• 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!

Could it be?

Very good. Good argument.
Is there a reason why you didn't include my whole quote? Could it be...once again using my statements out of context? Not very honest of you. It wasn't an "argument", it was me stating my opinion, which is the part you left out, so you telling me it's "important to other people", didn't matter to me, because what's important to other people, has no bearing on whether or not it's true or has any additional meaning or value.
This is strawman. When you create a caricature to attack rather than address the argument that's a strawman.
You apparently don't know what a strawman is. My purpose for bringing up the "comfort" part in context, if you had actually read and understood what I wrote, was evaluating whether proposing god as a part of evolution, was of any value to mankind or understanding evolution. So it was completely addressing the argument, but from the perspective of understanding if there's any value in the proposition of god and evolution together. But I guess either you didn't understand that, or don't want to and are taking my words out of context to try and create a false logical fallacy. Sorry, doesn't work.

So why can't theism and evolution in conflict?
Perhaps re-word your question to make sense? If you are trying to ask the same question as the OP, then I've already answered this and won't again. Your inability to read my posts completely or grasp them is not my problem.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Is there a reason why you didn't include my whole quote? Could it be...once again using my statements out of context? Not very honest of you. It wasn't an "argument", it was me stating my opinion, which is the part you left out, so you telling me it's "important to other people", didn't matter to me, because what's important to other people, has no bearing on whether or not it's true or has any additional meaning or value.
You apparently don't know what a strawman is. My purpose for bringing up the "comfort" part in context, if you had actually read and understood what I wrote, was evaluating whether proposing god as a part of evolution, was of any value to mankind or understanding evolution. So it was completely addressing the argument, but from the perspective of understanding if there's any value in the proposition of god and evolution together. But I guess either you didn't understand that, or don't want to and are taking my words out of context to try and create a false logical fallacy. Sorry, doesn't work.

Perhaps re-word your question to make sense? If you are trying to ask the same question as the OP, then I've already answered this and won't again. Your inability to read my posts completely or grasp them is not my problem.

I doubt you are gonna provide any answer.

Ciao.
 
This original comment was the belief that the universe always existed with no need for God. That's not a non-belief. That's a belief, and since it has no more evidence supporting that than the God hypothesis, if the latter is a matter of faith, so is the former. Nothing wrong with that at all, just don't deny it's any different that someone believing God without evidence.
It is indeed a belief, but one that doesn't need faith, it's what the evidence indicates according to physics, astrophysics and any fields having to do with the natural order. Also, it's not the universe that has "always existed", it's the cosmos. Our universe has not always existed, our universe, as per the evidence, seems to be finite and will eventually collapse and probably form a new universe. I say probably, because all information in science is tentative on new information, but always....always based upon the best available evidence. Meanwhile...there's simply no evidence for any god that fits within these models. A god is completely unnecessary in all of these models. Gods are not included with the math as they are just not necessary to make the math work. So don't pretend that god belief...and the belief that the universe is natural and finite...and that the cosmos is probably infinite are on the same level. Faith does not require evidence and some times holds in place in spite of the evidence. For example the faith of Mormons who believe that the Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel that were cursed by god with yellow skin. That's blatantly untrue, but Mormons still hold that in their faith, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. That's just one example. Meanwhile, any "belief" in science...is based upon all of the available evidence and is open to changing with the evidence....unlike faith.

If you claim the universe has always existed, or that there was some other cause that we don't have evidence for, that is not any different than a theist placing God back there without evidence. You're both stating a view without evidence. That's faith in both cases.
Apparently you aren't aware of all the evidence of the big bang, astrophysics, particle physics and all of the equations that go behind the theories out there about the universe. Nothing is for certain as of now with regards to whether the universe itself is finite, or infinite...or perhaps both. For example, the measurements of the cosmic background radiation, the red light shift and other measurements show that our universe is still expanding. Extrapolation of the data indicates that it will not expand forever, but could be wrong. It is proposed that eventually it will reverse and the universe will implode back on itself and create a new big bang, essentially creating a new universe...which is the scenario in which it is finite and infinite, because although it creates a new cycle, the cycle is continuous and infinite.

All this aside, the data that goes behind all of this...even if incomplete and inconclusive....is not doctrine, is subject to change and is not being presented as absolute truth that people have to believe. Instead, it's beliefs, based upon evidence, that is subject to change that will always be in line with the evidence. Meanwhile....the people who propose gods...have nothing. No evidence, no acknowledgement of the evidence against their beliefs...no change in doctrines aloud.....stubborn, unwilling to learn, adapt, change, or acknowledge the actual evidence. It always amazes me that the religious attack science for being incomplete and flawed....yet never, ever acknowledge their own faults and that they have zero evidence for their gods and then pretend that their "Faith" is on the same level as science. Not even in the same ballpark.
 
Last edited:
If there is one thing I know, I am not without errors, I do something "wrong" every single day. Sufism is a inward path to realize the full potential of the being we are. A human is only a spiritual being trapped in human body. And spiritual practice is made possible for us to realize who we truly are.

It is of course no problem that you do not believe any of it. Just like it is no problems for people to have their spiritual or religious belief.
I have no problems with the religious holding their beliefs....so long as it isn't harmful to anyone else, or stands in the way of scientific progress, or tries to force itself into others lives. I think religious belief is a personal thing and should remain so. Unfortunately and especially in America, the religious are compelled to force themselves into science, politics, people's personal lives and that is a problem. My whole point is that I'm happy to hear about your "experience", but that personal experiences aren't evidence for a god, because personal experience can be flawed and subjective. To someone like me...a birth of a child isn't a miracle...but is is a deeply emotional experience. Someone cured from cancer after numerous treatments isn't a miracle or answered prayer...it's the result of doctors and medical science. If someone prayers for rain and it rains....to me that's just a coincidence because hey...it does rain sometimes and if they didn't check the weather report ahead of time, how do they know it wasn't already supposed to rain? Get what I'm saying? I'm just far more skeptical than most people who've had "experiences", because I've had them too and every single time, it wasn't anything supernatural, but natural.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The fact that there is no evidence, is precisely the reason why the existence of god (or bigfoot, or alien abduction) is extremely unlikely.
But to speculate about anything before the Big Bang, having no frame of reference nor evidence of any kind, is as much a statement of faith as saying God did it. That's my only point. If I say I believe God was there, that's a statement of faith. If you say it was something else and not God, that too is a statement of faith. But I chuckle that some people are unwilling to acknowledge that, as if "faith" means something bad. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency, that's all.

Yes. Because it's their claim.
The near certainty expressed by the atheist, concerns a response to the claims of theism.
It's the theist that requires faith, because they are the ones that believe something without evidence.
And so are you; believing something without evidence. "Before the Big Bang, it was something other than God". Zero evidence to say anything at all, let alone with near certainty. That's as much a statement of faith as the theist saying they are certain it was God. Nothing wrong with having faith. Something wrong with denying it is faith.

The atheist is the one who does NOT believe something without evidence, for the very reason that there is no evidence.
Do you rule out with near certainty that before the Big Bang, there is no God? What evidence do you have of what Reality was like before the Big Bang? None? Then that ruling out of possibilities with near certainly, is as much a matter of faith as saying God was there.

It's the same reason why you don't believe in bigfoot or alien abduction.
We were talking about what exists before the Big Bang. All of those are claims about this world. Besides, to compare God to a bigfoot, is absurd. Unless you are child in Sunday School that imagines God as a person up in the sky with a body and a really long beard.

You're confused.

The claim being evaluated and addressed is "god exists".
This is a case where the lack of evidence in support of this claim, becomes evidence against it.
To define God as an entity of being outside of creation, and outside of yourself, like a bigfoot type creature, is not an acceptable definition of God. It's a strawman argument. But aside from that, no one has evidence of anything at all before the Big Bang, so it could be anything. To speculate anything at all, and claim that with near certainty is a matter of faith. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't claim it's not faith because you have an allergy to that word.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Is it possible that our universe was created by a God, but that the theory of evolution also is true?

Meaning, did God create this universe with purpose that it evolve as a evolution on its own?
Indeed. Nothing else would even make logical sense for a believer actually!

Here's why:

If God is the 'creator' of 'all things', all that is, then logically that can only mean, and must mean, that He is the creator of the design/laws of nature -- physics -- how nature operates. ( If He did not create (or modify or such) this physics of this Universe, then He would not be the creator of 'all' that is here.)

Ergo, all that we see happen by natural processes must be the 'creator's design' in action, doing just what He made it to do.... If we believe God is the creator of all that is.

Just by definition.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It is indeed a belief, but one that doesn't need faith,
I agree it is a belief. I can't count how many times people argue atheism is simply a lack of belief, and nothing more, not a belief at all. Which is untrue of course. I consider it a valid point of view as a matter of faith, as one of several alternatives to traditional theism as a matter of faith.

it's what the evidence indicates according to physics, astrophysics and any fields having to do with the natural order.
I wouldn't agree with that, as what happened prior to the Big Bang has nothing science can look at. The laws of this universe began at that point, as far as we know. And we can't look at anything prior to that with the sciences. But even within the systems of this universe, how can science even begin to evaluate whether God exists or not? Who is defining what God is? Five year old Sally from Sunday School class who imagines God as a man with a beard in the sky? Science deals with the material world. Is God a material form of some sort, like a cow or a giant planetoid with eyes?

Also, it's not the universe that has "always existed", it's the cosmos. Our universe has not always existed, our universe, as per the evidence, seems to be finite and will eventually collapse and probably form a new universe.
While I appreciate hypothesis such as a multiverse, even science itself recognizes that's beyond science and moves more into philosophy, or if one makes it a matter of what they believe, a matter of faith.

I say probably, because all information in science is tentative on new information, but always....always based upon the best available evidence. Meanwhile...there's simply no evidence for any god that fits within these models.
Why should it? What does God have to do with scientific inquiries? I don't think mature theists try to argue like the fundamentalist does that we can prove God with science. They are misguided about what constitutes matters of faith. If God could be proven by science, then what does that have to do with faith? I would argue they lack faith in trying to get science to justify their choice of belief. Faith is a matter of what the heart sees, not what the empirical sciences looks at, which is the material world.

A god is completely unnecessary in all of these models.
I agree. But that does not mean God does not exist. It means the models have nothing to do with God. This seems to imagine God as a man in the sky who controls atoms and molecule to perform for him. That's a view of God I consider naive and misguided.

So don't pretend that god belief...and the belief that the universe is natural and finite...and that the cosmos is probably infinite are on the same level.
It's all one and the same. What I believe is what the Buddhists say. "Emptiness is form, and form is Emptiness". These natural systems are not outside the Divine, nor the Divine outside of them. The problem begins when we try to separate them. That God is outside creation and creation outside God. And that this God is an idea of an external agent tinkering with toys, is a dualistic idea. God is the 'taste' of the universe, not a collection of atoms and molecules sitting on a planet somewhere, in a room, looking down all of it.

Faith does not require evidence and some times holds in place in spite of the evidence. For example the faith of Mormons who believe that the Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel that were cursed by god with yellow skin. That's blatantly untrue, but Mormons still hold that in their faith, despite genetic evidence to the contrary
They also believe God has a body and lives on the planet Kolob near the constellation Betelgeuse. It's a novel idea, and one a lot like Sally's idea of God as a man in the sky with a long beard. Very dualistic, and not really very sophisticated. Disproving that logically, is sort of child's play. It's kind of low hanging fruit for the atheist, and not fruit up on the higher branches.

That's just one example. Meanwhile, any "belief" in science...is based upon all of the available evidence and is open to changing with the evidence....unlike faith.
Many theists accept science and find no conflict with faith. Science is just science. But taking science and forming your personal worldviews based upon what you take from it, is not science. It's philosophy or faith.

Apparently you aren't aware of all the evidence of the big bang, astrophysics, particle physics and all of the equations that go behind the theories out there about the universe.
Of course I'm not aware of all of them. I doubt you are too. But I'm probably more aware of them that you assume. I love string theory, quantum mechanics, systems theory, the complexity sciences, and the like. The natural world fascinates me. But to take that as say "no God" is outside of science. That's a matter of faith.

Personally, I can look at it through the atheist lens, as much as through the theist lens. I think it goes beyond either points of view, and can embrace both. That's the nature of nonduality.

Nothing is for certain as of now with regards to whether the universe itself is finite, or infinite...or perhaps both. For example, the measurements of the cosmic background radiation, the red light shift and other measurements show that our universe is still expanding. Extrapolation of the data indicates that it will not expand forever, but could be wrong. It is proposed that eventually it will reverse and the universe will implode back on itself and create a new big bang, essentially creating a new universe...which is the scenario in which it is finite and infinite, because although it creates a new cycle, the cycle is continuous and infinite.
Great stuff. It both intrigues and inspire me, both scientifically and in informing faith. I see it all as revealing something about the nature of Reality itself, "God's body", if you will, of which we all are. As the poet says, "In Him we live and move and have our being." Who wouldn't want to understand more about that? One could more than rightly say, "Thank God for science!" :)

All this aside, the data that goes behind all of this...even if incomplete and inconclusive....is not doctrine, is subject to change and is not being presented as absolute truth that people have to believe.
As our theologies should be as well! I am disturbed by theists who place their beliefs above new knowledge when it challenges them, such as mistakenly reading the book of Genesis a scientific document.

Instead, it's beliefs, based upon evidence, that is subject to change that will always be in line with the evidence. Meanwhile....the people who propose gods...have nothing.
Why do you say nothing? Is science all we have as human beings? What about what our hearts tells us? Must we reduce all of life to logic arguments, models, and mental ideas about truth? "Why yes, I know you love me sweetheart, because the data confirms that scientifically. I can measure your endorphins". Methinks you'll be a lonely person in life if you approach life that way. ;)

No evidence, no acknowledgement of the evidence against their beliefs...no change in doctrines aloud.....stubborn, unwilling to learn, adapt, change, or acknowledge the actual evidence.
Yes, you are talking about fundamentalists. Not mature faith. "True believers" substitute beliefs for faith.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
But to speculate about anything before the Big Bang, having no frame of reference nor evidence of any kind, is as much a statement of faith as saying God did it. That's my only point. If I say I believe God was there, that's a statement of faith. If you say it was something else and not God, that too is a statement of faith. But I chuckle that some people are unwilling to acknowledge that, as if "faith" means something bad. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency, that's all.

Where have I ever said anything about there being whatevs "before" the big bang?

I don't do "faith". Because it is a bad thing.

And so are you; believing something without evidence. "Before the Big Bang, it was something other than God".

Where have I ever made such a claim?


Zero evidence to say anything at all, let alone with near certainty. That's as much a statement of faith as the theist saying they are certain it was God. Nothing wrong with having faith. Something wrong with denying it is faith.

The only wrong thing I'm seeing so far, is you arguing a gigantic strawman by attributing claims to me I never made, nor would agree with.

Do you rule out with near certainty that before the Big Bang, there is no God?

I can't rule out any unfalsifiable claim / entity.
I can't rule out bigfoot, alien abduction, extra dimensional unicorns and undetectable graviton pixies either.

What this is, is just a shift of the burden of proof. The question is not if you can rule it out. First question is if you can rule it in. And the answer is "no". That's actually where the conversation stops. There's no need to rule it in, if you can't rule it in.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

What evidence do you have of what Reality was like before the Big Bang? None? Then that ruling out of possibilities with near certainly, is as much a matter of faith as saying God was there.

Current physics tells us that the question of what was "before" the big bang might even be sensible, as you can't have a "before" time. It's like asking what's north of the north pole.

As to how the big bang originated, I don't know. Unlike people with "faith", I tend not to make any claims, let alone statements of belief, about things that I don't know.

We were talking about what exists before the Big Bang. All of those are claims about this world. Besides, to compare God to a bigfoot, is absurd.

I'm not comparing god to bigfoot.
I'm comparing the non-existing evidence for god to the non-existing evidence for bigfoot.

To define God as an entity of being outside of creation, and outside of yourself, like a bigfoot type creature, is not an acceptable definition of God. It's a strawman argument. But aside from that, no one has evidence of anything at all before the Big Bang, so it could be anything. To speculate anything at all, and claim that with near certainty is a matter of faith. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't claim it's not faith because you have an allergy to that word.

There is much wrong with that.

Concerning the unknown, one can only acknowledge ignorance instead of just making stuff up.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
ur universe, as per the evidence, seems to be finite and will eventually collapse and probably form a new universe.
Are you thinking of the 'Oscillating Universe' speculative theory? It's only 1 of many speculative theories, but an interesting one (as are theories that don't imagine a contraction...).

So, the correct wording is not "will", but instead 'may' would be more accurate wording in your sentence. Or even "not likely, but maybe" really, if you want to better line up with the overall popular view in astrophysics more recently, as it is widely thought now we are looking an endless expansion instead.
But if you can offer your source for
Extrapolation of the data indicates that it will not expand forever
, then I'll certainly give it a look and tell you if it's a wild hair idea or more plausible.


Here's a useful quick summary of various competing theories:
Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Current physics tells us that the question of what was "before" the big bang might even be sensible, as you can't have a "before" time. It's like asking what's north of the north pole.
Friendly helpful note: Modern cosmology has a number of speculative theories about how this Universe came about.

So, that what we think of as time (or spacetime if you like) itself is only an aspect of this Universe, that itself isn't a barrier or problem for physicists theorizing about how this Universe occured.
 
I agree it is a belief. I can't count how many times people argue atheism is simply a lack of belief, and nothing more, not a belief at all. Which is untrue of course. I consider it a valid point of view as a matter of faith, as one of several alternatives to traditional theism as a matter of faith.
Whoa, whoa....don't misquote me. I didn't say anything about atheism, I was strictly speaking about science and the view that the universe is natural. Atheism is not science and not all atheists believe in the big bang. They are not synonymous. I've met atheists who believe in aliens, panspermia, that the earth is flat (yes, for real), that believe in ghosts, bigfoot, who are republican and conservative, who hold some beliefs that are as dogmatic as religion. The only thing that all atheists share in common, is that we all do not believe in any gods....that's it. So when you say "Atheism is a belief", I don't know how you can justify that, especially since not believing in something or not accepting something is proven...is not a positive belief. It's a "I'm not convinced "x" is true, so I don't believe it". By that same logic, I could say that your non-belief in another god is a belief and that you have faith that their god is not true. It just doesn't make any sense. Faith is a positive belief, pronouncing something as true...not pronouncing that you lack a belief that something is true.

I wouldn't agree with that, as what happened prior to the Big Bang has nothing science can look at. The laws of this universe began at that point, as far as we know. And we can't look at anything prior to that with the sciences. But even within the systems of this universe, how can science even begin to evaluate whether God exists or not? Who is defining what God is? Five year old Sally from Sunday School class who imagines God as a man with a beard in the sky? Science deals with the material world. Is God a material form of some sort, like a cow or a giant planetoid with eyes?
I agree that science cannot evaluate what happened before the big bang and I never said they did. What I said was is that based upon the evidence of our universe, that it will eventually collapse onto itself and the math indicates it will create another big bang or universe, hence the "infinite cycle" idea. That's based upon math, looking at the expansion of the universe, actual data using the cosmic background radiation and red light shift as measuring tools. Again, it's not a "we know for sure this will happen", it's an extrapolation using the available data. Agree, disagree...it doesn't matter since it's the best possible explanation as of now. The other questions about god is up to those claiming that one or many exists and up to them to prove it. Until then, until data can be examined, tested, etc...it's just an idea and not one warranted by the evidence, but one born of tradition & superstition.

While I appreciate hypothesis such as a multiverse, even science itself recognizes that's beyond science and moves more into philosophy, or if one makes it a matter of what they believe, a matter of faith.
Actually no they don't. Multiverse isn't "philosophy" at all. It's still a hypothesis yes, but not sure if you know, a hypothesis is still based upon observations or evidence and then comes up with an idea to explain what they see. The graduation occurs when scientists are able to test the hypothesis and gather multiple lines of evidence to support it becoming a working model or a theory. The multiverse utilizes the big bang model as well as quantum mechanics, and the observation that our universe...while finite, is not everything there is. There is indeed space outside of our universe, we just don't have the technology to see what's there yet. The idea is simple though, if there's all of this space and our universe only occupies a portion and quantum mechanics is a constant, then likely there are other universes. It's easier to visualize if you look at them like galaxies. This isn't just some wild idea, it's got logical inference behind it using the available data. So no...again, not faith at all, because all of these ideas require evidence and no one is stating that it is truth.

Why should it? What does God have to do with scientific inquiries? I don't think mature theists try to argue like the fundamentalist does that we can prove God with science. They are misguided about what constitutes matters of faith. If God could be proven by science, then what does that have to do with faith? I would argue they lack faith in trying to get science to justify their choice of belief. Faith is a matter of what the heart sees, not what the empirical sciences looks at, which is the material world.
Everything since people claim that this god or gods either created or interacts with the universe. That's a truth claim about the natural universe and one that should be born by the evidence, but is not. I'm not sure why you believe you need to have faith? Again, faith is not of value to anyone, but the person who thinks it's valuable. You cannot get to truth strictly through faith. Faith is believing something is true, but not caring if it actually is. I care whether it actually is.

I agree. But that does not mean God does not exist. It means the models have nothing to do with God. This seems to imagine God as a man in the sky who controls atoms and molecule to perform for him. That's a view of God I consider naive and misguided.
No one can disprove a negative. How could anyone ever disprove something that has no evidence for it to begin with. My point is that the universe operates as if there wasn't one. So proposing a god is kind of pointless unless you can actually provide some kind of reasonable argument and then support it with evidence. Until then, at best, you can say "I believe there's a god, but I can't prove it" and then everyone stops listening because there's nothing to go over or examine. In science if you have an unproven idea...they will say "interesting idea, now prove it" and then walk away. I still can't understand why we give "gods" so much attention when they aren't even testable.

It's all one and the same. What I believe is what the Buddhists say. "Emptiness is form, and form is Emptiness". These natural systems are not outside the Divine, nor the Divine outside of them. The problem begins when we try to separate them. That God is outside creation and creation outside God. And that this God is an idea of an external agent tinkering with toys, is a dualistic idea. God is the 'taste' of the universe, not a collection of atoms and molecules sitting on a planet somewhere, in a room, looking down all of it.
It's not one in the same. One idea has evidence for it, one does not. For example your statement about the divine. You are invoking something unproven, so while anyone can make statements using magic as the answer...it's not factual in any way. For example, I could say "Natural systems are not outside the Matrix, nor the Matrix outside of them." The concept rings true since if this was a computer simulation, we wouldn't know it, but there would be a real work and a simulated one. Just because I can have a concept that makes sense...doesn't mean I'm warranted in making the statement as a matter of truth. I have no business mixing the Matrix with the natural order, just as you have no business mixing "the Divine" (whatever that is) and the natural order as if somehow the divine is actually real. You must prove the divine is real before you invoke it, otherwise it's as meaningless as my statement about the Matrix. Same goes with the rest of your statements with "god", it's something you cannot hope to prove.

They also believe God has a body and lives on the planet Kolob near the constellation Betelgeuse. It's a novel idea, and one a lot like Sally's idea of God as a man in the sky with a long beard. Very dualistic, and not really very sophisticated. Disproving that logically, is sort of child's play. It's kind of low hanging fruit for the atheist, and not fruit up on the higher branches.
Indeed, but it wasn't meant to be an example of disproving something, it was meant to show how faith is not a pathway to truth. If you can get a wrong answer, or right answer using faith, then you need some other mechanism by which to determine the truth. Faith just doesn't do it. Faith makes people believe that Muhammed rode to the moon on a winged horse, or that Jesus rose from the dead, or that you can be saved from dangerous snakes by praying to Jesus, or that you can invoke god and a Tiger won't maul you, or that you can pray for sickness to go away without seeking medical treatment (which has caused people to die, even their children). Faith is not a virtue, it's not valuable and not on the same level at all as anything in the realm of science that is evidence based and tentative.

Many theists accept science and find no conflict with faith. Science is just science. But taking science and forming your personal worldviews based upon what you take from it, is not science. It's philosophy or faith.
Forming a worldview based upon science only speaks to what you view on the natural world. It doesn't speak to your personal morality, or ethics or politics, or anything else. As you said, science is science. The only thing I took from science was that the world, life, the universe...could be explained naturally without having to invoke a god, but that was after I de-converted from christianity due to reading the bible and finding it both immoral, imperfect and ridiculous. Reading the bible is what made me turn from christianity, not science. The rest of my worldview was developed by learning from multiple fields. None of it requires any faith at all as I don't insist that any of it is absolute and I go with the evidence and put my ego to the side. If tomorrow someone proves there is a god, I'll believe it based upon the evidence, not someone insisting it is true because they have faith. Every religion has faith..it's a concept without value.

Of course I'm not aware of all of them. I doubt you are too. But I'm probably more aware of them that you assume. I love string theory, quantum mechanics, systems theory, the complexity sciences, and the like. The natural world fascinates me. But to take that as say "no God" is outside of science. That's a matter of faith.
Good, please don't stop learning about them. But I never said "no God". I said, there's no reason to invoke one and that all gods as of now are unproven, which is a stark difference and one that isn't a matter of faith, it's a fact. But if you think it's not, then it's simple...prove there is one and I'll admit I was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Great stuff. It both intrigues and inspire me, both scientifically and in informing faith. I see it all as revealing something about the nature of Reality itself, "God's body", if you will, of which we all are. As the poet says, "In Him we live and move and have our being." Who wouldn't want to understand more about that? One could more than rightly say, "Thank God for science!"
I'm glad it inspires you, but it does perturb me that you don't seem to grasp the difference in between our views. I have no faith. I do not invoke a positive belief that is without evidence. If I have a belief that isn't supported, I toss it. Someone with faith, does not do that. If you want to refer to all that is as "god's body", I don't personally find that an accurate description, but you are entitled to do that, so long as you acknowledge that it's your faith and don't insist you know it to be fact.

As our theologies should be as well! I am disturbed by theists who place their beliefs above new knowledge when it challenges them, such as mistakenly reading the book of Genesis a scientific document.
I am glad we agree here. Those for example that insist that Noah's flood was real and want that taught in schools, I find to be a real problem. Luckily it's not a widespread problem. The fact that there is an "Ark replica" in Tennessee with a museum inside that teaches that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side is a disgrace.

Why do you say nothing? Is science all we have as human beings? What about what our hearts tells us? Must we reduce all of life to logic arguments, models, and mental ideas about truth? "Why yes, I know you love me sweetheart, because the data confirms that scientifically. I can measure your endorphins". Methinks you'll be a lonely person in life if you approach life that way.
Our hearts tell us nothing, they pump blood, nothing else, but I understand the metaphor. Sad thing is, there are people still who believe that the heart does indeed contain the capacity for emotion. So that's my response to your question is...no matter how much that person insists based upon what they think and "what their heart tells them", it doesn't change the reality that the heart is a muscle and contains no neurons or ability to produce any emotions...that all of that is housed within the brain. There's also a tendency by believers to speak about atheists as if we are emotionless beasts who just speak of everything as rational or scientific. That right there tells me that you have never really spoken to an atheist in person or had one who is a friend. I have two friends who are both religious (one is a Mormon which is why I'm so familiar with their beliefs) and the other is Catholic. We have no problems getting along. We laugh, we joke, we love each other as brothers, have cried together, celebrated together. We atheists are just as emotional as anyone else, we just don't invoke any gods behind our emotions, or try to explain things using a god. I mean to speak to your absurd example, if I didn't understand christianity I could say "What do you do to explain love? Say "I know I love you because god put it in my head."? The vast majority of people I meet who are religious have no idea I'm an atheist, because we really aren't that different in our daily lives. I get it though, when you mix religion with emotion, it's hard to untangle the two and imagine them separate, but they are. Luckily I've been married for almost 20 years, have a son and live a great life...so no, not lonely at all!

Yes, you are talking about fundamentalists. Not mature faith. "True believers" substitute beliefs for faith.
When someone speaks of "True" anything, I call "No True Scotsman" fallacy, because you are defining what you believe as true, but is not an objective measure and one that many would disagree with.
 
Are you thinking of the 'Oscillating Universe' speculative theory? It's only 1 of many speculative theories, but an interesting one (as are theories that don't imagine a contraction...).

So, the correct wording is not "will", but instead 'may' would be more accurate wording in your sentence. Or even "not likely, but maybe" really, if you want to better line up with the overall popular view in astrophysics more recently, as it is widely thought now we are looking an endless expansion instead.
But if you can offer your source for , then I'll certainly give it a look and tell you if it's a wild hair idea or more plausible.


Here's a useful quick summary of various competing theories:
Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia
Thanks for the corrections and info!
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
\Believers will attribute their lives getting better, or surviving something...to their god. For example, I have a friend who is a Mormon who credits his life getting back on track (he was bad into drugs) due to his joining the LDS church and praying to his god. He said that while praying, he felt a warm feeling course through his body and he instantly knew that god was answering his prayer. So he swears that everything within the book of Mormon is true due to his religion saving his life. Does that mean that suddenly all the claims of Mormonism are true? Does that mean that suddenly Native Americans suddenly become a lost tribe of Israel that was cursed with yellow skin because they rebelled against god (this is within the Book of Mormon).
I hope that, over time, your friend comes to know that Mormonism does not teach that Native Americans became a lost tribe of Israel that was cursed with yellow skin. I suspect that if he is truly as devout as you say, he will.
 
I hope that, over time, your friend comes to know that Mormonism does not teach that Native Americans became a lost tribe of Israel that was cursed with yellow skin. I suspect that if he is truly as devout as you say, he will.
They don't teach it....anymore, because they now know it's a racist idea and not one that will be tolerated, but it is still within the Book of Mormon and anyone who is "devout" will have read that and must reconcile that for themselves. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean that they view Native American's as bad or evil, just as my friend put it...are a people who were led astray and just need to be brought back to the "true church". That wasn't the point of my post though. My point was that Native American's show no genetic heritage from Israel. So the idea that they are all just a "lost tribe of Israel" is false, thus that part of the "word of god" is false.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
They don't teach it....anymore, because they now know it's a racist idea and not one that will be tolerated, but it is still within the Book of Mormon and anyone who is "devout" will have read that and must reconcile that for themselves. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean that they view Native American's as bad or evil, just as my friend put it...are a people who were led astray and just need to be brought back to the "true church". That wasn't the point of my post though. My point was that Native American's show no genetic heritage from Israel. So the idea that they are all just a "lost tribe of Israel" is false, thus that part of the "word of god" is false.
I absolutely do not deny that the LDS Church has a history of prejudice against people of African heritage. It's a tragic truth and I will never try to excuse it. That was not my point, though. We have NEVER taught that the Native Americans became a lost tribe of Israel. You are quite simply mistaken about that. And yellow skin? Sounds like you're using the common reference to Asians being the "yellow race" that was taught when back I was in school in the early 1960s. Neither Asians now any reference to yellow skin can be found in the Book of Mormon. Trust me. Please. I know what I'm talking about.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Friendly helpful note: Modern cosmology has a number of speculative theories about how this Universe came about.

Off course.
The universe as we know it today, originated in some way. The big bang was an event that happened in some way.

So, that what we think of as time (or spacetime if you like) itself is only an aspect of this Universe, that itself isn't a barrier or problem for physicists theorizing about how this Universe occured.

I don't think I said otherwise.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Where have I ever said anything about there being whatevs "before" the big bang?
That is what I was speaking in regards to to another poster in my comments that you challenged. I assumed you were talking about the same thing I was speaking to, and not something I wasn't, as if I were trying to say science can prove God or something I don't believe.

I don't do "faith". Because it is a bad thing.
Wrong on both accounts. Everyone has faith in something. And faith is not a bad thing. I think you are confusing faith with erroneous beliefs. That's not what faith means. And a religious faith in particular, is about the heart, not the rational mind. Religious faith is about Ultimate Reality, and what we feel intuitively to be true about that. The theist sees God as Ultimate Reality. The atheist sees a Nontheist view of Ultimate Reality. That's faith in both cases.

Where have I ever made such a claim?
Again the context of my comments you responded to was address what happened before the Big Bang. I assumed you were addressing my points, and not somebody else's. Apparently you weren't?

The only wrong thing I'm seeing so far, is you arguing a gigantic strawman by attributing claims to me I never made, nor would agree with.
I wasn't making a mistake about what I was talking about. I think you made that mistake thinking I was trying to say God can be proven scientifically? Of course I was not, nor ever would claim that.

As to how the big bang originated, I don't know. Unlike people with "faith", I tend not to make any claims, let alone statements of belief, about things that I don't know.
So you are not 95% certain there was no God before the Big Bang, such as the other poster I was responding to with my comments said in defense of the atheist belief? If you're saying you are agnostic about that, I have no issue with that at all. That's not making a claim without evidence, and then saying that is not faith itself.

I'm not comparing god to bigfoot.
I'm comparing the non-existing evidence for god to the non-existing evidence for bigfoot.
But you are making that comparision by equating the criteria a belief in God, to the same criteria would would expect looking for a creature of some sort or other, like bigfoot or unicorns which you cited above just now.

The mere fact you think there can or should be some form of evidence science or some dispassionate observer could look at to prove God exists, indicates you think of God as an entity, a creature, an object, or at the least a "thing" outside of yourself and creation at large, or at least hiding in it somewhere, like the elusive Yeti in a cave in the Himalayas.

When you hear someone say they believe God exists, what is the image of what that means that pops into your mind? A creature? A person? A being? An entity? Something outside yourself? Can you explain that to me?

There is much wrong with that.
Of course there's not much wrong with that. Therefore, faith in God and acceptance of science are not incompatible at all. My very point.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Is it possible that our universe was created by a God, but that the theory of evolution also is true?

Meaning, did God create this universe with purpose that it evolve as a evolution on its own?
Yes.
Evolution is true. there is a very small chance it is not.
It would take a very big discovery to prove evolution as wrong.
That said, evolution doesn't really contradict God.
 
Top