WHY ISN'T THIS GENERATION GETTING MARRIED?

[Uncle J]

I haven't heard of any demonstration of something popping into existence on its own. But if you have s source, I'd love to read about it.

Like I said, it's been a while since I looked into any of this and it certainly isn't my area of expertise, but the last I recall it was the Casimir Effect.

That's true. But we're working on a very complex problem with incomplete information. God cannot be tested, but the universe can be, and I think the level of complexity that we see points to some kind of intelligence behind what we're able to test for.

And that's fine as a belief; it's just not any sort of scientific explanation (since gods are untestable).

I agree. But I think that the god of gaps argument is also used as a pejorative. Especially if someone is a scientist and believes that God is the best explaination for the origins of the universe.

It can be an insult in some cases, and in others it's quite accurate.

Because I think it's consistent with the evidence, and I think its more plausible than the alternative theories. You can boil it down to "God made it". But that doesn't make it the wrong answer. How did my car get here? "Dodge made it". Lol.

But is "the gods did it" really an "explanation"? What details does it provide? Does it tell us what gods are? Where they exist? The mechanisms they employ to create?

 

[GodsGrace]

I haven't heard of any demonstration of something popping into existence on its own. But if you have s source, I'd love to read about it.


That's true. But we're working on a very complex problem with incomplete information. God cannot be tested, but the universe can be, and I think the level of complexity that we see points to some kind of intelligence behind what we're able to test for.


I agree. But I think that the god of gaps argument is also used as a pejorative. Especially if someone is a scientist and believes that God is the best explaination for the origins of the universe.


I'm comfortable with saying I don't know.


Yes, I know. I was trying to get across that I've listened to many different scientists in many different fields.


Because I think it's consistent with the evidence, and I think its more plausible than the alternative theories. You can boil it down to "God made it". But that doesn't make it the wrong answer. How did my car get here? "Dodge made it". Lol.

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book on how something can come from nothing.
It's nonsense.
Anything not to give an intelligent designer any credit.

 

[Uncle J]

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book on how something can come from nothing.
It's nonsense.
Anything not to give an intelligent designer any credit.

Why is it nonsense? Do you have specific criticisms of the arguments he put forth, or do you see it as "nonsense" because it's contrary to your beliefs?

 

[GodsGrace]

Why is it nonsense? Do you have specific criticisms of the arguments he put forth, or do you see it as "nonsense" because it's contrary to your beliefs?

I see it as nonsense because....

1. Krauss is a die hard atheist. They'll say anything to disprove God.

2. Scientists I trust, that are not afraid of God,
Think it's nonsense.

3. I'm not a scientist or even a scholar, but I have a brain with which to think and am not intimidated by your question.

If Krauss can prove his theory, empirically of course, and he is peer reviewed, then I might believe him.

Not till then.
For now it's nonsense.

 

[Uncle J]

I see it as nonsense because....

1. Krauss is a die hard atheist. They'll say anything to disprove God.

2. Scientists I trust, that are not afraid of God,
Think it's nonsense.

3. I'm not a scientist or even a scholar, but I have a brain with which to think and am not intimidated by your question.

If Krauss can prove his theory, empirically of course, and he is peer reviewed, then I might believe him.

Not till then.
For now it's nonsense.

So you see his argument as "nonsense" because of who he is and who agrees/disagrees with him, rather than due to the actual content of the argument.

Do you remember earlier when I said that the religious way of thinking has never resonated with me, even when I was a little kid? Your reply captures that very well. When I was young and I'd ask our Pastor, Sunday School teacher, or Youth Pastor questions, I'd often get answers like that, and needless to say I found them not only unsatisfying, but completely baffling. It represents a way of thinking that I simply cannot relate to.

Interestingly, over the years I've also noticed that many religious folks are just as baffled by the empirical way of thinking as I am with the religious way. Where I see "I don't know" as a perfectly acceptable answer, the religious see it as a sign of doubt and very risky. Where I see all conclusions being held as tentative as a necessity, the religious see it as an uncomfortable lack of certainty.

And given the environment I was raised in, it makes me think a lot of those differences are innate (we're born with them). IOW, I'm an analytical, empirically-oriented, critical thinker who was born into a fundamentalist Christian environment.

Thankfully, I managed to escape.

 

[GodsGrace]

So you see his argument as "nonsense" because of who he is and who agrees/disagrees with him, rather than due to the actual content of the argument.

Do you remember earlier when I said that the religious way of thinking has never resonated with me, even when I was a little kid? Your reply captures that very well. When I was young and I'd ask our Pastor, Sunday School teacher, or Youth Pastor questions, I'd often get answers like that, and needless to say I found them not only unsatisfying, but completely baffling. It represents a way of thinking that I simply cannot relate to.

Interestingly, over the years I've also noticed that many religious folks are just as baffled by the empirical way of thinking as I am with the religious way. Where I see "I don't know" as a perfectly acceptable answer, the religious see it as a sign of doubt and very risky. Where I see all conclusions being held as tentative as a necessity, the religious see it as an uncomfortable lack of certainty.

And given the environment I was raised in, it makes me think a lot of those differences are innate (we're born with them). IOW, I'm an analytical, empirically-oriented, critical thinker who was born into a fundamentalist Christian environment.

Thankfully, I managed to escape.

I don't know is a good answer.
Trouble is Krauss can't say I DON'T KNOW.
He had to come up with a weird theory instead.

I may be prejudiced J, but so are you.
It's interesting that we began the same, but turned out on different sides of the fence.

Maybe your fundamentalist christianity was found to be wanting when you began science studies and Darwin gave you a new way to understand everything. A way to escape the idea that the earth could be only 6 thousand years old.

You said you've heard it all before so I don't like to be persistent. But did you consider that God is not enclosed in any box and you could discover Him on your own?

Why is God such a threat to the scientific world?

 

[Uncle J]

I don't know is a good answer.
Trouble is Krauss can't say I DON'T KNOW.
He had to come up with a weird theory instead.

What is his "weird theory"?

I may be prejudiced J, but so are you.
It's interesting that we began the same, but turned out on different sides of the fence.

Of course we all have biases. The key is to be aware of them and how they can affect your thinking.

Maybe your fundamentalist christianity was found to be wanting when you began science studies and Darwin gave you a new way to understand everything. A way to escape the idea that the earth could be only 6 thousand years old.

Not at all. Like I said, I started going to church and related activities when I was 1 week old. I didn't learn about evolutionary biology until my junior year in high school, and I had rejected Christianity long before that.

But did you consider that God is not enclosed in any box and you could discover Him on your own?

Yep. I tried and got nothing.

Why is God such a threat to the scientific world?

I don't know what you're referring to. Like we discussed earlier, there are lots of scientists who believe in gods.

 

[GodsGrace]

What is his "weird theory"?


Of course we all have biases. The key is to be aware of them and how they can affect your thinking.


Not at all. Like I said, I started going to church and related activities when I was 1 week old. I didn't learn about evolutionary biology until my junior year in high school, and I had rejected Christianity long before that.


Yep. I tried and got nothing.


I don't know what you're referring to. Like we discussed earlier, there are lots of scientists who believe in gods.

No J,
Not in gods.
In God.

sorry I misunderstood about when you left christianity.

 

[Uncle J]

No J,
Not in gods.
In God.

Same thing....lots of scientists are Christians, including some very famous ones like Dr. Francis Collins.

sorry I misunderstood about when you left christianity.

No problem. And to be fair, I never "left" it. You can't leave something you were never in to begin with. I just never believed it.

 

[JT4444]

This is a modern heresy. Each of the first day has a morning and evening, and is divided into day and night, that’s the basis for the 12 hour day in Jesus’s time, how could this not be a literal day?

It's not heresy. Time is relative to the observer. Until Adam was created, time was relative to God's perspective. That's why there is no inconsistency between the six days of Creation and the scientific dating of the universe.

 

[JT4444]

What is the neshama?

I agree with you by the way.

The days are to present an orderly creation, God dioesnt go by our time.

Neshama = soul. It's what differentiates us from the animals. The Hebrew calendar begins with Adam receiving his soul, not with day 1 of creation. The calendar before this is in God's time. Time is relative to the observer, as Special Relativity tells us.

 

[GodsGrace]

Neshama = soul. It's what differentiates us from the animals. The Hebrew calendar begins with Adam receiving his soul, not with day 1 of creation. The calendar before this is in God's time. Time is relative to the observer, as Special Relativity tells us.

When did Adam receive his soul?

 

[Riven]

Like I said, it's been a while since I looked into any of this and it certainly isn't my area of expertise, but the last I recall it was the Casimir Effect.

Thanks.

And that's fine as a belief; it's just not any sort of scientific explanation (since gods are untestable).

Fair enough.

It can be an insult in some cases, and in others it's quite accurate.

In most cases. Atheists can be just as self-righteous as the most diehard evangelical.

But is "the gods did it" really an "explanation"? What details does it provide? Does it tell us what gods are? Where they exist? The mechanisms they employ to create?

Yes, I think it is an explaination because it's only logical to assume that for something to be created from scratch, then you first need a creator. The idea that this was all done by nothing, seems preposterous to me.

As for those specific questions, well that's why religion exists. We're kind of in the dark otherwise, admittedly. It's a bit like being in a pitch black room looking for a black cat. Apparently they've found it. XD

 

[Uncle J]

Thanks.

You're very welcome.

In most cases. Atheists can be just as self-righteous as the most diehard evangelical.

Oh for sure, and in some cases I think they can be worse.

Yes, I think it is an explaination because it's only logical to assume that for something to be created from scratch, then you first need a creator. The idea that this was all done by nothing, seems preposterous to me.

As for those specific questions, well that's why religion exists. We're kind of in the dark otherwise, admittedly. It's a bit like being in a pitch black room looking for a black cat. Apparently they've found it. XD

I think we have different ideas about what an "explanation" is. To me, it should provide details that add new insight into the phenomenon. So if someone said "Dodge made it", we can objectively find out how, where, and when Dodge made the vehicle. We can objectively discover tons of details about the tools, processes, etc. used to make it.

"God did it" OTOH is nothing more than an assertion that provides no new insight. It's no different than if I asserted "Blatech did it". What is "blatech"? I don't know. Where is it? Don't know. How did it do it? Don't know?

And no, religion doesn't answer those things in any meaningful way IMO. From my perspective, it's just empty assertions piled on top of empty assertions, all based on "faith". Now, I realize it provides a great number of benefits to lots of people, which is why I don't generally oppose it. If it helps people, good for them.

And specific to the origin of the universe, as one author I read years ago put it "God did it merely answers one mystery by invoking an even bigger one".

 

[JT4444]

When did Adam receive his soul?

Day 6 of Creation

 

[JT4444]

Thanks.


Fair enough.


In most cases. Atheists can be just as self-righteous as the most diehard evangelical.


Yes, I think it is an explaination because it's only logical to assume that for something to be created from scratch, then you first need a creator. The idea that this was all done by nothing, seems preposterous to me.

As for those specific questions, well that's why religion exists. We're kind of in the dark otherwise, admittedly. It's a bit like being in a pitch black room looking for a black cat. Apparently they've found it. XD

It's pretty difficult to wrap your head around the idea that there is something eternal, but it makes more sense (to me) than nothing creating everything.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It's not heresy. Time is relative to the observer. Until Adam was created, time was relative to God's perspective. That's why there is no inconsistency between the six days of Creation and the scientific dating of the universe.

Carbon dating is highly inaccurate, it only applies on remains of living organisms. There’s no way to know how old a rock is. Besides, God hanged the sun, moon and stars (firmaments of the heavens) to indicate the signs of days and years, it’s objective, not relative to the observer.

 

[Riven]

I think we have different ideas about what an "explanation" is. To me, it should provide details that add new insight into the phenomenon. So if someone said "Dodge made it", we can objectively find out how, where, and when Dodge made the vehicle. We can objectively discover tons of details about the tools, processes, etc. used to make it.

Correct. The difference is, Dodge didn't make the universe. We can't go to the dealer and get all the information we need. We're working with an incomplete set of information. Which is not all that different than an archaeologist trying to imagine what a t-rex looks like based on the fossilized skeletons. They're making an educated guess that could be wrong. Does that mean they shouldn't try?

"God did it" OTOH is nothing more than an assertion that provides no new insight. It's no different than if I asserted "Blatech did it". What is "blatech"? I don't know. Where is it? Don't know. How did it do it? Don't know?

How is saying nothing created the universe not an assertion? How does nothing answer any of the questions you just posed?

And no, religion doesn't answer those things in any meaningful way IMO. From my perspective, it's just empty assertions piled on top of empty assertions, all based on "faith". Now, I realize it provides a great number of benefits to lots of people, which is why I don't generally oppose it. If it helps people, good for them.

So, you don't believe Jesus ever existed?

And specific to the origin of the universe, as one author I read years ago put it "God did it merely answers one mystery by invoking an even bigger one".

I couldn't agree more. Lol.

 

[Uncle J]

Correct. The difference is, Dodge didn't make the universe. We can't go to the dealer and get all the information we need. We're working with an incomplete set of information. Which is not all that different than an archaeologist trying to imagine what a t-rex looks like based on the fossilized skeletons. They're making an educated guess that could be wrong. Does that mean they shouldn't try?

Are theists trying to figure all that out?

How is saying nothing created the universe not an assertion? How does nothing answer any of the questions you just posed?

Because it goes waaaaaaaaaay beyond the mere assertion. As you hopefully saw earlier, the type of mechanism hypothesized to be responsible has been directly observed, tested, and studied.

Again, if this subject interests you I suggest you take the time to study it (Hawking's book being a place to start).

So, you don't believe Jesus ever existed?

I think he probably was a real person.

I couldn't agree more. Lol.

 

[Uncle J]

Carbon dating is highly inaccurate, it only applies on remains of living organisms. There’s no way to know how old a rock is.

This type of thinking, which I found to be very common in Christian circles, is one of the things I could never relate to. The above is given as a mere assertion....an empty claim with no citation, evidence, or support of any kind. It's just "because I say so" and nothing more.

In the areas of life I frequent, that sort of thing doesn't fly.