Jump to content

Christian Evidence


Recommended Posts

You make it sound like there is no fulfillment to be had by faith.

 

Surely any perceived fulfillment is just a placebo?

 

There is something to be said about a persons general attitude towards life and death with someone who possesses a certain amount of faith in the here-after.

 

Yes, there are suicide bombers who believe they'll go to heaven

 

Is it so hard to believe that people can recieve a level of hope that may inspire good will towards others provided by that faith? Sure a lot of folks would say false hope, but that doesn't change the fact that hope still remains. There has been alot of good come out of people's "dedication to absurdity".

 

There are other, more tangible things that inspire hope

 

A question I've wanted to ask is, do people who don't possess any kind of faith or belief in the supernatural still have moments of awe and inspiration as great as those who do possess faith? It seems without some sort of hope or faith for something greater, that there would be some kind of void in a persons life. That is the way it seems to me anyway.

 

Yes they do, and because they are based in reallity they are more valuable than those that are not

 

Is logic really a substantial substitute for such fulfillment in life? And if so, why?

 

Of course. Fulfillment cannot come from false hopes and fairy tales about magical creator gods

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Um, yes, there are lots of problems. God could of created the world. You cannot argue with that. So far, I'm still saying "Where did the lithium-7 go", so I can argue with the big bang.   Would you

How about you read this: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm and this: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0505.htm   Did you ever consider you might want to learn the original language prop

~ Bertrand Russell     ~ Richard Dawkins     More here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

Posted Images

I am not sure I understand what this quote tries to accomplish.

It's a nice summary of the central point I was making within the post that led to my suspension. You know... The one where I engaged in the heinous crime of saying, "Yes, news flash, jackass... This is a science forum, and faith is not only rejected, but mocked."

 


 

A question I've wanted to ask is, do people who don't possess any kind of faith or belief in the supernatural still have moments of awe and inspiration as great as those who do possess faith?

 

Of course. That's a trait common to humans, not restricted to those with faith. I've commented on it many times, as have countless others. An obvious example is Carl Sagan. One doesn't need to root their existence in fictions and fairy tales and falsehoods in order to stand in awe before the wonder that is the amazing universe around and within us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nice summary of the central point I was making within the post that led to my suspension. You know... The one where I engaged in the heinous crime of saying, "Yes, news flash, jackass... This is a science forum, and faith is not only rejected, but mocked."

Yeah, I got that, I also made a few other points. I guess the answer to my questions is a resounding no.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nice summary of the central point I was making within the post that led to my suspension. You know... The one where I engaged in the heinous crime of saying, "Yes, news flash, jackass... This is a science forum, and faith is not only rejected, but mocked."

 


 

 

 

Of course. That's a trait common to humans, not restricted to those with faith. I've commented on it many times, as have countless others. An obvious example is Carl Sagan. One doesn't need to root their existence in fictions and fairy tales and falsehoods in order to stand in awe before the wonder that is the amazing universe around and within us.

 

What a pity such brilliance can't rationally embrace intellectual differences. Me, I still believe in Santa Claus each Christmas,

and the Easter Bunny every April! But Carl Sagan, is his words verbatim? Even the documentary this this young guy below offers, scares the bejabbers out of me. I suppose that's why I'll always be an agnostic. Too dumb to understand science, and too smart to try religion.

Edited by rigney
Link to post
Share on other sites

Juicy,

 

Surely any perceived fulfillment is just a placebo?

Somehow placebo doesn't fit the description. Fulfillment of any kind is always just a perception no matter what the source. But that perception can have a possitive affect on a person's view on life and how to handle obstacles in that life. Not to mention it may inspire some to do great things.

 

 

 

Yes, there are suicide bombers who believe they'll go to heaven

And I suppose there are no bad athiests?

 

 

 

There are other, more tangible things that inspire hope

So that's a good enough reason to give up all others? I say if it works... why not?

 

 

Yes they do, and because they are based in reallity they are more valuable than those that are not

More valuable to who? And how are they more valuable? Where is the difference in value?

 

 

Of course. Fulfillment cannot come from false hopes and fairy tales about magical creator gods

 

It seems to me that it does everyday. Just because you view them as false hopes and fairytails doesn't mean the next person does. You're trying to express you're view point like it is the only one that matters, while others clearly don't feel the same way. Another person's fulfillment from those "false hopes" and "fairytales" is perceived to be just as real to them as any fulfillment you enjoy out of reality. If I'm wrong, tell me how it does not.

 

 

iNow,

 

Of course. That's a trait common to humans, not restricted to those with faith. I've commented on it many times, as have countless others. An obvious example is Carl Sagan. One doesn't need to root their existence in fictions and fairy tales and falsehoods in order to stand in awe before the wonder that is the amazing universe around and within us.

Of course not. I never meant to imply that you can only gain such awe struck moments by having faith in some higher being. I just wondered if a non-believer ever felt the same sentiments about the wonders and mysteries of the world. I also wonder why so many people feel the need to put down something that inspires people in a possitive way like religion does for many.

 

As I've stated in the past, I'm an agnostic. I have faith that there is a creator of sorts. I don't know what form or even if there would be any defining characteristics to such a creator, but nevertheless still have faith that this life is not the end of the road. And if it is...then I won't care after it's said and done with, will I? I've read alot of people's reasoning for being athiest and understand why they feel that way. To most it is either illogical, irrelevant or both to believe in a creator. To me it is illogical not to believe in one because of the very nature of the words creation, existance, reality, etc... I could go on and on. Nothing just happens. The dominos didn't JUST start tumbling. Everywhere we look we can observe a reaction, and those reaction had to have an initial action. You always hear people say "If God created us, then who created God, and so on and so on", but that applies not just to dieties but to substance also. There could never have been a singularity because then there would never have been an initial action to kick things off into the domino effect we see today. Just some musings. Feel free to run with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Juicy,

 

Somehow placebo doesn't fit the description. Fulfillment of any kind is always just a perception no matter what the source. But that perception can have a possitive affect on a person's view on Life and how to handle obstacles in that life. Not to mention it may inspire some to do great things.

 

And I suppose there are no bad athiests?

 

So that's a good enough reason to give up all others? I say if it works... why not?

 

More valuable to who? And how are they more valuable? Where is the difference in value?

 

It seems to me that it does everyday. Just because you view them as false hopes and fairytails doesn't mean the next person does. You're trying to express you're view point like it is the only one that matters, while others clearly don't feel the same way. Another person's fulfillment from those "false hopes" and "fairytales" is perceived to be just as real to them as any fulfillment you enjoy out of reality. If I'm wrong, tell me how it does not.

 

 

Ok, you're entitled to your own opinion and your own beliefs but if thats your veiw why bother with science at all?

 

Why not just explain everything with magic and be done with it?

 

Surely it's more satisfying to get to the truth? No? Magic it is then...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, you're entitled to your own opinion and your own beliefs but if thats your veiw why bother with science at all?

 

Why not just explain everything with magic and be done with it?

 

Surely it's more satisfying to get to the truth? No? Magic it is then...

Okay, explain where science debunks a creator.

 

I don't use science to confirm my religious beliefs. (if you could call it that) Once science debunks the notion of a creator and comes up with a solid explanation for creation then I will humbley except that explanation.

 

I don't recall ever explaining anything with magic nor do I think it would be logical to do so. But I also don't understand the contempt that alot of non-believers show toward such beliefs. It makes no sense that they argue against something that they cannot prove just as much as believers argue for something that they inturn cannot prove. Kind of puts them in the same boat as far as I can see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin - I'll try to give you a comparison so you can at least appreciate my own stance a bit more clearly.

 

Let's say you were at work, and a 30 year old man came up to you and shared that he thought there was an invisible dragon in his garage. You ask him to explain why, and he shares that it says so in a book he read that was written 2,000 years ago. He says the dragon gives him hope and makes him happy. You ask him to prove to you that the dragon exists, and he says that it exists outside the material realm and will only show itself to those who believe in him.

 

Clearly, this makes him happy, but you'd quickly think he was a loon. You'd wonder about his sanity, and begin to question whether or not you should continue offering him the same respect and treat him like you would treat others. You'd potentially also call social services to have him carted off, or at least mention it to the boss or HR in case he snaps one day and gets violent.

 

It turns out, millions of people believe in a dragon called Jesus. Nonbelievers like me treat them accordingly.

 

 

I'm not sure if that helps to give you a sense for where I'm coming from on this issue, but it was worth a shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't use science to confirm my religious beliefs.

 

I don't recall ever explaining anything with magic nor do I think it would be logical to do so.

 

How are these two statements not horribly contradictory?

 

Isn't belief in god just belief in magic? If not please explain the difference

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, explain where science debunks a creator.

 

Explain to me why you persist in believing in a creator for no reason other than it being obvious you were brought up to believe in said creator. Each time a god has been implemented to explain something that has yet to be explained scientifically, with time science has provided an explanation.

 

 

Edited by Keenidiot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, explain where science debunks a creator.

 

It's not necessarily to debunk a creator, by declaring there is one the burden of proof rests with you and you have no such proof so it is you that debunks a creator...

 

I don't use science to confirm my religious beliefs. (if you could call it that) Once science debunks the notion of a creator and comes up with a solid explanation for creation then I will humbley except that explanation.

 

So you are really going with the god of the gaps? 300 years ago it was a known fact that lightning was wielded by god and anything that was struck was receiving the creators wrath.... seems kind of quaint now days doesn't it? But the idea of god or a creator has slowly retreated from one gap in mans knowledge to another, usually smaller gaps but each time mans knowledge has pushed god out of that gap into yet another. Now he hides someplace science cannot yet go, I can't imagine a more intellectually dishonest stance to take than God is hiding in yet another gap in mans knowledge....

 

I don't recall ever explaining anything with magic nor do I think it would be logical to do so. But I also don't understand the contempt that alot of non-believers show toward such beliefs. It makes no sense that they argue against something that they cannot prove just as much as believers argue for something that they inturn cannot prove. Kind of puts them in the same boat as far as I can see.

 

Those gaps you so proudly claim that god is in and that you claim cannot be proven makes your argument dishonest, the only honest answer can be we don't know ... yet.... you are the one in a sinking boat....

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you are mistaken. I said nothing about any gaps. Who made god, etc. . . Same thing applies to

material substance. There could never have been a singularity. If so then there couldn't have been an initial action to start this observable determinism that we see unfolding before us at present. Like i said, i don't know if a creator has any definite characteristics, but there could never have been a material singularity that could have started motion forward. So therefore i have faith. There is no gaps and that is as logical as i can explain my feeling of faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you are mistaken. I said nothing about any gaps. Who made god, etc. . . Same thing applies to

material substance. There could never have been a singularity. If so then there couldn't have been an initial action to start this observable determinism that we see unfolding before us at present. Like i said, i don't know if a creator has any definite characteristics, but there could never have been a material singularity that could have started motion forward. So therefore i have faith. There is no gaps and that is as logical as i can explain my feeling of faith.

 

 

That is the most vacuous dishonest defense of a belief in a creator i have ever encountered....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin - I'll try to give you a comparison so you can at least appreciate my own stance a bit more clearly.

 

Let's say you were at work, and a 30 year old man came up to you and shared that he thought there was an invisible dragon in his garage. You ask him to explain why, and he shares that it says so in a book he read that was written 2,000 years ago. He says the dragon gives him hope and makes him happy. You ask him to prove to you that the dragon exists, and he says that it exists outside the material realm and will only show itself to those who believe in him.

 

Clearly, this makes him happy, but you'd quickly think he was a loon. You'd wonder about his sanity, and begin to question whether or not you should continue offering him the same respect and treat him like you would treat others. You'd potentially also call social services to have him carted off, or at least mention it to the boss or HR in case he snaps one day and gets violent.

I agree, see the point, and would even add to say that in some cases I would insist on dealing with it even more strongly.

 

But only if the belief caused damage to anyone.

 

Here's my personal take on this: I can argue (and I do agree with you on this) that it's a loony thing to believe in, and that it probably means the guy is not quite right in his head.

 

What I disagree with you is whether or not he has a right to believe it, and whether or not it's my right to push him out of it. If he came to me insisting I believe it to-- that opened the door for me to tell him what a loon he is. But if this is just his belief, and it's a harmless belief, I see no reason why I should interfere with it.

 

That's not to say I shouldn't share my opinion, but I would just not see myself having the right of interfering with this as long as it makes him happy and doesn't hurt anyone, and as long as he doesn't request for my help *or* insists I join the belief.

 

The problem with most religions is more than just the belief in an invisible entity that makes them happy, it's the belief (a) that whoever doesn't share this belief is a sinner that should either be converted or be killed (depending on the belief system), and (b) that any other belief is not just wrong, but is dangerous and should be suppressed, argued-against vigorously, and hidden from public view (and "innocent children") as "sin" or "evil".

 

That's when I fight back.

 

But if it's just a matter of someone's personal belief, and if the particular belief doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't interfere with anyone else's lives--- I see it as a "live and let live" issue, where if the subject is opened to discussion, I will be honest in my thoughts that it's ridiculous, but I'm not sure I'd do that otherwise.

 

 

Also, just a minor comment, I think one of the problems with many in the atheist community is that we rush to assume the "super religious" are idiots. That's severely not the case; in fact, the vast majority of those people are *brainwashed*. You can't blame a teenager for being intensely religious when he was brainwashed by his parents and environment to believe he would be burning in hellfire if he doesn't do exactly what his particular belief system dictates -- and you can't blame that teenager of growing into a religious-nuts adult.

 

What we should do is fight against religious oppression, fight for separation of church and state, and call these things child abuse so we can help raise a new generation that makes their OWN decisions for themselves.

 

I just think that we rush to treat people as idiots when they're not necessarily stupid -- which causes us to lose sight of things that might actually potentially *work* in fixing the problem.

 

~mooey

 

 

 

i think you are mistaken. I said nothing about any gaps. Who made god, etc. . . Same thing applies to

material substance. There could never have been a singularity. If so then there couldn't have been an initial action to start this observable determinism that we see unfolding before us at present. Like i said, i don't know if a creator has any definite characteristics, but there could never have been a material singularity that could have started motion forward. So therefore i have faith. There is no gaps and that is as logical as i can explain my feeling of faith.

 

Let's take this step by step, here.

 

First, you seem to be comparing "God" to "Substance", when the comparison is clearly moot. God is untennable, untouchable, invisible and impossible to prove existing. Substances are proven to exist, interact with our physical laws, and can be described in reality. Your comparison fails here.

 

Second, your statement that "there could never have been a singularity" is just wrong. We know singularities exist, so the idea it previously existed is not that much of a stretch.

 

That said, the rest of your statement is a bit of a mishmash of strawmen and unclear statements. I'm not exactly sure where you draw your information of what the Big Bang is (and isn't) but it's not accurate. I strongly suggest you read the information here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

It will organize your misconceptions about the Big Bang and answer the questions you raise.

 

Finally, this:

There is no gaps and that is as logical as i can explain my feeling of faith.

Is patently wrong. If you want to discuss the gaps in the christian bible, we can do that in another thread. Alternatively, you can search this forum for that topic, we've been discussing various incarnations of it quite a number of times, and the inconsistencies are extremely clear.

 

It's your right to believe in whatever you want to believe in, but when you claim that your unsupported (and unsupportable) belief is equal to scientific observations and phenomena with empirical evidence, you are moving from 'personal belief' to opening the door for us to show you where this claim is nonsensical.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

mooey,

 

First, you seem to be comparing "God" to "Substance", when the comparison is clearly moot.

Not intentionally. Without God there is nothing else but substance, so there is no choice but for the comparison.

 

Substances are proven to exist, interact with our physical laws, and can be described in reality.
Exactly. Try to explain how they got here in the first place. You can breeak it down, little by little, but the only thing you can break it down into is a singularity. Using my backwoods run of the mill moronic logic, a singularity can't be active. Therefore it is just as logical to assume a creator over substance as it is to assume substance over creation. The comparison stands true when the subject is about it's creation.

 

 

Second, your statement that "there could never have been a singularity" is just wrong. We know singularities exist, so the idea it previously existed is not that much of a stretch.

How did that singularity come to exist? If there was an initial singularity, then how was there ever a first action to inact creation? Do singularities just act on their own?

 

 

It will organize your misconceptions about the Big Bang and answer the questions you raise.
Who said anything about the big bang? Is that where you're view of creation starts? Because I have it on good authority that the big bang was a reaction. Most reactions have to come from an initial action, implying that there was some sort of existance before. Sound plausible?

 

 

 

Is patently wrong. If you want to discuss the gaps in the christian bible, we can do that in another thread. Alternatively, you can search this forum for that topic, we've been discussing various incarnations of it quite a number of times, and the inconsistencies are extremely clear.

Who said anything about the christian bible? I don't recall saying it, although I would concede that this topic is titled "Christian Evidence" and believe any gaps in the christian bible would be at least a little at home here, barring people ignore the EVIDENCE part of the title. Moontan said I had gaps in my beliefs of creation and I begged to differ. Where are my gaps? I never insinuated having beliefs in the christian bible. If that was the assumption, then it came from somewhere else besides me.

 

 

 

It's your right to believe in whatever you want to believe in, but when you claim that your unsupported (and unsupportable) belief is equal to scientific observations and phenomena with empirical evidence, you are moving from 'personal belief' to opening the door for us to show you where this claim is nonsensical.
Finally, show me where science differs and offers an alternative scenario for the beginning creation event. Are you sure that you are responding to me? Maybe you can tell me where I have said anything in this thread that science contradicts.

 

 

Moontan,

That is the most vacuous dishonest defense of a belief in a creator i have ever encountered....

Please elaborate. Dishonest by what means? Vacuous by what means? My reply may have been simple, but it doesn't mean I am not willing to elaborate or justify my reasoning. I gave a cut and dry reason for belief in a creator and you make a bald statement without clariffication. Where does my reasoning have faults? How does science contradict?

 

 

 

iNow,

 

You seem to be under the assumption that just because something can't be proven to exist that it doesn't matter and shouldn't be believed. If it is good enough to have a conversation about then I believe it should at least be taken into consideration. Even if it has no bearing on reality. I was raised to believe that God exists. I grew older questioning that existance and came to a conclusion of agnostisism. Until someone can provide another means to prove my beliefs wrong I'm stickin'.

 

Maybe they just haven't found a scientific way to study the invisible dragon yet. It seems like alot of things are disbelieved before they are proven. It didn't mean that they didn't exist and it was probably a good thing that people didn't write those things off as irrelevant. Maybe they did at the time and we could have had advancements alot sooner than we did. So just because there is no evidence at the time doesn't mean that there never will be.

 

I'm curious...why do you think my belief on a creator is wrong from a scientific stand point? Is it logical to assume that the initial inactment of the universe couldn't have come from a singularity? If not why do you think I'm wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
iNow,

 

You seem to be under the assumption that just because something can't be proven to exist that it doesn't matter and shouldn't be believed.

Close, but not quite. My stance is that if there is zero evidence or logical reason to accept something as valid, I generally won't. More specifically, if there is zero evidence that something exists and all indicators suggest that this something is merely a product of human imagination, societal pressure, and indoctrination, I tend to go with the more likely explanation. It's much more likely the psychological explanation is more valid than "god actually exists."

 

In that case, yes... It really doesn't matter, and is silly to believe, IMO. I suspect you feel the same way as I do towards all of the other gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology, so my stance should not surprise you. I just go one god farther.

 

Likewise, you probably feel the same way on the subject of unicorns and leprechauns. I just include the concept of god in that set with santa claus and the easter bunny.

 

 

I'm curious...why do you think my belief on a creator is wrong from a scientific stand point?

Because you are unable to define it in a way that allows it to be falsified or tested. The scientific method relies on the concept of falsifiability and empiricism, and your god concept neatly evades those at every turn.

 

Is it logical to assume that the initial inactment of the universe couldn't have come from a singularity? If not why do you think I'm wrong?

I have no idea, but that's no reason to suspect that goddidit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moontan,

Please elaborate. Dishonest by what means? Vacuous by what means? My reply may have been simple, but it doesn't mean I am not willing to elaborate or justify my reasoning. I gave a cut and dry reason for belief in a creator and you make a bald statement without clariffication. Where does my reasoning have faults? How does science contradict?

 

Posted 3 March 2012 - 11:13 PM

JustinW, on 3 March 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

i think you are mistaken. I said nothing about any gaps. Who made god, etc. . . Same thing applies to

material substance. There could never have been a singularity. If so then there couldn't have been an initial action to start this observable determinism that we see unfolding before us at present. Like i said, i don't know if a creator has any definite characteristics, but there could never have been a material singularity that could have started motion forward. So therefore i have faith. There is no gaps and that is as logical as i can explain my feeling of faith.

 

 

 

Your assertions are nothing but a series of strawmen, a singularity is not possible? Who says? There had to be a first cause? Really? You have faith? Really? All flash and no substance JustinW....

 

You're making the positive assertion JustinW you have no evidence to support this assertion, it is not up to me to disprove your assertion.... But I will say you are welcome to your faith but it's not reality...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

In 9 pages, have we ever gotten the claim for which evidence is desired?

 

 

I presume from the title of the thread we are looking for evidence to back up christianity as a whole (any and all claims made by it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume from the title of the thread we are looking for evidence to back up christianity as a whole (any and all claims made by it)

 

Which Christianity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Christianity?

Sources vary on how many sects of Christianity there are. I've heard between 9000 to 38,000 different sects, but some don't consider themselves as such. Catholicism, the largest, considers themselves apart from any divisions, sort of pre-denominational, the One True Church all others divided from. So good luck choosing which flavor any evidence supports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mooey,

 

 

Not intentionally. Without God there is nothing else but substance, so there is no choice but for the comparison.

The comparison you made above is moot because of the way you did it. You might BELIEVE the statement you just made, but it's not a good enough statement in the context of requesting evidence.

 

I can simply say I don't believe in a God, therefore it's not needed, and your statement is turned over on its head.

 

On top of that, there are other things except "substance", like energy, radiation, and quantum mechanisms.

I'm not sure what you mean about there being nothing but substance without God.

 

We never needed "God" as a variable in physical explanations, we explain reality quite well without him, so apparently, he's not "needed". He might be "wanted", but that's a different issue.

 

Exactly. Try to explain how they got here in the first place. You can breeak it down, little by little, but the only thing you can break it down into is a singularity. Using my backwoods run of the mill moronic logic, a singularity can't be active. Therefore it is just as logical to assume a creator over substance as it is to assume substance over creation. The comparison stands true when the subject is about it's creation.

The fact *I* can't explain it doesn't mean that the explanation you're giving as an alternative is necessarily true.

 

Your explanation needs to be valid on its own right, independently, regardless of the alternatives for people to accept it. There's not a shred of evidence for hte existence of God. There's quite a lot of evidence for Evolution, and the Big Bang. Sure, there are things that we don't know yet, but that doesn't automatically makes "god" to be true, it just means we need to continue researching.

 

 

How did that singularity come to exist? If there was an initial singularity, then how was there ever a first action to inact creation? Do singularities just act on their own?

Replace "singularity" with "god" and answer the same questions.

 

Can you?

 

Here:

How did God come to exist? If there was an initial God, then how was there ever a first action to inact creation? Does God just act on their own?

 

 

Why is it logical for the above to be "yes" without evidence, but it isn't for the singularity issue to be true?

 

Also, the question itself is misleading, since there was no "initial action", and no "inacting" of "creation", but I think you should go over that link we supplied and read it again.. you don't QUITE seem to have the correct idea of what the big bang actually *is*, no offense.

 

Who said anything about the big bang? Is that where you're view of creation starts? Because I have it on good authority that the big bang was a reaction. Most reactions have to come from an initial action, implying that there was some sort of existance before. Sound plausible?

It's not my view, but it's the general name for that "singularity" (albeit a misleading name, I agree). I wonder, who is your authority that the big bang was a reaction? We don't *know* what "caused" the Big Bang (which, again, doesn't mean that a particular alternative answer is true, it just means we don't know.

 

Answers need to be independently validated before they're accepted. There *are* more option than these two.

 

Who said anything about the christian bible? I don't recall saying it, although I would concede that this topic is titled "Christian Evidence" and believe any gaps in the christian bible would be at least a little at home here, barring people ignore the EVIDENCE part of the title. Moontan said I had gaps in my beliefs of creation and I begged to differ. Where are my gaps? I never insinuated having beliefs in the christian bible. If that was the assumption, then it came from somewhere else besides me.

 

... The thread did...?

 

But okay, if you lay out your belief in creation, we can see if there are gaps in it. If your belief in creation follows science but just "adds" a god to it, then it seems to not really matter much. But you sound like you're not accepting the scientific explanations and instead you take the position of "god created",... that might lead to conflicts with reality.

 

I won't be able to answer it, however, until you lay out your belief.

 

How do *you* think the universe -- and our world, and the life on it -- was created. And what's the evidence to support this theory?

 

Finally, show me where science differs and offers an alternative scenario for the beginning creation event. Are you sure that you are responding to me? Maybe you can tell me where I have said anything in this thread that science contradicts.

Again, this is a fallacy. Even if science doesn't "offer an alternative" it doesn't necessarily mean that YOUR theory is true. Theories are judged independently. If there's no alternative, it just means we don't know, not that the theory is correct by default.

 

I will wait with the answer to the second part of your question until you answer the previous one I asked (About laying out your full theory). You are right in that I shouldn't assume wha your theory is, so I'd like you to just say it clearly, so we all know we're talking about the same thing.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there may have been some confusion here on what Moontanman meant by "gaps." I am fairly certain he's referring to the issue of "god of the gaps." Basically, we previously couldn't understand lightning, so theists said, "that's gods work." Then, we understood lightning, but didn't understand seizures, so theists said,, "that's gods work." Then, we understood seizures and god got pushed out, but we still didn't understand what made the sun shine... so, theists said, "that's gods work." Then, we understood what makes the sun shine and god again got pushed out...

 

The point is that theists use gaps in knowledge in support of their god, but science allows us to continually fill those gaps in our knowledge and god really isn't needed. The point is that god is falling into smaller and smaller gaps as we learn more, and is essentially unnecessary. We have much better explanations than "goddidit."

 

Speaking of gaps, I've probably left some subtle things out in my description here, so for more, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

 

Specifically, this section really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Usage_in_referring_to_a_type_of_argument

Link to post
Share on other sites

iNow,

 

Close, but not quite. My stance is that if there is zero evidence or logical reason to accept something as valid, I generally won't. More specifically, if there is zero evidence that something exists and all indicators suggest that this something is merely a product of human imagination, societal pressure, and indoctrination, I tend to go with the more likely explanation. It's much more likely the psychological explanation is more valid than "god actually exists."

 

In that case, yes... It really doesn't matter, and is silly to believe, IMO. I suspect you feel the same way as I do towards all of the other gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology, so my stance should not surprise you. I just go one god farther.

 

Likewise, you probably feel the same way on the subject of unicorns and leprechauns. I just include the concept of god in that set with santa claus and the easter bunny.

It seems that people are under the assumption that I am a christian. Why? Have I said anything to indicate I have a religious preference? As I have stated previously, I consider myself an agnostic and have no clue as to what characteristics a creator may have. So yes I see all the Gods of mythology, past and present, the same. But it doesn't mean the general principle of a creator is void as well.

 

 

Because you are unable to define it in a way that allows it to be falsified or tested. The scientific method relies on the concept of falsifiability and empiricism, and your god concept neatly evades those at every turn.

 

It's funny that initial creation of matter is the same. Supposedly there was an initial singularity. Well explain what happened and how? Or is it that creation doesn't matter because the answer has eluded all scientific testing or falsifiability?

 

 

 

I have no idea, but that's no reason to suspect that goddidit.

That's a perfect reason to suspect a creator. It is physically impossible for a singularity to initiate an action. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there is either something beyond substance or never was a beginning to substance.

 

 

 

Moontanman,

 

Your assertions are nothing but a series of strawmen, a singularity is not possible?
Why don't you try reading what I say twice there dude, because you're obviously not getting it with the first try. My reference was that there is either a creator or no singularity, not just that there was no singularity. I said it wasn't possible for a singularity to initiate action. Therefore either there was something besides the singularity (which would make it not a singularity) or something acted upon it to get the reaction we know as the Big Bang. This is where a creator is plausible to me, because we can figure events down to a singularity but there is no way one could initiate action. Something had to.

 

Mooey,

 

On top of that, there are other things except "substance", like energy, radiation, and quantum mechanisms.

All still substantive. What I mean by substance is everything physical, whether it be mass, measured, or observed. Everything physics has provided us so far.

 

The fact *I* can't explain it doesn't mean that the explanation you're giving as an alternative is necessarily true.

My explanation is true to me until someone punches it full of holes. Here you claim that *you* can't explain it but yet you dismiss my explanation so readily.

 

Replace "singularity" with "god" and answer the same questions.

I already did that. That's why I wrote that sentence in the first place. If mass, energy, existance itself exists, then what made that existance, and what made that, and what made that, etc... You see this could be applied to substance (physical existance) as well as a creator.

 

 

 

But okay, if you lay out your belief in creation, we can see if there are gaps in it. If your belief in creation follows science but just "adds" a god to it, then it seems to not really matter much. But you sound like you're not accepting the scientific explanations and instead you take the position of "god created",... that might lead to conflicts with reality.

What scientific explanations have I not accepted? What scientific explanations have been offered? I don't recall any.

 

 

 

I won't be able to answer it, however, until you lay out your belief.

I have. Physical reality had to have come from somewhere, and created somehow, right? How was it made and where did it come from from? How did it come about to exist? These are some of the questions I've been asking myself over recent years. My stance comes from the mmost common reply I've gotten about everything stemming from a singularity and subsequential event after. An event stemming from a singularity just doesn't make sense to me. Some sort of creator acting on a singularity makes more sense than the singularity acting on itself, because if a singularity is all there was then there could not have been any action in the first place.

 

 

How do *you* think the universe -- and our world, and the life on it -- was created. And what's the evidence to support this theory?
My theory pretty much coinsides with the general consensus on the BB. Except where a singularity is conscerned. Physics breaks down and doesn't mean spit where the singularity is conscerned. No time,space, or movement. Just a single mass. Isn't that wierd to anybody? That everything we know to be true and everything we use to observe and measure the universe around us wasn't always that way? Anyway, my conjecture still stands that nothing can come from a singularity when that singularity is all that exists.(supposedly) If someone would like to explain how it can I would be more than willing to listen. I know it is not likely to be proven any time soon, if ever, and that is why I label myself agnostic. I don't know why I keep getting the feeling that people are assuming that I believe in a christian God or am religious in any way. Maybe it's because of the title of the thread and I'm arguing for the existance of a creator. I don't know :blink: (by the way, that's my favorite emoticon.)

 

iNow,

 

The point is that theists use gaps in knowledge in support of their god, but science allows us to continually fill those gaps in our knowledge and god really isn't needed. The point is that god is falling into smaller and smaller gaps as we learn more, and is essentially unnecessary. We have much better explanations than "goddidit."

Sorry, I must have been typing when you posted this. I can understand where you're coming from here, but without some form of infinate creator there would never have been a beginning to substance. Unless you can consider substance to be infinite. I can't wrap my brain around substance creating substance and so forth. It justt seems that if there is an initial creation then it would have to come from something unsubstantive. If that makes any sense, it's hard to explain in any sensical way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.