Thread: Atheism...

Originally Posted by elite

Except that is not an arbitrary static object. Between an infinitely far away star and us there are an infinite amount of objects that at any point in time block its light from us. From rocks to planets to alien waste, there would always be something in the way, which means the distance light can travel uninterrupted in an homogeneous universe is finite and inversely proportional to the average density of the universe.

You obviously don't understand the physics we are talking about here. For every item "in the way" there would be an infinite amount of energy bombarding it over an eternity of time. This one comes down to Thermodynamics, the science of it isn't in question.

The Big Rip is a hypothesis, and it doesn't seem like it will get much further than that.

It is a logical extension of expansion, as we know it now, but you are right, currently we don't have a means to test it so it is a hypothesis. However, it is one based on actual observation and measurement, conditions not met by many other ideas.

The beginning is also as much an speculation as the end.

Let me give you an example. I could tell you that everything began five minutes ago. That the initial state of the universe was just that, us having a discussion plus the rest of the galaxies and what not simply appearing out of nothing. That is as much of a valid explanation as saying that the universe, space and time began with the big bang. Hard-core Christians will tell you that the universe was created some thousands of years ago, and everything simply began existing right then and there.

There is observation to falsify your 'five-minutes ago' concept. The Big Bang actually fits current observation (a list far too long to go into here) better than any competing idea.

The big bang is pretty much the same thing. It's claiming that because some event of the scale of a galaxy-cluster occurred some billions of years ago, that is automatically the time everything began. The chaotic inflation theorists will tell you it was much much earlier, when another universe started, and so on.

The Big Bang Theory was not result of an attempt to explain the creation of the universe. Rather it was the result of work done to explore the repercussions of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Solving the GR equations lead to some astounding results, including the idea that the universe must have been smaller and hotter in the past. Then scientists started looking at those results and realizing that if that was the case then we should be able to actually see the left over heat from that primordial time. This knowledge came decades before the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was found (by accident). There were many other predictions made based on General Relativity, most of which have since been proven.

Most people who doubt the BBT do not have an understanding of what it really is, or how it came to be, or why the vast majority of working astronomers and cosmologists subscribe to it. Intuition and 'common sense' can't trump the real science.

My intent here was never to get this deep into this subject. There are many good forums available to discuss this in as much detail as anyone could want, Astronomy Magazine's website at astronomy.com is one place where such a discussion could take place. But we have taken this thread far from its intended track and should return there.

No, universe by definition means everything, including nothingness. If we were to discover an "universe" parallel to us, that would be part of THE universe as well. It gets confusing because a word that literally means "everything" is being used to define a subset of elements in the spacetime dimensions. Naturally, if god existed, he would invariably form part of the universe.

Not in an astronomical, or cosmological sense. This is where your lack of understanding of physics is apparent. What you wish to call a universe, is not what science calls a universe.

Originally Posted by Terry D

You obviously don't understand the physics we are talking about here. For every item "in the way" there would be an infinite amount of energy bombarding it over an eternity of time. This one comes down to Thermodynamics, the science of it isn't in question.

Well... this is as far as I can get for now. Can't argue with that.

It is a logical extension of expansion, as we know it now, but you are right, currently we don't have a means to test it so it is a hypothesis. However, it is one based on actual observation and measurement, conditions not met by many other ideas.

Or things you know... could continue existing.

There is observation to falsify your 'five-minutes ago' concept. The Big Bang actually fits current observation (a list far too long to go into here) better than any competing idea.

What observations? If everything was created five minutes ago, in exactly the same state as it is now, even those observations are the product of the creation that just happened. What could you possibly have to disprove that claim? Conversely, what could I possibly have to disprove the claim that the universe was created by the big bang?

Rather it was the result of work done to explore the repercussions of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Solving the GR equations lead to some astounding results, including the idea that the universe must have been smaller and hotter in the past. Then scientists started looking at those results and realizing that if that was the case then we should be able to actually see the left over heat from that primordial time.

I have no problems with that. The issue starts with the speculation of how the big bang was brought about, and the notion that nothing existed before then.

My intent here was never to get this deep into this subject. There are many good forums available to discuss this in as much detail as anyone could want, Astronomy Magazine's website at astronomy.com is one place where such a discussion could take place. But we have taken this thread far from its intended track and should return there.

Agreed. I have also gone beyond what I can handle. At this point I can say that I'm relying on conjectures.

Originally Posted by elite

I have no problems with that. The issue starts with the speculation of how the big bang was brought about, and the notion that nothing existed before then.

This may be the crux of our disconnect. No where does the BBT state, or infer, that nothing existed before the moment of creation. It only states that because all of our tools (physical laws) were created at that moment we can not know what conditions existed prior to that event. To put it in terms of this thread; however well we may one day come to understand the workings of the universe God created, we can never know the mind of God himself.

And with that the middle aged, overweight amateur astronomer shambled back to his corner of the ring and fell onto his stool spent and sweaty. As his mental sinews cramped with exhaustion he waited for the judges decision, not with anticipation or concern, but with a calm sense of satisfaction that the fight had been fought well, and with the sincere hope that the gathered crowd had enjoyed contest.

Originally Posted by Cadence

I completely agree.

The man who believes in God will say 'I will learn about God and everything else.'

The man who doesn't will say 'I will learn about everything.'


Everyone's learning, whether they believe in God or not. Siknce belief in God does not come from knowledge or logical thought, but revelation and divine power, we shouldn't try to learn about whether he exists or not. If we believe in him, we don't need to try and prove it. If we don't, we don't need to try and prove it. God isn't a being of proof.

So, why bother proselytizing? They either know, or they don't. I know you're going to say 'because he said so', but why else?

So, why bother proselytizing? They either know, or they don't. I know you're going to say 'because he said so', but why else?

Because belief in the Christian God comes from Christ. As he said himself, no-one comes to the father except through him. I believe in God, but I believed in Christ first.

When Christians proselytize, they preach the gospel, and ask God to reveal the truth.

I don't believe we came from apes.
I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory. (the title alone describes how senseless that is.)

I was raised to believe in the Creation, but then I was taught in school that we evolved from apes. The alternative of the Creation was not taught, so of course, it confused me and I grew up not knowing what to believe, but I erred on the side of evolution (since it made as much sense as 1 + 1 = 2), though I never stopped believing in God (that's impossible for me).

Now that I am older and have matured, I no longer believe in evolution as reality, but moreso as a theory, which is all it was ever purported to be.

I tried desperately to rationalize the Creation as it is written in the Bible, and I just couldn't. Then I thought, well who could possibly have been around to say what happened?

What is fact and not theory is that Jesus Christ existed. Some people believe he's who (and what) he says he is, and some don't.
I am one who believe the man (and yes, I mean man - human) I think he was a man, who was God's only son, who was most righteous (never to be matched by another human being) and who believed in his Father (belief also never to be matched). It was through God and not by his own power that he performed his deeds. I believe everything and I mean, everything Jesus says. Therefore, I believe what he believes. So if he believes in the Creation, then by default, so do I, and thus there came the evidence I've always wanted - that the Creation is how man came to be.

I respect the Bible, and use it as a reference, but for the most part, I only follow Jesus's words. If people would just follow the Ten Commandments and Jesus's words as a guide to humanity, we would get along much better. No need to complicate it any further.

And by the way, 1 + 1 doesn't always equal 2.

So if he believes in the Creation, then by default, so do I, and thus there came the evidence I've always wanted - that the Creation is how man came to be.

I think that this completely sums up the Christian perspective, which I share. We believe in Creation through faith, as we also believe in Christ through faith. We can't justify that to other people to any useful degree, but it's the truth. Faith becomes a 'by default' thing, not because of pressure but because there is something else guiding you on these matters. Something that knows a bit more about than you do (God).

Words are attributed to Jesus. No book in the bible is attributed to his authorship though.

Belief in the Big Bang - a theory proposed by a Catholic Priest that was a professor at MIT - is compatible with belief in "creation." So is the theory of evolution. The created world is a world of matter and the basic unit of matter is the atom. There really does not need to be a problem with that. And the bible is a text of theology and not science. It's science that investigates and teaches us about natural phenomena.

Bear in mind that a "theory" in science is not synonymous with "assumption" or "opinion." A scientific theory requires a lot of evidence.

I don't want to lecture on science - or religion - as if I know everything or have a bigger brain than I do, I just wanted to point out some common misunderstandings about science and the scientific process.

Well, actually Writ... good post. Everyone says "it's just a theory" makes me wanna roll my eyes.

Now that I am older and have matured, I no longer believe in evolution as reality

Cool. I suppose God was a little ticked off the day he created superbugs then?

I believe in both creation and evolution. I think when religion and science do not agree, then we either made a mistake with our calculations (science side) or interpretations (religious side) - BTW, in human history, there are examples of both mistakes. When it comes to evolution, it seems that really is true, so looking at the Bible (and other religious texts) it seems Adam was first man only in terms that he evolved enough to get the concept of right/wrong, concept of being responsible for your actions and being accountable. I don't think there's enough evidence to prove relationship between monkeys and humans - for example, I wonder what happened to creatures between the two; why don't they still exist? So the real question is: What does the word 'man' really mean in the Bible? Equally, I can't accept that this world is all there is - in that case, love would be the most useless thing ever, and this is only the begining of issues when it comes to 'this world is all'. So I believe in God 100%, the hereafter 100%, accountability with the All Knowing 100%, etc. For me, that's the only way anything and everything in this world can have a lasting and real meaning.

For me, that's the only way anything and everything in this world can have a lasting and real meaning.

Hm? You're still just a tiny speck. Not even that really, the entirety of humanity is a speck upon a speck upon a speck. The specks on specks could even be infinite for all I know. And there are probably other specks on specks on specks out there too. As for God's thoughts about all of us as individuals, I'd imagine that by this point he's thoroughly fed up of us and can't tell us apart.

The Theory of Evolution does not imply that humans evolved 'from' monkeys. It only implies that humans and apes share a common ancestor. The transition species became extinct (their remains are well documented) because they could not compete with their more advanced progeny:

Hominid Species

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Originally Posted by Meliha

Equally, I can't accept that this world is all there is - in that case, love would be the most useless thing ever, and this is only the begining of issues when it comes to 'this world is all'.

?

There are billions upon billions of worlds besides Earth.

Are you saying that you don't believe (or don't want to believe) that life may end at death?

How would one world, or one lifetime, negate the "usefulness" of love?

Originally Posted by Meliha

I don't think there's enough evidence to prove relationship between monkeys and humans - for example, I wonder what happened to creatures between the two; why don't they still exist?

Sometimes species die out when other species arrive, better adapted and equipped to survive the habitat. The ones that continue to survive are the best survivors, but that doesn't mean the ones that died never existed. Their fossilized bones are still being discovered.

Homo Ergaster and Homo Habilis begin to show an evolution thinking, as they were still ape-like hominids who began to create and use tools.

Looking back even further, if you really want to probe the question of the missing link(s) between man and ape, read about Orrorin and its related discoveries and arguments. Ardipithecus also. There's no shortage of evidence (amazingly, actually, given how many millions of years have passed since those individual creatures died out), but the debate rages on. What is clear is that there were newer and newer ape-like hominid species that exhibited consistently evolving traits of bipedalism and larger craniums (among other changes). You can almost track the evolution on a visible timeline if you put in the time to do the research.

But of course, all the evidence in the world of evolution wouldn't change a thing, because a religious person could simply argue that God invented Evolution.