The definition of Atheism was discussed -"Lack of belief in God". The reason was discussed. Though many claimed that there are various reasons for atheism, all seemed to have only one reason - "lack of evidence". That leads us to the next question. Keeping in mind that God is a "non-physical entity" what kind of evidence do you expect? Or to put it in other words what are the kind of evidences that would make you change your view and make you a Theist?
Probably any evidence at all would suffice to turn most human beings in to believers. Hell, most of them believe now with not one iota of evidence.
What we have biblically is a self proclaiming god. More than unlikely, psychologically ridiculous! .
Ok Could you give me an example of evidence that would be evidence enough for you to believe in God.
One single proof of prayer answered by a god.
one single miracle performed by a god
One act of kindness towards mankind by a god.
How long a list would you like.
A god that was not psychotic stating that the OT god was a monster.
One proof the christ ever existed.
Any proof at all as long as it is proof or even a fallible theory would probably suffice.
The fact is not that these evidences are not available. These evidences are available. But you have already decided that you will not accept these evidences.
One single proof of prayer answered by a god.
There are hundreds of Christians crying out that their prayers were answered but you have decided you will not believe them. You won't get any of your prayers answered because you will not pray in the way God wants you to pray because you do not believe that He exist. You are trapped in your own thought.
one single miracle performed by a god
Same goes here too. You won't believe when others claim they had a miracle and you will not get any miracles of your own because of the above reason.
One act of kindness towards mankind by a god.
Salvation. But you won't accept this too.
So you see it is you who have decided not to accept any evidence as valid.
There is enough evidence available to support the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so why don't you lead by example, and show Earnest and the rest of us how illogical we are being. So go ahead and do the right thing and accept the evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Lord.
If not, why have you decided not to?
Ah, the spaghetti monster...
Maybe they do exist. I wouldn't be surprised to see one.
Are you blind?! Just look at a SUNSET or the miracle of childbirth, and you would be crazy to think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not REAL!
I'm going to pray for you.
That Christians claim their prayers were answered while realizing that whatever happened could just as well happened without the prayer is not evidence that God did it.
That Christians claim a miracle happened without supporting evidence is no evidence at all. All men are liars, especially when they want so badly to believe that they will accept that desire to indicate truth rather than actually looking and questioning.
Salvation has never happened to any person - it certainly can't yet be an indication of God's kindness. And yes, I know that Elijah was supposedly drawn into heaven, but no one checked on that and we have only more wild claims again that he ever ascended at all.
You must understand that unsupported claims do not constitute evidence. They constitute just what they are - unsupported claims.
That Christians claim their prayers were answered while realizing that whatever happened could just as well happened without the prayer is not evidence that God did it.
What about those things that would not have happened without prayer? You assume that Christians are fools to believe any ordinary things as an answered prayed. That is a wrong assumption.
That Christians claim a miracle happened without supporting evidence is no evidence at all.
What about Christians who claim a miracle happened with evidence supporting it?
Salvation has never happened to any person
This is just a blind claim with no evidence supporting it. Moreover I don't think you know what salvation is.
All men are liars
Does it include Darwin, Dawkins and you? Also on what basis are you making this claim.
If you read my posting clearly you are just proving me right. I had told that atheist would not accept what I show as evidence and I was right.
HA salvation.......come on now.......this is just escapism..people who are trying to escape the realities of this world believe in such concepts of afterlife and salvation......This is the only world we will ever inhabit.we are born here and will die here...there is no heaven hell or salvation......
I didn't think you wanted to discuss anything real.
Send one clear distinct message to all mankind.
How would you know that it is from God? Satan is the best liar in the world.
I could ask the same question of you, Dave, and your beliefs.
Of course, the answer is obvious, the message would be not be one of sin or evil. It would be a message that brought all mankind together as one in peace and harmony.
But, I know that your particular God would never hear of such a thing.
Unfortunately, it seems that even if we were to get this message, we would either distort it over time and continue on with our hurtful ways... wait a minute, that has happened hasn't it?
The clear message would have had to have been "Love one another and live peacefully and respectfully among each other."
Beautifully asked! AND, What makes anyone think that because you challenge God to perform some miracle to prove His existance, that God would comply and even if He did comply how would anyone know that it was God performing the miracle, since satan is the greatest deceptionist, liar and deceiver there is or ever will be.
If this is true...Then how does one know that the "guidance from god" they claim to receive is actually from god and not satan. He is (as you say) the greatest deceiver there is or ever will be.
Satan would never instruct someone towards anything beneficial and good only God would do this.
Why not? If it would mean he deceived them and would be able to claim their soul.
Anyone who would say that is easily fooled.
God is Pure Love therefore God would never do anything that is not of love, good and beneficial toward a human. Say and think what you will but I believe this as factual and there is no proof to the contrary.
Actually, I for one wouldn't find that to be a problem. Whether Satan or God answers wouldn't matter - the existence of one would give probable cause for the existence of the other.
I am not debating the existance, but how can one know if the "direction" they are claiming to receive is from God and not Satan, if he is the greatest deceiver, then how can one truly know?
Unless I misunderstand the OP, the question is "does God exist". If the existence of Satan can be proven I would probably accept that as proof of Gods existence as well.
Which entity actually performed an impossible task wouldn't matter.
Augustine, who said God was a non-physical being? How can he exist if he is a non-physical being. That is a contradictory statement in itself and pretty much explains why an atheist do not believe in a God. There is simply no evidence of a supernatural being everyone call "God". It is just what people believe in due to faith. Is that what faith is, believeing in something without evidence to support it.
God is a spiritual being existing in a spiritual realm.
Why do you think that only the physical exist? That is a wrong assumption. As per this assumption I should tell you that light does not exist. Light is not physical. You don't see light but you see objects because of light and conclude that light exists.
Since your claim that anything that is not physical does not exist is wrong my statement is not contradictory.
I would like for your non-physical God to show me some non-physical evidence, while using my physical mind...and make it make sense in a PHYSICAL world?
Note: The energy argument does not count.
Your beliefs have prevented you from knowing what you are made off. You assume that the physical mind is all you have.
From another perspective your mind is not physical if you noticed. Your brain is a physical object but not your mind.
What sort of evidence are you looking for non existence of God ?
Science cannot prove the non existence of something that does not exist, there simply is no evidence to support any theory that a God ever did exist and let's face it people have been looking long and hard enough and still come up empty. So why do they bother to continue ?
First of all I did not ask for any evidence for non existence of God. I only asked the people who claim that there are no evidence for God "What kind of evidence you expect?
Any way here is my answer to your question. The question was
What sort of evidence are you looking for non existence of God ?
I would say that you cannot ask this question. I have had discussion about atheism and it was defined as "lack of belief in God". Therefore the focus is belief. An atheist "do not believe". Do you see the point. It has not been concretely established that God does not exist but it is just that you "do not believe" that God exist because you think there that there are no evidences. This means it is not a fact but it is just your claim that God does not exist. So if you say "God does not exist" and I ask you "What evidence you have for this?" then my question would be valid because I am asking you for evidence for your claim that God does not exist.
Please stop lying. We understand this is what your religion teaches, but still.
Liars For Jesus.(TM)
The only proof that would change an atheist's mind, would be solid physical replicatable evidence. And even that would be subject to change based on new knowledge and associated evidence.
Here is a thought...A person believes in Santa Claus. Their proof. There is all kinds of advertisements and sightings of this person all around. He is spoken of all throughout the year. He can cover the whole world in one night and knows the thoughts and actions of everyone. (Good or Bad) But, he supplies presents for kids (persons) through "guiding" the parents (or anyone) in their purchases. Everyone knows he lives in the north pole and has elves working for him. Although no one has actually found this place, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just hasn't been found yet. And the reason it hasn't been found, Santa Claus has special powers that allow him to hide his actions from all who don't truly believe in him. Only those who have true faith can see his actions in everthing that he does.
Were there a real god you wouldn't need evidence because it would be self evident. The fact that there is no evidence and god is a no show and you have to believe in it with all your heart for it to do you any good shows clearly that it is obviously a fabrication of the highest order.
It is not always that everyone sees what is evident. For example if I point out to you a group of birds and say that there is a Tata Bird among it you, will not see it though it is evidently right there. Why would you not see it? Because you don't know what a Tata bird is and so you don't know what you are looking for.
So the existence of God is self evident but some do not see the self evident God. So they are still looking for evidence.
Yes but come now, you are talking about an omnipotent god that wants worshipers, not a bird. Besides which the bird you talk about is right there for all to see. Even you have never seen your god. Faith is what the christian god is all about which is nonsense. No need to have faith that a bird is there, it is or it isn't. You can not compare the two.
Now, you could compare nature itself to god because we obviously did not make ourselves. The fact that nature exists is self evident, that it created all things is self evident, but these christians want a god they need to have to have faith in and one that will save them from nature and death,.
Not gonna happen. No one gets out of here alive.
I would need something provable, concrete, and widespread. If a god were to come and tell me, "I'm God watch this!" and perform a series of non-explainable "miracles" or something like that, it might be enough to convince me, but then I'd just look crazy trying to tell someone else about it!
Something measurable. Some sort of proof that (insert religious text here) is real.
Lets just suppose that a being appeared and told you that he was God and performed some unexplained miracles. Still how would you know that He is God?
If you visit a haunted you would see there many unexplained occurrences there. Some sort of being must be doing that. Would you take that for evidence for God?
Whether God is described as non physical or not, the religious make some pretty far fetched claims for what this entity does on a daily basis.
Prove one claim is more than wishful thinking. That would be a start.
Do you mean you need to have an out of body experience or is it enough if somebody else had that experience?
Some American psychiatric scientists belonging to the US Defense Force is said to have found and practice the art of remote viewing. But that is someone's experience. If you want your own OOB experience then I don't know how you can achieve that. But if those people have achieved that then may be you can also do it.
I thought you said evidence or proof not conjecture.
This thread is as phoney as all the other so called questions on these religious forums.
Did you just lie for jesus?
Do you not know what evidence is?
You don't seem to understand what I am saying and you condemn what you don't understand. I will explain.
The testimony of 100s of christians that God speaks to them and leads them and guides them. This is one evidence that God exists. But will you accept this evidence? You won't. The reason why you won't because you want to believe that a God does not exists and so you come to the conclusion that these christians are not telling the truth.
You yourself is an evidence that God exist. The way you are designed shows that there is a designer God. Will you accept this evidence? No you won't. Becaue you don't want to belive that God exist and so you come to conclusion that man was not designed.
I can give many more evidences but you won't except it.
These are hearsay. Man was not designed. We have real proof that man evolved.
The testimony of people who say they hear voices in their head telling them that god hates homosexuals is not really evidence - is it?
What makes you think anyone would accept this as evidence?
Do you even know what the word "evidence" means?
Of course I won't accept it!
If a thousands or ten thousand muslims swear that every word in the quoran is the truth would you accept that as fact?
As for myself being proof of creation, that could hardly be further from the reality of our DNA.
We are poorly functional, badly constructed to walk upright, psychotic and have enough DNA mess ups to fill a medical library.
All of the proof that all of you unbelievers have been asking for has been presented but you unbelievers are unwilling to accept and agree that the proof is real. You would rather deny it in order to try and backup or substantiate you stubborn disbelief. Belief and Faith in the truth as the truth is what this is all about, and you have none, not in anything.
All of the proof(of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)that all of you unbelievers have been asking for has been presented but you unbelievers are unwilling to accept and agree that the proof is real. You would rather deny it in order to try and backup or substantiate you stubborn disbelief. Belief and Faith in the truth as the truth is what this is all about, and you have none, not in anything
How about 'an object in motion remains in motion unless acted on by an outside force?' Or 'gravity is a weak attractive force' Or 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'?
That there is enough order for us to determine or deduce 'laws' in the universe is evidence (not proof) of intent or order in reality.
Observations of ordered system have led some scientists to determine that any ordered system left to itself breaks down into disorder. (entropy)
this implies that the system of the universe is not being left to itself.
This is at least enough evidence to speculate that there is a mechanism that imposes order on the universe.
Could this mechanism be a purposed creator? Sure it could.
I don't know.
The force that creates order in the Universe is Gravity. It's a fairly simple concept to grasp, it's not something that requires over thinking.
You want to know how the Universe works read Stephen Hawking, there's even an equation that explains it all, No God required.
I'm re-reading Stephen Hawking even now. Would you care to share this equation to focus my reading on your point of view?
If you are reading Stephen's latest work you will find it.
I have yet to read 'The Grand Design'. That'll be next I guess. What I have read about 'The Grand Design' is that Hawkings believes that, since we have the law of gravity, there is 'no need' for a god.
The law of gravity then preceeded the big bang? No, because nothing prior to the big bang can be predicted and should therefore be discarded.
So we are still at the same point. Hawkings has stated his belief that it is random, but does not state that to a certainty and can not.
If its good enough for Hawkings, its good enough for me.
But, of course this is just my opinion. I'll have a look at 'The Grand Design', unless you are referring to another work.
The Big Bang was a singularity, or the biggest Black Hole EVER and then some.
Even the smallest firework explosion defies gravity for a period of time, now try to get your head around the entire mass of the universe collapsed into the smallest space possible and then it goes BANG !
Gravity and time were created at that very moment, we know the Universe is still expanding but we also know that where there was sufficient mass gravity took over and coalesced that mass into suns, many of which as they died they collapsed creating black holes, gravity at its strongest. Around these Black holes you could see a spiral forming some of which are hundreds of millions light years across, we call these galaxies.
I cannot put it any simpler than that, have you seen me mention and or require a God yet ?
No ! Neither does Stephen Hawking.
"Gravity and time were created at that very moment"
the rules that say how gravity works, how it attracts, the math around why it attracts, the balance between the 'negative' energy of gravity and the 'positive' energy of momentum, the fairly unique solution that allowed the universe to exist long enough for evolution to occur rather than simply collapsing too soon, why was the bang 'hot' and then cooled. What created the energy, the reason for the singularity's existance. . .
None of these are discussed much beyond simply dismissed as 'not predictable therefore irrelevant'
Of course the explanation is simple. All the complex questions have been cut away by Occam's razor.
"Can't be answered, therefore irrelevant:" is not an indicator of truth, merely a statement as to our ability to derive it rationally.
I accept Stephen Hawking doesn't need a god. He still isn't saying he knows there isn't one.
Here we go again. Misunderstandings are getting you nowhere.
Gravity does not "attract". What is this 'positive/negative' energy of momentum and gravity? Momentum can be positive or negative based on the velocities of two objects, but what does that have to do with gravity?
Which will go negative, mass or velocity?
If its velocity, does a car reversing make it negative velocity or is it something else?
If its mass, what is that?
If you know, if you can explain, explain how negative momentum occurs.
p=mv (momentum = mass*velocity)
How any one of this becomes negative. You said dependent on velocity. If something stops moving it become "0" velocity and whichever direction it moves it is positive. How does velocity becomes negative, then?
I am waiting with baited breath for your answer...
No, you're not, you're waiting to tell me your chair doesn't exist.
Not answering the question, why you do not know the answer?
Ok, Ok I'm not insisting you answer what you do not know. Its ok, carry on with your christian friends.... Tell them god does not exist, its time, energy and space that exist and continue with your arguments... go on
YES! I have escaped!
A problem Descarte was having in trying to figure out why momentum was not conserved when two people on rollerskates of equal weight were coming directly towards each other at equal but opposite velocities and when they met they put their hands together and came to a complete halt.
Christian Huygens came along and pointed out that the "quantity of motion" need not necessarily be 'positive', so if something moving to the right was taken to have positive momentum, then one should consider something moving to the left to have negative momentum, this way the total momentum is zero, and is therefore conserved.
Which motion are you going to take as negative, the one to north, south, east or west. Still the basic question how velocity becomes negative remains unanswered. Without making either velocity or mass negative, momentum will not become negative.
Also note Momentum remains constant only if not acted by an external force.
Ah, you have your own personal theories. Understood.
In classical mechanics, momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kg·m/s, or, equivalently, N·s) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (). Like velocity, momentum is a vector quantity, possessing a direction as well as a magnitude. Momentum is a conserved quantity (law of conservation of linear momentum), meaning that if a closed system is not affected by external forces, its total momentum cannot change. Momentum is sometimes referred to as linear momentum to distinguish it from the related subject of angular momentum.
You are the one who make personal theories.
Either you explain how negative velocity occurs, or just admit you yo make yor own theories.
I already gave you that explanation, Descartes/Huygens.
Descartes- It is acted by an external force.
Huygens- Which direction is negative, if its only one body?
I will repeat once more
Momentum(p)= mass(m)* velocity(v)
You explain how either mass or velocity can be negative.
Velocity, is a scalar quantity, if something moves its always positive. If it stop it is "0". There is no negative velocity, Velocity is always positive.
Mass is always positive. A product of two positive quantities is always positive.
Now tell, from where you got negative velocity(You said dependent on velocity) and negative momentum, or how it occur?
Never heard that before. Velocity is a vector in that is has both magnitude and direction.
Scalars have only magnitude.
It even states that in the link YOU provided...
"Like velocity, momentum is a vector quantity, possessing a direction as well as a magnitude."
How is it that you can deny relativity works when you don't even know that? Seriously dude, I think you've spent your dime here.
You answer how either of it becomes negative first, we will deal with relativity in the other forum.
Yes, with all those little mistakes you're making, it's no wonder the much bigger mistakes are so prominent.
The only thing needed dealing up is your denial of fact.
I quit, i cannot argue with a fool who vouch for relativity but know nothing about it.
The notion of gravity being 'negative' and momentum being 'positive' is discussed in Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' in the context of the Big Bang causing all matter to move away from the singularity (positive) and gravity hauling it back. (negative). This was his choice of words to describe processes around this specific event in order to illustrate the point he was making about the balance between the two being specific enough to allow enough time for evolution to occur. More momentum = more time. Less momentum means early collapse.
Also in a Brief History is Hawkings statement that gravity is a weak force and 'always attractive' (ie there is no negative or anti-gravity). I'm not sure what you mean by 'gravity does not attract'. What does it do then?
There is no universally negative momentum unless you can express it in terms of a still point, but physics has also determined that there is no such thing as a still point and that all velocities are relative to the observer. Momentum is therefore the vector energy of an object in motion relative to the observer. 'Negative' would be something ascribed to a point of view. Hawkings was presumably using it to refer to the point from which matter exploded from the singularity
Gravity (however it works) is always attracting. It is never repelling.
According to Stephen Hawkings and those that accept general relativity, at least as I glean from what I have read.
What have I misunderstood this time?
It curves or warps the space around a large object so that other objects in free fall will follow a curved path. The object in free fall does not exhibit any attractive force on it whatsoever.
Equivalence principle - Gravity and acceleration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introducti … relativity
But this curved path is towards the mass in question, yes? The curve does not lead the object away from the mass. It leads toward.
I understand your distinction. The terminology is from 'A Brief History of Time'.
Yes, but it does not promote or indicate an attractive force of any kind. When the experiments were conducted it was found that the calculations for an object with an alleged attractive force did not agree with the results of the experiment.
Understood. However the distinction does not change the initial point, which was that the balance between the momentum of matter from the singularity against the curvature of spacetime had to be such to allow the time for evolution to occur in the first place. I don't know the math, but from what I've read that balance is pretty precise, and the reasons why it was that way are unknown. This is all I am saying. A much shorter point than the resulting discussion.
And gravity is not so simple. Hawkings and his peers are still struggling with it, based on what I'm reading now. Again, point me at the elements you are referring to and we'll continue.
We understand enough about gravity to know that it is the glue that holds galaxies together and that eventually it will pull the entire universe back into a singularity where it will create an enormous explosion the likes of which has never been seen before. Oh Wait, maybe we have, wasn’t it called the Big Bang !
SO then gravity is eternal? Always is and always shall be?
General relativety and quantam theory are fairly clear that there is no valid prediction prior to the big bang. Does this not include gravity? unless that law exists prior to the bang, but then that is not what the two theories are saying.
And we are talking about the potential for eternity here, so if, as I think you are suggesting, there are multiple big bangs, what did the previous one produce? What will the next one produce? How many times has this happened?
More importantly, what is driving it? Is that force sentient?
The only current truthful answer is 'I don't know'
Now, if your image of the god that doesn't exist is based on a specific religion, I would absolutely and unreservedly agree that there is no evidence to support any religion's claims of a personal involved god and that worldly decisions that affect others based on a religious belief are unwise at best and immorally dangerous at worst.
Proving the bible (or any religious text) incorrect does not eliminate a creator.
just my opinion.
Man created God(s), all of them not the other way around just as man created organised religion, it's a power thing, always was, haven't you got that yet ?
As for your question : "you are suggesting, there were multiple big bangs, what did the previous one produce? What will the next one produce? How many times has this happened?"
I have no definitive answer, given time is infinite who knows how many times it has happened and how many more times it will happen in the future.
What did it produce, a Universe I suppose as will the next one and the one after that.
All I'm saying is it's as good a theory as anyone saying "God Did It !" wouldn't you agree ?
Actually, you have already answered the question about what was before the big bang.
As the big bang produced time itself there was no "before" - the question does not make sense and cannot even be asked in scientific terms. It's kind of like asking "What was before blue?" or "What red?" - the words strung together in this manner are without meaning.
"Man created God(s), all of them "
This is an opinion. (I could do the 'haven't you got that yet?' tag too, but I'm not comfortable with implying that you are slow on the uptake since I don't know you, so I'll refrain)
I don't deny that the attributes any religion applies to a god are man derived. Those opinions have very little relevance to what we can observe about how the universe was created. They don't address 'why' it was.
If there is a god, human error in describing it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it exists, just as the veracity of the big bang has nothing to do with the fact that the theory is only the newest developed in a long line of scientifically derived theories on the nature of the universe.
"I have no definitive answer. . ." Exactly my point.
"All I'm saying is it's as good a theory as anyone saying "God Did It !" "
All I'm saying is that its the SAME theory as saying "God Did it?" Or at least no more or no less valid.
I actually have no problem with the notion of multiple big bangs. Still doesn't answer what drives it though.
"As the big bang produced time itself there was no "before"
There are a few scientists who would dispute that statement alone, but even taking it at face, how is 'there was nothing until suddenly something happened' materially different from 'in the beginning. . .' ?
The only difference is that one says 'bang' for no reason at all, the other says 'let there be 'bang'. One is on purpose, one is an accident.
Since we can't know, it is not correct to say that we do. Only correct to say 'I believe. . .'
That's the only point I'm striving for. I don't know. Neither does anyone else.
Science does not answer it
Religion does not answer it
Niether has a lock on the truth.
Back to opinion again.
The difference is that God must have existed "before" the universe or time existed. Without time God could not have waved His arms (or whatever action He took) and caused creation. Without time there can be no causal action for the big bang.
While I do agree that God may exist (seemingly your point) I find that existence to be improbable.
For God to exist requires that we postulate an entire other "universe". He cannot have both existed in and created our universe.
Without the need for God to jump-start our universe occams razor says that He (and the other universe he exists in) probably doesn't exist.
Without that need I find that occams razor is most likely the correct scenario. It is simply too far out of line for me to assume, without evidence or need, not only God but another universe, complete with its own (different) laws from ours that allows God to exist and create our universe.
I do fully agree, however, that there is no evidence either way and that my conclusion could be wrong. Unlikely does not equal impossible. Whether the probability is .999 or 10^(-10,000) it is still greater than zero.
Now, this is only my opinion and its still forming, but I am not convinced that the principle of Occam's razor always leads to truth.
For example, if there is something outside of time and because of a probability choice (Occam's) we decline to examine that possibility, what have we gained?
And as well, there are no shortage of scientists who don't agree with the current set of theories around the big bang, M-Theory and etc. Both of these (I think) contribute to the .999 or 10^(-10,000) room for speculation
Whether one chooses to speculate on those odds or not is, of course, personal
You make a lot of wrong assumptions. What you are saying is that God should such and such qualities and since he can't have such qualities he can't exist. You are limiting God. Let me show you....
"Without time God could not have waved His arms (or whatever action He took) and caused creation. "
You are saying here that if there should be a God he should be time bound. You assume that he can't exist outside of time. Why do you limit God?
"He cannot have both existed in and created our universe."
Now you are saying God should be space bound. Why could God he not be in a space less dimension.
Where are you going when the truth prevails. Is there is GOD? You can't lose if you believe, if you don't go ahead, there is free will God impose to man. You can choose what you believe and what to believe...
I am baffled as to how you start from one premise (science) and through it's misunderstanding work towards a creator. Baffling.
Respectfully, so far you keep telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I am misunderstanding and that you don't understand how I can use science to work towards a creator.
Tell me why and then a discussion can continue. Offer me something that could change my mind. Give me something to entertain.
It appears you believe that observations and evidence exclude a creator. My reading of the theories and positions that attempt to address these questions is that they do not state that there is no creator. I've seen statements that say it is unlikely, not probable, and many that say 'i don't believe'.
But if the theory is not excluding god, then your choice not to believe in one is your choice. The science isn't telling you this. You are telling you this.
Of course you disagree, but you also point out that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I am misunderstanding and that this baffles you.
My response is to ask for specifics. If I'm misunderstanding, enlighten me. If I don't know what I'm talking about, share your knowledge.
Give me something more to go on than just your opinion that I'm wrong.
Otherwise, its just 'no you're wrong'. Opinion noted.
Why should I spend my time correcting all of your misunderstandings?
If those theories exclude invisible dragons, is it my choice that I don't believe in invisible dragons? Seriously.
Again, why should I spend my time correcting all your misunderstandings? Why don't you just check your facts before posting instead?
Did it occur to you that AntonoftheNorth is deliberately misunderstanding you just to keep his nonsensical thread going ?
His question has been asked and answered a dozen times and I cannot believe he so dumb as to not understand, therefore it has to be deliberate avoidance. The God Squad do it all the time, they know it drives sane people nuts and they never concede a single point.
Clearly you have different facts than mine, or you are interpreting the same facts differently, but I'm still just getting your (and Merlin's) apparent opinion that I'm too stupid to understand what you are refusing to say beyond what an idiot I am.
Nowhere in this discussion have I said or implied that your opinion was not an honest expression of what you thought.
I participate here to try to understand why people think the way they do. It perplexes me when anyone says they know something, cite something as general as 'science as shown' and when I try to engage on what specifically they are talking about, I get: "why should I spend my time correcting all your misunderstandings?" and "is deliberately misunderstanding you to keep this nonsensical thread going".
I don't belong to any god squad. I'm agnostic.
You're own notion of how right you are seems to have affected your ability to actually discuss a point. If it is so settled for you that no other opinion is valid, and having any other opinion simply means you are an idiot, why come to these 'nonsensical threads' in the first place?
I began addressing some of those misunderstandings in a previous post, asking you to explain, but you didn't respond. I got the impression it was you who was misinterpreting facts.
You then went further to take those misinterpretations as possible reasons for a creator.
So, you appear to be starting from false premises and drawing conclusions from them.
I'm sorry, but where did you ask me a question where I did not respond? If I missed that, point me at it and I will endeavour to do so.
I'm really not trying to be obtuse, here. I'm not ducking a question. I have no agenda orther than trying to understand your point of view, so if I've missed something, let me know and I'll be as direct as I can.
Keeping in mind that God is a "non-physical entity" what kind of evidence do you expect?
You have discovered the most important point on this matter--evidence need not apply. God, by definition, is inaccessible to any evidence that is understandable or intelligible to the human mind. Therefore the human mind has no reason to believe in God.
Suppose I tell you there is a "nonphysical being" named Ra. Ra has done various things. I say he exists. You say, "I don't believe in Ra, where is the evidence for him." And I will say "he is a nonphysical being--what kind of evidence do you expect?"
This is one of the cardinal errors of theism. The test of a good idea is not that it is unfalsifiable, but rather that it is falsifiable.
Anything that lies outside of the realm of human understanding, that is structurally inaccessible to human inquiry, is simply an imagining, a fantasy.
"what are the kind of evidences that would make you change your view and make you a Theist?"
This is like asking what kind of evidence would make me believe 1+1=5. The notion is absurd because no amount of evidence will ever be able to change logic.
God does not show Himself to the world but shows Himself to the individual.
How incredibly wonderful for that individual. They must be special then eh?
He must be like those individuals who aliens land next to strutting up and down making 'Beep Beep' noises and then disappearing again. No one believes them either.
"God does not show Himself to the world but shows Himself to the individual."
Yes. Assuming God exists. Which there is no reason to believe.
There doesn't need to be a reason. But once He does reveal Himself the belief just happens.
How funny. Odd you are still fighting about your irrational beliefs - despite god saying you should not do this.
"There doesn't need to be a reason. "
In that case, there doesn't need to be a reason to believe anything.
I can believe one plus one equals eleven. There is no reason to believe it, but hey, what the heck!
I can believe anything I want and there's nothing you can do to stop me, LOL!
Oh. Sarcasm doesn't come across too good in written form. Anyway people can believe what they want and there doesn't have to be a reason.
I thought the "LOL" gave it away.
No, of course, people can believe whatever they want. It's a free country. People can believe that the sky is pink, or that murder is "just some fun on a Friday night."
Technically I suppose they can believe whatever they want.
See anything wrong with this picture?
You are going to extremes. Some beliefs don't hurt anyone personally. If you think it's ok to murder there would be a problem for the victim. And other subjects, like God, are only belief based. Nothing is going to change this. No right and no wrong. But believing the sky is pink when (you know) it isn't only hurts yourself.
I'm going to extremes to demonstrate the consequences of what you're saying. If anything goes for one question about objective reality, then anything goes for all such questions.
The idea of God is an idea about objective reality--that there is a thing hanging out there in the cosmos called "God," just like there are stars and planets hanging out there. That is an objective claim. It is not a subjective claim as in "I prefer brown shoes, and you prefer black shoes."
There is no right or wrong for subjective preferences or tastes. There is right and wrong for objective claims.
"Anything that lies outside of the realm of human understanding, that is structurally inaccessible to human inquiry, is simply an imagining, a fantasy."
So you are telling me that anything that is beyond human understanding can't be. What an illogical statement!! Man has not understood many things are all of them fantasy? Man has not understood a living sell fully so the part that he has not understood is fantasy? Then information in DNA must be a fantasy then.
This view is a great error and having this view you will not see evidence for God.
I didn't see your comment earlier.
"So you are telling me that anything that is beyond human understanding can't be."
No. I always find it interesting when people quote me, and still don't read what I write. LOL!
I said anything that is "outside of the realm of human understanding, structurally inaccessible to human inquiry." That is different from not understanding something.
For instance, we did not know that the earth went around the sun for a while. So the nature of the sun was misunderstood, but it was not outside of the realm of understanding. In other words, it was possible for us to understand it, we just didn't, because of inadequate technology or observational methods.
There is a difference between something that is not understood at the moment, but can still be understood, and something that cannot be understood or grasped at all.
God and supernatural phenomena in general belong in the latter category. They are inherently, structurally inaccessible to human inquiry, by their nature.
(Keeping in mind that God is a "non-physical entity")
This is a ridiculous statement. Keep in mind that "invisible to human sight" does not mean "non-physical". We do not see the molecules that make up the action we term wind, but those molecules are there are they are physical entities.
A non-physical entity means an imaginary entity. The only thing that can foster belief in the imaginary as a reality is faith. There only proof or evidence of the imaginary there can be is imaginary proof or evidence...that is the essence of theistic belief...imagination.
(For example, if there is something outside of time)
How can something be "outside of time"? If you can't explain how it is possible to be "outside of time" , then you are not reasoning but babbling, and ever bit as madly as did Son of Sam when he recited the orders he swore the neighbor's dog gave him to go and kill.
Actually, Son of Sam makes more sense - we know dog's can make noises that we can hear.
I'm referring (not well) to Hawking's position that nothing prior to the big bang is predictable and therefore irrelevant. Big Bang is the beginning of time for him according to that theory. Something prior to it therefore would have to be outside of time.
I don't know what happened prior to big bang any more than he does. (I'm not convinced the big bang is inevitable either, but that's a whole other debate, which you and FatFist have been through before, effectively)
My point is that the notion that it is irrelevant because we can't predict has no bearing on whether it is in fact true. Only its rational probability.
I personally have a hard time swallowing the 'time began at the big bang' frog. More study required and underway.
I'm not sure why Hawking is put so far up on a pedestal in the first place. He, much like the religious, does not know anything about our universe or its deepest inner workings.
MY theory(Not saying it is correct), which is more than possible, due to fact that it happens to every other species.
They say we started from the "big bang" or "inflation" or whatever they want to call it now. Who is to say that the "big bang" isn't just how our universe mates/reproduces. We could be on the 1,000,000 generation of the big bang for all we know. Everything else reproduces, why wouldn't the Universe? Maybe we live in a life form, and maybe that lifeform is extremely smart, but have no way to contact us, OR they could contact us, but life is so common that they really have no need for it and just let us be. It would be like us trying to contact bacteria, or something living inside bacteria. There are tons of other scenarios that we can not rule out, that is why I myself have not ruled out there being "intelligent design" Something that most atheists are wrong about. There very well can be intelligent design.
I do not particularly believe this(but thoughts like this intrigue me much more than any religion to this point), but this scenario has popped in my head and certainly seems more realistic than most things I have ever heard.
sorry, the above is not clear. I meant to say that the terminology I was using came from 'A Brief History of Time'.
I'm not trying to beat anyone up, but at the same time these discussions would be more fruitful if both sides understood their own claims.
First, let's discuss observations. It is plainly obvious by observation that the ground beneath our feet is stationary, and that the sun travels across the sky. Science used to be based on just these observations.
Now, we have new observations about redshift and cosmic background radiation. And science uses these observations to justify its theories.
And these interpretations of observations could be just as wrong as a stationary earth and a moving sun were.
The point? Observations do not always point out facts.
What we posit in the Big Bang argument is always a philosophical argument - one that perforce must start, It is possible....that matter can be zero-dimensional or...it is possible...for dark matter to exist, yada, yada, yadi.
Alvin Plantinga began his argument for god with, It is possible...that a maximally great being exists in some world.
Do you see the connection? What may be is really unimportant - only what is affects us.
In both the Big Bang argument and god argument we are talking about the irrational - supernatual beings and zero-dimensional objects.
The irrational is discussed in philosphy, not science. These arguments go round and round because they are both philosophical "It is possible" arguments and as such have nothing to do with reality, but with the system of logic in which they reside.
I was right with you until the end there.
I submit 'It is possible' is a relevant argument when faced with the statement 'it is impossible' in the absense of that impossibility being demonstrated.
FatFist's 'first cause is impossible' hub does do this. Using the english language the way it was meant to be used, he demonstrated first cause (whether singularity or god) as impossible. Every approach to the argument after that has to take this argument into account.
(I still struggle with that one, but can't fault the logic used)
But if someone is telling me something is impossible and is unable to demonstrate it, does that not, by definition make it possible?
The irrational is frequently thrown into science (its kind of all over the big bang, isn't it? Aren't those proponents scientists?)
And if 'what is' is not found because we ignored 'what is possible', where are we?
True, we can't say 'it is' simply because 'it may be'.
But as you say, the earth rotates and moves around the sun. What is obvious is not necessarily true.
(Some beliefs don't hurt anyone personally. If you think it's ok to murder there would be a problem for the victim. And other subjects, like God, are only belief based. Nothing is going to change this. No right and no wrong.)
Jim Jones believed in god.
David Koresh believed in god.
The nineteen 9-11 hijackers believed in god.
The Inquisition torturers all believed in god.
I am sorry but your thinking is misguided - irrational beliefs are the cause of irrational actions. Our actions are created by what we believe.
The Son of Sam killer believed his neighbor's dog ordered him to kill.
David Koresh believed we lived in the biblical end times.
There is no difference in the affects caused by these beliefs - innocent people died because of them.
I encourage you to take control of your bright thinking apparatus; otherwise, it controls you. My own thinking changed forever when a career path led me to the necessity of utilizing critical thinking on a daily basis - and the first steps in the process of applying critical thinking are to assess (gather information and raw data) and then analyze that information.
This is not our normal thinking process and results in rarely if ever accepting a statement at face value without doing our own thinking about it. Thousands of college graduates and post-graduates annually are sent out into the world with high education levels but virtually zero skills in critical thinking.
This leads me back to your post. You have the ability to understand a fairly complex discussion of singularities, spacetime curviture, and evolution. I wonder, though, if you have ever simply looked into the data yourself and come to your own conclusions?
For example, as you point out the concepts you discuss are the results of mathematics - but how that logical formula incorporates itself into reality - that is the needed information.
Space is nothing - a vacuum. So how can it be that space can assume any shape? Mr. Einstein was prompted to explain his calculations in reality-based terms. But mathematics is not an explanation but definition of an occurence - and for this occurence to happen, Einstein invented (or conceived) spacetime that was curved. In other words, the math led to a non-rational theory of reality.
The problem is that spacetime is not real - it is an attempt to explain the results of mathematical equations but it fails because the explanations are irrational.
Step one. Gather information. What is space? What is time? Can either one assume a shape? How can space, time, or spacetime warp?
Does any of this make sense? Note, the people who came up with all these explanations are brilliant and highly skilled mathematicians. But to show on paper where Mercury will be in relation to the sun three months from now does not explain why it happens.
Unless you accept space and time (both concepts) can assume a curved shape and that imagined shape could then have an affect on a real physical object (the planet Mercury), there is no reason to accept these premises on faith (being taught them) alone.
If what is being taught is unreasonable, i.e., irrational, do we have to accept it or should we challenge its authenticity?
I agree with most everything you've said above, though it is probably not clear in all of this.
I am not at all convinced of the big bang, though I have seen many posts (here and elsewhere) that have declared it fact. I think there are some valid hypothesis based on experimentation and observation, but (as you say) too many non-rational constructs have been added to the theory to explain some things that otherwise don't hold up.
My attempt here was to point out that, even if one accepts all the observations exactly as the big bang theory lays them out, you still have gaps that have to be filled with something non-rational. Theists say 'god'. Scientists say 'can't be determined, therefore irrelevant', or 'unknown yet'.
Where the information is inconclusive or unknown, humans speculate. Eventually we hypothesize, theorize and test. Whether the individual does this scientifically, philosophically, morally or emotionally is normally derived from what suits them. Some people don't approach this issue rationally, but that doesn't keep them from having an opinion.
My first offering on this forum was (essentially), does not the perceived order that allows us to deduce the 'rules' of science at least provide for the possibility that these rules were devised on purpose?
I didn't expect it to get into the scientific cosmological discussion it did, but I suppose I should have. After that I was told that I didn't understand the science well enough, so I fished for that understanding.
What I didn't get was why all the theorizing about how it works does not prompt the question 'where do all the rules come from?' I don't presuppose that it should or shouldn't. I am asking the individuals who post why it does not for them, when it at least for me creates a reasonable question. If there are rules, where did they come from. If there are not, why to we perceive them as such? You have answered this question in other exchanges. Your position doesn't agree with mine. Fair.
re: big bang. If the universe exploded out of a singularity, spacetime warped and bent to an infinitely dense point, and nothing moves faster than light, how did all the matter burst forth. According to the theory, nothing escapes a singularity, not even light. If gravity is the warping of this mythical spacetime, what made spacetime change and unwarp despite the fact that all the matter in the universe that warps it was collected into a single point?
I agree with you that the non-rational is all over the science attached to big bang.
That was sort of my point. (buried in all the skirmishing about whether I understood what I was talking about)
As always, I value your input.
Hawkings contends that even a slight difference would have made life of any sort impossible.
I myself don't know.
Have you got a citation, I would really like to read it?
My copies of 'A Brief History. . .' and 'The Universe in a Nutshell' are at home. I'm referring to statements in those. I'll forward this evening, but in case you have those books yourself and wish to confirm. . .
In context, he also asserts that there may be myriad numbers or instances of universe that do not support life, but all are irrelevant to us as we are in one that does. (this part of 'M-Theory').
I'm in no way trying to class Hawkings as a theist. Just aiming at the point that the scientists have a few notions about how it came to be, with good arguments, but not without their own brand of non-rational or guess work attached (dark matter, dark energy, multiple universes and etc) .
In the end, if we are looking for 'evidence' for god, it is likely science that will find it. But not if we exclude the possibility at the outset.
Personal god. Unlikely. Any religion being correct, doubtful.
Created universe possible? I believe so. Proven? Not at all.
I don't see how theories based on observational evidence of our universe are non-rational. Where would you get that idea?
But, we aren't looking for evidence for mythical gods. Science is working on finding the truth, not chasing around fairy tales.
A Troubled Man,
No offense intended, but have you considered that observational evidence means observer-dependent, which means subject to interpretation, which means opinion?
In a concise setting, rational would refer to a non-contradictory explanation, while irrational would expose a contradictory explanation - which would then de facto falsify it.
Claiming real objects can have zero deminsions is such an irrational position. Claiming that space (nothing) can expand or contract is irrational.
Science isn't about finding the truth - truth is a definition used as the product of a logic system. Science offers possible explanations.
The math supporting the big bang theory implies that more matter than is visible is necessary for the equations to support the observations, so a specific amount of dark matter and dark energy have been hypothesized to make up the mass required to make the equations work. Not because they have been detected, but because if they are not present, the math doesn't work.
Now I don't personally have a problem with hypothesizing the existence of dark matter and dark energy, but that is not the same as stating to a fact that they exist.
Basically saying: 'It doesn't work unless there is more than we can see so lets suppose there is more than we can see.'
Not really different than 'it doesn't work unless intended, so let's suppose it was intended.'
The difference I suppose, is that I'm not stating 'intended' as fact. Merely as possible.
And, that is somehow irrational to you?
Once again, rather than proposing a hypothesis based on science, you jump to the 'supernatural' explanation of intention to fill the void.
Sure, now you know the reason why people argue the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, merely as possible.
Well, you state that deists, theists and 'religinoids' make up stuff to fit their world view. 0D singularities, dark matter, dark energy, multiple dimensions, these were all made up stuff to make the equations work.
If not irrational (in the sense of not rationally derived) than no more rational.
Once again, you make a statement without demonstrating what you mean
Still haven't seen an arguement. Just derision. I await (probably a long time) a real argument.
Yes, the alleged "supernatural" realm; magic.
Those are also things made up from the supernatural realm; magic?
Then, it IS rational to assume the supernatural realm can explain our existence over and above scientific theory?
A dimensionless object does not exist, but big bangers assert the 0D singularity
Imaginary numbers do not exist, but are used in equations.
Dark matter and dark energy are theories to account for equations favoured by the theorists. What makes them more rational than the 'magic' you deride?
No it is non-rational. The difference is you have an issue with using non-rational, even while you support a theory that does because it has 'science' attached to it.
Anton, the only difference between you and troubled man is, he thinks 0 is always greater than zero, while you say, it is, if someone of authority says so.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't think Troubled Man said anything like that, and I'm not sure what you are saying about me
You yourself explained that before. eg; He says '0' D singularities exist. When ever you say 0, it means there is nothing. So anything with all dimensions '0' do not exist. If anybody say '0'D exist, he is assuming a bigger value for "0". Similarly no concepts exist. All concepts are '0'D, exist only in our thoughts, and but what he is doing is reifying, treating concepts as objects, that is giving '0' a value.
In your case, you too are doing the same, but you take the authority of bible, or some ancient philosophers. Creation is a concept. It can only be explained, but no creation/creator is explained rationally and logically. To assume there is a creation you must first reify another concept time. As there is nothing called time,as it is only a human construct, we cannot assume a past, present or future. For matter, there is only present, eternal present, so no creation, for creation should be past.
Okay, I think I'm with you, and I agree to a point.
The point which I was after (and I think lost track of) is that, as this forum topic asks, what evidence for god would you accept? I proposed that science itself provides observations that could be construed as evidence for god. This was refuted by others, Troubled Man being one. I tried to make the point that scientific theories contain their own non rational concepts. Essentially, I propose god as possible where science proposes either 'chance' or irrelevant.
If, we take creation, time, 0D, as concepts and not objects, then I submit science can be used to support the conceptual notion of creator, just as it has been used to support the conceptual notion of 'from nothing'
The only quibble I have with your statement is that religion and philosophy as to the nature and works of a creator are not part of my argument. (personally, I am an agnostic with deist leanings).
I don't support the possibility of a creator because of a religion. I support the possibility because that is how I interpret the evidence. That is however just my opinion. No more (but I think no less) valid than anyone else's.
Interpretation of evidence!! That exactly is the problem. Evidence and proof has no role in science. Evidence are subjective. It depends on the prosecutor, to which side the evidence leans and it is used only to persuade the Jury. Science/Physics is all about rational explanation of our world. It is objective, that is irrespective of the observer.
About God, what is god? Nobody knows. For some it is just the creator, for some it is more than that. Without a clear description of the term, it is useless. So Lets say creator. People say they don't believe in creator as there is no evidence. Just because our existing mechanisms failed to detect creator, doesn't mean there is no creator. Was there no distant galaxies before the advent of telescopes? Why there is no creator, is because creation scenario is rationally untenable, that is s a contradiction, hence cannot occur in nature. All three creation scenarios presupposes matter and space and then say everything occurred with creation. As all creation scenarios are impossible, we can only say matter and space are eternal.
From nothing- Big bang is just another creation scenario, creation ex nihilo. The proponents have to rationally explain how 'nothing' can suddenly attain length, width and height to become something, so far they haven't done that. The relativity science is not science but another religion. Now they may argue '0'D is not dimension, but location. if it is location why they say it as 0 dimension. If it is location, when they say electron is '0'D, what is orbiting around the nucleus, the location? Again when ever the term location is used its in relation to another object, space cannot have a location. What is there to point the location?
When there is an irrational concept, then it is not science, it is religion. Science is only trying to explain the workings of our universe. As long as it is that, there can never be any irrational in science, as irrational is a contradiction and never will occur in nature.
That's one of your funniest, yet. Deserves a triple, not often given out but you certainly earned it.
Evidence/proof are subjective(ask any criminal lawyer, he will tell you, how the same evidence can be used for or against the accused.) Science is OBJECTIVE, you ought to know that much at least.
Well, well, well, no point in explaining to you!!! You think two events are simultaneous only if the observer sees it simultaneously, I wonder what happens if the observer is blind!!
Thanks for taking the time to respond, even though you are busy expanding space, or dilating time or contracting length, or counting muons, or increasing masss, or providing evidence for black hole/dark matter....or doing any of the funny things your god einstein proposed.
You better think, if you can
Or is it that you memorize your Einstein bible and vomit it whenever needed?
Ah, didn't read them. That was a waste of time.
Before discovery of Gliese 581g , did it exist or not?
Just because we got instruments, to detect it, only recently and we had no evidence of its existence, made it non existent?
Just because we have no sensitive enough instruments, as of now to detect 'god' make it non-existent, for you to ask for evidence of god?
What you are, in effect, saying is that you are blind, hence things don't exist, they will exist the moment you get vision.
Jurisprudence was my undergraduate subject and I don't have to read it again.(You are protected by McNaughtens rule, don't worry )
Beyond reasonable doubt, that is what is need in law, not certainty.. Find out the difference.
Stick with law then, science is completely foreign to you.
That was not my sole subject.
Again. science is for anyone, who can think, though lately morons like the relativists and quantum physicists usurped it.
Sorry jomine, but you'll have an extremely difficult time convincing me you've even graduated from high school.
Amazing and completely twisted version of what I said. Well done.
You said?? Did you say anything meaningful??
"'0'D, is dimension, no it is location....." first get a grip on yourself and figure out what YOU want to say, then probably others may understand you.
Did you know we have this amazing technology called GPS? How meaningful is that for you?
This will be my last post in regards to clearing up misunderstandings.
A dimensionless object represents a point in space or a location on a grid and can be clearly referenced as such. Obviously, it doesn't really exist as an object as you say. The assertion that a singularity is considered a 0D object only states that something is located at a position in space and nothing more. The properties associated with that location in space are consistent with the derived general relativity solution of the Schwarzschild metric.
Your misunderstanding is asserting that since an 0D object does not really exist, then neither does a singularity.
In something as simple as the AC voltage of your common house-wiring, there is a mathematical representation of an imaginary number (two parameters; potential and phase) required to understand this two-dimensional representation of AC voltage. And, although the imaginary number doesn't really exist, the voltage is very real.
Btw, can you show that "real" numbers exist?
They are descriptions of what is being observed. For example, dark matter is a name given to explain the huge discrepancies observed in the rotation curves of galaxies. It is "dark" because it does not emit or reflect electromagnetic radiation, it is "matter" because it exhibits gravity; "dark matter". Similarly, 'dark energy' is a hypothetical description for what is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
It's not just about equations.
It's observable, testable and measurable science. Magic is not.
Sorry Anton, but if you insist on continuing to use 'misunderstandings' to support your argument that one MUST accept the theory of a Creator alongside the theories of science, I must pass on the discussion.
At last. Thank you Troubled Man. This is all I was asking for. Now I have something to look at and think about, and try against my own thought processes. You may be correct about my understanding in these matters, but this is the first attempt I see at explaining that to me beyond merely stating I don't understand (unless I missed something elsewhere). I am particularly intrigued by the differentiation between describing the singularity as an 0D object but it not actually being considered one.
No number exists as an object. But I can count 3 objects to demonstrate the concept of '3'. I need to do more research on the imaginary, though.
my understanding was that dark matter and dark energy are hypothesized to fit the equations. The equations were not derived from observation. I'll look into this further as well.
I don't believe in magic, nor do I define god as such.
The only thing I'll add is that I don't think that one MUST accept the theory of a Creator alongside science. I only contend that it is possible to do so.
I know this conversation has been frustrating, but I still consider it a gain. Thanks for hanging in there.
I'm not suggesting you 'chase fairy tales'. I'm suggesting that if you meet the possibility of a creator in your studies, rejecting that evidence because of your opinion that it is a fairy tale is not good science.
If we 'know' it doesn't exist, we'll never find it.
Just as if we 'know' it does, we can never refute it.
Again, there is no evidence for a creator, quite the opposite in fact. There isn't anything to accept or reject other than the contrived fairy tale that a creator exists.
It's a fact, not an opinion, unless you can show evidence that a creator exists? I will happily agree with you that it is an opinion if you can.
The evidence (not proof) is in the underlying order, which you suggest is merely the result of random occurance.
Saying the order is not there belies your ability to even make that statement. Thought requires order.
The only question is whether that order is the result of chance or on purpose. It is your opinon that it cannot be purposed, despite the fact that no theory says that it is not. They go so far as to say god is not neccessary to the theory, but their theory contains multiple dimensions, dimensionless objects, imaginary numbers and unproven forms of matter and energy, all non-rational concepts. There is no evidence or observation of the existence of these concepts. They are a hypothesis which supports the theory. They are neccessary for the equations to work. The equations were conceived of in the mind of humans. So are the concepts required to make them work.
Or, more precisely, the ability to misunderstand our world exhibiting an underlying order.
Even if it did, it isn't an argument to support an underlying order in nature.
At this point, I would advise you to contact the scientific community at large, have them immediately stop whatever they're doing and concentrate all their efforts on theories of what is not. Silliness.
Again Anton, I hope you take the time to clear up your misunderstandings about evidence and observations.
I still haven't seen any argument put forth by you as to what you think I'm misunderstanding, just the statement of opinion that I am.
I'm in active research every day as a result of all these discussions. It does take time.
If you are certain my position is just 'misunderstanding' then enlighten me.
Otherwise, as before, your opinion is noted
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size"
It's present size and the time it took to expand to it gave evolution the time to produce us, among other things. In order to explain this without god, the notion that this is only one iteration of a multitude of universes so the odds of this being correct don't matter as it is just the one of many that life is possible in was all constructed to account for the possibility of not-intended. Not a bad theory. Long way to go before its fact, though.
Atheists only believe in what they can prove right? They can't prove God doesn't exist, so their position is absurd, a contradiction.
Atheists can't prove there isn't a three-headed hydra living in your garage, so their position is absurd, a contradiction.
If you can't prove God exists, does that make your position logical?
Believers say the funniest things. LOL!
Rubbish. Atheists simply don't believe in Majikal Invisible Super Beings.
What makes you say that is absurd? Did god tell you into your head to attack not beleiving as absurd?
No wonder your religion cause sso many conflicts and wars.
You seem to be stuck in this rut of bad application of logic - assuming an outcome and then creating an invalid argument to match your views. Under your misguided definition of proof, you also cannot prove the gods Poseidon and Zeus don't exist or that leprechauns are not real. Should it be considered absurd, a contradiction for an atheist also not to believe in these beings, as well?
Negatives can be proven - just not by deduction. Proving a negative is an inductive argument. I can make the negative claim that the box I am holding is empty (there is nothing in the box). I can then prove that claim by removing the lid and allowing everyone a look inside to see for themselves that the box is empty.
Does this 100% prove my claim? No.
The box may have a false floor that allows a bird to hide from your view (ever watched a magic show?)
The box may have contained (x), but (x) vaporized when the light shown on it (vampire, anyone?)
Or you can assert the theist claim - god is still in the box but you can't see him because he is an immaterial spirit (god, anyone?)
Still, unless you have some reason to suspect trickery, vaporizing spooks, or a magical god, it is totally rational to assume that the box is indeed empty - even if it is not an ironclad guarantee. That is always the nature of proof - proof and evidence are subjectives, never ironclad guarantees.
Non-contradictory and completely logical. The fact that you do not accept their proof does not make their positions absurd - but not understanding this makes you look a little shaky. :-)
A Troubled Man,
Don't you mean this, instead? "....dark matter is a name given to explain the huge discrepancies observed in the rotation curves of galaxies ...as compared to the predictions of the equations."
Hypothesized dark matter still has to do with filling holes in the originating theory. Ptolemy used epicycles to fill the holes in the geocentric theory. He was eventually shown to be incorrect. I wonder how dark matter will do over time?
A Troubled Man,
(The discrepancies are between the interpretation of the observed luminance to mass ratio of matter in the disk portions of spiral galaxies and the luminance to mass ratio of matter in the cores of galaxies.)
....which don't match predictions.
We seem to have invested so heavily in the BB theory that when predictions and observations don't match, we assume there must be something we are missing rather than assuming the theory is incorrect to start.
Again, Ptolemy and the geocentrists followed this path for 2000 years. I just bear in mind what Samuel Clemons wrote: "History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes."
"From nothing- Big bang is just another creation scenario"
I totally agree. Here's the thing. Is Big Bang not a theory derived from science? Cosmologists think so. Physicists think so. No?
(Is Big Bang not a theory derived from science?)
The question then becomes: what is the definition of science?
The BB idea came from a Catholic Priest who was degreed in sciences. Does this make him an impartial seeker of reality or a biased proponent of validating creationism? Who knows for sure.
Maybe science should have to do with observations and testing - I am not expert enough to know. But I am keenly aware that mathematics is based on a system of logic and is thus tautologous. As another responder pointed out - 0D corresponds to a position - it does not mean a real object.
It then becomes the observer's responsibility to determine for himself if he accepts a worldview that includes a correlation between logics and reality or if he demands a more objective explanation.
I suppose I keep coming back to the notion that an individual's study is always subject to their biases. I don't think scientists are immune to this solely because they fit a definition of scientist.
And like varying interpretations of 'the bible', I am aware of repeatedly varying interpretations of 'the data'.
Which approach is more valid tends to be a function of which approach appeals more to the individual, but this again comes back to opinion,
To simplify, we have two approaches: the 'rational' which will only accept observable, logical, testable information, and the 'non-rational' which will accept 'other'.
Both appear (my opinion) to require non rational concepts to support their positions, albeit religion requires significantly more.
Frequently, proponents of both sides discount the opposing position as 'irrelevant.'
So I guess the answer to the original question "what are the kind of evidences that would make you change your view and make you a Theist?" ??
Only those that fit your current approach. If a rationalist, rational 'evidence'. If not, convincing non-rational argument.
If you know the answer, no contrary evidence can convince you.
I don't know the answer, so I'll listen to anyone, and make up my own mind. Perhaps a flaw, but its worked up until now.
At the heart of objectivity as described by Fatfist and subsequently by me there are axiomatic-like assumptions based on intuitive choices: matter cannot be created or destoyed, only matter can act on other matter as a physical mediator. We don't know these things 100%, but we are aware that nature - as far as it is possible to validate empirically - does not produce matter from nothing and concepts cannot interact with matter in cause and effect relationships.
Reason is as deeply into the looking glass as mankind can go - beyond reason lies magic.
by Brittany Williams 4 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
by augustine72 6 years ago
I had posted a thread "define atheism". I want to move forward. Since atheism has been defined as "lack of belief in God" what are your reasons for taking that position? In other words what are the reasons for lack of belief in God? Many has said it is "lack of...
by The Minstrel 7 years ago
Why can't Atheists just admit that they have taken a step of faith?
by Mark 6 years ago
If God did in fact create everything and nothing happens without his ok...Then wouldn't it stand to reason, that God created the devil and sin as well? This seems to say that all the sin in the world comes from God. Thoughts?
by pay2cEM 7 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to accept it. For example, if your buddy told you he had Chinese for dinner last...
by augustine72 6 years ago
Is atheism non-belief in the existence of God or belief in the non-existence of God?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|