@niko25ish consistent speed of light, cepheid period correlated with distance, supernovae brightness drop off indicating distance, gravitational effects allowing mass estimates, cosmic microwave background radiation showing a flat universe, star formation time frames, main sequence stars generational times, red shift of distant objects, correlation of red shift and distance, galaxy rotational periods, Hubble deep field allowing us to count galaxies, proportion of light elements,
@HarshColby "Planck's Low Frequency Instrument will continue surveying the sky for a large part of 2012, providing data to improve the quality of the final results. The first results on the Big Bang and very early universe will not come for another year." - NASA - I can't wait to see what they find.
My question is sincere and genuine; I am interested to know the current theory of the origin of our universe. If you perceive my attidude to be uncivil and or contemtuous you have misunderstood the tone and or inflection of my words. Furthermore, the information I used was gathered purely from non-religious sources. I am not a Christian nor am I religious. So, lose your attitude and answer the question or stop waisting my time.
@niko25ish Well, then it seems the first thing you have to do is forget just about everything you think you know about it. I apologize if I've misinterpreted your statements.
1. Nothing about the BB theory talks about "before" the BB. The theory describes what happened starting at Planck time, 10^-44 seconds (1 over 1 followed by 43 zeros, a very small number) after the start. There's a good reason for this, but it's unnecessary to go into.
@niko25ish All space(time) started at once. There's no "primordial atom". At the earliest times, no matter existed. It was all energy.
In our solar system, gravity did what gravity does, brings matter together, first in an accretion disk, then solid or gaseous planets and a star.
Life is chemistry, which is governed by the laws of physics. This video is about the universe, and the origin of life can be found described in video 3 of this series: /watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
@niko25ish Although there is a random factor to all things, the universe operates under the laws of physics. To say it was ' all...by random chance' is not accurate. For a mundane example: Throw a ball up in the air. Where it will land is random, in that the wind may blow, how hard you threw it will vary, but that's not to say it could land in China (assuming you don't live in China). It will land exactly where physics says it should land, if you had the information necessary to calculate it.
@niko25ish It's not known that they did. The universe may have existed forever. The concept of "before" the BB may even be completely meaningless. So far as we've been able to observe, the laws of nature have been in force for 13.7 billion years. Even if the universe hasn't existed forever, speculating on what may or may not have existed, or speculating how the universe came to be is an unanswerable question. Until some data becomes available on which to base a conclusion, it's only speculation.
You understand, don't you, that the reason the BB theory doesn't speculate on what exited pre-BB is that science doesn't put speculation into scientific theories. The BB theory is based on observation and calculations using known physics laws. Ideas about pre-BB cosmology are called hypotheses.
@niko25ish I understand it's only 1500 characters, and I didn't go into a lot of detail, but does that clarify in which ways your original statements were wrong? Is it more clear or did I just confuse things more?
Let me see if I understand the Big Bang theory correctly: Before the universe existed, there was literally nothing, save a lone "primortial" atom. At some point all matter (except the preexisting atom) leapt forth in an act of self creation. Moreover, in our solar system, this newly deposited matter aligned itself with stunning precision and pin-point accuracy so that life may be possible; and all of the aforementioned acts, occured by random chance-is this correct?
@niko25ish It doesn't appear as if you want to be enlightened. Why else would you get everything so wrong? Any basic research would have allowed you to explain it much better, and without the contemptuous attitude.
No claims are made about pre-BB cosmology in the theory. No one says anything about a primordial atom. No one talks of leaping forth. No one talks about self-creation. Etc, etc. etc.
Care to try not getting your bs from creationist sites? Try a science site. Try again, and be civil?
@niko25ish My question is sincere and genuine; I am interested to know the current theory of the origin of our universe. If you perceive my attidude to be uncivil and or contemtuous you have misunderstood the tone and or inflection of my words. Furthermore, the information I used was gathered purely from non-religious sources. I am not a Christian nor am I religious. So, lose your attitude and answer the question or stop waisting my time
@HarshColby i also have another question, why do you care what other people believe in anyway, because all i c is that if it shows love and kindness i wouldnt mind that belief system
@probro1464 You'd not likely change your mind even if someone does show you the bible is wrong, so I'm not going to worry about it. In the actual universe, light came first, then the sun, then the earth, then the sea creatures, then fruit trees. The bible has much of that backwards, and there's no reason for an omniscient being to make the same kinds of factual mistakes that ancient peoples would be expected to make on their own
I don't believe in things without evidence, and that includes gods.
@probro1464 I really wouldn't care, but religion causes such great harm in the world. It's not the love that you talk about that bothers me. That part is great.
I care what other's think when they try and make non-believers follow their rituals; make it impossible for a non-religious person to hold office in the US; don't pay their fair share of taxes; dictate what non-believers can buy on Sunday; spread AIDS; killed 3000 innocent people on 9/11; and want nonsense taught in science classes.
@HarshColby also what i figured was through history i have seen that science was made to prove God was really during the Catholic Churchs time but they had limited science because they where scared of some idea occuring in science that could make people question the church. im sure there are many scientists that will could explain how the bible is true through science, but i myself am dont have that kind of knowledge, im really excited in hearing in what you believe.
@HarshColby what you have told me im sure has been questioned by other scientist and i had to have something the made if not so true too the point, because if then why am i not being taught it, its not like im in a private school
@HarshColby dont be shyy to give me really good facts and such, the reason i wouldnt believe you is because you dont kno the basics of how to change a persons opinion when you first speak too them which makes you come off bad and judgemental, but i like too learn what you believe but you have to find common ground before you attack someone if u like to change their opinion about a belief
@HarshColby hey sry for it being so long too get back.haha just really busy and i dont believe any of the bible is false because you havent taught me anything of the science i know that could help your side out so i will still have time too learn for myself of the truth, i also wanted to know what you believe because i have no clue what atheist believe exept science and that God doesnt exist by now i wont believe a word from what you say until i am educated but i would stil like too kno
Before anyone puts too much blind faith in atheism, in magical self-creating universes..
remember that 'scientists' declared the Universe to be 'static'- and scoffed at the idea of a creation event- Until a theist less biased against the idea discovered the Big Bang.
Likewise 'self-creating' was what life on Earth was supposed to be, after decades of failure to reproduce this, far less show how it happened by accident- they are beginning to conceed it may not have...
@GuyThreepwoody "remember that 'scientists' declared the Universe to be 'static'- and scoffed at the idea of a creation event" Yes, 'scientists' such as the patently absurd (and deeply religious) Newton.
"magical self-creating universes.." Who calls it anything like that? You. Well done you. Very convincing...
"'self-creating' was what life on Earth was supposed to be, after decades of failure to reproduce this"
Who's failed? We know how the building blocks of life arose.
@GuyThreepwoody " you mean self creating Universes are based on a scrap of evidence?" No. I mean you're using the term 'created'. All that we know is that it has expanded and is still expanding. That's what the evidence tells us.
"or we have any evidence for how the first replicator spontaneously created itself?"
We know how molecules form, yes. You might like to look into it. It's a branch of science called 'chemistry'.
@Misterb0z We know it is expanding- from a singularity finely tuned for life- life that would ultimately ponder and appreciate it's creation. Like the vast majority of humanity- I recognize this as evidence of something more than chance, some sort of purpose, intelligence involved etc.
To insist otherwise is based on ideology, similarly- nobody can demonstrate how the first replicator created itself, yet atheists adamantly claim it did- no need for evidence if it supports your faith..
@GuyThreepwoody "finely tuned for life- " Really? Might I suggest you go and live on Venus? Life has arisen, yes, but what's your evidence to suggest it wouldn't have arisen in a different form had our physical constants been different? And if life had been impossible would we have known any different? Of course not.
"To insist otherwise is based on ideology" No, you're reading too much into what we know, simply to support your religious preconceptions.
@Misterb0z The singularity was finely tuned, yes- all cosmologists recognize this- that any tiny change would have meant dark/cold/lifeless- but it created specific fusion reactors needed for complex elements necessary for life. Hardly a controversial observation. & If the U. turns out to be just big enough to overcome the odds for one Earth- yes I'd consider that further evidence of fine tuning, wouldn't you?
@GuyThreepwoody "all cosmologists recognize this- that any tiny change would have meant dark/cold/lifeless-" No, not really. Again, I ask you, what evidence do you have to suggest that any of our physical constants could have been anything different, or what effect all possible combinations of these constants would have been if they were possible.
@GuyThreepwoody "all cosmologists recognize this- that any tiny change would have meant dark/cold/lifeless-" No, not really. Again, I ask you, what evidence do you have to suggest that any of our physical constants could have been anything different, or what effect all possible combinations of these constants would have been if they were possible.
@GuyThreepwoody "nobody can demonstrate how the first replicator created itself" Wow. That's persuasive. The same as the argument "Nobody can demonstrate how the sun shines" was persuasive 100 odd years ago. Your argument from ignorance is plain boring, why bother using it? "Like the vast majority of humanity- I recognize this...." That's an even worse argument.
"your faith" I don't have a faith. I believe to be true what the evidence suggests.
@Misterb0z So again, what evidence exactly suggests the Universe OR life, spontaneously creating itself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.....
@GuyThreepwoody "So again, what evidence exactly suggests the Universe OR life, spontaneously creating itself" Again you insist on using a nonsensical word to try and make your argument convincing. Does it work for you? Here' I'll try it:
What evidence exactly do you have that rain-drops drop themselves? None? Then it is evident that it is a rain-dropping faery, as the majority of people recognise.
Convinced? No? Then don't expect anyone else to be convinced by your rhetoric.
@Misterb0z it's evidence that they don't drop themselves- that there is another external force involved yes, in this case gravity, in the Universes case- we don't know for sure- but the point remains- hard to demonstrate how rain drops or universes create themselves yes? so why insist that they do?
@GuyThreepwoody "hard to demonstrate how rain drops or universes create themselves yes?" To create is to form from either something pre-existing or from nothing. It is a transitive verb, implying a creator. Nobody besides the religious claim the universe was created. The universe is. Time and space are properties of it. Anything outside it does not, by definition, exist.
@Misterb0z I'm using the word the same way Hawking or any cosmologist talks about the creation/origins/beginning/explanation etc etc. I didn;t mean to imply anything by it-
It's a problem you always run into - finding a word for something exhibiting so much creative design without implying creative design?
are u implying a larger infinite/always existing U.? you don't see invoking infinity as logically problematic also?
Thanks for the civil exchange- have to go clear snow!
@GuyThreepwoody "are u implying a larger infinite/always existing U.? you don't see invoking infinity as logically problematic also?" I understand the universe in terms of General Relativity. Hence the universe has a finite age, but no beginning. If we follow time back to the singularity we find time passes at a rate which tends to, but never reaches zero.
@Misterb0z #$@~! snowblower broke down... OK so don't you think the singularity demands explanation/cause of some kind? if it does, what particular evidence convinces you that it couldn't possibly have been as intentional as it appears?
@GuyThreepwoody The singularity obeyed the laws of physics as they were in that universe at that instant. Time as we understand it was a consequence of that expansion.
Of course, some civilisation in another dimension accidentally or otherwise releasing that vast amount of energy into the dimensions they now occupy might explain our universe, but it doesn't explain theirs. It's just not a meaningful explanation considering the complete absence of evidence to support it.
@GuyThreepwoody "utterly absurd compared to which other first cause? or any other explanation?" Utterly absurd because any creator must have its own origins explained. A creator answers nothing with regards our origins, and is therefore rejected as an explanation since no evidence supports it. But I'm sure this is where you bring in the cop-out 'God is by definition without cause', right? Please, prove me wrong.
@Misterb0z so the first cause/infinite regression paradox is EXACTLY as problematic for ID or 'natural accident' alike. As is the logical difficulty of 'infinity'- 'always existed, just is' etc. These arguments are a wash whichever explanation you propose are they not?
& all share equal lack of direct evidence
What's NOT equal is the ability to account for the remarkable sophistication of this Universe- compositions, constants that if altered infinitesimally- = dark, cold, lifeless blobs
@GuyThreepwoody "all share equal lack of direct evidence" So General Relativity has no evidence to support it? Seriously? Is that seriously what you're suggesting?
"What DID cause 'sunshine'? those task-specific fusion rectors necessary to generate elements for life? the fine tuning of creation" And if the gravitational constant or strong nuclear forces had been different then shorter-lived stars might have lasted longer and supported life. Your speculation is desperate.
@Misterb0z My 'speculation' is the opinion of every serious cosmologist - the remarkable tuning of the singularity is what gave rise to Multiverse theory-
That only a vast or infinite # of random states of physics could possibly account for the perfection of this one (if you have a dogmatic dislike for ID that is) now THATS desperation!
And there is of course zero evidence for the Multiverse, String theory, M Theory or any other anti-ID explanation- which enjoy the distinction of 'theory'
No, not quite. No serious cosmologist will state that we know enough to be able to conclude that 1) this configuration is in any way more or less likely than any other configuration that might emerge from whatever process this universe originated, and 2) that there are no other configurations that are more or equally amenable to some kind of life. So you're wrong about that.
Well, no. Actually, M-theory isn't quite a theory yet. Evolutionary theory, relativity theory, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, those are all well-tested theories; M-theory however currently lacks testability, so is not really deserving of the name 'theory'. M-theory is a complex hypothesis, not a theory. Unfortunately even scientific terminology sometimes lacks the subtleties needed to communicate such distinctions.
@GuyThreepwoody "My 'speculation' is the opinion of every serious cosmologist" I'm well aware of what cosmologists say. Your interpretation of it, however, is not what those cosmologists intended.
"And there is of course zero evidence for the Multiverse, String theory, M Theory or any other anti-ID explanation- which enjoy the distinction of 'theory'"
M-theory is a mathematical model that approximates reality. ID explains nothing. It just needlessly postpones the need for explanation 1 step.
@Misterb0z Outcome prediction is persuasive yes. ID always predicted that life could not have created itself- & despite being the holy grail of secular scientists for generations- this prediction appears ever more solid with evidence.
Creation event was another fundamental specific prediction- only reluctantly conceeded in the face of overwhelming evidence
What DID cause 'sunshine'? those task-specific fusion rectors necessary to generate elements for life? the fine tuning of creation
Carl Sagan made all of this a little bit more clear to me. But then again he had a lot more air time, interesting series nonetheless. Thanks for spending time on it for the benefit of other people! ^^
I don't know why everyone is fighting on this. I mean, are you all 100% saying you know how the earth formed? .I wont deny that it does make sense, in a way, but who knows that this is the definite theory? There could be a greater meaning of the Universe that we cannot use science to explain.
@myers2fan Yes we do know how the earth formed and other planets too. We also know what other planets are made off that are hundreds of lightyears away. Amazing huh? I put my trust in science that discovers, tests its theories and tries to expand out knowledge. Science isn't afraid to admit being wrong and with every new evidence we can only know more.Universe and science is fascinating and we are lucky enough to live in a time where we know more than anyone before us on earth.
The big bang, evolution, yeah it may be all correct after all it makes sense but that still doesnt hide the fact that god may have invented evolution? And may have created the big bang?
@HarshColby I am ok with the choices I have made, even if other people cant understand why I made them. I think we have exhausted the topic. You have failed to read carefully what I wrote before.. and have sought to enlarge the debate to other areas. I have things I must do. I will not have time or the desire to respond... you can answer this.. or ignore it I dont care.
@HarshColby Yet your very problems with religion are dealing with human fallibility. Religions are not perfect because the people a part of them are not perfect. Religious books are error prone cause people are error prone. Science has in a large part overcome the human element. This cannot be done in religion. Yet you demand it be done before you "could" bring yourself to believe it. Why would god allow it? Rhetorical question. When I see God I'll ask, until then I'll use faith.
@HarshColby I mentioned Solipsism because it is an example where science has met a boundary that it cant penetrate. I am saying that Religion is another one of those boundaries. In science they try to remove the human element cause we are error prone, and we screw up data. Our modern science methods are such that they compensate for our screwups. Religion embraces human interaction, even if it is flawed and gets things wrong.. Because as humans we get a lot wrong.
@HarshColby In science we are united. On religion you seem to believe that it should be complete. Perfect. Yet you will freely admit that Science is neither complete or perfect. It is in essence our best guess based on what we classify as verifiable fact. However, we have HUGE discrepancies in Physics alone. Einstein's view is at odds with observable fact about Quantum science. They dont mesh. One has to be wrong or incomplete. Yet you assume that religion must be perfect.
@HarshColby I said this earlier... [ One last time so we are crystal clear. Your view of science would be exactly the same as mine. We would agree on every point of science. We would have identical textbooks (God belongs in a church where people can choose to go, not where he is crammed down throats in the name of "education") We would have identical results in scientific tests.] You seem to have skipped it. You keep asking how the universe was created, I cant answer cause science doesnt know
@HarshColby The question is, why is this a big deal for you? What are you trying to accomplish with talking to me? Are you trying to "help me see the light?" Are you trying to save me from the dangers of religion? Are you trying to show me that religion isn't scientific? I presented a situation where you must take the answer on faith, that you cant just science your way out. I believe that Religion poses the same types of questions where the answer is based on faith.
@HarshColby There is no sufficient answer I can give, Even when I give a sufficient answer. So let me ask you a question. You are a being of faith without realizing it. you use faith in life and when you do, you deny it. You pushed Solipsism aside, so let me bring it back. Prove to me that the world itself exists. Or the universe. If you cant, then the rules it supposedly operates by are inconsequential, and therefore there is no need to move past Solipsism. The only way past is by faith
@HarshColby Then you have religion which should be a personal thing. It should be private, and respected. You asked many questions, I have answered your how do you find out, I answered that above. I even know your response. And the problem with your answer is that you are assuming that it is valid to have other people test religion for you and their answer is valid. You sound like you are on the receiving end of science. You wait for others to do it for you.
@HarshColby [So praying to a god will tell you which one is real?] Yes, if you pray to the right one. And my claim wasn't that I know that my god was real, I have faith that my god is real. Just like I have faith that the world exists outside of my mind. I would not have us behave as if science and faith is on equal footing. I said they should be treated differently. One should be taught in the classroom using textbooks. It should be required to study.
@HarshColby Lets give an example of something that is untestable but can be true or false. are you familiar with Solipsism. If not go read about it. It is completely untestable. You cannot prove it wrong or right. Whether you believe int or not is beside the point. You cannot prove it one way or the other, it cannot be done, nor in the conceivable future will it be possible. But that being said... it is either true or false. Completely untestable, Not scientific. But true or false.
@jbtuck Solipsism isn't believing without and against all evidence like believing in a deity is. No need to go there. You'd have us to behave as if nothing at all is known but self, therefore everything is up for grabs and any belief (faith- or evidence-based) is on equal footing. That's not the way the world works. We operate on evidence generally. Believing in unsupported claims normally is a really bad idea, except, it seems, when it comes to religion. Solipsism is inconsequential.
@HarshColby the fact that there are many people that believe different religions based on prayer doesnt mean that there isnt one that is right. By the same token having alots of different theorems that people believe in science doesnt make them all wrong. How do we know who is being deceived? That is a matter of faith, Like I have said previously.. many times. I dont believe that religion needs to follow strict scientific definitions to be "true" or "false"
@jbtuck [many people that believe different religions based on prayer doesnt mean that there isnt one that is right] Right, but that's not the question I asked. I asked how we're supposed to tell who are the deceived ones. Your claim is that you know your God is real, but they all know their gods are real as well. Why would a god leave such an important decision up to personal opinion with no evidence? Why would God let most of the world's population be deceived and suffer the consequences?
@HarshColby Now my assertion is just as unprovable. Therefore, it is simply my opinion on the matter. You have not presented anything that could call my opinion into question. By the same token neither have I done the same to your opinion.
With the prayer issue. I am saying exactly that... you would need to pray to every god to find out if what they are saying is true. Just like with a biological sample you would need to do all the tests of an enterotube to know what the sample is.
@HarshColby Let me hit the Creation by Gods thing a bit more. In your opinion the translations of the religious texts specify a creation that violates the laws of physics. Second the assertion is that Gods must disobey the laws if they are to do the "Miracles" that people attribute to them.
Neither are provable by you are anyone. These claims you have stated are untestable for falsification. Thereby they are your opinion rather then fact. If you need me to prove this to you, I can.
@jbtuck There are many, many claims in the bible which are testable. Many of them are falsifiable and have been falsified. So, no, I don't agree. If you want to believe that God can break the rules anytime he wants (as is the claim), then that's fine, but there's no evidence of any rules being broken in the entire history of tested claims. If you could demonstrate this rule-breaking behavior, it would no longer be religion. But there's no reason to believe outlandish stories either.
@HarshColby I don't know if you realize this but my assertion was that I believed that god just set forth rules by which the universe was created. To say that "it was done the way it was done" was a reference that I still believe that it was created by those rules.
To say that you don't need to pray to each god to see if it is or isn't valid is alot like saying we don't need to test any scientific theorems cause we can logically guess the outcome. Thereby limiting what we can know.
@jbtuck Each person doesn't need to test each theory individually. Other experts have done the work for us. So why would we individually need to test each religion? People all claim their religion is the right one, so no need to dodge the question: How do we tell which of the believers are deceived?
Did God break the laws of physics when he, reportedly, created the universe ex nihilo? Or are you going to redefine the rules and just say whatever God does doesn't break the rules even if it does?
@HarshColby I am not proposing that God is "in there somewhere" he could or could not be. However to answer the "everyone prays, someone must be right" I would equate this to ravens all being black (ask Hempel how that turns out). Until you look at every religion and evaluate it.. you cant tell me that there isnt a difference. Regardless of how many religions spring up because of it. Again its been fun... but I really have work that needs to be done.. both for family, work, and school. Bye.
@jbtuck One doesn't need to pray to all gods to see that this is not a valid way of determining whether one opinion is more accurate than onother. The fact is that adherents that subscribe to prayer and say it works are scattered across many religions. They can't all be right. Since they all make the same claim (their god exists and they know it because of prayer), then how do we know which people are deceived?
@HarshColby Remember that science is the approximation of truth. To illustrate this concept look at the system of astronomy that states that the earth was the center and then uses epicycles to explain the movements. We ultimately found that it was incorrect. In a thousand years what will our version of epicycles be? To state anything in science as absolute is a fallacy. This is not a reason to ignore science, its the best tool we have got. But it is just a tool and an imperfect one at that.
@HarshColby As for how did god create the universe? Simple... he created it in the way it was created. Seeing as how that is up for debate currently I cannot give a good answer. I do like the research that exists that says that there have been several big bangs. It is pretty awesome. If that is true then time existed before the big bang. which is also an interesting notion.
@jbtuck My original comment was that gods, to do what they are claimed to have done, would have to break the laws of physics to do it. You said they did not. So, my question is how do the gods create universes? Just saying "the way it was created" is ignoring the question.
No one says time didn't exist before the BB. The statement is "our time" (that which we can measure) started at the BB. That says nothing about time before the BB. It's generally assumed that time does exist in some form.
@HarshColby we were talking about the scientific validity. If you want to attack me on some other points.. I could tell you more to defend my point... however, the point was I worship a god that is not contradictory, now you are just quibbling cause you don't like the answer that I can. Remember, I asserted that my religion isn't like a science. And I don't judge it as such. As long as I believe, keep it to myself, and live a good moral life, Personal beliefs are just that ... personal.
@HarshColby Well I have enjoyed our back and forth... but I have to get back to my studies. I have a philosophy class to write several papers soon. Thanks for the conversation. Good luck in your endeavors.
As for the assertion of the invisible divine that is so invisible as to be undetectable... its a matter of faith. Simply put I believe that there are prophets that have been revealed and have taught about him. Then if you pray then you can know...
And yes I believe that Neuroscience can recreate the experience... I think that the response is natural in humankind and can be simulated and or from God. I also believe the difference lies in faith regarding it.
@jbtuck So praying to a god will tell you which one is real? So the Hindu's are right. Muslims are right, and Christians are right? As are all the rest? Pray to Odin, and he's real also? That has resulted in different cultures believing in various gods. How does that tell anyone whether they found the "right" one? They all say their's is the real one. How do we determine which are being deceived?
But, how did the god create the universe without breaking any laws of physics? What existed before?
@HarshColby Intervening can be done in a multitude of ways.. most of them have no need to come from the "universe" many can be internal... possibly even genetic in nature (assuming you are aware of a possible "god" gene) No need to break the laws of physics.
As for creation of the universe.. it could have been done in a number of ways. One that I like (this is my opinion not related to my religion, as it doesn't tackle that mystery) is to supposedly collide 2 dimensions.
@HarshColby To help find those that were worthy of this elevation, he set forth a test. A test that was to determine who would come to him(her) though faith. As such everything in science is set up such that there can be no way to tell that he/she is here or not. Or the test would be made invalid. In very non religious terms that is the God I look too.
I believe that God is a personal god (one I know) rather then a generic being.
@HarshColby Sure God is the Divine originator of the universe. As such he set about natural laws that were to govern the creation of everything. Then patiently waited until the conditions were such to allow his children to raise from evolution into the creatures they are today... knowing that they will change and evolve over the course of the next "while". He is not omniscient, he is not omnipotent, he is just a higher order of being with enough knowledge to help us become like him (or her).
@jbtuck Personal gods intervene in our daily lives. Is that how your see it?
How did God (Capital G, really?) create the universe? Did he obey the law of conservation of energy, for example? What was the state of things before he created the universe? (It's okay if you don't actually claim to know, but just have an idea. Name your idea and lets see if it contradicts known laws.)
Shiva, Allah, and Yahweh all have the same desire, it seems, to be undetectable. In this test, how are we to decide?
@HarshColby Just to be clear... I don't have a "standard definition of Deity" that breaks any laws set forth or will be set forth by science. I do not subscribe to the "God of the gap" view of science.
Please just answer to what I wrote... not what you think or believe about other religions.
@jbtuck If you're using the word 'god' in a way different than most, then please define god, as you see it. When you use a word like 'god', it's normal for people to assign a typical meaning to the use of the word and interpret your statements according to that definition. For example, you capitalized God as a personal pronoun, and did not refer to 'god' as a generic term.
Define god, then we can continue seeing how and if it would require the breaking of the laws of physics.
@HarshColby Lastly I don't defend other churches belief why should I? However, you are applying arguments against other religions to me without listening to what I wrote. You are making no distinction between religious people (which is akin to saying all white people are the same) and treating me like I am an uneducated person that clings to belief out of fear or hope. I am mearly saying that there is an educated view of religion and science that works for me without contradiction from science.
@HarshColby how does my definition of God break the laws of physics? They exist how he set them up. And have been that way since before the the creation of the universe... He operates using science. Science is the magic of God. So the universe is 13. something billion years old and it will progress just as it has.
Show me one law that my view of God breaks. I am not arguing whether god exists... it's a matter of faith. So proving god exists is impossible. Any so called proof is flawed.
@HarshColby One last time so we are crystal clear. Your view of science would be exactly the same as mine. We would agree on every point of science. We would have identical textbooks (God belongs in a church where people can choose to go, not where he is crammed down throats in the name of "education") We would have identical results in scientific tests. The only difference is that on Sunday I would spend it in a different place that you would. Otherwise we would be the same (scientifically).
@HarshColby So to make more clear. In my cosmological view sure God set something in motion but it doesn't need Divine Intervention to make everything go around. It would be much like a computer simulation running on its own.
Now if there was some grand test to see if people would take believing him on faith... then there could be no proof that he exists... or people would eventually figure it out and then bam everyone believes without needing faith. Thereby killing any validity of a test.
@HarshColby How is a supreme being unreasonable? If God were to have a true test (which I believe) then for it to be a good valid test there would by necessity be no reason to have him. So there would be no way to prove that either he existed or not. So the situation would be the same whether he existed or not. In this situation it is equally valid for him to exist or not
I would equate this to if String Theory is real and accurate. It is or it isn't. Either way the Universe functions.
@jbtuck The standard definitions of gods requires breaking all basic laws of physics. How is breaking every known law of physics unreasonable? Simple. It breaks every known law of physics
We can't prove Zeus doesn't exist, but that's a very poor argument for those who proposed he did. Not being able to disprove a claim is not evidence the claim is true.
The difference is no one claims string theory is true. They claim string theory might be true. How many religions claim their god might be real?
@HarshColby As for religion failing to answer questions, or in your words "claiming to" and state that they are different. Religion gets a bad rap for not being independently verifiable. Because religion isn't science. And it won't ever be able to do the things that science does.
Science has a hard time doing the things that religion does. Religion isn't science.. and only fools try to make it so. To me the world would be complete with/without religion. I choose to follow religion anyway
@HarshColby Science is perpetuated by asking why and then figuring out how and why. I was referring to the start of the universe... it is equally likely that there was a reason or there may be no reason. Both are equally unlikely. And both impossible to prove.
I would find it highly unlikely that anything in the universe needs to get permission to obey the laws of science. Science doesn't try to prove or disprove a Deity.. but many use science to discourage even looking.
@jbtuck How is reason and no-reason equally likely? For reason to be accurate, it necessitates an omniscient being which breaks many of the known laws of physics. For no-reason to be accurate, all the laws of physics (except one, perhaps) are kept intact. It's far from equal likelihood, imo.
When evidence (any scientific evidence at all) is found, then science can look into that evidence. So far, there's nothing to look into. Theists are free to bring up some for scientists to look at.
Science only answers how the universe was created. If fails to address why it was created. Argue forever if there is or isn't a God... waste your precious time on Earth trying to prove or disprove through science those things that exist only in the realm of faith.
I am a Theist... however, that being said I am a scientist, and I believe in science things... how or why I am in ultimately up to me... But I find no issue between science and religion, one answers how,,, the other answers why.
@jbtuck Why does there need to be a why? Can't physics just work? Do hydrogen and oxygen molecules need the permission of a sentient being before they can combine and create water?
I understand the "faith" angle. I don't understand how religion answers any questions at all. Sure, it claims to answer questions, but that's not the same thing.
Science can't (and doesn't try to) disprove the existence of a deity, as you know.
Theists should stop using science to prove God by a method they are denying is accurate and false to begin with. That means stop using anything that science has improved or invented. Take away everything the scientific method has provided and you are back in the Bronze age and that's being generous. You pray and i'll go to a doctor.
if scientists had not gone out of their way to promote any idea that opposed the bible, they may not have been so slow to catch up with reality- that the Universe was created, not static as they had claimed, that the creation was astonishingly finely tuned, not a simple fluke, that perhaps life didn't spontaneously create itself on Earth after all....
@baconair The Big Bang, scientific convention had held that the Universe was eternal, static, always existed - while theists claimed a distinct creation event in the past. The latter turned out to be right, even down to the light- the Universe consisted purely of photons originally.
@GuyThreepwoody Theists claimed something based on no evidence whatsoever, but only religious beliefs. The fact that scientists now have evidence for a beginning doesn't prove a creation, nor a god. Where's the logic in that?
The fact that the creation stories in the bible has a few similarities with what really happened is the fluke maybe?
Furthermore, does anyone know the probablitiy, for all matter, which lept forth from the primortial atom, arranging and aligning itself (gravity etc) precisely so that sustainable life may exist (since the margin of error in the universe expansion rate is one part in ten to the sixtieth power)?
@niko25ish Are you asking for the probability of things being the way they are? Easy. 1. The chances of them being any different? 0. Now stop worrying about meaningless 'probability' arguments and learn to appreciate reality.
@niko25ish Well, it was a struggle, but to be honest I'm not sure I managed to match the pure stupidity of your question. You still get to wear the dunce hat.
@niko25ish [Does anyone know the probability, of the universe spontaneously and without cause, "leaping" forth from the primortial atom?]
No, and people that claim to know are just making up numbers. For probability, you need a numerator and a denominator. Making up numbers just yields a made-up answer, which always seems to coincide with the a priori beliefs of the individual making up the numbers.
As far as anyone knows, the odds are 1/1, thus 100% to the best of our knowledge.
@niko25ish [spontaneously and without cause, "leaping" forth from the primortial atom]
It may or may not have been spontaneous. No one claims it was without cause. Nothing "leaped". No one claims a primordial atom. Adding all that nonsense to your question implies you don't care about actual answers. When you ask questions filled with nonsense, you shouldn't be surprised at the types of responses you get.
@HarshColby successful Josh McDowell who hated the Bible so much he believed Christianity was worthless. u should check out his bio. that is a tough talk to do but i think u are really intelligent and could possibly be able to do it. but there is a feeling most people who dont believe in God don't feel when u don't believe which every faithful Christian would agree with which is y Josh failed trying to accomplish what he tried to do
@HarshColby i was thinking that u may know how the people for the OT where saved but i guess u dont know, my main point was Jesus changed the OT to the NT because people in the OT where saved by being a jew and obeying the 613 laws and 10 commandments. but Jesus brought it down to only 9 basic thing, and u said that i was picking and choosing what not to follow but really thats not true. o and i doubt that u have clearly gone through all of the Bible to prove it all wrong because u woud be a
@probro1464 Jesus said it's okay to ignore the 10 commandments? Jesus said the OT was wrong about which rules to follow? That's great news to many Christians, although I'd expect most of them would disagree with your interpretation.
I don't need to prove it ALL wrong. If it was inspired by an omniscient being, then none of it should be wrong. If any part of it is wrong, then on what basis do you decide what to follow? If God got parts of it wrong, then how do you know any of it is right?
@HarshColby im interested where u got the supersonic raindrop theory because when u speak in science i is almost a different language to me because i have yet to learn abot things such as that. how do u know there where panda bears and penguins because i never recall those animals being named so who knows what animals where brought on and if they could have evolved over time or not. and how do u know the location of the ark while its float on the ocean.
@probro1464 In order for that volume of water to fall in that short a time, it had to be supersonic, and extremely hot. You just have to do the math.
All animals were killed, so pandas and penguins must have been on the ark. The ark started in the the middle east where nary a penguin nor panda did roam.. Are you suggesting penguins evolved from birds in 4000 years? Where do you see evidence of that kind of hyper accelerated evolution? Certainly not in the fossil record.
I did the math...you would need to multiply all the water in the world by 90MILLION to get enough for the flood to cover Everest, even if you reduce Everst tot he time the flood was alledged to have happened
@whiteowl1415 Multiplying the total volume of water on the Earth (1,338,000,000 cubic km) by 90 million would give us about 120,000,000,000,000,000 cubic km of water. The volume of the entire planet is only a little more than 1,000,000,000,000 cubic km. Your estimation seems a little excessive, don't ya' think? Maybe double-check your math.
I am used to working in Standard vs metric, but your welcome to watch the vid on my channel and point out to me there where the error is....if there is one I'd be delighted to corect it.
You are bearing in mind the volume of a sphere inceares at a huge rate, that the water in the ocean has to stay in to ocean if the level is to rise, and it has to rise equaly everywhere?
@whiteowl1415 The water in the ocean represents a very thin layer around the Earth. Even if we were to increase sea-level by a factor of 3 (thus covering Everest), this would still have a very minimal impact on the diameter of the planet. I don't even think I need to go through your calculations to know that you're too high. A very thin outer shell around a huge sphere is not going to have anywhere near the volume of that sphere, let alone exceed it by a factor of 12,000!
@probro1464 Every denomination has it's own explanation for people being saved. I don't know what your particular religion claims, but since the entire story is just a story, imo, it really makes no difference whatsoever. Is there a point to this line of questioning?
@HarshColby i know the bible has errors but i don't believe its enough to mess up all of it i looked online for the story of noah's ark being found and there have been false claims doesn't make the story any less true , because i cant be proven false yet until they search all of the mountain in turkey. ok im a Christian, there are many types of Christians any way. but u r right he did die to penalty for our sins and it was proven archaeologically there was a man named Jesus.
@probro1464 The story of Noah and the ark isn't true because the claims are ridiculous. If true, Noah and his friends would have been incinerated by supersonic raindrops, sunk to the bottom, and would never have been seen again. That's after panda bears meandered and penguins waddled across the desert, presumably after the chosen pair were given the message (by carrier pigeons?) that they should make the journey half way around the globe. The entire story is utterly ridiculous.
@HarshColby ya OT are stories i never said the weren't true tho.and can u tell me wat the purpose of Jesus dieng was because i don't think u know y he died. The bible may have errors but i does have truth. and i never said states are more success full i said people individually.
@probro1464 If you know the bible has errors, then why would you say earlier that the ark was found, etc? There was no ark. It's part of the story, as is the flood, exodus, resurrection, etc.
Why Jesus died has as many answers as there are religions. Christians say it's to pay the penalty for our sins, given to us by Adam and Eve. ...so the story goes. Muslims say he didn't die. The Jews disagree, and almost everyone else doesn't believe the stories, so don't care why a fictional character died.
@HarshColby at the very least having a religion while growing up is a proven fact to be more success full in life. and having a good religion is having people that love u or anyone else no matter, and teaching u how to the the most kind life, so even if there is no God it alone still is better than not having a relgion at all, unless it is telling u to do horrible crimes, and has absolutely no evidence
This has been flagged as spam show
ohnJae is atFay.
SouthEditin 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ohnJae is atFay.
SouthEditin 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ohnJae is atFay.
SouthEditin 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ohnJae is atFay.
SouthEditin 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ohnJae is atFay.
SouthEditin 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ohnJae is atFay.
SouthEditin 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ohnJae is atFay.
SouthEditin 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi John
SouthEditin 2 days ago
observing what, exactly?
niko25ish 2 days ago
@niko25ish consistent speed of light, cepheid period correlated with distance, supernovae brightness drop off indicating distance, gravitational effects allowing mass estimates, cosmic microwave background radiation showing a flat universe, star formation time frames, main sequence stars generational times, red shift of distant objects, correlation of red shift and distance, galaxy rotational periods, Hubble deep field allowing us to count galaxies, proportion of light elements,
to name a few.
HarshColby 2 days ago
@HarshColby "Planck's Low Frequency Instrument will continue surveying the sky for a large part of 2012, providing data to improve the quality of the final results. The first results on the Big Bang and very early universe will not come for another year." - NASA - I can't wait to see what they find.
giuffre714 8 hours ago
@giuffre714 Yeah. I read the report the day it came out. I was expecting them to announce some results. Alas, we must wait..>tap tap tap<
HarshColby 7 hours ago
the origin and or the age of the universe is speculation, is it not?
niko25ish 4 days ago
@niko25ish No. The BB and the age of the universe is based on observation and calculations based on known laws of physics.
HarshColby 4 days ago
My question is sincere and genuine; I am interested to know the current theory of the origin of our universe. If you perceive my attidude to be uncivil and or contemtuous you have misunderstood the tone and or inflection of my words. Furthermore, the information I used was gathered purely from non-religious sources. I am not a Christian nor am I religious. So, lose your attitude and answer the question or stop waisting my time.
niko25ish 1 week ago
@niko25ish Well, then it seems the first thing you have to do is forget just about everything you think you know about it. I apologize if I've misinterpreted your statements.
1. Nothing about the BB theory talks about "before" the BB. The theory describes what happened starting at Planck time, 10^-44 seconds (1 over 1 followed by 43 zeros, a very small number) after the start. There's a good reason for this, but it's unnecessary to go into.
HarshColby 6 days ago
@niko25ish All space(time) started at once. There's no "primordial atom". At the earliest times, no matter existed. It was all energy.
In our solar system, gravity did what gravity does, brings matter together, first in an accretion disk, then solid or gaseous planets and a star.
Life is chemistry, which is governed by the laws of physics. This video is about the universe, and the origin of life can be found described in video 3 of this series: /watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
HarshColby 6 days ago
@niko25ish Although there is a random factor to all things, the universe operates under the laws of physics. To say it was ' all...by random chance' is not accurate. For a mundane example: Throw a ball up in the air. Where it will land is random, in that the wind may blow, how hard you threw it will vary, but that's not to say it could land in China (assuming you don't live in China). It will land exactly where physics says it should land, if you had the information necessary to calculate it.
HarshColby 6 days ago
@HarshColby Understood; but how do scientists suppose the laws of physics suddenly came into being?
niko25ish 5 days ago
@niko25ish It's not known that they did. The universe may have existed forever. The concept of "before" the BB may even be completely meaningless. So far as we've been able to observe, the laws of nature have been in force for 13.7 billion years. Even if the universe hasn't existed forever, speculating on what may or may not have existed, or speculating how the universe came to be is an unanswerable question. Until some data becomes available on which to base a conclusion, it's only speculation.
HarshColby 5 days ago
@HarshColby right, speculation.
niko25ish 4 days ago
Comment removed
HarshColby 4 days ago
@niko25ish Your point?
You understand, don't you, that the reason the BB theory doesn't speculate on what exited pre-BB is that science doesn't put speculation into scientific theories. The BB theory is based on observation and calculations using known physics laws. Ideas about pre-BB cosmology are called hypotheses.
Speculation is left to philosophy.
HarshColby 4 days ago
@niko25ish I understand it's only 1500 characters, and I didn't go into a lot of detail, but does that clarify in which ways your original statements were wrong? Is it more clear or did I just confuse things more?
HarshColby 6 days ago
Let me see if I understand the Big Bang theory correctly: Before the universe existed, there was literally nothing, save a lone "primortial" atom. At some point all matter (except the preexisting atom) leapt forth in an act of self creation. Moreover, in our solar system, this newly deposited matter aligned itself with stunning precision and pin-point accuracy so that life may be possible; and all of the aforementioned acts, occured by random chance-is this correct?
niko25ish 1 week ago
@niko25ish No. You don't understand it correctly.
HarshColby 1 week ago
@HarshColby Perhaps you could enlighten me?
niko25ish 1 week ago
@niko25ish It doesn't appear as if you want to be enlightened. Why else would you get everything so wrong? Any basic research would have allowed you to explain it much better, and without the contemptuous attitude.
No claims are made about pre-BB cosmology in the theory. No one says anything about a primordial atom. No one talks of leaping forth. No one talks about self-creation. Etc, etc. etc.
Care to try not getting your bs from creationist sites? Try a science site. Try again, and be civil?
HarshColby 1 week ago
@HarshColby see above response
niko25ish 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niko25ish My question is sincere and genuine; I am interested to know the current theory of the origin of our universe. If you perceive my attidude to be uncivil and or contemtuous you have misunderstood the tone and or inflection of my words. Furthermore, the information I used was gathered purely from non-religious sources. I am not a Christian nor am I religious. So, lose your attitude and answer the question or stop waisting my time
niko25ish 1 week ago
What the universe is is just loads of mould growing in a black box I get it lol
jugalicious123 1 week ago
@HarshColby i also have another question, why do you care what other people believe in anyway, because all i c is that if it shows love and kindness i wouldnt mind that belief system
probro1464 1 week ago
@probro1464 You'd not likely change your mind even if someone does show you the bible is wrong, so I'm not going to worry about it. In the actual universe, light came first, then the sun, then the earth, then the sea creatures, then fruit trees. The bible has much of that backwards, and there's no reason for an omniscient being to make the same kinds of factual mistakes that ancient peoples would be expected to make on their own
I don't believe in things without evidence, and that includes gods.
HarshColby 1 week ago
@probro1464 I really wouldn't care, but religion causes such great harm in the world. It's not the love that you talk about that bothers me. That part is great.
I care what other's think when they try and make non-believers follow their rituals; make it impossible for a non-religious person to hold office in the US; don't pay their fair share of taxes; dictate what non-believers can buy on Sunday; spread AIDS; killed 3000 innocent people on 9/11; and want nonsense taught in science classes.
HarshColby 1 week ago
@HarshColby also what i figured was through history i have seen that science was made to prove God was really during the Catholic Churchs time but they had limited science because they where scared of some idea occuring in science that could make people question the church. im sure there are many scientists that will could explain how the bible is true through science, but i myself am dont have that kind of knowledge, im really excited in hearing in what you believe.
probro1464 1 week ago
@HarshColby what you have told me im sure has been questioned by other scientist and i had to have something the made if not so true too the point, because if then why am i not being taught it, its not like im in a private school
probro1464 1 week ago
@HarshColby dont be shyy to give me really good facts and such, the reason i wouldnt believe you is because you dont kno the basics of how to change a persons opinion when you first speak too them which makes you come off bad and judgemental, but i like too learn what you believe but you have to find common ground before you attack someone if u like to change their opinion about a belief
probro1464 1 week ago
@HarshColby hey sry for it being so long too get back.haha just really busy and i dont believe any of the bible is false because you havent taught me anything of the science i know that could help your side out so i will still have time too learn for myself of the truth, i also wanted to know what you believe because i have no clue what atheist believe exept science and that God doesnt exist by now i wont believe a word from what you say until i am educated but i would stil like too kno
probro1464 1 week ago
Before anyone puts too much blind faith in atheism, in magical self-creating universes..
remember that 'scientists' declared the Universe to be 'static'- and scoffed at the idea of a creation event- Until a theist less biased against the idea discovered the Big Bang.
Likewise 'self-creating' was what life on Earth was supposed to be, after decades of failure to reproduce this, far less show how it happened by accident- they are beginning to conceed it may not have...
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody "remember that 'scientists' declared the Universe to be 'static'- and scoffed at the idea of a creation event" Yes, 'scientists' such as the patently absurd (and deeply religious) Newton.
"magical self-creating universes.." Who calls it anything like that? You. Well done you. Very convincing...
"'self-creating' was what life on Earth was supposed to be, after decades of failure to reproduce this"
Who's failed? We know how the building blocks of life arose.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z you mean self creating Universes are based on a scrap of evidence?
or we have any evidence for how the first replicator spontaneously created itself?
what word do you prefer other than magic for these theories, faith? superstition?
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody " you mean self creating Universes are based on a scrap of evidence?" No. I mean you're using the term 'created'. All that we know is that it has expanded and is still expanding. That's what the evidence tells us.
"or we have any evidence for how the first replicator spontaneously created itself?"
We know how molecules form, yes. You might like to look into it. It's a branch of science called 'chemistry'.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z We know it is expanding- from a singularity finely tuned for life- life that would ultimately ponder and appreciate it's creation. Like the vast majority of humanity- I recognize this as evidence of something more than chance, some sort of purpose, intelligence involved etc.
To insist otherwise is based on ideology, similarly- nobody can demonstrate how the first replicator created itself, yet atheists adamantly claim it did- no need for evidence if it supports your faith..
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody "finely tuned for life- " Really? Might I suggest you go and live on Venus? Life has arisen, yes, but what's your evidence to suggest it wouldn't have arisen in a different form had our physical constants been different? And if life had been impossible would we have known any different? Of course not.
"To insist otherwise is based on ideology" No, you're reading too much into what we know, simply to support your religious preconceptions.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z The singularity was finely tuned, yes- all cosmologists recognize this- that any tiny change would have meant dark/cold/lifeless- but it created specific fusion reactors needed for complex elements necessary for life. Hardly a controversial observation. & If the U. turns out to be just big enough to overcome the odds for one Earth- yes I'd consider that further evidence of fine tuning, wouldn't you?
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody "all cosmologists recognize this- that any tiny change would have meant dark/cold/lifeless-" No, not really. Again, I ask you, what evidence do you have to suggest that any of our physical constants could have been anything different, or what effect all possible combinations of these constants would have been if they were possible.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody "all cosmologists recognize this- that any tiny change would have meant dark/cold/lifeless-" No, not really. Again, I ask you, what evidence do you have to suggest that any of our physical constants could have been anything different, or what effect all possible combinations of these constants would have been if they were possible.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody "nobody can demonstrate how the first replicator created itself" Wow. That's persuasive. The same as the argument "Nobody can demonstrate how the sun shines" was persuasive 100 odd years ago. Your argument from ignorance is plain boring, why bother using it? "Like the vast majority of humanity- I recognize this...." That's an even worse argument.
"your faith" I don't have a faith. I believe to be true what the evidence suggests.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z So again, what evidence exactly suggests the Universe OR life, spontaneously creating itself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.....
or are you open to the possibility of ID?
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody "So again, what evidence exactly suggests the Universe OR life, spontaneously creating itself" Again you insist on using a nonsensical word to try and make your argument convincing. Does it work for you? Here' I'll try it:
What evidence exactly do you have that rain-drops drop themselves? None? Then it is evident that it is a rain-dropping faery, as the majority of people recognise.
Convinced? No? Then don't expect anyone else to be convinced by your rhetoric.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z it's evidence that they don't drop themselves- that there is another external force involved yes, in this case gravity, in the Universes case- we don't know for sure- but the point remains- hard to demonstrate how rain drops or universes create themselves yes? so why insist that they do?
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody "hard to demonstrate how rain drops or universes create themselves yes?" To create is to form from either something pre-existing or from nothing. It is a transitive verb, implying a creator. Nobody besides the religious claim the universe was created. The universe is. Time and space are properties of it. Anything outside it does not, by definition, exist.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z I'm using the word the same way Hawking or any cosmologist talks about the creation/origins/beginning/explanation etc etc. I didn;t mean to imply anything by it-
It's a problem you always run into - finding a word for something exhibiting so much creative design without implying creative design?
are u implying a larger infinite/always existing U.? you don't see invoking infinity as logically problematic also?
Thanks for the civil exchange- have to go clear snow!
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody "are u implying a larger infinite/always existing U.? you don't see invoking infinity as logically problematic also?" I understand the universe in terms of General Relativity. Hence the universe has a finite age, but no beginning. If we follow time back to the singularity we find time passes at a rate which tends to, but never reaches zero.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z #$@~! snowblower broke down... OK so don't you think the singularity demands explanation/cause of some kind? if it does, what particular evidence convinces you that it couldn't possibly have been as intentional as it appears?
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody The singularity obeyed the laws of physics as they were in that universe at that instant. Time as we understand it was a consequence of that expansion.
Of course, some civilisation in another dimension accidentally or otherwise releasing that vast amount of energy into the dimensions they now occupy might explain our universe, but it doesn't explain theirs. It's just not a meaningful explanation considering the complete absence of evidence to support it.
Misterb0z 1 week ago
@GuyThreepwoody "are you open to the possibility of ID?" Yes, but obviously not as an ultimate cause. That would be utterly absurd.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z utterly absurd compared to which other first cause? or any other explanation?
GuyThreepwoody 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody "utterly absurd compared to which other first cause? or any other explanation?" Utterly absurd because any creator must have its own origins explained. A creator answers nothing with regards our origins, and is therefore rejected as an explanation since no evidence supports it. But I'm sure this is where you bring in the cop-out 'God is by definition without cause', right? Please, prove me wrong.
Misterb0z 2 weeks ago
@Misterb0z so the first cause/infinite regression paradox is EXACTLY as problematic for ID or 'natural accident' alike. As is the logical difficulty of 'infinity'- 'always existed, just is' etc. These arguments are a wash whichever explanation you propose are they not?
& all share equal lack of direct evidence
What's NOT equal is the ability to account for the remarkable sophistication of this Universe- compositions, constants that if altered infinitesimally- = dark, cold, lifeless blobs
GuyThreepwoody 1 week ago
@GuyThreepwoody "all share equal lack of direct evidence" So General Relativity has no evidence to support it? Seriously? Is that seriously what you're suggesting?
"What DID cause 'sunshine'? those task-specific fusion rectors necessary to generate elements for life? the fine tuning of creation" And if the gravitational constant or strong nuclear forces had been different then shorter-lived stars might have lasted longer and supported life. Your speculation is desperate.
Misterb0z 1 week ago
@Misterb0z My 'speculation' is the opinion of every serious cosmologist - the remarkable tuning of the singularity is what gave rise to Multiverse theory-
That only a vast or infinite # of random states of physics could possibly account for the perfection of this one (if you have a dogmatic dislike for ID that is) now THATS desperation!
And there is of course zero evidence for the Multiverse, String theory, M Theory or any other anti-ID explanation- which enjoy the distinction of 'theory'
GuyThreepwoody 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody
« the opinion of every serious cosmologist »
No, not quite. No serious cosmologist will state that we know enough to be able to conclude that 1) this configuration is in any way more or less likely than any other configuration that might emerge from whatever process this universe originated, and 2) that there are no other configurations that are more or equally amenable to some kind of life. So you're wrong about that.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody
« which enjoy the distinction of 'theory' »
Well, no. Actually, M-theory isn't quite a theory yet. Evolutionary theory, relativity theory, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, those are all well-tested theories; M-theory however currently lacks testability, so is not really deserving of the name 'theory'. M-theory is a complex hypothesis, not a theory. Unfortunately even scientific terminology sometimes lacks the subtleties needed to communicate such distinctions.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody "My 'speculation' is the opinion of every serious cosmologist" I'm well aware of what cosmologists say. Your interpretation of it, however, is not what those cosmologists intended.
"And there is of course zero evidence for the Multiverse, String theory, M Theory or any other anti-ID explanation- which enjoy the distinction of 'theory'"
M-theory is a mathematical model that approximates reality. ID explains nothing. It just needlessly postpones the need for explanation 1 step.
Misterb0z 1 week ago
@Misterb0z Outcome prediction is persuasive yes. ID always predicted that life could not have created itself- & despite being the holy grail of secular scientists for generations- this prediction appears ever more solid with evidence.
Creation event was another fundamental specific prediction- only reluctantly conceeded in the face of overwhelming evidence
What DID cause 'sunshine'? those task-specific fusion rectors necessary to generate elements for life? the fine tuning of creation
GuyThreepwoody 1 week ago
Carl Sagan made all of this a little bit more clear to me. But then again he had a lot more air time, interesting series nonetheless. Thanks for spending time on it for the benefit of other people! ^^
wojciechkolacinski 2 weeks ago
You'd make an absolutely brilliant university professor.
Hippieboy1547 2 weeks ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
I don't know why everyone is fighting on this. I mean, are you all 100% saying you know how the earth formed? .I wont deny that it does make sense, in a way, but who knows that this is the definite theory? There could be a greater meaning of the Universe that we cannot use science to explain.
myers2fan 2 weeks ago
@myers2fan Yes we do know how the earth formed and other planets too. We also know what other planets are made off that are hundreds of lightyears away. Amazing huh? I put my trust in science that discovers, tests its theories and tries to expand out knowledge. Science isn't afraid to admit being wrong and with every new evidence we can only know more.Universe and science is fascinating and we are lucky enough to live in a time where we know more than anyone before us on earth.
ItIsBadForU 2 weeks ago
@ItIsBadForU Oh, well thanks
myers2fan 2 weeks ago
The big bang, evolution, yeah it may be all correct after all it makes sense but that still doesnt hide the fact that god may have invented evolution? And may have created the big bang?
theeclownbro 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby I am ok with the choices I have made, even if other people cant understand why I made them. I think we have exhausted the topic. You have failed to read carefully what I wrote before.. and have sought to enlarge the debate to other areas. I have things I must do. I will not have time or the desire to respond... you can answer this.. or ignore it I dont care.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby Yet your very problems with religion are dealing with human fallibility. Religions are not perfect because the people a part of them are not perfect. Religious books are error prone cause people are error prone. Science has in a large part overcome the human element. This cannot be done in religion. Yet you demand it be done before you "could" bring yourself to believe it. Why would god allow it? Rhetorical question. When I see God I'll ask, until then I'll use faith.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby I mentioned Solipsism because it is an example where science has met a boundary that it cant penetrate. I am saying that Religion is another one of those boundaries. In science they try to remove the human element cause we are error prone, and we screw up data. Our modern science methods are such that they compensate for our screwups. Religion embraces human interaction, even if it is flawed and gets things wrong.. Because as humans we get a lot wrong.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby In science we are united. On religion you seem to believe that it should be complete. Perfect. Yet you will freely admit that Science is neither complete or perfect. It is in essence our best guess based on what we classify as verifiable fact. However, we have HUGE discrepancies in Physics alone. Einstein's view is at odds with observable fact about Quantum science. They dont mesh. One has to be wrong or incomplete. Yet you assume that religion must be perfect.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby I said this earlier... [ One last time so we are crystal clear. Your view of science would be exactly the same as mine. We would agree on every point of science. We would have identical textbooks (God belongs in a church where people can choose to go, not where he is crammed down throats in the name of "education") We would have identical results in scientific tests.] You seem to have skipped it. You keep asking how the universe was created, I cant answer cause science doesnt know
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby The question is, why is this a big deal for you? What are you trying to accomplish with talking to me? Are you trying to "help me see the light?" Are you trying to save me from the dangers of religion? Are you trying to show me that religion isn't scientific? I presented a situation where you must take the answer on faith, that you cant just science your way out. I believe that Religion poses the same types of questions where the answer is based on faith.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby There is no sufficient answer I can give, Even when I give a sufficient answer. So let me ask you a question. You are a being of faith without realizing it. you use faith in life and when you do, you deny it. You pushed Solipsism aside, so let me bring it back. Prove to me that the world itself exists. Or the universe. If you cant, then the rules it supposedly operates by are inconsequential, and therefore there is no need to move past Solipsism. The only way past is by faith
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby Then you have religion which should be a personal thing. It should be private, and respected. You asked many questions, I have answered your how do you find out, I answered that above. I even know your response. And the problem with your answer is that you are assuming that it is valid to have other people test religion for you and their answer is valid. You sound like you are on the receiving end of science. You wait for others to do it for you.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby [So praying to a god will tell you which one is real?] Yes, if you pray to the right one. And my claim wasn't that I know that my god was real, I have faith that my god is real. Just like I have faith that the world exists outside of my mind. I would not have us behave as if science and faith is on equal footing. I said they should be treated differently. One should be taught in the classroom using textbooks. It should be required to study.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby In my opinion religion is no different. Nor should it be different. Good day.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby Lets give an example of something that is untestable but can be true or false. are you familiar with Solipsism. If not go read about it. It is completely untestable. You cannot prove it wrong or right. Whether you believe int or not is beside the point. You cannot prove it one way or the other, it cannot be done, nor in the conceivable future will it be possible. But that being said... it is either true or false. Completely untestable, Not scientific. But true or false.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@jbtuck Solipsism isn't believing without and against all evidence like believing in a deity is. No need to go there. You'd have us to behave as if nothing at all is known but self, therefore everything is up for grabs and any belief (faith- or evidence-based) is on equal footing. That's not the way the world works. We operate on evidence generally. Believing in unsupported claims normally is a really bad idea, except, it seems, when it comes to religion. Solipsism is inconsequential.
HarshColby 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby the fact that there are many people that believe different religions based on prayer doesnt mean that there isnt one that is right. By the same token having alots of different theorems that people believe in science doesnt make them all wrong. How do we know who is being deceived? That is a matter of faith, Like I have said previously.. many times. I dont believe that religion needs to follow strict scientific definitions to be "true" or "false"
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@jbtuck [many people that believe different religions based on prayer doesnt mean that there isnt one that is right] Right, but that's not the question I asked. I asked how we're supposed to tell who are the deceived ones. Your claim is that you know your God is real, but they all know their gods are real as well. Why would a god leave such an important decision up to personal opinion with no evidence? Why would God let most of the world's population be deceived and suffer the consequences?
HarshColby 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby Now my assertion is just as unprovable. Therefore, it is simply my opinion on the matter. You have not presented anything that could call my opinion into question. By the same token neither have I done the same to your opinion.
With the prayer issue. I am saying exactly that... you would need to pray to every god to find out if what they are saying is true. Just like with a biological sample you would need to do all the tests of an enterotube to know what the sample is.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby Let me hit the Creation by Gods thing a bit more. In your opinion the translations of the religious texts specify a creation that violates the laws of physics. Second the assertion is that Gods must disobey the laws if they are to do the "Miracles" that people attribute to them.
Neither are provable by you are anyone. These claims you have stated are untestable for falsification. Thereby they are your opinion rather then fact. If you need me to prove this to you, I can.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@jbtuck There are many, many claims in the bible which are testable. Many of them are falsifiable and have been falsified. So, no, I don't agree. If you want to believe that God can break the rules anytime he wants (as is the claim), then that's fine, but there's no evidence of any rules being broken in the entire history of tested claims. If you could demonstrate this rule-breaking behavior, it would no longer be religion. But there's no reason to believe outlandish stories either.
HarshColby 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby I don't know if you realize this but my assertion was that I believed that god just set forth rules by which the universe was created. To say that "it was done the way it was done" was a reference that I still believe that it was created by those rules.
To say that you don't need to pray to each god to see if it is or isn't valid is alot like saying we don't need to test any scientific theorems cause we can logically guess the outcome. Thereby limiting what we can know.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@jbtuck Each person doesn't need to test each theory individually. Other experts have done the work for us. So why would we individually need to test each religion? People all claim their religion is the right one, so no need to dodge the question: How do we tell which of the believers are deceived?
Did God break the laws of physics when he, reportedly, created the universe ex nihilo? Or are you going to redefine the rules and just say whatever God does doesn't break the rules even if it does?
HarshColby 2 weeks ago
so fucking inspiring...
nine8nine 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby I am not proposing that God is "in there somewhere" he could or could not be. However to answer the "everyone prays, someone must be right" I would equate this to ravens all being black (ask Hempel how that turns out). Until you look at every religion and evaluate it.. you cant tell me that there isnt a difference. Regardless of how many religions spring up because of it. Again its been fun... but I really have work that needs to be done.. both for family, work, and school. Bye.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@jbtuck One doesn't need to pray to all gods to see that this is not a valid way of determining whether one opinion is more accurate than onother. The fact is that adherents that subscribe to prayer and say it works are scattered across many religions. They can't all be right. Since they all make the same claim (their god exists and they know it because of prayer), then how do we know which people are deceived?
HarshColby 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby Remember that science is the approximation of truth. To illustrate this concept look at the system of astronomy that states that the earth was the center and then uses epicycles to explain the movements. We ultimately found that it was incorrect. In a thousand years what will our version of epicycles be? To state anything in science as absolute is a fallacy. This is not a reason to ignore science, its the best tool we have got. But it is just a tool and an imperfect one at that.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@HarshColby As for how did god create the universe? Simple... he created it in the way it was created. Seeing as how that is up for debate currently I cannot give a good answer. I do like the research that exists that says that there have been several big bangs. It is pretty awesome. If that is true then time existed before the big bang. which is also an interesting notion.
jbtuck 2 weeks ago
@jbtuck My original comment was that gods, to do what they are claimed to have done, would have to break the laws of physics to do it. You said they did not. So, my question is how do the gods create universes? Just saying "the way it was created" is ignoring the question.
No one says time didn't exist before the BB. The statement is "our time" (that which we can measure) started at the BB. That says nothing about time before the BB. It's generally assumed that time does exist in some form.
HarshColby 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarshColby we were talking about the scientific validity. If you want to attack me on some other points.. I could tell you more to defend my point... however, the point was I worship a god that is not contradictory, now you are just quibbling cause you don't like the answer that I can. Remember, I asserted that my religion isn't like a science. And I don't judge it as such. As long as I believe, keep it to myself, and live a good moral life, Personal beliefs are just that ... personal.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarshColby Well I have enjoyed our back and forth... but I have to get back to my studies. I have a philosophy class to write several papers soon. Thanks for the conversation. Good luck in your endeavors.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
As for the assertion of the invisible divine that is so invisible as to be undetectable... its a matter of faith. Simply put I believe that there are prophets that have been revealed and have taught about him. Then if you pray then you can know...
And yes I believe that Neuroscience can recreate the experience... I think that the response is natural in humankind and can be simulated and or from God. I also believe the difference lies in faith regarding it.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@jbtuck So praying to a god will tell you which one is real? So the Hindu's are right. Muslims are right, and Christians are right? As are all the rest? Pray to Odin, and he's real also? That has resulted in different cultures believing in various gods. How does that tell anyone whether they found the "right" one? They all say their's is the real one. How do we determine which are being deceived?
But, how did the god create the universe without breaking any laws of physics? What existed before?
HarshColby 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarshColby Intervening can be done in a multitude of ways.. most of them have no need to come from the "universe" many can be internal... possibly even genetic in nature (assuming you are aware of a possible "god" gene) No need to break the laws of physics.
As for creation of the universe.. it could have been done in a number of ways. One that I like (this is my opinion not related to my religion, as it doesn't tackle that mystery) is to supposedly collide 2 dimensions.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby To help find those that were worthy of this elevation, he set forth a test. A test that was to determine who would come to him(her) though faith. As such everything in science is set up such that there can be no way to tell that he/she is here or not. Or the test would be made invalid. In very non religious terms that is the God I look too.
I believe that God is a personal god (one I know) rather then a generic being.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby Sure God is the Divine originator of the universe. As such he set about natural laws that were to govern the creation of everything. Then patiently waited until the conditions were such to allow his children to raise from evolution into the creatures they are today... knowing that they will change and evolve over the course of the next "while". He is not omniscient, he is not omnipotent, he is just a higher order of being with enough knowledge to help us become like him (or her).
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@jbtuck Personal gods intervene in our daily lives. Is that how your see it?
How did God (Capital G, really?) create the universe? Did he obey the law of conservation of energy, for example? What was the state of things before he created the universe? (It's okay if you don't actually claim to know, but just have an idea. Name your idea and lets see if it contradicts known laws.)
Shiva, Allah, and Yahweh all have the same desire, it seems, to be undetectable. In this test, how are we to decide?
HarshColby 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby Just to be clear... I don't have a "standard definition of Deity" that breaks any laws set forth or will be set forth by science. I do not subscribe to the "God of the gap" view of science.
Please just answer to what I wrote... not what you think or believe about other religions.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@jbtuck If you're using the word 'god' in a way different than most, then please define god, as you see it. When you use a word like 'god', it's normal for people to assign a typical meaning to the use of the word and interpret your statements according to that definition. For example, you capitalized God as a personal pronoun, and did not refer to 'god' as a generic term.
Define god, then we can continue seeing how and if it would require the breaking of the laws of physics.
HarshColby 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby Lastly I don't defend other churches belief why should I? However, you are applying arguments against other religions to me without listening to what I wrote. You are making no distinction between religious people (which is akin to saying all white people are the same) and treating me like I am an uneducated person that clings to belief out of fear or hope. I am mearly saying that there is an educated view of religion and science that works for me without contradiction from science.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby how does my definition of God break the laws of physics? They exist how he set them up. And have been that way since before the the creation of the universe... He operates using science. Science is the magic of God. So the universe is 13. something billion years old and it will progress just as it has.
Show me one law that my view of God breaks. I am not arguing whether god exists... it's a matter of faith. So proving god exists is impossible. Any so called proof is flawed.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby One last time so we are crystal clear. Your view of science would be exactly the same as mine. We would agree on every point of science. We would have identical textbooks (God belongs in a church where people can choose to go, not where he is crammed down throats in the name of "education") We would have identical results in scientific tests. The only difference is that on Sunday I would spend it in a different place that you would. Otherwise we would be the same (scientifically).
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby So to make more clear. In my cosmological view sure God set something in motion but it doesn't need Divine Intervention to make everything go around. It would be much like a computer simulation running on its own.
Now if there was some grand test to see if people would take believing him on faith... then there could be no proof that he exists... or people would eventually figure it out and then bam everyone believes without needing faith. Thereby killing any validity of a test.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby How is a supreme being unreasonable? If God were to have a true test (which I believe) then for it to be a good valid test there would by necessity be no reason to have him. So there would be no way to prove that either he existed or not. So the situation would be the same whether he existed or not. In this situation it is equally valid for him to exist or not
I would equate this to if String Theory is real and accurate. It is or it isn't. Either way the Universe functions.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@jbtuck The standard definitions of gods requires breaking all basic laws of physics. How is breaking every known law of physics unreasonable? Simple. It breaks every known law of physics
We can't prove Zeus doesn't exist, but that's a very poor argument for those who proposed he did. Not being able to disprove a claim is not evidence the claim is true.
The difference is no one claims string theory is true. They claim string theory might be true. How many religions claim their god might be real?
HarshColby 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby As for religion failing to answer questions, or in your words "claiming to" and state that they are different. Religion gets a bad rap for not being independently verifiable. Because religion isn't science. And it won't ever be able to do the things that science does.
Science has a hard time doing the things that religion does. Religion isn't science.. and only fools try to make it so. To me the world would be complete with/without religion. I choose to follow religion anyway
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@HarshColby Science is perpetuated by asking why and then figuring out how and why. I was referring to the start of the universe... it is equally likely that there was a reason or there may be no reason. Both are equally unlikely. And both impossible to prove.
I would find it highly unlikely that anything in the universe needs to get permission to obey the laws of science. Science doesn't try to prove or disprove a Deity.. but many use science to discourage even looking.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@jbtuck How is reason and no-reason equally likely? For reason to be accurate, it necessitates an omniscient being which breaks many of the known laws of physics. For no-reason to be accurate, all the laws of physics (except one, perhaps) are kept intact. It's far from equal likelihood, imo.
When evidence (any scientific evidence at all) is found, then science can look into that evidence. So far, there's nothing to look into. Theists are free to bring up some for scientists to look at.
HarshColby 3 weeks ago
Science only answers how the universe was created. If fails to address why it was created. Argue forever if there is or isn't a God... waste your precious time on Earth trying to prove or disprove through science those things that exist only in the realm of faith.
I am a Theist... however, that being said I am a scientist, and I believe in science things... how or why I am in ultimately up to me... But I find no issue between science and religion, one answers how,,, the other answers why.
jbtuck 3 weeks ago
@jbtuck Why does there need to be a why? Can't physics just work? Do hydrogen and oxygen molecules need the permission of a sentient being before they can combine and create water?
I understand the "faith" angle. I don't understand how religion answers any questions at all. Sure, it claims to answer questions, but that's not the same thing.
Science can't (and doesn't try to) disprove the existence of a deity, as you know.
HarshColby 3 weeks ago
Theists should stop using science to prove God by a method they are denying is accurate and false to begin with. That means stop using anything that science has improved or invented. Take away everything the scientific method has provided and you are back in the Bronze age and that's being generous. You pray and i'll go to a doctor.
paramattic70 3 weeks ago
@paramattic70 But God is science
pinball281 3 weeks ago
if scientists had not gone out of their way to promote any idea that opposed the bible, they may not have been so slow to catch up with reality- that the Universe was created, not static as they had claimed, that the creation was astonishingly finely tuned, not a simple fluke, that perhaps life didn't spontaneously create itself on Earth after all....
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody How do you know that the universe was created? Why is a created universe an objective truth, as you seem to imply?
baconair 1 month ago
@baconair referring to the Big Bang, it took a theist to discover this truth, it was to close to the bible for the intellectually fashionable
GuyThreepwoody 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody What was to close to the bible? Is something in the bible described as a big bang? Which theist are you referring to?
baconair 3 weeks ago
@baconair The Big Bang, scientific convention had held that the Universe was eternal, static, always existed - while theists claimed a distinct creation event in the past. The latter turned out to be right, even down to the light- the Universe consisted purely of photons originally.
GuyThreepwoody 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody Theists claimed something based on no evidence whatsoever, but only religious beliefs. The fact that scientists now have evidence for a beginning doesn't prove a creation, nor a god. Where's the logic in that?
The fact that the creation stories in the bible has a few similarities with what really happened is the fluke maybe?
baconair 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody If scientists had not gone out of their way to promote any idea that opposed the bible, we would still be in the dark ages.
riahmatic 1 month ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
great, very clear and precise explanation to differentiate dark age myths with modern scientific proved understanding.
vince51219 1 month ago
You totally put me in my place; how can I possibly compete with your brilliant intellect?? Does your mom know she gave birth to an idiot??
niko25ish 1 month ago
@niko25ish I'm just trying to make you feel at home.
Now, arsehole, how about you explain what you think your question means like I asked you to do in the first place.
Misterb0z 1 month ago
What a profound response. If anyone can answer the question scientifically and accurately I'd be very interested.
niko25ish 1 month ago
Furthermore, does anyone know the probablitiy, for all matter, which lept forth from the primortial atom, arranging and aligning itself (gravity etc) precisely so that sustainable life may exist (since the margin of error in the universe expansion rate is one part in ten to the sixtieth power)?
niko25ish 1 month ago
@niko25ish Are you asking for the probability of things being the way they are? Easy. 1. The chances of them being any different? 0. Now stop worrying about meaningless 'probability' arguments and learn to appreciate reality.
Misterb0z 1 month ago
@Misterb0z
That's one of the stupidest responses I've ever heard; well done.
niko25ish 1 month ago
@niko25ish Well, it was a struggle, but to be honest I'm not sure I managed to match the pure stupidity of your question. You still get to wear the dunce hat.
Misterb0z 1 month ago
Sincere Question: Does anyone know the probability, of the universe spontaneously and without cause, "leaping" forth from the primortial atom?
niko25ish 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niko25ish [Does anyone know the probability, of the universe spontaneously and without cause, "leaping" forth from the primortial atom?]
No, and people that claim to know are just making up numbers. For probability, you need a numerator and a denominator. Making up numbers just yields a made-up answer, which always seems to coincide with the a priori beliefs of the individual making up the numbers.
As far as anyone knows, the odds are 1/1, thus 100% to the best of our knowledge.
HarshColby 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niko25ish [spontaneously and without cause, "leaping" forth from the primortial atom]
It may or may not have been spontaneous. No one claims it was without cause. Nothing "leaped". No one claims a primordial atom. Adding all that nonsense to your question implies you don't care about actual answers. When you ask questions filled with nonsense, you shouldn't be surprised at the types of responses you get.
HarshColby 4 weeks ago
take you'er inflated ego you Scientistic Ideologue and shove it up you'er butt.
vita9n 1 month ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
I know what's inside the box! .... it's a crocaduck!
psychomystic21 1 month ago in playlist From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy
Stop all this!
runereyscape 1 month ago
@HarshColby successful Josh McDowell who hated the Bible so much he believed Christianity was worthless. u should check out his bio. that is a tough talk to do but i think u are really intelligent and could possibly be able to do it. but there is a feeling most people who dont believe in God don't feel when u don't believe which every faithful Christian would agree with which is y Josh failed trying to accomplish what he tried to do
probro1464 1 month ago
@HarshColby i was thinking that u may know how the people for the OT where saved but i guess u dont know, my main point was Jesus changed the OT to the NT because people in the OT where saved by being a jew and obeying the 613 laws and 10 commandments. but Jesus brought it down to only 9 basic thing, and u said that i was picking and choosing what not to follow but really thats not true. o and i doubt that u have clearly gone through all of the Bible to prove it all wrong because u woud be a
probro1464 1 month ago
@probro1464 Jesus said it's okay to ignore the 10 commandments? Jesus said the OT was wrong about which rules to follow? That's great news to many Christians, although I'd expect most of them would disagree with your interpretation.
I don't need to prove it ALL wrong. If it was inspired by an omniscient being, then none of it should be wrong. If any part of it is wrong, then on what basis do you decide what to follow? If God got parts of it wrong, then how do you know any of it is right?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby im interested where u got the supersonic raindrop theory because when u speak in science i is almost a different language to me because i have yet to learn abot things such as that. how do u know there where panda bears and penguins because i never recall those animals being named so who knows what animals where brought on and if they could have evolved over time or not. and how do u know the location of the ark while its float on the ocean.
probro1464 1 month ago
@probro1464 In order for that volume of water to fall in that short a time, it had to be supersonic, and extremely hot. You just have to do the math.
All animals were killed, so pandas and penguins must have been on the ark. The ark started in the the middle east where nary a penguin nor panda did roam.. Are you suggesting penguins evolved from birds in 4000 years? Where do you see evidence of that kind of hyper accelerated evolution? Certainly not in the fossil record.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby
Visit my page and watch "Noah? I don't think so"
I did the math...you would need to multiply all the water in the world by 90MILLION to get enough for the flood to cover Everest, even if you reduce Everst tot he time the flood was alledged to have happened
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415 Multiplying the total volume of water on the Earth (1,338,000,000 cubic km) by 90 million would give us about 120,000,000,000,000,000 cubic km of water. The volume of the entire planet is only a little more than 1,000,000,000,000 cubic km. Your estimation seems a little excessive, don't ya' think? Maybe double-check your math.
FactThis 1 month ago
@FactThis
I am used to working in Standard vs metric, but your welcome to watch the vid on my channel and point out to me there where the error is....if there is one I'd be delighted to corect it.
You are bearing in mind the volume of a sphere inceares at a huge rate, that the water in the ocean has to stay in to ocean if the level is to rise, and it has to rise equaly everywhere?
/watch?v=Fi9I1J_cIVA&feature=channel_video_title
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
Comment removed
FactThis 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whiteowl1415 The water in the ocean represents a very thin layer around the Earth. Even if we were to increase sea-level by a factor of 3 (thus covering Everest), this would still have a very minimal impact on the diameter of the planet. I don't even think I need to go through your calculations to know that you're too high. A very thin outer shell around a huge sphere is not going to have anywhere near the volume of that sphere, let alone exceed it by a factor of 12,000!
FactThis 1 month ago
@FactThis
Or in short...YES I do think its excessive, which is why I had to keep rechecking it. A fresh set of eyes on the math is welcome
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@FactThis
Ive found my math error, and boy did one little error make one BIG difference
It would require 3.25 Times as much water as we currently have.
I had converted one side of a Cubic Mile into feet without acounting for the Height and Width (Facepalm)
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415 :)
HarshColby 1 month ago
@whiteowl1415 what is universe made of? are we currently qualififed to say? .....
TheRogueMonk 1 month ago
@TheRogueMonk
Attoms and subatomic particles.
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
@HarshColby do u know how people were saved in the OT?
probro1464 1 month ago
@probro1464 Every denomination has it's own explanation for people being saved. I don't know what your particular religion claims, but since the entire story is just a story, imo, it really makes no difference whatsoever. Is there a point to this line of questioning?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby i know the bible has errors but i don't believe its enough to mess up all of it i looked online for the story of noah's ark being found and there have been false claims doesn't make the story any less true , because i cant be proven false yet until they search all of the mountain in turkey. ok im a Christian, there are many types of Christians any way. but u r right he did die to penalty for our sins and it was proven archaeologically there was a man named Jesus.
probro1464 1 month ago
@probro1464 The story of Noah and the ark isn't true because the claims are ridiculous. If true, Noah and his friends would have been incinerated by supersonic raindrops, sunk to the bottom, and would never have been seen again. That's after panda bears meandered and penguins waddled across the desert, presumably after the chosen pair were given the message (by carrier pigeons?) that they should make the journey half way around the globe. The entire story is utterly ridiculous.
HarshColby 1 month ago
Where was you when i was at school... potholer54????
Hazzadgoing 2 months ago
@84pechan ya HarshColby does have a point even solomn said that science and the bible dont go together in his proverbs
probro1464 2 months ago
@HarshColby ya OT are stories i never said the weren't true tho.and can u tell me wat the purpose of Jesus dieng was because i don't think u know y he died. The bible may have errors but i does have truth. and i never said states are more success full i said people individually.
probro1464 2 months ago
@probro1464 If you know the bible has errors, then why would you say earlier that the ark was found, etc? There was no ark. It's part of the story, as is the flood, exodus, resurrection, etc.
Why Jesus died has as many answers as there are religions. Christians say it's to pay the penalty for our sins, given to us by Adam and Eve. ...so the story goes. Muslims say he didn't die. The Jews disagree, and almost everyone else doesn't believe the stories, so don't care why a fictional character died.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby at the very least having a religion while growing up is a proven fact to be more success full in life. and having a good religion is having people that love u or anyone else no matter, and teaching u how to the the most kind life, so even if there is no God it alone still is better than not having a relgion at all, unless it is telling u to do horrible crimes, and has absolutely no evidence
probro1464