• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Strictly, it is the law of conservation of mass-energy, yes. The Law of Conservation of Mass | Introduction to Chemistry


Yes, and one of the things we have learned is that the energy associated with gravity (spacetime curvature) is negative and balances the energy of the mass that produces that gravity.

In other words, in a general relativistic context, the total energy is zero.

Hmmm....I guess it doesn't prevent a 'something from nothing' scenario.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
We believe that God has always sent Educators to humanity but over time traces of them have disappeared. Some have degenerated into myths and some are man made.

But truth is not confined to one place or religion. There is truth in science, in philosophy in indigenous religions and in some man made religions and all truth is accepted and valued.

As regards to Divine Revelation or truth revealed directly from God through a Messenger, Teacher or Prophet, we understand that in recorded history there to be only a very few spanning about 6,000 years of known history. Before that we have no records but believe there were Messengers before then. Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, Muhammad, the Bab and recently Baha’u’llah, we believe revealed Divine knowledge and truth for our benefit and development. We are free to use it or go our own way.


When you say "we understand that..." it seems that what you really mean is "we believe that..."

Also, the records you speak of are written records. Records other then written text exists too, you know.
So we do have records of pre-historic times. Archeological records, geological records, genetic records,... And when it comes to learning stuff about the real world, I'ld say that those records are a lot more trustworthy as well... Because you know, genes, rocks and archeological finds don't lie. Genes aren't mistaken. Rocks aren't invented out of thin air.

I'll go with the evidence.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I believe that all the major religions came from the same God so I accept all the major religions not just the Baha’i Faith. We read from the Holy Books of all these religions in our Houses of Worship all over the world each week. We don’t exalt one religion or Founder over the other.

View attachment 34106
How do you know it is one god. A god and a goddess makes much more sense. Maybe a god and a goddess produced the god you are thinking off. Just as much evidence for either view.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I thought you were highly intelligent!

I don't think I ever said that...
I can understand how you would think that after reading my posts though ;-)

If energy (mass/matter) CANNOT be created, it CANNOT be eternal (without a finite past)

Err... logically, the opposite seems true. If something can't / wasn't created, then it wouldn't have a finite past.
But once again, you make a crucial mistake, like so many creationists do who think they can be clever with the laws of physics.

Your forget that what we refer to as physics, are the way things work IN THIS UNIVERSE.
Laws of conservation, thermodynamics, etc.... all these things are physics as they apply IN the universe.

When you wish to talk about whatever environment we'ld find ourselves in when we REMOVE the universe to discuss how universes originate, physics as we know it goes out the window as well. If you remove the universe, you also remove the physics of the universe.

So, when one says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, more specifically that means that it cannot be created or destroyed within the context of the universe.
We don't know if this applies "outside" of the universe. In fact we don't even know if the concept even makes sense outside of the universe.


And now for a nice kicker..............
The total sum of energy of the universe, could be zero. This is called the zero-energy universe hypothesis. In that model, the total positive energy of matter is canceled out by the negative energy of gravity.
In such a model, no energy would ever have to be created, because it technically wouldn't even exist in a way. It's like having the number zero and then splitting that into +1 and -1. Technically, you still have zero.

The universe wasn't always here, nor were its elements (matter, energy).

Again: always is a period of time. All of time, to be exact.
Time, is an integral property / dimension of the universe, aka the space-time continuum.
The universe began at T = 0
Time began when the universe began.

Therefor, for all of time (aka 'always'), the universe existed.

It really is that simple.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I don't think I ever said that...
I can understand how you would think that after reading my posts though ;-)



Err... logically, the opposite seems true. If something can't / wasn't created, then it wouldn't have a finite past.
But once again, you make a crucial mistake, like so many creationists do who think they can be clever with the laws of physics.

Your forget that what we refer to as physics, are the way things work IN THIS UNIVERSE.
Laws of conservation, thermodynamics, etc.... all these things are physics as they apply IN the universe.

When you wish to talk about whatever environment we'ld find ourselves in when we REMOVE the universe to discuss how universes originate, physics as we know it goes out the window as well. If you remove the universe, you also remove the physics of the universe.

So, when one says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, more specifically that means that it cannot be created or destroyed within the context of the universe.
We don't know if this applies "outside" of the universe. In fact we don't even know if the concept even makes sense outside of the universe.


And now for a nice kicker..............
The total sum of energy of the universe, could be zero. This is called the zero-energy universe hypothesis. In that model, the total positive energy of matter is canceled out by the negative energy of gravity.
In such a model, no energy would ever have to be created, because it technically wouldn't even exist in a way. It's like having the number zero and then splitting that into +1 and -1. Technically, you still have zero.



Again: always is a period of time. All of time, to be exact.
Time, is an integral property / dimension of the universe, aka the space-time continuum.
The universe began at T = 0
Time began when the universe began.

Therefor, for all of time (aka 'always'), the universe existed.

It really is that simple.

Or the average amplitude of a sine wave.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Your 2nd argument is even weaker!

Can you not conceive of a time, say, before you were born?

Time didn't begin at my birth, so that's a nonsensical analogy.

Here's a better analogy: what is north of the north pole?
That is the equivalent of asking "what was before the universe".
There is no "before" time itself.
Just like there is no "north" of the north.

You ARE aware that time is an integral part of the universe, right? That it is called the space-time continuum for a reason, right?

Once more: go back in time. As far as you like. No matter at which time you stop, you'll find yourself in the universe. You can go back to the very very very very first moment of the universe, at T = planck time. And there will be a universe there. And you will have reached the end of the line of the period of "always".

So yes: the universe has existed for all of time. Always.

Now, try to think if there could have been a "something" or a "nothing" before Planck time. You can do it!

At this point with our current knowledge, the word "before" is invalid in that context.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
First off when people are debating creationists they are usually debating deniers of evolution.

Evolution is support by the Jewish belief. But not to the full extent of the current scientific theories.
You did a major redefinition of creationism there.
Nope :) Creations assumes an intelligent being/deity/entity/force created our universe and it is not "self made" or "chance made"
[/QUOTE]
Second, your argument fails when one realizes that all you have done is to shift the goal posts a bit.
I did not.
I Havent made any statement,
I suggested possible scenarios to how the universe was created.
In order to debate someone, the first thing to do is make sure we speak the same language.
Clearly what you consider creationism is different than my understanding of it.
That was the hole point of my post.
What created the creator?
Good question.
Replace "universe" in what i posted to the word creator. and the concept remains the same :)
If the universe needs a creator then by the same logic so does the creator, and then that would need one etc. and so on.
Yep :)
How far this loop goes?
It is better to face this problem properly. There is no evidence for a creator or even an apparent need of one.
There is. Some simply choose to ignore it, which is great.
Imagine some people say there is no evidence for a spheroid earth.
How will you respond to them?
What do you define as evidence?
It is best to withhold belief until one has sufficient evidence to believe.
There is.
The fact you can't understand this evidence or see it, doesn't mean that everyone that understands it is mistaken.
Have you seen the evidence of the Higgs boson?
Have you seen the evidence of the existence of photos?
You provided no evidence
I didn't try to :)
, merely a failed argument.
What argument did i make?
I am not saying that there definitely is no God, but to say one exists we need something a lot stronger than what you provided.
I agree :)
Can't really locate where i stated otherwise in my post :)
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Cannot be "always was" due to conservation of matter/energy.

Again with that silly mistake.

Once more:
- conservation laws are laws of physics. Physics as it applies IN the universe. Talking about a context where the universe doesn't exist, means these laws don't exist. This means you can't create or destroy energy IN the universe. When we talk about the origins of the universe, we talk about an environment where the universe doesn't exist. Meaning that physics as we know it (which includes conservation laws) doesn't apply either.

- "always" is a period of time. All of time, to be exact. And for all of time, the universe factually existed. There is no point in time where the universe did not exist.

You surprise me with your lack of logic here, seriously!

Says the guy who can't seem to comprehend that
a. physics as we know it applies IN the universe
b. always refers to a period which is "all of time".
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Hundreds of thousands of genuine scientists are unwilling to admit that nearly a century of abiogenesis experiments are utter failures, for one of many such examples.


A "century"? Seriously?
We've even only learned about DNA in the 50s.............
Current abiogenesis hypothesis really aren't a century old, what the heck are you talking about.......

Secondly, I don't know a single scientist worthy of the name who says anything other then that the origins of life at this point are still largely unknown. So again: what the heck are you talking about?

Could it be that you're just parrotting something you read on some creationist propaganda site?
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
And the actual evidence is what actually matters, not your, or anyone else's, "feelings".
Lets say there are 100 people in a room.
50 say the room is blue, 50 say the room is red.
Each claim to have the evidence for their claim yet one group cannot understand the evidence of the other.
which one is right?
And lacking any evidence, the correct answer is "we don't know yet".
I agree :)
We dont. I do.
You are not going to find the answers to the deep questions from science regarding inflation, particle physics, quantum gravity, string theory, dark matter/energy, etc etc in a religious text or by meditating or by "thinking about it", or by singing and chanting in a church or on your knees with your hands clasped together.
Yep. I Know. Not looking for them there :)
IF we ever answer these questions
Probably not :)
, it will be through enormous worldwide collaboration of thousands of physicists with the help of exponentially more CPU's to analyse petabytes of data coming from insanely complex machines like the LHC.
I think you underestimate our universe :)
It will take a lot more than this.
Needless to say that the answers we'll eventually get, if we ever get them, will be extremely unlikely to correspond with the, forgive me, ramblings of iron age peasants and sheep herders who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun.........
I don't know what you are reading, but that is far from what i am reading ;)
Regardless.. those same iron age peasants and sheep herders knew much more about life than you do.
It is shame you think we are smarter than them.
Our entire knowledge is based on those you so greatly ridicule.
You left out the most important part. Evidence.
Left out from what?
Have you red my post???
You spoke of your religious beliefs and your "feelings".
You forgot to actually include the evidence.
No evidence is required here.
My beliefs are mine alone. no one needs to prove me what i believe lol :)
I don't understand your claim.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Well actually, the universe didn't come into existence. It is eternal, never starting, never ending.
This fits into the first category.
a circle needs to be created in order to be a circle.Besides that, please note i clearly stated i offer those statements for the HUMAN POV.
Science already proven that the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE as we see and experience it, had a starting point.
prior to the expansion, time didn't exist(time as we, humans, on earth, experience it) exist.
So in a way, yes. it is eternal to us.
A lot of creationists get the big bang mixed up with the beginning of everything.
Everything form HUMAN ON EARTH POV!
Hugh difference ;)
The big bang did not create matter, laws etc.
Agreed :)
It simply distributed them out. The actual source matter is eternal.
Please explain the logic behind eternal ?
I can;t really understand what you mean.
But after adding that to the list, then yes, I would agree.
cheers :)
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
So you are unaware of the "glaring, fundamental problems" with say, abiogenesis as an unproven, un-duplicated, untested theory? :)

And God poofing things into existence is a superior theory? It is to laugh!

Difference between hypotheses about abiongensis and God poofing is that one is potenially falsifiable and the other isn't. God's existence is not falsifiable since, by definition, he is not material.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Evolution is support by the Jewish belief. But not to the full extent of the current scientific theories.

Nope :) Creations assumes an intelligent being/deity/entity/force created our universe and it is not "self made" or "chance made"
Second, your argument fails when one realizes that all you have done is to shift the goal posts a bit.[/QUOTE]
It would be nice if you fixed your quotes. Second evolution only agrees with your personal version of Judaism. Just like in Christianity, there is a range of beliefs in Judaism, not quite to the extent in Christianity but we still see beliefs go from literalistic to all but secular.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Yes, and one of the things we have learned is that the energy associated with gravity (spacetime curvature) is negative and balances the energy of the mass that produces that gravity.

In other words, in a general relativistic context, the total energy is zero.

Hmmm....I guess it doesn't prevent a 'something from nothing' scenario.
Is that now solid? I thought it was just one school of thought.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
When you say "we understand that..." it seems that what you really mean is "we believe that..."

Also, the records you speak of are written records. Records other then written text exists too, you know.
So we do have records of pre-historic times. Archeological records, geological records, genetic records,... And when it comes to learning stuff about the real world, I'ld say that those records are a lot more trustworthy as well... Because you know, genes, rocks and archeological finds don't lie. Genes aren't mistaken. Rocks aren't invented out of thin air.

I'll go with the evidence.

We know from those finds you speak of that our ancestors worshipped a deity and that they had some knowledge of God probably through Teachers long ago.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Lets say there are 100 people in a room.
50 say the room is blue, 50 say the room is red.
Each claim to have the evidence for their claim yet one group cannot understand the evidence of the other.
which one is right?

How about you don't argue absurd hypotheticals and stick to real-world examples?

I agree :)
We dont. I do.

That's self-contradicting since "we" includes "i".

Yep. I Know. Not looking for them there :)

You're not looking for it in reality either. Empirical questions require empirical answers.

I don't know what you are reading, but that is far from what i am reading ;)

Any 2000-year old text will do.

Regardless.. those same iron age peasants and sheep herders knew much more about life than you do.

Clearly that is incorrect.

It is shame you think we are smarter than them.

We demonstrably are.

Our entire knowledge is based on those you so greatly ridicule.

That's ridiculously false.

Left out from what?

Your claims.

Have you red my post???

yes.

No evidence is required here.
My beliefs are mine alone. no one needs to prove me what i believe lol :)
I don't understand your claim.

Evidence that what you believe is accurate, obviously.

Now if you don't actually care that your beliefs are actually accurate, then sure, then you don't require evidence.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
How do you know it is one god. A god and a goddess makes much more sense. Maybe a god and a goddess produced the god you are thinking off. Just as much evidence for either view.

Apart from the Prophets and Messengers speaking about the oneness of God in nature and the universe we do not see duplicity but oneness.

There are no two grains of sand in the entire universe which are identical. The same with human life. Despite billions of humans no two humans are identical. Everyone’s DNA is different. Oneness is reflected in all existence because God is one. That’s my understanding.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Your own feelings are a result of your own actions. No can save you, but yourself. You choose to suffer, you choose anger over happiness and you have no clue why you feel this way. You knew but did nothing, you had faith all along but you were stubborn. I can take you there but each must walk the path on their own... All the while God all mighty ls safe in Heaven with all the pleasure because he's not a biggot.

Blessings everyone.
 
Top