Theists and atheists ( P.S.)

[Deavonreye]

Then what caused it?

If you don't know it is safe to assume that something created and there cannot be an unending stream of causes...

It is a scientific fact that time is an aspect of this physical universe, so time had to begin just like this universe did, If you assume it has always been this way forever that is the farce



if it has a cause, then it has a causer, also before the universe began science says there was not any nature to produce a natural cause

They are speculating. Not having the ability to test for their speculation, . . . I would not call it "gospel". In time, they may figure it out.

 

[jasoncran]

They are speculating. Not having the ability to test for their speculation, . . . I would not call it "gospel". In time, they may figure it out.

oats might i suggest joining spaceport? theres some really friendly agnostics there and they will walk through the theories .

they have stated what deavonrye says the bbt doesnt deny nor disprove God, the origins of the bbt are just that speculation. the bbt assumes that the laws of the universe were already in place.

the agnostics there thought they offended me when i stopped asking questions as we had a troll there pushing the electric universe theory and i commented that i wanted to learn the bbt and also went into your concerns and i also talked about what i beleived and that while i am a creationist and also dont buy the bbt. i wanted to learn it and i was limited on the knowledge of physics and the chemistry parts of science. they then assured me no problems

pm pguy on this matter. he is a mod there.

 

[Oats]

oats might i suggest joining spaceport? theres some really friendly agnostics there and they will walk through the theories .

they have stated what deavonrye says the bbt doesnt deny nor disprove God, the origins of the bbt are just that speculation. the bbt assumes that the laws of the universe were already in place.

the agnostics there thought they offended me when i stopped asking questions as we had a troll there pushing the electric universe theory and i commented that i wanted to learn the bbt and also went into your concerns and i also talked about what i beleived and that while i am a creationist and also dont buy the bbt. i wanted to learn it and i was limited on the knowledge of physics and the chemistry parts of science. they then assured me no problems

pm pguy on this matter. he is a mod there.

believe it or not, contrary to popular belief, wouldn't you know, that I have indeed researched this and come to a conclusion on the BBT

but we could always use more wisdom

BBT according to the laws of nature as we know it is intrinsically impossible...

 

[jasoncran]

believe it or not, contrary to popular belief, wouldn't you know, that I have indeed researched this and come to a conclusion on the BBT

but we could always use more wisdom

BBT according to the laws of nature as we know it is intrinsically impossible...

way off topic i agree but.. there at present a viable replacment theory according to science . one could look at the studies and learn at least what the results and conclusions are and that the studies say

for instances its all plausiable(neither the theist or athiest"knows") that the galaxies came this ,as we werent there to record.

ie we do know that enegery in mass effects molecues and forms isotopes and makes heavier elements. we see this in nuclear fission and or fusion. and the particle acclerators verify this. where science oversteps this is where all the energy comes from and how that was made and its assumed that via uniformatarism or such like that it was alway so. meaning like we know each of hade a mother and father all the way back to the first couple.

that in a nut shell is what the bbt says, the problem here is this, the universe is a closed system and also sooner or later the universe must die out as in the energy will disapate. so if we have bazillion stars and they die out and form smaller stars..how much energy did we have in the first place?

more questions ok.lovely.

back to the topic. sorry.

 

[Mike S]

Not entirely. We have discovered a natural explaination for everything else, so it will just take a matter of time for scientists to make the breakthrough.

Ah, a man of confidence in unproven ideas, but I guess that isn’t faith?

I have a great respect for science; it’s a very powerful tool for learning about the world we live in. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have spent tuition money educating my kids with degrees in science. But science doesn’t, and can’t, explain everything there is to know. Faith, as well as science, is required to understan the world, and, in fact science is itself based on faith.

You have respect for men of science, so I’ll let such a man explain it: Dr. Paul Davis, Ph.D, professor of theoretical physics and cosmology, Arizona State University.


Taking Science on Faith, New York Times, November 24, 2007

SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.<O</O<O</O<O</O

 

[Deavonreye]

mark, . . . whereas that is an interesting quote, I would be interested to see if his statement was taken out of context. It has happened before, a creationist claiming that some scientist made it appear that he was saying one thing, but parts after being left out that revealed the whole story.

To that I would say, of those things that science theorizes on, they don't say that it DID occur [or does occur]. And though they may "take it on faith" ["faith" for lack of a better word, though NOT the same as religious faith], the difference is that the things we know of have NATURAL explainations. Religion can't even produce one bit of evidence that their specific god actually exists.

 

[Mike S]

mark, . . . whereas that is an interesting quote, I would be interested to see if his statement was taken out of context. It has happened before, a creationist claiming that some scientist made it appear that he was saying one thing, but parts after being left out that revealed the whole story.

The article is linked, and it's easy enough to research Dr. Davis.

To that I would say, of those things that science theorizes on, they don't say that it DID occur [or does occur]. And though they may "take it on faith" ["faith" for lack of a better word, though NOT the same as religious faith], the difference is that the things we know of have NATURAL explainations. Religion can't even produce one bit of evidence that their specific god actually exists.

Faith is the belief in something unseen or unproven. How do you see faith in creation having come from a transcendent intelligence, and faith that creation could not have come from a transcendent intelligence, as being different kinds of faith?

 

[Deavonreye]

Because we don't have any clear examples of successful tests FOR "a transcendent intelligence". It is just another opinion. Where the difference is, . . . . where there was ONCE a belief that "a transcendent intelligence was behind a force", it was later discovered to have a naturalistic cause. Again, going back to the case of lightning.

It COULD be the case that life always existed in one form or another. If we can see an "infinite future", then one should also consider an "infinite past" as well.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

As I asked in my last post, what then would be the cause of the inanimate or non-life? Didn't the very material (matter) have to have come from somewhere? And would it not have also had to have come about at some time?

 

[WIP]

It’s futile….utterly futile. “Give me proof, signs, and evidence,” we cry, “that I can touch, smell, see, and hear or I will refuse to believe.” The evidence has been presented. It stood, walked, slept, hurt, laughed, cried, talked, prayed, and sang with us and yet how many times did He use phrases like, “Ye of little faith” and “How long must I remain with you?” It’s no wonder Jesus got so frustrated.
<O</O
At one point he said a man could be raised from the dead and we would not believe. Well, a man WAS raised from the dead and in fact multiple people were raised and we continue to doubt? He fulfilled hundreds of pre-told prophesy, walked on water, healed the sick and crippled by mere touch or proclamation, rid the possessed of demons, repaired damaged and deformed body parts and functionality, raised the dead, controlled the weather, brought life and death to living plants with just a spoken word, predicted His own death and resurrection, and then proved it to perfection and we still refuse to believe.
<O</O
There is nothing to be gained by arguing with non-believers. We can lead them to the water of life but until they drink they remain dead. Some people are just so bull-headed, hard-hearted, and closed minded that they refuse to believe even when the evidence they seek is laid at their feet.

 

[Mike S]

It’s futile….utterly futile. “Give me proof, signs, and evidence,” we cry, “that I can touch, smell, see, and hear or I will refuse to believe.” The evidence has been presented. It stood, walked, slept, hurt, laughed, cried, talked, prayed, and sang with us and yet how many times did He use phrases like, “Ye of little faith” and “How long must I remain with you?” It’s no wonder Jesus got so frustrated.
<O</O
At one point he said a man could be raised from the dead and we would not believe. Well, a man WAS raised from the dead and in fact multiple people were raised and we continue to doubt? He fulfilled hundreds of pre-told prophesy, walked on water, healed the sick and crippled by mere touch or proclamation, rid the possessed of demons, repaired damaged and deformed body parts and functionality, raised the dead, controlled the weather, brought life and death to living plants with just a spoken word, predicted His own death and resurrection, and then proved it to perfection and we still refuse to believe.
<O</O
There is nothing to be gained by arguing with non-believers. We can lead them to the water of life but until they drink they remain dead. Some people are just so bull-headed, hard-hearted, and closed minded that they refuse to believe even when the evidence they seek is laid at their feet.

We've demostrated over and over again that we respect science, but are also people of faith. The opposing view is a rock-solid belief that faith self-evidently has no value, so why even consider it as valid. Who are the dogmatic, closed-minded ones here? I doubt that anywhere in human history could we find a more strident and narrow-minded assumption of superiority.

We apparently now have a class of folks completely dismissive of the millions of men and women who come before, completely dismissive of the mix of faith, and reason, and science that's given us the level of understanding we have. A class who, of course, is far more enlightened and intellectually brilliant than the hundreds of thousand of folks who have been, and still are, both men of science and men of faith. To these, everything contrary to their views MUST have been taken out of context or are the mindless musings of foolish. superstitious children.

Such is the generation of self-righteous dilitants we've raised.

As an exemple of such closed-mindedness, consider the quote of Nobel laureate George Wald. He recognizes and admits that there are only two possibilites for creation: spontaneous generation, and supernatural act of God. He tells us spontaneous generation has been scientifically proven to be impossible, but his refusal to even contemplate the existence of God leads him to accept that impossibility for creation. An inpenitrable stone wall right there in the center of his thinking.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954.
​

 

[jasoncran]

As I asked in my last post, what then would be the cause of the inanimate or non-life? Didn't the very material (matter) have to have come from somewhere? And would it not have also had to have come about at some time?

the current conjecture is that a metorite brought proto-cells or such like to the earth. again proto-cells and how did that material feed? hmm i will ask when i feel up to it on spaceport. i'm still learning the bbt.

 

[Sam21]

mark, . . . whereas that is an interesting quote, I would be interested to see if his statement was taken out of context. It has happened before, a creationist claiming that some scientist made it appear that he was saying one thing, but parts after being left out that revealed the whole story.

To that I would say, of those things that science theorizes on, they don't say that it DID occur [or does occur]. And though they may "take it on faith" ["faith" for lack of a better word, though NOT the same as religious faith], the difference is that the things we know of have NATURAL explainations. Religion can't even produce one bit of evidence that their specific god actually exists.

Religion cannot prove that God exists, if there is a God He obviously will not allow Himself to be found by the scientific method. I believe in God because God has made Himself known to me. When I was about five years of age I was gazing into the most beautiful sunset I had ever seen and I suddenly became aware that there was a person who seem to be in the sunset and He was looking at me. I realized that I had a choice to turn to the person or away and I chose to turn toward the person, when I made that choice there was an instant connection and I heard myself saying,"why am I here", the person said back to me,"you do not know now but you will know later". That was the first experience I had with God. God also talked to me years later at my salvation experience at 14 years of age, so I believe in God because God has revealed Himself to me many many times, so in a way it is not faith with me, I believe because of personal evidence.

 

[Deavonreye]

Do the rest of you see that dead horse laying there??

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

the current conjecture is that a metorite brought proto-cells or such like to the earth. again proto-cells and how did that material feed? hmm i will ask when i feel up to it on spaceport. i'm still learning the bbt.

I'm not just talking about the beginning of life or the beginnning of Earth. I'm asking about the beginning of the fundemental base elements that would supposedly eventually lead to the developmennt of the universe.

 

[Sparkey]

Do the rest of you see that dead horse laying there??

"Hurry, Martha!" he bellows, "Get my whip!" "I wanna take a shot too."

Martha, aware of her good husband's tendencies, simply shrugs her shoulders and continues to stare at the shadows on the cave wall. "Sparrow, dear? What were you trying to say earlier, I didn't quite get it." [she kept her thoughts to herself] . o O (( "Get my whip indeed! Like you could do anything to beat that dead horse more so than others already have..." ))

Chained Sparrow: "Huh? About what, hon? Oh! You want me to talk more about the light, right?"

Free'd Martha: "Yes, dear - speak of the light, please. I love to hear how your voice echoes off the wall."
_________________________________________

Sparrow could be heard to take a deep breath, pause and say...

Wisdom is seeing through facts. The other day, while walking around outside the cave, I heard a stranger say, "My life doesn't make much sense... things don't seem to mean very much." It seemed to me that he was still a prisoner of the cave even though his feet felt the grass and his skin the warmth of the sun. He too wondered at meaning. Both the free and the confined wonder and try to apprehend. Each try to discover the "truth" of things.

My point is simply this: Both must agree that in order to see behind the fact to the meaning, there must be something to see behind it all. The mere attempt to discover meaning supports the idea that there is something that all strive for. When we examine facts it is for the express purpose of penetrating to the underlying laws and patterns. We each try in our own ways to discover the context and that attempt serves as support of the idea that context exists.

Consider, if you will, that when we look at the cave wall and that is our only experience -- and THERE! an owl flies behind us. We hear the echo of its screech before the shadow is seen, our wisest men have learned to predict the next shadowy shape and then to confirm their wisdom we see the shadow of the bird in flight. They have demonstrated their ability to detemine meaning! But let me ask you, can cave dwellers understand that the Owl is a symbol of wisdom more so than the previous shadow?

Martha: "No, certainly not, dear."

Do you think any of them would understand me if I said, "The owl has flown," meaning that their wisdom is gone?

Martha: "No, dear. You are right, of course."

The search and the journey means that there is something that can be found, there is a destination. Does it matter that we have not yet arrived?​

 

[jasoncran]

I'm not just talking about the beginning of life or the beginnning of Earth. I'm asking about the beginning of the fundemental base elements that would supposedly eventually lead to the developmennt of the universe.

that would be in the bbt and that is he,h and li, the rest came when stars formed(stellar nuclearosynthesis) of course those three elements were hit be energy to former elements heavy enough to about iron. then the rest has been formed by again supernovas. the problem is how did the heavier then iron elements form. and where did that energy come from?

 

[Sparkey]

Jason, do you not see that theories like these (formation of matter within stars) are tested by their predictive powers? Consider the "proof" for dark matter. Those who write the unobserved out of the equation as preposterous look at stuff, think about it, formulate hypothesis and then test the guess. When physicist finds "proof" --> it is in the form of a law or theory that "works" in that it explains stuff better than other thoughts and concepts. It sounds reasonable, right?

But what about unexplained phenomena?

The process is complex enough that the average person can not understand it but when we get into areas where things should be intuitive is where things get really interesting. For instance, we could reasonable expect that the stars at the outer part of spiraling galaxies would travel around the central "hub" of the galaxy in a way that makes sense according to the laws of physics, right? So that the measured speed of the stars at the outer parts would NOT be the same rotational speed of the center. Theories get strange when we try to explain. Very strange. Observers start with their so-called understanding of gravity and knowledge that by every observation rotational speed falls off as a function of distance. Rotational speeds are very predictable and even elementary algebra can express the equation in very basic terms such that the rotational speed of the outer stars would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit.

Frankly, we don't know enough about what matter is and how it behaves to be able to explain stuff without resorting to what some have called "Magic" to provide the answer. If "Magic" is defined as blaming a cause on something invisible and unmeasurable and unproven, if Magic is the act of formulating hypothesis based on proposition of uknown existence of something?/someone?/somehow?/somewhere? theory then surely "Dark Matter" qualifies. Just because we label something with a term it doesn't mean we understand it. Postulating the existence of something does not prove it exists, right? But it is nice to be able to invent reasons for the way things work right out of thin air, isn't it? But wait, the theory of "Dark Matter" isn't invented out of thin air, at least that would be measurable!

[video=youtube;Hcc0dToHf18]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcc0dToHf18[/video]


Martha: . o O (( Oh my! He's beating that poor dead horse again. ))
Sparrow: "I can't help it, the owl has flown."

 

[jasoncran]

Jason, do you not see that theories like these (formation of matter within stars) are tested by their predictive powers? Consider the "proof" for dark matter. Those who write the unobserved out of the equation as preposterous look at stuff, think about it, formulate hypothesis and then test the guess. When physicist finds "proof" --> it is in the form of a law or theory that "works" in that it explains stuff better than other thoughts and concepts. It sounds reasonable, right?

But what about unexplained phenomena?

The process is complex enough that the average person can not understand it but when we get into areas where things should be intuitive is where things get really interesting. For instance, we could reasonable expect that the stars at the outer part of spiraling galaxies would travel around the central "hub" of the galaxy in a way that makes sense according to the laws of physics, right? So that the measured speed of the stars at the outer parts would NOT be the same rotational speed of the center. Theories get strange when we try to explain. Very strange. Observers start with their so-called understanding of gravity and knowledge that by every observation rotational speed falls off as a function of distance. Rotational speeds are very predictable and even elementary algebra can express the equation in very basic terms such that the rotational speed of the outer stars would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit.

Frankly, we don't know enough about what matter is and how it behaves to be able to explain stuff without resorting to what some have called "Magic" to provide the answer. If "Magic" is defined as blaming a cause on something invisible and unmeasurable and unproven, if Magic is the act of formulating hypothesis based on proposition of uknown existence of something?/someone?/somehow?/somewhere? theory then surely "Dark Matter" qualifies. Just because we label something with a term it doesn't mean we understand it. Postulating the existence of something does not prove it exists, right? But it is nice to be able to invent reasons for the way things work right out of thin air, isn't it? But wait, the theory of "Dark Matter" isn't invented out of thin air, at least that would be measurable!

[video=youtube;Hcc0dToHf18]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcc0dToHf18[/video]


Martha: . o O (( Oh my! He's beating that poor dead horse again. ))
Sparrow: "I can't help it, the owl has flown."

i understand this and that is why the bbt cant be the viable theory, too many holes. life on earth by some chance that the earth happened to condense and swirl in the right and perfect location? come on. ever had a bad thing happen like object fall and nearly hit you. and said object could have some serious side effects lol. most people say i was lucky. so it was luck then that made life and all that is to be. luck?

beating dead horse as well.

 

[Sparkey]

True science begins with questions and not answers.

Fundamental questions that can by definition never be measured are not part of science. Does God exist? Science can neither affirm nor deny and can not take a position on the matter.

Cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posit that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view. Science must eschew ethnocentrism (the tendancy to believe that ones own group or set of beliefs is superior and the tendency to judge others as inferior). Theist and atheistic ethnocentrism does not belong in science.