rapid inflation, is unavailable to us. The best that can be done are theoretical calculations that are model dependent. To sum up... This doesn't mean it can't be known, what it means is from the perspective of us, as observers, the information is unavailable to know, and it will always be unavailable to us...hence for all intents and purposes, from our perspective here on Earth....it's unknowable. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Excuse me? what profound volume of compelling evidence are you refering to? Perhaps you can point me to it, since I seem to be ignorant of it. No, I reject the bible as inerrant and non-factual in "explaining" the universe, the planet, the biosphere, our own existence, and the various contemporary strictures and laws of metal age societies. Of course my ignorance is more than merely "quite substantial", it is monumental as is everyone else's on the planet. However, that ignorance does not make me reject both the acquisition and application of the ever increasing body of knowledge we humans are acquiring. So, by all means run away from reality after making your unsubstantiated accusations and declarations.
WHAT EVIDENCE?!!!!! No they don't point to an intelligent designer, but in our ignorance and need to "explain the unexplainable" I can understand how some people need to believe in supernatural explanations for that ignorance. After all, its merely a continuation of the role that religion has ALWAYS played in human societies. It does point to our increasing knowledge of the complexities of reality, and our still admittedly crude understanding of most of same. I agree that there is no concrete evidence for the Multiverse. AS I mentioned it has only philosophical interpretations backed up by theoretical mathematics. It is not a scientific theory, it is merely your run of the mill theory. It cannot be falsified and to date there is no humanly possible way to test/observe the hypothesis. As a chemical engineer I would have thought you had a much better understanding of what science is and isn't. I have no problem with the Multiverse hypothesis just like I have no problem with the notion of a creator since absent a shred of hard evidence for either I have no means of ascertaining "right or wrong" - hence AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. Seems you are into logical fallacies consider the three you have utilized in the above. Neither Atheism nor Religion eliminate human nature. WE are the ALPHA PREDATORS of our biosphere. We have evolved with intrinsic bio-chemical controlled behaviors overlaid with that elusive thing we call sapience (ego?). I guess you haven't noticed that history has proven that neither atheism nor religion stop such human brutality. Atheism uses political ideology as its excuse, Religion uses "god's will" as its. As for religion being a great sin - what a crock. Yes, religion like every other damn philosophy/ideology invented by man has both positive and negative aspects. There is absolutely no doubt about that when one views the historical record of human civilization. Nothing like attempting to compare two different things - another massive fallacy at best or a total complete lack of understanding of the role of science at worst. Science can dramatically change lives in its application, but it is not in the business of individual "spiritual" redemption at all.
Yesterday, 09:00 AM Jonsa This message is hidden because Jonsa is on your ignore list. View Post Remove user from ignore list View Post Yesterday, 09:27 AM Jonsa This message is hidden because Jonsa is on your ignore list. View Post Remove user from ignore list
