arteestx
The fundamental problem is the seemingly illogical idea of "something coming from nothing." Theists insist that the Universe falls into this problem and God does not. Ahteists insist that either both fall into this category or neither does; that if God can come from nothing, why can't the Universe? If God can be a mystery that has no beginning, why can't the Universe? Simply labeling one as a creation and the other as a creator doesn't solve the problem. At least to me.

To even begin arguing on that, you'd have to define 'nothing' and 'something'. Because easily what we think is 'nothing' may have 'somethings' in it that invalidate anything you may try to argue about. Like Stacy has shown, even if you do label one as the creator and the other as the creation the problem still exists.

God doesn't come from nothing. God just is. That's the whole point. But because we can't conceive of anything not coming from something, or any other sort of existence than one that has at least a beginning (coming from something) you end up getting tangled up in this. ;) But why would you not at least consider the possibility that there may be alternate types of existences that do not require a beginning? Like I said, basically energy does not have a beginning. It just is and has been ever since the creation of the cosmos.

In the same manner, the cosmos could fall in that category but it does not seem valid to assume so- because the cosmos evolves. It is in the process of actually going from stage X to stage Y, whatever those are. This is not the case with energy, or God. God has not evolved. Nor has energy. They just are. Do you see why we are led to consider the cosmos as having a start and and end, therefore being a creation? Do you see the difference from the other category that doesn't have a start or an end and does not evolve, but only is?

Ludus Pragma

Tantz Aerine

If you are Christian and believe in the virgin birth, or any other miracle, stop trying to find a scientific explanation for it. Your god requires faith and faith is about not asking questions.

Well that feels like Medieval times revisited lol!

Are you saying that a belief in an all powerful sky king who will punish naughty people in the next life isn't? LOL

No, of course not ;) If you really think that naughty people are not really already punishing themselves in this life and being generally unintelligent when they think they are actually owning everyone else. But that's another talk for another thread.

Tantz Aerine

arteestx
The fundamental problem is the seemingly illogical idea of "something coming from nothing." Theists insist that the Universe falls into this problem and God does not. Ahteists insist that either both fall into this category or neither does

God doesn't come from nothing. God just is. .... Do you see why we are led to consider the cosmos as having a start and and end, therefore being a creation? Do you see the difference from the other category that doesn't have a start or an end and does not evolve, but only is?

No, because "beginning" and "end" refer to instances in time. But time is an inherent part of the universe (in our current understanding). To imagine the Big Bang theory, try to imagine all the matter in the universe in the space smaller than a marble. We humans ususally imagine a marble kind of floating in space, and then at a moment in time, it explodes and we get our universe. Who put the marble there? What happened before and after the creation of the universe? Must be God.

Thing is, according to the theory, there is no space outside the marble. There is literally nothing. There is no space outside the marble. There is no time before the explosion of the universe because time doesn't exist. There is no "before" or "after" the explosion of the universe because without the universe there is no time. You ask if I can imagine that there may be alternate types of existences that do not require a beginning. That is exactly what I'm imagining with the universe. So no, I don't see a difference in the two categories you've stated. Those categories do not reflect the reality of our universe.

So again, why does God get to be "just is" but the Universe doesn't? Your statements that the Universe evolves doesn't imply anything about your two categories, and your statements that the Universe has beginning and end but God doesn't just isn't true, as we currently understand our Universe.

For a marble to float in space, space has to exist. If the marble exists, then 'something' exists. There can't be completely 'nothing'. Only what, as you very rightly put it, be perceived as nothing in our current understanding. Therefore, what you say tends to refute itself. There is no evidence or any way to prove that there was absolutely nothing around your marble before the big bang. Actually, nobody knows what there was before the big bang.

Basically, your belief that there was nothing is just that- a belief. All of science is basically a set of beliefs- we believe we know something, until something else comes along and refutes it. Then we believe this new thing, and are willing to debate vehemently that it is true, until someone else comes along whom we believe to have authority and tells us otherwise.

Mendel's theory of genetics was rejected as untrue until much later than when it was published. Nobody believed him ;)

What I am saying with all this is that what you tell me, bringing science into the matter is nothing more than bringing about a belief you can't really prove to be true beyong reasonable doubt. There is a 'theory' of nothing. A belief. It is not any more valid than what I profess using my logic.

Again: the defining factor is that the universe evolves, whereas energy (and God as I perceive Him) do not. Therefore, the universe is a creation, with a beginning and evolving towards a conclusion, whereas energy (and God) is not because energy does not evolve and never has.

It comes down to your belief vs. mine, and we can't really argue on that, can we? ;)

Tantz Aerine
For a marble to float in space, space has to exist. If the marble exists, then 'something' exists. There can't be completely 'nothing'.

Not true. It's a conundrum to be sure, but what you say is not necessarily true.

Tantz Aerine
Actually, nobody knows what there was before the big bang.

Again, there is no "before" the big bang because time doesn't exist before the big bang.

Tantz Aerine
All of science is basically a set of beliefs- we believe we know something, until something else comes along and refutes it. Then we believe this new thing, and are willing to debate vehemently that it is true, until someone else comes along whom we believe to have authority and tells us otherwise. Mendel's theory of genetics was rejected as untrue until much later than when it was published. Nobody believed him ;)

Actually, no. No one believed him until the evidence accumulated. Science doesn't jump from one belief to another just because he/she is an authority and tells us otherwise. We go from one belief to the next based on evidence and facts. Which is why scientific belief can be radically different from religious belief. Scientific understanding evolves on the basis of new evidence and facts.

Tantz Aerine
It comes down to your belief vs. mine, and we can't really argue on that, can we? ;)

On that, you get no argument from me. :) All I'm saying is that no Theist can, or wants to, explain why God can be "just is" and the Universe can't.

Tantz Aerine

>

I do not believe that what I am saying is better than what others say, and I am very sorry that I have given that impression. I am only saying what I think. If i knew that i was smarter than all others, i would not bother to debate, since I would have nothing to learn. I do have ideas and opinions - they are the best that I can do, and I am happy to present and defend them. i don't think that presenting or defending an argument means that I think what I say is superior to others - it has often happened that I thought I was right and turned out to be wrong. I can only hope that I become more right over time.

>

Well, yes. I still think this is cheating. You are really just saying "The Cosmos is created, therefore, the cosmos is a creation, God was not Created, and therefore, God does not need a Creator." In terms of a logical argument, it doesn't mean anything.

>

We were arguing about the "Argument from Design" which you originally presented as a proof of God's existence. I said it was a logically flawed argument, which was where our debate started. Nothing you've said so far addresses my original point, it seems to me.


>

Forgive me, I am always happy to argue points of logic or evidence, but when someone says something like "God is Energy!" I generally prefer to let it stand. Some points are not really amendable to debate, after all. but You specifically asked me to address this point, however, and so I responded. I said your idea was vague because, it seems to me that it doesn't really say anything. You also said that "God is all of the Cosmos." Again, I'm in no position to say otherwise - but this idea doesn't enlighten me in any way. I suspect i have simply missed your point here entirely.


>

Surely my experiences are just as valid as your? Therefore, allow me to return to the favor, and say that Maybe tomorrow or when you're dying you will end up seeing things my way.

But of course, my original argument was that you had said something that didn't make sense to me logically. Now you say "This is your thing to see. Not someone else's to prove" which seems to accept my point after all.

>

I have no idea what you mean here. what do you mean by " If the principle of creator and creation exists in the Universe..." ?

>

Nope. I see no evidence for or against A Creator. When i lack evidence for or against something, I assume it does not exist until new evidence emerges. That's pretty much how most people think about most things, actually. We can only prove the positive, after all, not the the negative.

I have a friend who believes in Elves. He uses the same argument. I cannot prove that there are no elves. But I'll still wait for evidence.


Im sorry Tantz Aerine, but I feel like you've failed to address my argument at all. Logically, once you accept that god can be eternal, then you open up the possibility that the Universe can be eternal too. And so the argument "The Universe Must be Created because it cannot be eternal!" is not a valid one, logically.

Of course, that doesn't mean you are wrong. It just means that your specific argument is not convincing.

Tantz Aerine

>


Sorry, i missed this whole exchange while I was thinking about my post.

I really want to respond to this, because i think it very clearly shows a difference in the way our thinking works. I reject this idea completely. I know that Mendel was on to something because i've read his arguments and done experiments that confirm his ideas. Of course, we now understand Mendelian genetics even better than Mendel did - in a hundred years, they'll know even more.

I read a new theory the other day - a new way of thinking about nerve impulses. I thought it was totally wrong. It goes against all previous thinking. Of course, it might turn out to be true. but thats OK - if it's true, that will become clear over time, as it gets debated over. Just like with Mendel. New ideas deserve to be challenged. Authority, however, deserves very little.

Tantz Aerine
Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man and he also does refer to God as 'My Father in Heaven'. That makes him the Son of God.

That only makes sense if you think in a warped way. That is worded in such a way in the english version that it could mean so many things. for instance-- "Son of man" meaning that he's a human, he was born from human roots. And God is the "Father in heaven" for all of humans snice god created all humans, inducing Jesus. So it's only natural that Jesus would call God "his father in heaven" too. Heck, a lot of catholics/Christians call god that when they pray. does that mean they're sons and daughters of god too? In a sense, they are.
He was son of man, but also son of god as is ALL humans. So he wasn't THE son of god.
He was trying to get people to be aware that there was in fact, a god...one who gave him the purpose of going around teaching people about what he believed. It was his way of saying that he was born to do what he did, even though he was just a human.

Which is what the oringal texts conveyed oringally.

Vindibudd
Which "original" texts are you referring to that has fooled 2000 years of greek and hebrew scholars? And which first Christians are you referring to?

To quote one of my books on this subject:
Aramaic became the prevailing language, or "lingua franca" of the entire Middle East from about 800 BC to 400 AD. Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic. Because of the Dispersion of the people of Israel to Babylon and Egypt, knowledge of pre-exilic texts was dependent on oral tradition. This occasionally gave rise to an ambiguity of interpretation for a text written purely in consonants.
The Biblical Hebrew text available to us today is thus written in the Hebrew language with the adopted Aramaic alphabet.

Now conidser this: There's not always a exact word for everything when you transtle.... and it's made ten times worse when you're actually translating between THREE to FOUR languages-- Aramaic,Herbew to Greek, Greek to English.
It's like a game of telephone--by the time you're done with the end product it reads a lot differently than the oringal sentence. So that's why in English translations you get people calling him the son of god, etc... But in the Aramaic texts Jesus is reffered to as the "Holy prophet".

But I think I better stop now, I feel like we're hijacking this thread enough... it is supposed to be all about Atheists, after all!

arteestx

Tantz Aerine
For a marble to float in space, space has to exist. If the marble exists, then 'something' exists. There can't be completely 'nothing'.

Not true. It's a conundrum to be sure, but what you say is not necessarily true.

Well it is true...you can't have something without nothing. By definition nothing means the absence of something. They are interwined in our language and existence.

Tantz Aerine
Actually, nobody knows what there was before the big bang.

Again, there is no "before" the big bang because time doesn't exist before the big bang.

Also false...the idea of time is created by man to explain change. Time is a but a tool we have created to document change in our experience. We created ideas of beginning and end.

Tantz Aerine
All of science is basically a set of beliefs- we believe we know something, until something else comes along and refutes it. Then we believe this new thing, and are willing to debate vehemently that it is true, until someone else comes along whom we believe to have authority and tells us otherwise. Mendel's theory of genetics was rejected as untrue until much later than when it was published. Nobody believed him ;)

Actually, no. No one believed him until the evidence accumulated. Science doesn't jump from one belief to another just because he/she is an authority and tells us otherwise. We go from one belief to the next based on evidence and facts. Which is why scientific belief can be radically different from religious belief. Scientific understanding evolves on the basis of new evidence and facts.

So does religious belief. Paradigms shift all through out our history....religous or scientific...and even socially. Prior to Christianity there was Judaism, which before that was Zorasterism....which before that...it evolved. The religous tradition of Christianity has evolved as well over its history and based on changing views and new information...the same as scientific knowledge. I am not questioning the scientific method but they both evolved quite similarly.

Tantz Aerine
It comes down to your belief vs. mine, and we can't really argue on that, can we? ;)

On that, you get no argument from me. :) All I'm saying is that no Theist can, or wants to, explain why God can be "just is" and the Universe can't.

The problem is an issue of perception and experience. If I was fish in a bowl I could hardly explain the mysterious being that feeds me and changes my water regularly. It is quite hard to do so. As it is even hard for a scientist to explain the make up of the sun. No scientist has ever been to the sun to take readings and data to give us the exact make up but we hypothesize from experiments done on closed enviroments on Earth...not really all that realiable. Theories are just a fancy word for belief.
I highly recommend the movie Contact starring Jodie Foster it really is quite interesting and delves into this discussion quite a bit.

Our personal experiences is what we had. The lack of experience of a thing does not negate the existence of said thing.

comments in red are mine in rebuttle.

StaceyMontgomery
I do not believe that what I am saying is better than what others say, and I am very sorry that I have given that impression. I am only saying what I think. If i knew that i was smarter than all others, i would not bother to debate, since I would have nothing to learn. I do have ideas and opinions - they are the best that I can do, and I am happy to present and defend them. i don't think that presenting or defending an argument means that I think what I say is superior to others - it has often happened that I thought I was right and turned out to be wrong. I can only hope that I become more right over time.

This is not entirely correct. You do seem to have disdain about things- you tend to assume that because religion has authority it is by default wrong or fraudulent and to be frowned upon. However, Science in our days has much more authority than Religion- no matter what we say, when someone quotes 'science' (true or not is irrelevant and a relativistic statement) people back off. Not so when it comes to Religion (unless you count those rather grotesque figures with the pickets and the hate signs). At one point in time, Religion was the one before which people backed off. But what I am saying is that you do not afford all authorities the same kind of disdain. So you may in general not feel superior to others, but when it comes to religion you do seem or at least come across as dismissing it on principle. I wonder if you would feel the same if in general mainstream social philosophy, it was theism 'a la mode' and not atheism.



Well, yes. I still think this is cheating. You are really just saying "The Cosmos is created, therefore, the cosmos is a creation, God was not Created, and therefore, God does not need a Creator." In terms of a logical argument, it doesn't mean anything.


So if I get that straight, I am cheating unless I agree that the universe was randomly created? I did try to offer you my reasoning behind it. Your stating of my end conclusion without the reasoning behind it won't make it seem less valid. I did explain to you why to me it looks like God was not created whereas the universe was. You still have yet to address that. You can very well tell me I'm wrong about it, but ignoring it is not a way to disprove it.

>

We were arguing about the "Argument from Design" which you originally presented as a proof of God's existence. I said it was a logically flawed argument, which was where our debate started. Nothing you've said so far addresses my original point, it seems to me.

I didn't offer it as proof that God exists. I merely said that atheism does not make sense to me because frankly, nothing random occurs 99.99999% of the times accurately. Random implies at least a 50-50 chance of things happening, not a close-to-certainty occurence that circumstances for Life will exist as well as remain existing throughout eons. Actually if you take entropy into consideration, there is no reason why such a highly organised system as that of life on earth remains when there are tremendous forces fighting against it. Every minute of our lives we have more chances of dying than we have of living and more chances of the conditions for life in general to be destroyed and/or imbalanced than not. Yet we are still here and probably will be for some millenia more if we don't blow ourselves up. To me that is good reason to assume that a higher being is out there- therefore atheism is not making sense. Now how I choose to interpret God and what He made is different.

Forgive me, I am always happy to argue points of logic or evidence, but when someone says something like "God is Energy!" I generally prefer to let it stand.

X is ________ is mainly the way to go when you define things- a necessary premise before you begin discussion so everyone involved knows exactly what is in your mind when you refer to the term X. 'God is Energy' is my definition for God. You can choose to accept this as definition or suggest another according to which you have made your assumptions or logic.

A definition is not an argument. We don't argue definitions nor do we call them vague unless we have something we feel is more precise to suggest.

Surely my experiences are just as valid as your? Therefore, allow me to return to the favor, and say that Maybe tomorrow or when you're dying you will end up seeing things my way.

I have already been where you are now. I was there, and I left, because I found it to be lacking in logic and barren- after a considerable amount of time and my life, of course.

But of course, my original argument was that you had said something that didn't make sense to me logically. Now you say "This is your thing to see. Not someone else's to prove" which seems to accept my point after all.

Well I think the issue of if God is benevolent or not is not quite the same as whether He exists or not. I do think that deciding whether He is benevolent or not is part of your dealings with Him. When of course, you acknowledge Him ;) heh heh.

>

I have no idea what you mean here. what do you mean by " If the principle of creator and creation exists in the Universe..." ?

You said that if we follow the premise that a creator existed for the universe, so God had to be created too by someone else. I turn this now on its head and ask you back: There are creators within the universe as well as their creations- it is a truth of life. If therefore there are creators (from the ant and the anthill to man and machines) making creations, why not assume that the universe itself is a creation (like a great computer or machine) by some higher being? It is just the same principle, only on a higher scale.

>

Nope. I see no evidence for or against A Creator. When i lack evidence for or against something, I assume it does not exist until new evidence emerges. That's pretty much how most people think about most things, actually. We can only prove the positive, after all, not the the negative.

This is wrong. People have believed in countless things without real hands-on evidence or scientific proof, and strove to find that proof because they believed it to happen. It is basically the main concept that makes people have hypotheses and then go out and seek the evidence to prove it.

Also, you don't actually have evidence about, say, viri. You believe evidence exists because you trust that those who have told you the viri exist are telling you the truth. Have you, in person, ever seen with your very eyes, touched with your very fingers or otherwise meaningfully interacted with a virus? Can you prove that when you take an anti-viral it is not actually a placebo effect or some other force curing you and not the anti-viral you are taking? Not really.

You think you are proving it because you trust that those other people you call scientists have amassed adequate proof and have experienced, seen and NOT fabricated the evidence they may, if they so choose, present you with. It is basically an issue of where you place your trust. Now go back a few hundred years, replace scientists with priests of various kinds and you have the same effect. What I am saying is that your so-called evidence is not pure evidence unless you actually go out there and collect it yourself. In all other cases, you trust and believe the one presenting you with the evidence at least on some level. It comes down to belief again, and there have been countless occasions of scientists that are more fanatic than the KKK.

Im sorry Tantz Aerine, but I feel like you've failed to address my argument at all. Logically, once you accept that god can be eternal, then you open up the possibility that the Universe can be eternal too. And so the argument "The Universe Must be Created because it cannot be eternal!" is not a valid one, logically.

Of course, that doesn't mean you are wrong. It just means that your specific argument is not convincing.

I fail to see the logical connection in this. Please show me how one assumes the other. Why if God can be eternal, then the Universe can be eternal. How are God and Universe equal? Where do you base this primary assumption? I can't see the logic in this.

How have I failed to address your argument?

Aurora Moon
But I think I better stop now, I feel like we're hijacking this thread enough... it is supposed to be all about Atheists, after all!

I am not even going to bother with the quotes, what you are saying is so completely and provably inaccurate that it is mind-boggling. Jesus says all over the NT that he is the Word of God. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. In Luke 21 he speaks of coming back as the Son of Man on a cloud to redeem mankind. either Jesus is the most infamous liar and deceiver of all time or you have no idea what you are talking about. Every one of the points you make:

1. Mary not a virgin.
2. Jesus not divine in nature.

are designed to strike at the very heart of Christianity. As such, I ask you to provide your sources for such outlandish claims as you have made and you have yet to come forth with them.

You still have not provided "original texts" and you still have not identified the group of "first" Christians that believed that Jesus was just some nice guy they all knew.

TheMidge28
stuff

You covered me 100% :)

TheMidge28
Well it is true...you can't have something without nothing. By definition nothing means the absence of something. They are interwined in our language and existence.
the idea of time is created by man to explain change. Time is a but a tool we have created to document change in our experience. We created ideas of beginning and end.

All I can tell you is that Einstein's Theory of Relativity, that revolutionized our understanding of the universe, says otherwise. Time and space are physical properties that can be bent. Read about how black holes can literally warp time and space to get a sense of how time and space cannot be separated from the universe. They are not ideas or human constructs, but energy that can be changed. When the universe was the size smaller than a marble, there was literally no space, no nothing outside the marble, and time did not exist. Don't take my word for it; read Stephen Hawking, Einstein, or any works on modern cosmology for yourself.

TheMidge28
So does religious belief. Paradigms shift all through out our history....religous or scientific...and even socially. Prior to Christianity there was Judaism, which before that was Zorasterism....which before that...it evolved. The religous tradition of Christianity has evolved as well over its history and based on changing views and new information...the same as scientific knowledge. I am not questioning the scientific method but they both evolved quite similarly.

There are overlaps, to be sure. And Christian thinking has evolved over time. But I think if you listed how scientfic constructs of biology or astronomy has changed over 2,000 years and how Christian constructs of Jesus or the Bible has changed over 2,000 years, I would argue that there has been far, far, far more changes in the former. But this gets into "science vs. religion," which isn't really the point of this thread.

TheMidge28
Theories are just a fancy word for belief.
I highly recommend the movie Contact starring Jodie Foster it really is quite interesting and delves into this discussion quite a bit.

I love that movie! However, your definition of theories is probably the greatest misconception about science in the current venacular. Theories is not a fancy word for belief, it is a testable explanatory model of the natural world. Cell Theory is not a "belief" in cells, it is a model that explains so much of what we find in biology and is based upon a large amount of evidence and facts. The Theory of Plate Tectonics is not a "belief", it is a model of our world that explain the occurance of earthquakes, volcanoes, oceans, mountains, valleys... practically everything in geology.

TheMidge28
The lack of experience of a thing does not negate the existence of said thing.

True, lack of evidence is not evidence; all I can say is that lack of evidence doesn't mean Bigfoot, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness monster, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Easter Bunny are real.

Vindibudd

Aurora Moon
But I think I better stop now, I feel like we're hijacking this thread enough... it is supposed to be all about Atheists, after all!

I am not even going to bother with the quotes, what you are saying is so completely and provably inaccurate that it is mind-boggling. Jesus says all over the NT that he is the Word of God. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. In Luke 21 he speaks of coming back as the Son of Man on a cloud to redeem mankind. either Jesus is the most infamous liar and deceiver of all time or you have no idea what you are talking about. Every one of the points you make:

1. Mary not a virgin.
2. Jesus not divine in nature.

are designed to strike at the very heart of Christianity. As such, I ask you to provide your sources for such outlandish claims as you have made and you have yet to come forth with them.

You still have not provided "original texts" and you still have not identified the group of "first" Christians that believed that Jesus was just some nice guy they all knew.

Who says that one would HAVE to be the Son of God to be the "word of god"? in the original text, he was sent by god as the holy prophet. so therefore that was why he kept on saying that he was the "word of god". that was the whole point of him existing, so that he could get out there and make people more aware about god and his wishes. That's about as good as being a son of god to me.
And the first Christians, of course was the ones who followed Jesus and listened to his sermons.

and if you want links to sites, why bother? A lot of those sites only have bits and pieces that attempts to support THEIR side... in fact, a lot of holy text sites are like that. all with lists of bits and pieces of verses, convenient for anybody to use out of context.

you can easily go to a good bookstore and order the Aramaic Hebrew text version along with both Aramaic and Hebrew Dictionaries. Even better, get a extra book that has already translated some of it and it also explains how to read the ancient texts. THAT WAS WHAT I DID BACK THEN WHEN I WAS STUDYING THE ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE. I was also interested in how the translation progress went, seeing how hard it was for the people involved to translate different dozens of manuscripts and binding them all together to make the bible itself over the centuries. After all, the bible itself wasn't always the thick book it was.
And you know what I found out? I found out that a lot of the people while they were very good at translating basics and such, weren't exactly pros and it was easy for them to make a lot of mistakes. some mistakes they went back to correct, but there was a fair amount that they didn't catch.

Anyway, this is just from my experiences in walking a few steps in the shoes of the people who was involved in making the bible what it was. I don't care if you don't believe me, but I have to tell you it'd be rude of you to keep on going "wrong wrong!! link plz!! link me to site so I can see proof!!!" when I didn't even find the sources on a site.
Anyway, it's not really that imporant... if people feel better believing that Jesus Christ was literally the son of god instead of just some human prophet sent by god to spread the word, then fine. I was simply stating what I found out on my own and what I believe.

It's up to you what you believe.

arteestx
Don't take my word for it; read Stephen Hawking, Einstein, or any works on modern cosmology for yourself.

Einstein also said 'God does not roll dice'. I don't think he meant God as a euphimism. Are we to take his reference to God as his professional opinion after studying the cosmos, therefore proof, or as just his personal beliefs and opinions? ;)

Also, before you argue about time and how much of a construct it is, you must first define it. There was a 'before' the big bang as a logical result of 'now' and 'after' the big bang. This is time as we refer to it in every day life. TIme in the physical sense would need to be examined and studying by both debating parties before we can say anything about it as proof.

I love that movie! However, your definition of theories is probably the greatest misconception about science in the current venacular. Theories is not a fancy word for belief, it is a testable explanatory model of the natural world. Cell Theory is not a "belief" in cells, it is a model that explains so much of what we find in biology and is based upon a large amount of evidence and facts. The Theory of Plate Tectonics is not a "belief", it is a model of our world that explain the occurance of earthquakes, volcanoes, oceans, mountains, valleys... practically everything in geology.

Actually to be completely honest, 'theory' is a belief, an intelligent belief if you like (i.e. someone has actually 'proven' somehow that this theory is valid enough to stand) until new evidence comes along that REFUTES it. If it is never found, even if that evidence exists somewhere in the world, people will continue to believe that theory as true. If nobody had figured out via mathematics that the earth was round, the theory that it was flat would still be believed. (Actually I think there are a bunch of people STILL believing that theory and supporting it through some pretty amusing scientific evidence! Wasn't that a thread somewhere on the Duck?)

Many theories within theology follow the same pattern. Actually religions have been abandoned or created anew when someone came along who commanded the authority (social or divine) and trust of the people that what he said was a REFUTATION of the pre-existing status quo- from the Apostles preaching to the world beyong Judaia to Luther posting his questions on the door of his church. It may look different, but it is not.

True, lack of evidence is not evidence; all I can say is that lack of evidence doesn't mean Bigfoot, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness monster, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Easter Bunny are real.

There is a difference between evidence regarding the existence of God and that of the Loch Ness monster, in that there is much more valid indication that God may exist than there is indication that Nessie does. They are not on the same level and this analogy is not actually fair. There are consistent indications that God may exist (even common unconscious in that every human civilization has consistently produced the concept of Deity and the supernatural) whereas Nessie does not have all these things- or any of her friends like Bigfoot and Santa and whoever else :)

Therefore, it is more prudent not to dismiss the existence of God than dismissing it- whereas in the case of Nessie you are probably safe is assuming she does not exist.

Tantz Aerine
Einstein also said 'God does not roll dice'. I don't think he meant God as a euphimism. Are we to take his reference to God as his professional opinion after studying the cosmos, therefore proof, or as just his personal beliefs and opinions? ;)

I didn't know whether to bring up this quote before or not, thank you for inserting it in. Do you know what Einstein was referring to when he said this? Do you know why that quote is famous? Although Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity, the logical extension of his theory led to Quantum Mechanics. Einstein did not think Quantum Mechanics was true, and as a retort, made that famous statement. Of course, Einstein WAS wrong, showing not only that humans are fallible, even geniuses like him, but also that evidence trumps authority. It also proves, as OO has said, that science need not be an enemy to religion. One can be both a believer and a scientist. My bringing up science is not intended to imply otherwise.

I only brought up science as a retort to why it is ok to say God "just is" and "always has been" but it's not ok to say the same about the Universe? When people give erroneous scientific reasons about our understanding of the Universe, then I bring up science. I have no proof against God. I just want to understand why God is given allowances not afforded to the Universe. If one believes there must be something "before" the "beginning" of the Universe (which as I've said several times makes no sense since time didn't exist before the universe), then why can't we ask what was "before" the "beginning" of God? Why is the Universe not given the same exemption?

Tantz Aerine
Also, before you argue about time and how much of a construct it is, you must first define it. There was a 'before' the big bang as a logical result of 'now' and 'after' the big bang. This is time as we refer to it in every day life. TIme in the physical sense would need to be examined and studying by both debating parties before we can say anything about it as proof.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

Tantz Aerine
Actually to be completely honest, 'theory' is a belief, an intelligent belief if you like (i.e. someone has actually 'proven' somehow that this theory is valid enough to stand) until new evidence comes along that REFUTES it. If it is never found, even if that evidence exists somewhere in the world, people will continue to believe that theory as true.

I don't know exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying that a theory is considered to be true until someone refutes it? That would be news to Wegener, Copernicus, Galileo, and a host of other scientists.

You are trying to twist my words here, but I'll give it a shot.

This statement

Of course, Einstein WAS wrong, showing not only that humans are fallible, even geniuses like him, but also that evidence trumps authority.

is at odds with this one, at least in practical, everyday terms and not ideal ones:

Are you saying that a theory is considered to be true until someone refutes it? That would be news to Wegener, Copernicus, Galileo, and a host of other scientists.

I am happy you brought up all these people. There are more, strictly from the scientific field, not the religion vs. science field who have presented evidence and have yet not been believed, their theories, while more valid and refuting the dominant ones, still rejected by the very colleagues professing to be on a quest for truth. I will quote Mendel again because it's 4 am here and I can't really sit down to think of someone else. He presented evidence on genetics, the scientific world ignored or rejected them. He had the evidence. Why didn't this evidence trump authority?

Yes humans are fallible, and no, evidence does not always trump authority. There had been evidence that Thalidomide was a teratogen for pregnant mothers long before it was so widely used. The evidence yet again did not trump authority. Countless such examples exist throughout history.

My point is that we cannot place this blind faith to science any more than we can place it in religion- simply because God aside (if you don't acknowledge Him), all these theories are construed by people and evidence does NOT always trump authority. So the theories you believe and feel certain an adamant about may have already been refuted and you are kept in the dark. Why are you more certain of one type of evidence rather than the other since they are not only fallible by nature but also affected by authority other than the principle of discarding the false in favour of the more correct whenever it is encountered?

After Einstein came Quantum Physics. There was also Chaos Theory at some point in this timeline (not sure when, and too tired to check) which was also modified. What next? What if science ends up proving the existence of God or, to put it more accurately, ends up disproving His non-existence? Why would you believe then? Why believe Einstein or any Einstein who could have been smoking pot at the time or could be serving some other interest you know nothing about? Where does this trust stem from?

Agnostic is one thing to be- atheist is a big questionmark because it assumes a GREAT certainty over something there can be no certainty about.

I have no proof against God. I just want to understand why God is given allowances not afforded to the Universe.

Like I said, it depends on the way you define God. If you define God as being the Universe, then the Universe is eternal and never ending if your cosmology. If you define God as I did, then you can read in previous posts and see why God, being energy, has more allowances than matter, or matter and energy combined :)

I don't know exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying that a theory is considered to be true until someone refutes it? That would be news to Wegener, Copernicus, Galileo, and a host of other scientists.

No. I said that ideally it is what science does- and basically all types of human reasoning. Including theology and the philosophy around God and who He is.


Also, what is it about the construct of time and the need to define how we refer to the term 'time' before we use it to prove or disprove things you don't understand?

Vindibudd
If you want to sit there and argue about how preposterous it is for some shining figure to come in the clouds on a white horse with stars for eyes because it is not "scientifically" possible, then you are tilting at a windmill.

Funny, that you choose to evoke Quixote, who believed in things that were not there.

TnTComic

Vindibudd
If you want to sit there and argue about how preposterous it is for some shining figure to come in the clouds on a white horse with stars for eyes because it is not "scientifically" possible, then you are tilting at a windmill.

Funny, that you choose to evoke Quixote, who believed in things that were not there.

Funnier still that you argue with people about something that you don't believe exists.

Tantz Aerine
(Mendel) presented evidence on genetics, the scientific world ignored or rejected them. He had the evidence. Why didn't this evidence trump authority?

It did. That's the beauty of science. People can be mocked or ignored in their own lifetime, and Wegener and Mendel are wonderful examples. But their theories were not accepted because they were liked or disliked, because they had catchy names, or anything like that. Their theories were accepted because of evidence. They were ahead of their time and the evidence eventually caught up to them. The great thing is that Mendel had NO idea about genes or DNA, but his theories fit in beautifully when that evidence was added as well. You can suppress theories for a while, as the church did with Copernicus or the science establishment did with Wegener, but evidence will always trump authority.

Tantz Aerine
Why believe Einstein or any Einstein who could have been smoking pot at the time or could be serving some other interest you know nothing about? Where does this trust stem from?

My trust comes from a process not dependent on a small number of humans. All human endeavors are at the mercy of humans, be it science, religion, politics, etc. Humans are loving, hateful, generous, greedy, brilliant, stupid, etc. and religious and scientific ideas are subject to the whims of humankind. The scientific process (a misnomer, but ok) is not perfect, but it is the best way to counteract human foibles. If people try to cheat at science, they will eventually be found out. If people try to suppress the truth, the truth will eventually be found out. It may not be pretty, or immediate, and it will most certainly be bumpy and messy. But this process is the best method we have, and IMHO is better at truth in the natural world far better than religion.

However, science does not cover the "oughts" of the world, as in what we ought to do. Science cannot answer those questions, and that is where religion shines the greatest. Keep religion away from defining life or homosexuality or evolution. Let religion talk of how we ought to treat others with kindness and mercy, help the poor, etc. Science cannot speak to that directly.

Tantz Aerine
Agnostic is one thing to be- atheist is a big questionmark because it assumes a GREAT certainty over something there can be no certainty about.

To me, my atheism is rooted in agnosticism. Of course, I have no idea whether there is actually a God or not. I can't prove it one way or another. I can't prove whether Astrology is real or not. I can't prove if ESP is real or not. I can't prove if the Loch Ness monster is real or not. I can't prove a number of things. As with these other things, my atheism is my best assumption for now given the evidence and experiences I have. And as with everything else, it is always subject to revision as new experienes roll into my life.

Tantz Aerine
If you define God as I did, then you can read in previous posts and see why God, being energy, has more allowances than matter, or matter and energy combined :)

I did see those posts, but I don't understand why do you said that. The ramifications of Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation is that there is no difference between energy and matter. Matter is just energy in another form. Everything in the Universe is energy; nuclear energy in the stars, gravitational energy, heat energy, the energy of matter, etc. It's all energy. There is nothing in the Universe but energy. So I guess I don't understand the distincion between allowing God as energy to be "just is" and not allowing the Universe as energy to be "just is."

Aurora Moon
Anyway, this is just from my experiences in walking a few steps in the shoes of the people who was involved in making the bible what it was. I don't care if you don't believe me, but I have to tell you it'd be rude of you to keep on going "wrong wrong!! link plz!! link me to site so I can see proof!!!" when I didn't even find the sources on a site.

I am not asking for a link, nor am I speaking in AIM-speak. I am asking you for your source that declares that not only is Jesus not the son of God, but he is just some ordinary guy that was born to a non virgin woman who never said he was the son of God and never claimed to be but in fact said the exact opposite of what 2000 years of the Christian church has purported. From what it appears like, it seems that you went to a bookstore and got a few dictionaries and some random Hebrew text of the New Testament (the New Testament is actually written in Greek originally, not Aramaic.) And started translating the "Aramiac Hebrew" version of an originally Koine Greek text and came up with exactly the opposite of what every other Greek expert in history has found.

You must be completely awesome.

No seriously, if you have been able to read Greek and Hebrew fluently as well as speak it, please let me know and show me how everything that Christianity is founded upon is a lie of mind-numbingly continental proportion.

Vindibudd --

*rolls eyes* whatever. and who said I was translating only the NEW testament? I did get Greek Dictaorties too, by the way. I forgot to meition the Greek ones too.. but I was actually studying the old testament too as well. *wry smile* I was speaking about the HEBREW texts first and the Greek ones second, NOT ONLY the Greek one. It was a simple matter of reading BOTH The Hebrew and the Greek to the best of my ability using all that I had learned from all of the books on the Aramaic Hebrew and the Greek.

Anyway, in the end I found that a lot of it was too easy for anybody to interpret the wrong thing by mistake. A lot of the same words means a lot of different things in different languages, as well as cultural. and I also discovered that the Greek and Hebrew words aren't easy to translate exactly... that when translating to English one had to actually go for the closest English version of the term if one couldn't find the EXACT literal translation of a Hebrew/Greek word in English. So in other words, it wasn't a exact science for the people who made the whole thing into English and they made mistakes. It's just that difficult even for the professionals.

So I'm not some official translator and my interpretation of the ancient texts differs from the popular version of it, so what? My whole point was that it's not a exact science for anybody even me, because after all, we're all human. That even the people who translated the bible to English lost a lot in the translation. the whole point of it was to supposed to make you think: "Hey, what if this or that was never meant to be interpreted that way? What if certain people only interpreted it that way because it sounded more dramatic/cooler, and other people agreed that it was the best interperation? What if it could had been translated a different way, what if it meant something else competely?"

I threw out on what I gleaned in my personal experiences studying that in the past in order to make it a debate for everyone... so that they could think about THAT POSSIBILITY that in the end, that everything is just basically one huge interpretation and may not be right or wrong. After all, people speaking like this in the bible: "And lo behold, did he wander into the valley of death seeking Lamb's blood..blah blah blah" isn't very straightforward is it? that kind of diologue can open up all kinds of different interpretations that may not be right or wrong.

Anyway, I'm done now... since you've really gone beyond rude now. keep your personal insults to yourself, thank you very much. from now on, I shall be ingoring you competely.

Vindibudd are you asking Aurora Moon to prove that Jesus was magical? I would think the weight of evidence would be on the person making exceptional claims.

Vindibudd
I am not asking for a link, nor am I speaking in AIM-speak. I am asking you for your source that declares that not only is Jesus not the son of God, but he is just some ordinary guy that was born to a non virgin woman who never said he was the son of God and never claimed to be but in fact said the exact opposite of what 2000 years of the Christian church has purported.

The discovery of the Gnostic Gospels at Naj Hammadi in 1945 has completely upturned our understanding of the early Christian church. We have since discovered that there was an incredible diversity of beliefs in early Christianity. The orthodox version we recognize today, where Jesus is the Messiah and claims to be the Son of God, had declared all other forms of Christianity heretical and sought to destroy all texts. However, the discovery of these texts that did survive show that many branches of the church believed Jesus was a teacher who never claimed to be the Son of God. Is this proof of anything? Of course not. But if you read those Gnostic Gospels you will find books about Jesus where he claims that his inner divinity is no different than anyone else's.
Again, there is no proof of anything, but here's some places to begin...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.htmlht

Ludus Pragma
Vindibudd are you asking Aurora Moon to prove that Jesus was magical? I would think the weight of evidence would be on the person making exceptional claims.

I am asking Aurora Moon to prove that her non-language scholar interpretation of the Greek of the New Testament (which is radically different from what 2000 years of professional Greek Scholars have said) is actually the correct interpretation.

What is so hard about that?

By the way, apparently, this is really rude of me to actually ask her to back up what she is saying with a halfway factual explanation.

But I digress, she is completely ignoring me now.

Her explanation that there can be multiple interpretations of words being translated between languages is nice but does not hold up to what she is trying to declare, that key parts of the New Testament are COMPLETELY mistranslated. The fact of the matter is that there are actually some words that cannot be argued about with regards to their meaning.

arteestx
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.htmlht

Oh geez, I am not even going to start about the Gnostic Gospels.

arteestx
You can suppress theories for a while, as the church did with Copernicus or the science establishment did with Wegener, but evidence will always trump authority.

Well exactly what you just said here is the proof that basically all types of knowledge are manipulated by social circumstance. Evidence will trump authority, for sure, and if you come down to pure logic and scientific process evidence is the currency with which people speak to assert their views on the natural (and not so natural) environment. However in truth, in hands-on experience evidence is not so important as is where or from whom this evidence comes from. Often evidence coming from women researchers was not heeded until it was sanctioned by a man- from Marie Curie to a number of other ladies. It did not matter where the evidence was coming from if it did not serve the interests of society at the time. This is no different than what happened in the church regarding knowledge of the Gospels, for example, as opposed to the selling of 'sin relieving' papers (I tried to look up the english term but the online dictionary won't give an entry. I hope it's clear what I am referring to).

The only thing I am saying is that the difference between science and religion is actually minimal- and in the grossest terms, it is just picking which groups of humans to place your faith on. Both categories (priests and scientists) are quite populated. ;)

Now, when it comes to the existence of God, I think this is one thing each person must go out and search for themselves to gather the evidence (or indication or what have you) rather than sit in a chair waiting for it to be offered to them. That's all. Also, that to dismiss the existence of something so great and vast in scope because there is no conclusive evidence (which does NOT mean there are no indications or inconclusive evidence ;) ) is an error of logic we don't commit or claim not to commit in other areas. We let out murderers in the street with less evidence for 'reasonable doubt' ;) heheheh!

My trust comes from a process not dependent on a small number of humans. ... The scientific process (a misnomer, but ok) is not perfect, but it is the best way to counteract human foibles. If people try to cheat at science, they will eventually be found out. If people try to suppress the truth, the truth will eventually be found out. It may not be pretty, or immediate, and it will most certainly be bumpy and messy. But this process is the best method we have, and IMHO is better at truth in the natural world far better than religion.

But how is that not true about religion? The history of religion is a demonstration about how perpetrators to the dogma (whatever that is) are eventually found out. It is bumpier and messier, but it happens as well. The scientific process does depend on a small number of humans as opposed to the total of the human population: the scientists. Nobody else dares touch the scientific process than those endowed (through education) with the skill to do it or the authority, if you like ;) In the end, it comes down again to a small group of people with selective inclusion of members as well as an arbitrary method of dispersing of information. It is not the liberal process you think it to be. I am not saying to abandon it- that would be preposterous. I am a scientist myself. But to hail it as the best way to find the truth would be hailing a knife as the best way to defend a person. It can be so, but only when this tool, this 'knife' is used appropriately and with the right motives. The tool in itself can be a method of suppression of the truth and knowledge just as effectively as it can be its liberating agent.

What I am seeking to show you from this: Science and Religion are actually sister concepts, and two different ways to approach the ever present question of justifying our presence within the cosmos. Just one chooses to 'sell' its truths in a different way than the other- but both are subject to examination and deliberation if you are brave enough to do it. And you should do it, in both areas. But because this is true, it does not mean we should invalidate the one for the other to exist.

However, science does not cover the "oughts" of the world, as in what we ought to do. Science cannot answer those questions, and that is where religion shines the greatest. Keep religion away from defining life or homosexuality or evolution. Let religion talk of how we ought to treat others with kindness and mercy, help the poor, etc. Science cannot speak to that directly.

You are wrong. Science covers MANY of the oughts of the world. Motives and other things are explained and solutions as to what to be done are given. Morality is shaped based on scientific knowledge as well as methods of dealing with things that are very much like the decision of what is right and wrong. Treating others with kindness or mercy may be scientifically explained as a biological sign of weakness. Helping the poor has been explained in many ways- biologically, socially and physically by science. Evolution, homosexuality and other issues like that have been explained arbitrarily by science, the explanation changing every decade or so, but it still does define cohorts upon cohorts of peoples' behaviors and morals. You can't really think that science steers clear away from 'oughts'. Even adultery is being attempted to be explained by science. Isn't that an 'ought', as in we should not hurt our spouse by betraying him/her when having an affair with someone else? ;)

To me, my atheism is rooted in agnosticism. Of course, I have no idea whether there is actually a God or not. I can't prove it one way or another. I can't prove whether Astrology is real or not. I can't prove if ESP is real or not. I can't prove if the Loch Ness monster is real or not. I can't prove a number of things. As with these other things, my atheism is my best assumption for now given the evidence and experiences I have. And as with everything else, it is always subject to revision as new experienes roll into my life.

But atheism precludes that what you just said is not true. It specifically specifies there is no such thing nor can there be such thing as a God or any such entity. Agnosticism could be rooted in science and be legitimate- Atheism, on the other hand, is as sweeping a belief as any theist theory/religion out there. It assumes based on inconclusive evidence that there can't be a God. Period. This is not scientific thought- nothing within atheism is subject to change, except perhaps one's ascription to it ;)

I did see those posts, but I don't understand why do you said that. The ramifications of Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation is that there is no difference between energy and matter. Matter is just energy in another form. Everything in the Universe is energy; nuclear energy in the stars, gravitational energy, heat energy, the energy of matter, etc. It's all energy. There is nothing in the Universe but energy. So I guess I don't understand the distincion between allowing God as energy to be "just is" and not allowing the Universe as energy to be "just is."

Actually Einstein's E-mc^2 is proven to be incomplete. I can't quote the specifics right now, but there are parts of the equation offering other insights into this process that do not allow us to equate 'matter' and 'energy' as being equal. Matter and energy do have specific differences. They are interconnected in that energy can become matter and matter can become energy, but that does not mean that matter is energy- not in the sense, at least, of free, dynamic energy ready to be used, so to speak.

The Universe is contained within God- and so all these types of free energy exist, because God is omnipresent and the universe is part of him, within him- his creation. However, matter has different qualities. While I may be able to free energy from, say, a piece of paper by burning it, it is not the same as using solar energy or some other sort of non-thermal energy.

Matter has a tendency to evolve- it withers, it erodes, it develops into all sorts of other things. Energy does not evolve. If we do not do anything to change it- transform it, it won't wither, it won't erode, it won't develop. It will remain just what it is. Also, there is this principle stating that energy levels- the sum of energy existing in the cosmos remains the same and that energy can never be destroyed. Matter can. To me that is a huge difference. Which is why I ascribe to the universe 'creation' qualities and to God 'non-creation' qualities. After all, God is said to be immortal, omnipresent, omnipotent and indestructible. Sounds like pure energy to me ;)

Anyway, this is beyond the actual point. The point being discussed is 'is atheism a valid theory'? Is it scientific, if you like? Or is it in essence just as valid as another religion? What my cosmology is is irrelevant. It is within the 'package', if you like, of my belief system. The atheist's cosmology is within the 'package' of the atheist's cosmology. The issue here is whether there is any reason to consider atheism as anything else than analogous to yet another set of belief system. To me it does not look scientific at all.

That's all there is to it in this thread, and it is to that that I offer my opinion.

arteestx

Vindibudd
I am not asking for a link, nor am I speaking in AIM-speak. I am asking you for your source that declares that not only is Jesus not the son of God, but he is just some ordinary guy that was born to a non virgin woman who never said he was the son of God and never claimed to be but in fact said the exact opposite of what 2000 years of the Christian church has purported.

The discovery of the Gnostic Gospels at Naj Hammadi in 1945 has completely upturned our understanding of the early Christian church. We have since discovered that there was an incredible diversity of beliefs in early Christianity. The orthodox version we recognize today, where Jesus is the Messiah and claims to be the Son of God, had declared all other forms of Christianity heretical and sought to destroy all texts. However, the discovery of these texts that did survive show that many branches of the church believed Jesus was a teacher who never claimed to be the Son of God. Is this proof of anything? Of course not. But if you read those Gnostic Gospels you will find books about Jesus where he claims that his inner divinity is no different than anyone else's.
Again, there is no proof of anything, but here's some places to begin...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.htmlht

Don't bother, I dont think he's even going to have a friendly, nice debate and entertain the possiblity about those links. Instead he'll just attack it and be an asshole about it every time he even feels like such things are challeging his faith despite the fact that it's hard to prove or disprove things that happened such a long time ago. And of course if it's hard to prove or disprove anything, then why does he feel so threatened/or feel the need to act like a jerk? After all it'd be easy to feel vaildated by the fact that nobody can disprove or prove anything on this board.

Vindibudd
Funnier still that you argue with people about something that you don't believe exists.

First, i'm not arguing with anybody on this.

Second, even if I was, why would that be "funny"? The topic of discussion is atheism. That means part of the discussion will be from people who don't believe god exists. It would be "funny" if people were arguing about vegetarians in a thread about atheism.

Seriously, man, read your posts before you hit 'send'. You're just posting for posting's sake.

You guys, don't make this personal or I'll just delete all the non-atheism arguments. This isn't directed at any one person, but everyone.