Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[Dead Duck]

Where did all those big bang particles come from?

Powdered Doughnut.










Sorry, I'm hungry!

 

[CathyInBlue]

The Big Bang is proveable. It makes testable predictions about the universe that can be tested now, have been, and have proven valid. That it has also proven nuanced and a more fertile ground for theoretical physics than some may have at first thought does not undermine that.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

The Big Bang is proveable. It makes testable predictions about the universe that can be tested now, have been, and have proven valid. That it has also proven nuanced and a more fertile ground for theoretical physics than some may have at first thought does not undermine that.

We're not talking about the big bang. Before the Big Bang. All the particles. Always had been? Put there by design?

 

[HoughMade]

What evidence can we observe that can differentiate between a spontaneous "big bang" and all matter being spoken into existence instantly, by an infinite, omnipotent God?

 

[PaulF]

We're not talking about the big bang. Before the Big Bang. All the particles. Always had been? Put there by design?

It pretty much looks looks like it was always there, in some form...or we are still missing a huge peice of the puzzle, as matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed...and that isn't an outrageous assertion. There is actual evidence to support this hypothesis.

Your assertion, however, that it was created from nothing, through magic, by "god" (a creature indistinguishable from something that can only live inside someone's imagination) is so extraordinary that surely you must have extraordinary evidence to support it?

 

[hoosierdoc]

What other logical explanation is there?

If something exists that never did before, what is it made out of? I have no problem believing God said "bang" and a universe was created. They are not mutually exclusive.

Your assertion, however, that it was created from nothing, through magic, by "god" (a creature indistinguishable from something that can only live inside someone's imagination) is so extraordinary that surely you must have extraordinary evidence to support it?

 

[BugI02]

missing syllable and punctuation

What evidence can we observe that can differentiate between a spontaneous "big bang" and all matter being spoken into existence instantly, by an infinite, omnipotent God?

At what level of detail. If it was simply spoken into existence fully formed, why do electromagnetism and the weak force combine at high enough energy levels, why do isotopes decay, why is there a preponderance of matter over antimatter, why does the universe contain so little matter at all and BOY isn't there a LOT of wasted space. If however you approach is what would a near aboriginal make of creation if you showed him a vision of how it happened? And god said let there be light. Do you feel god is invalidated by your inability to offer proof positive? Neither do we feel science is invalidated in that manner. I can't observe electrons quantum tunneling, but I can observe real world effects that lead to concluding such tunneling is the best fit answer until something better comes along. If I contrive to observe the process in greater detail I may see something that causes me to re-evaluate/reformulate my ideas. The new idea if verified and accepted by peer review will STILL be the best fit answer to the question. I don't see the big bang as in any way incompatible with 'and god said let there be light'. I'm not sure why some are so focused on 'science can't prove [ insert scientific assertion you disapprove of/disagree with here ]. If you are so sure a given premise is wrong, you have only to prove your assumption scientifically (see what I did there) and the scientific lion will lie down at your feet. Invoking here a miracle happens​ isn't going to cut it

 

[jamil]

Several people have hit on the essential problem of religious believers versus religious skeptics. It does indeed start with the dichotomous question, "Does god exist?" The problem with this question is, you're already building in a bias for monotheistic religions. If you answer that question "yes", you're assuming that there's indeed only one god. You're cutting all of the polytheistic religions out of the picture before the fun even starts. So, let's start from a properly eccumenical foundation:

"Do any gods exist?"

The Atheist answers, "no."

The deist answers, "yes."

The theist answers, "yes."

The monotheist answers, "yes."

The polytheist answers, "yes."

The agnostic answers, "I don't know."

The ambivatheist answers, "I don't care."

The Dadaist answers, "carrot."

Now, what duties do the various answerers of this question have for their responses? The Atheist has no responsibilities. I say there is no god. The universe never had one, never will. Materialistic natural law and mechanistic time is entirely sufficient to explain all phenomena given enough time and honest investigation via the Scientific Method.

Everyone who answered "yes", however, now has a responsibility. You've made a positive claim of existence for this thing called by the English word "god". Okay. Describe it. What's it called? Where is it? What does it do? What color is it? How much does it weigh? And, of course, how many are there?

Now, here's the thing, all of those answers to the core question, "Do any gods exist?" are logicly, morally, ethicly, and in all other ways that matter, equivalent, because every one of those answers share the exact same degree of proveability, i.e. none. I cannot prove that there is no god, first and foremost because there is no system of logic in which you can prove a negative. One answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is Zeus, he sits on a throne of clouds up on Mt. Olympus with all his other god friends, Hera, his wife, Apollo, Vulcan, Hermes, etc. Another answerer cannot prove that there is only one god, he goes by many names, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, I Am, he is totally non-corporeal and only exerts influence on this universe through the minds of men. Another answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is George, he's a purple unicorn. He stands just 2 feet tall at the whithers, which is convenient for him to hide behind my couch so no one but me can see him and he feeds me Skittles from the tip of his horn.

All possible answers to this question are equivalent, because this question, and all possible answers to it are at the core, are the beginning of religion. The very nature of religion is that it is unproveable. Once it can be proven, it ceases to be religion.

An overall excellent post, but just one minor nit. Though an unknowable domain is implied later, it wasn't qualified as such with the highlighted statement. So, as stated the highlighted statement isn't true. If that statement were true the statement itself would be a paradox.

If the domain is finite and knowable, you certainly can prove a negative. If the domain of discourse is the garage, you can prove that there is no Buick in that domain. You cannot prove a negative when the domain is unknowable, unreachable, or infinite. Does god live somewhere in this universe? A different universe? A different dimension? We can't search everywhere that god might be to prove he's not in any of the possible places. We don't even know the possible places. The burden of proof is for the one who believes the positive.

BTW, I get to represent two items on the list. I don't know, and I don't feel compelled to care that I don't know.

 

[jamil]

We're not talking about the big bang. Before the Big Bang. All the particles. Always had been? Put there by design?

We always like to explain what we don't understand by attributing supernatural forces. And when we find natural causes that explain those strange things, some say, oh. Okay then. Others keep believing what they believed.

 

[PaulF]

What other logical explanation is there?

If something exists that never did before, what is it made out of? I have no problem believing God said "bang" and a universe was created. They are not mutually exclusive.

There is a logical fallacy that needs to be addressed here. The bible asserts there was a beginning, but there was not. There cannot be. There was a time that our sun was born. There was a time that the nebula that birthed our sun was born, there was a time that the galaxy that birthed the nebula that birthed our sun was born. Going back from that we can trace to an event...a big event, that shaped everything that we know about the universe...People call that the big bang. The "Beginning of the Universe". But it wasn't the beginning, and it was just a relatively small and routine event in a universe that is actually infinite in scope and scale.

If something exists now, something existed before. That is logical.

That nothing existed before, and everything was willed into being by an all-mighty creator...that sounds ridiculous. Do you have anything more convincing than an ancient book full of contradictions?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Powdered Doughnut.










Sorry, I'm hungry!

...You have my attention. If the universe is indeed doughnut based, cops are God's chosen people for sure.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Not a logical fallacy at all. I am not going to argue with you over this since it won't stay civil as you disparage Christianity.

The Bible is written for man who lives in a world constrained by time. God does not. Beginnings are for those constrained by time. Calling the concepts inherent to A religion "ridiculous" does not seem "civil"
To me.

There is a logical fallacy that needs to be addressed here. The bible asserts there was a beginning, but there was not. There cannot be. There was a time that our sun was born. There was a time that the nebula that birthed our sun was born, there was a time that the galaxy that birthed the nebula that birthed our sun was born. Going back from that we can trace to an event...a big event, that shaped everything that we know about the universe...People call that the big bang. The "Beginning of the Universe". But it wasn't the beginning, and it was just a relatively small and routine event in a universe that is actually infinite in scope and scale.

If something exists now, something existed before. That is logical.

That nothing existed before, and everything was willed into being by an all-mighty creator...that sounds ridiculous. Do you have anything more convincing than an ancient book full of contradictions?

 

[Leadeye]

Several people have hit on the essential problem of religious believers versus religious skeptics. It does indeed start with the dichotomous question, "Does god exist?" The problem with this question is, you're already building in a bias for monotheistic religions. If you answer that question "yes", you're assuming that there's indeed only one god. You're cutting all of the polytheistic religions out of the picture before the fun even starts. So, let's start from a properly eccumenical foundation:

"Do any gods exist?"

The Atheist answers, "no."

The deist answers, "yes."

The theist answers, "yes."

The monotheist answers, "yes."

The polytheist answers, "yes."

The agnostic answers, "I don't know."

The ambivatheist answers, "I don't care."

The Dadaist answers, "carrot."

Now, what duties do the various answerers of this question have for their responses? The Atheist has no responsibilities. I say there is no god. The universe never had one, never will. Materialistic natural law and mechanistic time is entirely sufficient to explain all phenomena given enough time and honest investigation via the Scientific Method.

Everyone who answered "yes", however, now has a responsibility. You've made a positive claim of existence for this thing called by the English word "god". Okay. Describe it. What's it called? Where is it? What does it do? What color is it? How much does it weigh? And, of course, how many are there?

Now, here's the thing, all of those answers to the core question, "Do any gods exist?" are logicly, morally, ethicly, and in all other ways that matter, equivalent, because every one of those answers share the exact same degree of proveability, i.e. none. I cannot prove that there is no god, first and foremost because there is no system of logic in which you can prove a negative. One answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is Zeus, he sits on a throne of clouds up on Mt. Olympus with all his other god friends, Hera, his wife, Apollo, Vulcan, Hermes, etc. Another answerer cannot prove that there is only one god, he goes by many names, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, I Am, he is totally non-corporeal and only exerts influence on this universe through the minds of men. Another answerer cannot prove that there is a god, his name is George, he's a purple unicorn. He stands just 2 feet tall at the whithers, which is convenient for him to hide behind my couch so no one but me can see him and he feeds me Skittles from the tip of his horn.

All possible answers to this question are equivalent, because this question, and all possible answers to it are at the core, are the beginning of religion. The very nature of religion is that it is unproveable. Once it can be proven, it ceases to be religion.

Sounds like Schrodinger's cat.

Many things not seen or fully understood are inferred based on our understanding of observations. They represent our "best guess" based on what we know today, stretched a little by theory. Right now physics proposes the existence of dark matter, it's something not seen but inferred by it's gravitational affects. Turned around you could just as easily interpret the gravitational affects as bends in spacetime that we don't understand either.

On my desk at home are two objects, to the left is a stone obelisk which represents knowledge, to the right is a crucifix which represents faith. As I've moved through life I find that where the knowledge thins out the faith begins and it's probably been that way since people got started. Does that make God a manifestation of man, or is it the other way around? I'm old so in the future my faith will support me when time takes me beyond knowledge, but then I've always been lucky, something else I don't understand, but appreciate.

 

[bmbutch]

[video=youtube;G1XJ7DeR5fc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1XJ7DeR5fc[/video]

I've never seen that, Thank You for sharing, that's a great video, just finished watching!

Tried to rep., but got the "spread it around" response.

 

[Dead Duck]

...You have my attention. If the universe is indeed doughnut based, cops are God's chosen people for sure.

The Promise Land

 

[PaulF]

Not a logical fallacy at all. I am not going to argue with you over this since it won't stay civil as you disparage Christianity.

The Bible is written for man who lives in a world constrained by time. God does not. Beginnings are for those constrained by time. Calling the concepts inherent to A religion "ridiculous" does not seem "civil"
To me.

If I tell you I buried my dead cat, and several days later it dug itself out of the grave you would be skeptical...no? There is probably a perfectly reasonable explanation. Maybe the cat wasn't really dead, maybe I was lying. The idea that the cat actually came back from the dead and crawled out of the grave is, well...ridiculous. You would expect me to produce some pretty convincing evidence before you believed my story, right?

Now imagine I told you the cat was not only still alive, but invisible, can read your mind, and would torture you literally forever if you choose not to believe my incredible story? Would that make it any more palatable to you?

Well, the Bible makes some pretty ridiculous claims, and I feel I'm being quite "civil" in asking for sufficient evidence to support these extraordinary claims. Especially since people want to legislate the "inerrant word" of your particular resurrected cat into laws that affect my particular daily life.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I told you I'm done. Thanks for the cat reference, proves my point more.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

See how quickly we fell back into the "try to convince each other that we're right/wrong about what we believe" thing?

It's not about us. It's the internet. There are plenty of people wrong on the internet to be putting so much effort against our own INGO community.

 

[churchmouse]

Getting a bit revved up................

 

[PaulF]

I told you I'm done. Thanks for the cat [strike]reference[/strike] metaphor, proves my point more.

Cat metaphors are my specialty. I am an Internet Renaissance Man, indeed.

ETA: Apparently I a have crossed the line (Thank you for reporting the post, dear user).

I will now retire from this thread. Sorry about that.