Question for the resident AT atheists

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Not at all, do you have a comprehension problem or do you just blurt out shit like this because you are very high?

I've never claimed knowledge of a big bang and no one asked me before you did either.

You are building a man of straw to punch down, but it has nothing to do with me.

You said the concept of creation is wrong.

I was asking what evidence you have found to support that.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

Yeah pretty much.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Not at all, do you have a comprehension problem or do you just blurt out shit like this because you are very high?

I've never claimed knowledge of a big bang and no one asked me before you did either.

You are building a man of straw to punch down, but it has nothing to do with me.

You said the concept of creation is wrong.

I was asking what evidence you have found to support that.

NO, in ONE post (if that is being oh so vocal about it what if i said it twice, would the forum explode?) is that the concept of creationism is wrong.

There is a difference, creation starts before life starts and creationism encompasses both that and how every species came to be.

Creationsim is obviously wrong, has no evidence what so ever while Evolution is critisised for missing SOME (imaginary) evidence. Yet evolution is what brought us the Swine Flu and resistant bacteria as well as macro evolved things (i'm going to add this even though macro and micro evolution are just made up terms) like Darwins finches and E. Coli bacteria.

There is no doubt that evolution is a fact, no reasonable human being can say it's not, you have to deny, deny, deny and choose to stay ignorant and uneducated on the subject to not understand it and if you do... well then you know evolution.

You see, you can't "believe" in evolution, you either know the scientific theory or you don't, there is nothing to believe.

 

[alyarb]

Originally posted by: NSFW

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

how does a theory serve as evidence? you have to realize that the big bang theory is merely the corollary to hubble's constant. we know the universe is expanding and that's one of the few solid pieces of information that we have. so we rewind our models to a point where the universe was probably very, very small, very very hot, and very very dense. this still is not the beginning, we have just turned time back to an early time before all of this expansion. the big bang theory says there was a bang but it really has done a poor job of describing the bang or finding the source of the input energy. can this universe take on energy from another universe? how else could you start up this universe if it were vanishingly small? there are still no good explanations for baryogenesis, naturally occuring antimatter and of course dark matter. things are way, way too asymmetric right now for us to simply surmise how universe A got to universe B, and trading the biblical story of creation for the big bang theory isn't going to get you anywhere in your personal beliefs. you merely go from one stooge-pandering idea to the next. both stories are incomplete and tell us nothing about the present state of the universe, just as the COBE graph tells us nothing about prehistory other than we have a LOT of asymmetry to decode. explaining the beginning is stupid, anyway. we have a pretty good history of the solar system and that's good enough. the universe wasn't any good until earth anyway.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Crono
He doesn't "need" glory, but that is what He wills. It's the only thing of value to Him, anyway, since nothing that is created can be more valuable than the creator. So He values what He Himself does because He is infinitely valuable to Himself. Humans and the universe are part of the story that is, ultimately, about God. Why did He write the story? Because He wanted to. Does that answer all our questions? No. Does God have to answer all our questions? No. Is God accountable to anyone but Himself? No. Does He hold Himself to His own promises which are revealed in His self disclosure that is recorded in the Bible? Yes.

If you are looking for every answer to every question, you'll be a very sad person. You can try, of course, but questions that extend above and before the universe can only be answered by one who is greater than the universe, God. To think that it is even possible to know all things is to put yourself in the position of God. To say that the universe has always existed is to say that the universe is god. To say that all things die, even the universe, is to say that nothing or death is god. No matter what, there is a god, an ultimate force within the universe, but you can see, if you wish, that force as being a ultimately a good being(no possibility of it/him being evil, since the standard of righteousness would necessarily be measured by that being) or you can see it as being an unwielded force (no such thing as randomness/chaos, because even that becomes a united thing when you assign a concept to it).

So you either believe that God exists, or you just refuse to accept that and look for something else to fill that position in your view of everything.

So you are saying god is vain?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

Short answer... it doesn't make God more or less likely, it just brings science forward every time it's falsified.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

Okay, well that's a strange twist. What could possibly make you think this?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

I mean this pretty much sums it up.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory, if you understood it, pretty much does away with god, no spacetime before beginning, no infinity or eternality so that problem is solved, it was always there, thus, no beginning neccessary.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: alyarb

Originally posted by: NSFW

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

how does a theory serve as evidence?

This.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory, if you understood it, pretty much does away with god, no spacetime before beginning, no infinity or eternality so that problem is solved, it was always there, thus, no beginning neccessary.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

I don't think this is accurate either. The Big Bang Theory does nothing to either support or disprove God's existence. To play devil's advocate, a wily theist might claim that God himself exists outside of spacetime, so naturally he could be the catalyst that "caused" the Big Bang (even though cause and effect are a little meaningless when time doesn't exist).

But naturally, that's just another unfalsifiable, goofball theory and it's basically what I'm expecting from NSFW.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory, if you understood it, pretty much does away with god, no spacetime before beginning, no infinity or eternality so that problem is solved, it was always there, thus, no beginning neccessary.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

Huh?

So there is no beginning but there is no infinity? I've been reading a ton on the Big Bang, the laws of thermodynamics and causuality. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory, if you understood it, pretty much does away with god, no spacetime before beginning, no infinity or eternality so that problem is solved, it was always there, thus, no beginning neccessary.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

I don't think this is accurate either. The Big Bang Theory does nothing to either support or disprove God's existence. To play devil's advocate, a wily theist might claim that God himself exists outside of spacetime, so naturally he could be the catalyst that "caused" the Big Bang (even though cause and effect are a little meaningless when time doesn't exist).

But naturally, that's just another unfalsifiable, goofball theory and it's basically what I'm expecting from NSFW.

Actually, think about it, before the expansion that was the Big Bang there was neither time nor space, so nothing had to come before it since the concept of "before" didn't exist before it happened.

That removes the need for a beginning.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
This is one thing I don't get. How does discrediting a cosmological model of the origins of the universe -- like the Big Bang Theory -- support the view that God exists? Even if you manage to scientifically disprove some commonly-held notions like these, the real explanation would still be absent. You don't just get to plug "God" in there to make it work and call it a day. The same goes for arguments against evolution.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory, if you understood it, pretty much does away with god, no spacetime before beginning, no infinity or eternality so that problem is solved, it was always there, thus, no beginning neccessary.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

Huh?

So there is no beginning but there is no infinity? I've been reading a ton on the Big Bang, the laws of thermodynamics and causuality. Pretty interesting stuff.

The laws of thermodynamics and causality exists only in this universe, not in whatever was before it.

There is no need for a beginning if there was neither time nor space.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Crono
He doesn't "need" glory, but that is what He wills. It's the only thing of value to Him, anyway, since nothing that is created can be more valuable than the creator. So He values what He Himself does because He is infinitely valuable to Himself. Humans and the universe are part of the story that is, ultimately, about God. Why did He write the story? Because He wanted to. Does that answer all our questions? No. Does God have to answer all our questions? No. Is God accountable to anyone but Himself? No. Does He hold Himself to His own promises which are revealed in His self disclosure that is recorded in the Bible? Yes.

If you are looking for every answer to every question, you'll be a very sad person. You can try, of course, but questions that extend above and before the universe can only be answered by one who is greater than the universe, God. To think that it is even possible to know all things is to put yourself in the position of God. To say that the universe has always existed is to say that the universe is god. To say that all things die, even the universe, is to say that nothing or death is god. No matter what, there is a god, an ultimate force within the universe, but you can see, if you wish, that force as being a ultimately a good being(no possibility of it/him being evil, since the standard of righteousness would necessarily be measured by that being) or you can see it as being an unwielded force (no such thing as randomness/chaos, because even that becomes a united thing when you assign a concept to it).

So you either believe that God exists, or you just refuse to accept that and look for something else to fill that position in your view of everything.

So you are saying god is vain?

Of course god is vain. In fact god is an egoist.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Crono
He doesn't "need" glory, but that is what He wills. It's the only thing of value to Him, anyway, since nothing that is created can be more valuable than the creator. So He values what He Himself does because He is infinitely valuable to Himself. Humans and the universe are part of the story that is, ultimately, about God. Why did He write the story? Because He wanted to. Does that answer all our questions? No. Does God have to answer all our questions? No. Is God accountable to anyone but Himself? No. Does He hold Himself to His own promises which are revealed in His self disclosure that is recorded in the Bible? Yes.

If you are looking for every answer to every question, you'll be a very sad person. You can try, of course, but questions that extend above and before the universe can only be answered by one who is greater than the universe, God. To think that it is even possible to know all things is to put yourself in the position of God. To say that the universe has always existed is to say that the universe is god. To say that all things die, even the universe, is to say that nothing or death is god. No matter what, there is a god, an ultimate force within the universe, but you can see, if you wish, that force as being a ultimately a good being(no possibility of it/him being evil, since the standard of righteousness would necessarily be measured by that being) or you can see it as being an unwielded force (no such thing as randomness/chaos, because even that becomes a united thing when you assign a concept to it).

So you either believe that God exists, or you just refuse to accept that and look for something else to fill that position in your view of everything.

So you are saying god is vain?

Of course god is vain. In fact god is an egoist.

Ah, but whatever God wills is good, how can it not be when he makes up the definitions himself? If god wills his slaughter to be good, then it is good, who are we to question god?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: NSFW

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory, if you understood it, pretty much does away with god, no spacetime before beginning, no infinity or eternality so that problem is solved, it was always there, thus, no beginning neccessary.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

I don't think this is accurate either. The Big Bang Theory does nothing to either support or disprove God's existence. To play devil's advocate, a wily theist might claim that God himself exists outside of spacetime, so naturally he could be the catalyst that "caused" the Big Bang (even though cause and effect are a little meaningless when time doesn't exist).

But naturally, that's just another unfalsifiable, goofball theory and it's basically what I'm expecting from NSFW.

Actually, think about it, before the expansion that was the Big Bang there was neither time nor space, so nothing had to come before it since the concept of "before" didn't exist before it happened.

That removes the need for a beginning.

Well, exactly. But of course that ties people up in knots just as much, because even if you accept that there was no "before," one naturally might wonder how the whole thing got started from nothing at all. God becomes another explanation for people who otherwise have no idea. Other theories might exist (multiverse theories are pretty interesting), but might be just as unfalsifiable.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

The laws of thermodynamics and causality exists only in this universe, not in whatever was before it.

There is no need for a beginning if there was neither time nor space.

So then the universe is eternal?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: NSFW
Huh?

So there is no beginning but there is no infinity? I've been reading a ton on the Big Bang, the laws of thermodynamics and causuality. Pretty interesting stuff.

Problem is, a lot of thermodynamics and causality, among other things, simply fall to pieces when you're talking about the Big Bang.
A LOT of what we do day-to-day in terms of calculations and simple engineering math is grossly simplified. You want to use Newton's equation for gravity? Guess what, your answers are wrong. You didn't account for relativistic effects.
What about your watch? Its inherent inaccuracy notwithstanding, what happens when you drive to work? Your relative velocity changes, thus time dilation occurs. Your watch is now slow.

The nice thing is, a lot of those errors are incredibly small for what we do every day. x = 0.5at² does a pretty good job here on Earth.

But if you're talking about a time when the entire volume of this Universe comfortably rested in a spot smaller (possibly MUCH smaller) than a marble, the laws we have now, forged through observation of the Universe in its present state, simply don't apply. I don't even know if you could measure things like temperature or gravity in a singularity like that. Matter as we know it couldn't really exist. I don't know if you could even call any of it "energy."

Whatever the case may have been, observations of the present state of the Universe make it look very much like, at some point about 13 billion years ago, the Universe was very very tiny, and very very hot.

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

The laws of thermodynamics and causality exists only in this universe, not in whatever was before it.

There is no need for a beginning if there was neither time nor space.

So then the universe is eternal?

"Eternal" is itself a term which requires time to be at all valid.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
But if you're talking about a time when the entire volume of this Universe comfortably rested in a spot smaller (possibly MUCH smaller) than a marble, the laws we have now, forged through observation of the Universe in its present state, simply don't apply.

Not just much smaller, infinitely smaller.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: Jeff7
But if you're talking about a time when the entire volume of this Universe comfortably rested in a spot smaller (possibly MUCH smaller) than a marble, the laws we have now, forged through observation of the Universe in its present state, simply don't apply.

Not just much smaller, infinitely smaller.

I've read things about its estimated size being anywhere from a meter in diameter down to a true singularity, an infinitesimally small point, from which space, time, and energy erupted/expanded.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: NSFW

The Big Bang Theory is pretty clear evidence that God does exist IMHO.

Actually, the Big Bang Theory, if you understood it, pretty much does away with god, no spacetime before beginning, no infinity or eternality so that problem is solved, it was always there, thus, no beginning neccessary.

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?

I don't think this is accurate either. The Big Bang Theory does nothing to either support or disprove God's existence. To play devil's advocate, a wily theist might claim that God himself exists outside of spacetime, so naturally he could be the catalyst that "caused" the Big Bang (even though cause and effect are a little meaningless when time doesn't exist).

But naturally, that's just another unfalsifiable, goofball theory and it's basically what I'm expecting from NSFW.

Actually, think about it, before the expansion that was the Big Bang there was neither time nor space, so nothing had to come before it since the concept of "before" didn't exist before it happened.

That removes the need for a beginning.

Well, exactly. But of course that ties people up in knots just as much, because even if you accept that there was no "before," one naturally might wonder how the whole thing got started from nothing at all. God becomes another explanation for people who otherwise have no idea. Other theories might exist (multiverse theories are pretty interesting), but might be just as unfalsifiable.

It does? I did not know that that annoyed people.

"nothing" is a human construct, this happened hundreds of billions of years ago. It's useless to use such a construct to comprehend it.

It's like, where were you before you were born? That is also something people can't comprehend logically, it doesn't mean that we actually began as thinking adults because we can't comprehend it.

Well, adding god just adds more complexity, obviously god has to be more complex than this univers and obviously he had ... NO BEGINNING...

And there we are back at square one again only this time we have added unneccessary complexity that there is no need to add.

Look up Lawrence Krauss, an excellent physisist who has a very understandable explanation of QM and MV, if you want the most eloquent debate to tie it together, search for Dawkins and Krauss on youtube, they had a "debate" there which i remember i thought should be school material because they entwine the whole business into one in such a way that you can easily understand it.

Obviously i don't know if it's still there, but try it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

The laws of thermodynamics and causality exists only in this universe, not in whatever was before it.

There is no need for a beginning if there was neither time nor space.

So then the universe is eternal?

Such a concept is just a human construct, no one can know that so i'll go with "i don't know" just like i don't know if there was a beginning, i find it fascinating that BB theory actually doesn't require a beginning.