One small point for even god to consider

[Mr. Hair]

Who then knows whence it has arisen,
Whence this emanation hath arisen,
Whether God disposed it, or whether he did not, -
Only he who is overseer in highest heaven knows.
Or perhaps he does not know!

As for the OP, acceptance of the Big Bang theory is not mutually exclusive of a belief in the divine, or vice versa.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those who deny the big bang theory are hypocritical, they may ask how all matter and anti-matter began. Well how did god begin? When/how was god created?

Do you realise you killed your own argument? You are supporting the "How did the original energy/matter form," and you are asuming people who deny the big bang view god as being of physical energy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

While we must all go through life having faith in many different things, this is usually faith based on reason. I doubt many people can claim to have seen an electron; however, some have. Science is constantly testing itself, and while we still have large gaps in our knowledge of the universe, I believe it is more reasonable to have faith in science then in god. To me, it seems that believing god is jumping to a conculsion about why things are and how they came to be, when we really can't say for sure, one way or another.

This is nothing more than "Science of the Gaps". You seem to have a lot of FAITH that science will fill in holes it has never filled before. One would wonder if your faith in science exceeds even my own in God.

Just because you don't see God or understand my reasons for believing, does not make my faith without reason. You look at the same evidences as I do and draw a different conclusion.

 

[Ody]

I make one small point.

Those who deny the big bang theory are hypocritical, they may ask how all matter and anti-matter began. Well how did god begin? When/how was god created?

When was the dense material needed for the big bang theory made? :biglaugh:

 

[s2a]

I make one small point.

Those who deny the big bang theory are hypocritical, they may ask how all matter and anti-matter began. Well how did god begin? When/how was god created?

Hello atheistthatsme. Welcome to RF.

As you are young in years and experience - yet favor critical thought and review - I shall attempt a kinder, gentler approach in reply.

Ever heard of the "Argument By Question" fallacy? Primarily, this entails asking a simplistic question that offers no "snappy" answer as rebuttal. (Trust me, I know. It's a favored - albeit lame - tactic of supporters of faith-based rationales).

"Which came first? The chicken, or the egg?", presents a lovely conundrum that is apparently insoluble (by any definitive measure); and while entertaining to ponder...is not a premised argument unto itself.

God belief is a matter of faith; not an issue of scientific inquiry, study, or estimable fact. It is not hypocritical for a faith-based rationale to claim a divine origin to the cosmos. The only inherent hypocrisy in such a rationale is to suggest that there is some extant scientific validation/support of such a claim.

It's not unfair to parry a "creationist" claim of, "Nothing can come from nothing!"; with a reasonably reflexive retort of, "If that's true, then how did God come into existence?" As you may expect from a faith-based perspective, the answer will typically prevail upon the suggestion/belief that: "God just is"; or, "God is existence"; or, "God is eternity", etc.. Note that these common "answers" are founded upon (some) personalized faith; not scientific theory or evidentiary fact. Such claims are not conducive to any reasoned debate. There is no mechanism in which to satisfactorily falsify a claim of supernatural cause/effect explanations. All you can do as a skeptic and budding atheist is challenge (or illustrate) the reasons why faith-based rationales/explanations are empirically unsupported, unmerited, and unworthy as being logically acceptance (as "true") beyond an imposed (and typically unmet) burden of reasonable doubt.

Atheism and/or skepticism is (amongst other things) a reverence of critical thinking and review; and neither are simply an exercise (in and of themselves) for debunking (or excoriating) claims of supernaturalistic, or faith-based beliefs.

Cosmological origins cut to the very core of many faith-based beliefs, and it's not unfair to observe that most adherents of divinely-instigated origins are unlikely to embrace scientific, and empirically-based, evidentiary predicated conclusions that are dogmatically counter to their own faith-based rationales. "God did it" is a "no-brainer" retort for those that believe in a supernaturalistic entity as original cause and effect of observable phenomena.

If you want others to value reasoned conclusions borne of critical thinking, review, and demonstrable fact; then you may be better served to instigate self-introspection amongst those that "believe", but don't know (or can't define) the "why" of what they believe (or proclaim) as "true", or "truth".

Even those that prefer or cling to faith-based rationales and explanations of the observable cosmos eventually must (somehow) justify their own faith in reasoned terms and humanistic qualifications. Without reason, any informed choice is impossible. Faith itself is an "informed" choice (of personalized perspective).

Instead of impugning the character of religious adherents (as being "hypocrites"), or questioning the sincerity or piety of their intrinsic faith-based beliefs...you may want to (instead) consider debating their reasoned motivations in accepting supernaturalistic claims as unequivocal fact.

Human "belief" is unimpeachable.

Human reason, is not.

Carry on. ;-)

 

[Runt]

It is pretty interesting to me that theists often (not always, but often) fail to apply the same logic to God as they do to the universe. People think, "Wow, this universe is so incredibly magnificent, something must have created it!" and "Reality could not have existed of its own accord. Something must have created it." Yet the same thoughts are not applied to God. A reality that has existed and always will exist is inconceivable, yet the notion that God has always been there seems to be accepted in many religions... The same thing with this idea that the order/beauty/magnificence/[enter adjective here] of the universe requires some consciousness to have shaped it, but the magnificence of God does not imply the same kind of purposeful creation...

 

[darkwaldo]

This is nothing more than "Science of the Gaps". You seem to have a lot of FAITH that science will fill in holes it has never filled before. One would wonder if your faith in science exceeds even my own in God.

Just because you don't see God or understand my reasons for believing, does not make my faith without reason. You look at the same evidences as I do and draw a different conclusion.

I would like to look at the same evidence you see. There is still much that I don't know about both religion and science, which means no matter what belief I hold it will still be based on faith. I still feel I would be jumping the gun by believing in a creator, when there is still so little about the universe we have knowlege of.

 

[Tiberius]

This is nothing more than "Science of the Gaps". You seem to have a lot of FAITH that science will fill in holes it has never filled before. One would wonder if your faith in science exceeds even my own in God.

Just because you don't see God or understand my reasons for believing, does not make my faith without reason. You look at the same evidences as I do and draw a different conclusion.

Ah, but science has been able to fill in the gaps before.

Take the sun, for example. people used to think that it was a chariot drawn across the sky with a god riding it. And yet now we can explain it by science.

There are countless examples of things which once were only explainable by the actions of a god, yet now we have accurate scientific explanations for them.

Science of the gaps has a proven track record.

The God of the gaps has never been shown to exist.

BTW, science does not depend on faith, because science gives us evidence to support its own existance. God relies on hearsay.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ah, but science has been able to fill in the gaps before.

So has God.

Take the sun, for example. people used to think that it was a chariot drawn across the sky with a god riding it. And yet now we can explain it by science.

No we can't. We can POSTULATE what we think is going on... but our myths are just a bit more convoluted than the ancients. Our children's children will scoff at our feeble attempts to describe the sun.

There are countless examples of things which once were only explainable by the actions of a god, yet now we have accurate scientific explanations for them.

Yet, no has come up with an accurate explanation of life or of sentience. There only has to be ONE thing that can not be explained by Science to indicate the presence of a greater being. Let me know when you get close to that.

Science of the gaps has a proven track record.

Again, I will ascribe to YOUR god as soon as he can account for life and sentience. My God has that one down pat.

The God of the gaps has never been shown to exist.

The god of the Gaps exists and is named "Science". The real God transcends all that. He has no limits and definitely no gaps!

BTW, science does not depend on faith, because science gives us evidence to support its own existance. God relies on hearsay.

Did you really type this with a straight face? Bwahahahahaha! :biglaugh: Bwahahahahahaha! :biglaugh:

Scientists interpret evidence collected by various methods. Theists do no worse. You have succumbed to the superiority complex often displayed by both religious and scientific zealots. You somehow have mistaken your condescension for actual PROOF.

Faith is not a "four letter word". I defy you to live a day, even just an hour without using faith.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

Can I ask Who Cares

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

The Lord does what The Lord wants in the way that he/she/it wants

 

[Opethian]

So has God.

The gap of the gods is getting smaller and smaller...

No we can't. We can POSTULATE what we think is going on... but our myths are just a bit more convoluted than the ancients. Our children's children will scoff at our feeble attempts to describe the sun.

We can explain things like these by science very accurately up to a certain schale level. And as we discover new things that level goes further and further as we analyse things to a smaller and smaller scale. Sure, we never know exactly how things work, because we don't know exactly how deep down for example particle hierarchy goes, but for the particles that we have proven to exist, we can explain these processes very accurately, and if we couldn't, our technology would not work. Our children's children will not scoff at our feeble attempts to describe the sun, because like in all progress, one has to start somewhere, and without the progress that we have made since then, they would have to start from scratch. Besides, there's a big difference between making untestable things up that in a magical way are supposed to explain phenomena that we observe, and drawing logical conclusions from available evidence and experiments.

Yet, no has come up with an accurate explanation of life or of sentience. There only has to be ONE thing that can not be explained by Science to indicate the presence of a greater being. Let me know when you get close to that.

Life is just organised matter that can reproduce and thus "keep the species alive"... We make our own definition of what life is, and just because an exact explanation of how life came to be has not been formed yet, doesn't mean that it never will, since especially in this part of science, we are making great progress. Sentience is just a highly advanced way of processing information. There will be need for more scientifical advances to be able to completely explain how the human mind works, but there will definitely be a day when we can, and there will be no need for imaginary spiritual entities like souls. Something that can not yet be explained by science is absolutely no indication of a presence of a greater being, only for lazy and ignorant people who don't want to continue research and just go ahead and make something up that can't be detected that's supposed to explain it.

Again, I will ascribe to YOUR god as soon as he can account for life and sentience. My God has that one down pat.

Like I said, life is nothing special really. It's just a random accident of unorganised matter into more organised matter that gave the organised matter the ability to reproduce, and because of natural selection this organised matter became more and more organised and advanced. Exactly how this process went is hard to figure out, seen that it happened billions of years ago, and we weren't there, but we have come a long way already and will continue on it. We have sentience due to our highly developed brain, of which science will unravel more and more of the working process in the future.

The god of the Gaps exists and is named "Science". The real God transcends all that. He has no limits and definitely no gaps!

Oh how wonderful it must be to believe in such a thing, but you're just deceiving yourself. Try and be a bit more honest to yourself.

Did you really type this with a straight face? Bwahahahahaha! Bwahahahahahaha!

Are you talking to yourself?

Scientists interpret evidence collected by various methods

Yes and they interpret it from a basis of the science that they have proven in the past, and form logical conclusions that follow from logical interpretations, seen in the context of previously proven science.

Theists do no worse.

Oh yes they do, they interpret made up things from a context of previously made up things with no logical basis whatsoever.

You have succumbed to the superiority complex often displayed by both religious and scientific zealots.

You have succumbed to the defensive mechanism of religious zealots that try desperately to bring science way down to the level of a religion.

 

[Opethian]

The Lord does what The Lord wants in the way that he/she/it wants

The Flying Spaghetti Monster noodles around in the way that it feels noodly.

 

[Tiberius]

So has God.

No he hasn't. Science is repeatable and testable. The universe operates according to scientific laws.

If there was a piece of metal 1000 years ago and it made people sick, what would have been the explanation? God has cursed the metal to make the owner sick!

Today, we'd understand that the metal was radioactive. it is SCIENCE that tells us what radiation is, not God.

Are you sure you actually understand what the phrase "God of the gaps" means? A god of the gaps is just an excuse used to fill in something that we don't know right now. The people with the metal employed a god of the gaps to explain why people are getting sick. God of the gaps is just saying, "Oh, God did it" until we find the scientific explanation.

No we can't. We can POSTULATE what we think is going on... but our myths are just a bit more convoluted than the ancients. Our children's children will scoff at our feeble attempts to describe the sun.

You do realise that we can TEST science to make sure it is true, yes? We come up with a theory about the sun being a giant ball of gas (mostly hydrogen and helium) that is undergoing nuclear fusion. We then say, "Well, if it's nuclear fusion, then there should also be this and that." Then we can go and see if this and that are actually there. if they are, it supports our theory.

You are making it seem as though science is just a bunch of silly ideas. it is not.

Yet, no has come up with an accurate explanation of life or of sentience. There only has to be ONE thing that can not be explained by Science to indicate the presence of a greater being. Let me know when you get close to that.

And you seem to think that just because we can't explain RIGHT NOW that science can NEVER explain it. Have you got any evidence to suggest that science can NEVER explain it?

Again, I will ascribe to YOUR god as soon as he can account for life and sentience. My God has that one down pat.

No, your God hasn't. All you've done is say, "God created life and sentience." I hereby say, "Scientific principles are responsible for life and sentience." This is the same basic thing that you've said. You ascribe it to God, I ascribe it to science. You're no doubt going to ask HOW science did it. I'll then ask you HOW God did it. Got an answer for that?

The god of the Gaps exists and is named "Science". The real God transcends all that. He has no limits and definitely no gaps!

Um, once again, I don't think you actually understand what the God of the gaps is. The God of the gaps is something used to create an explanation of gaps in science by saying "God did it". it certainly is NOT science!

Did you really type this with a straight face? Bwahahahahaha! :biglaugh: Bwahahahahahaha! :biglaugh:

Oh yes, very funny. Someone disagrees with your view of things and thus is deserving of laughter.

The fact is that science is testable. We do not need faith to know that a hammer and feather fall at the same speed in a vaccuum. We can go and see for ourselves. We do not need faith to know water expands when it freezes. We can go and see for ourselves. Science does not need faith. But when it comes to religion, can we go and see for ourselves? No. Can you go and see for yourself Adam and Eve eating the fruit? Can you go and see for yourself Moses taking the animals onto the ark? or Lot's wife being turned to salt? or jesus walking on water? No! You CAN'T go and see for yourself, so all you have is faith! You can do nothing BUT take the word of other people! You cannot test religion like you can science, and so you cannot verify it as fact!

Scientists interpret evidence collected by various methods. Theists do no worse. You have succumbed to the superiority complex often displayed by both religious and scientific zealots. You somehow have mistaken your condescension for actual PROOF.

Theists interpret the evidence to fit in with the conclusions they have already reached. They go out and say, "Today I'm going to prove the Noah's Ark story." Scientists do not.

Faith is not a "four letter word". I defy you to live a day, even just an hour without using faith.

Already done it.

And maybe you should stop to think that just because you can't imagine that people can live another way doesn't mean they CAN'T.

I live without faith in God each and every day.

You may say that I have faith that my bicycle will move forwards when I pedal, but that's not faith. That's understanding of how it works.

 

[finalfrogo]

The physical universe contains a simple rule: everything within it in addition to itself requires a creation, because it involves time. However, the Creator transcends the physical universe (because He created it), therefore He is not subject to its rules, such as the one previously mentioned.

 

[Opethian]

The physical universe contains a simple rule: everything within it in addition to itself requires a creation, because it involves time. However, the Creator transcends the physical universe (because He created it), therefore He is not subject to its rules, such as the one previously mentioned.

And how can the same not apply to a non-spiritual process that started the universe?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And how can the same not apply to a non-spiritual process that started the universe?

Excellent.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No he hasn't. Science is repeatable and testable. The universe operates according to scientific laws.

So where is "Earth #2"? There are MANY uniques in science... especially in archeology and paleontology. How are you going to "test" what caused trilobites to become extinct?

If there was a piece of metal 1000 years ago and it made people sick, what would have been the explanation? God has cursed the metal to make the owner sick!

Today, we'd understand that the metal was radioactive. it is SCIENCE that tells us what radiation is, not God.

Are you sure you actually understand what the phrase "God of the gaps" means? A god of the gaps is just an excuse used to fill in something that we don't know right now. The people with the metal employed a god of the gaps to explain why people are getting sick. God of the gaps is just saying, "Oh, God did it" until we find the scientific explanation.

"God of the Gaps" has been used condescendingly for YEARS. "Just a myth" or a wink as we talk about those unenlightened people who don't worship science. There is an equal "Science of the Gaps"... at one time the scientific world told us there were but four elements: Earth, air fire and water. These same people probably were just as SMUG and CONDESCENDING in their outlook towards others. They were confident that just as they were able to conquer figuring out these four elements that all things (including life) would be explained by science.

You do realise that we can TEST science to make sure it is true, yes? We come up with a theory about the sun being a giant ball of gas (mostly hydrogen and helium) that is undergoing nuclear fusion. We then say, "Well, if it's nuclear fusion, then there should also be this and that." Then we can go and see if this and that are actually there. if they are, it supports our theory.
You are making it seem as though science is just a bunch of silly ideas. it is not.

I don't discount science as I use it everyday. I just don't worship as the ONLY game in town. Science has it's position, just as God has his. I don't reject science as you reject God... but apparently because I don't fully rely on science to live each and every moment you contend that I reject it. Sounds like a cult to me!

And you seem to think that just because we can't explain RIGHT NOW that science can NEVER explain it. Have you got any evidence to suggest that science can NEVER explain it?

I have as MUCH evidence that they will never deduce the full mystery of life as you have that they WILL. Herein is faith, my dear Tiberius. Yours in the in the Science of the Gaps, and mine is in the almighty God.

No, your God hasn't. All you've done is say, "God created life and sentience." I hereby say, "Scientific principles are responsible for life and sentience." This is the same basic thing that you've said. You ascribe it to God, I ascribe it to science. You're no doubt going to ask HOW science did it. I'll then ask you HOW God did it. Got an answer for that?

Oooo, now that you ask...

Genesis 1:11 Then God said...

Do you have any "Scientific evidence" to debunk this? Please trot it out so we all can be enlightened. Don't worry, I can wait.

Um, once again, I don't think you actually understand what the God of the gaps is. The God of the gaps is something used to create an explanation of gaps in science by saying "God did it". it certainly is NOT science!

Au contraire. The term was coined to bolster the faith of those who would worship Science. God is not against Science. Why is YOUR science so set against God? The term DRIPS with condescension, superiority and sarcasm. If that's the type of "thinking person" you want to be, by all means go for it. It's a time honored tradition to pigeonhole and to label groups who don't believe as you do.

Oh yes, very funny. Someone disagrees with your view of things and thus is deserving of laughter.

The fact is that science is testable. We do not need faith to know that a hammer and feather fall at the same speed in a vacuum. We can go and see for ourselves. We do not need faith to know water expands when it freezes. We can go and see for ourselves. Science does not need faith. But when it comes to religion, can we go and see for ourselves? No. Can you go and see for yourself Adam and Eve eating the fruit? Can you go and see for yourself Moses taking the animals onto the ark? or Lot's wife being turned to salt? or jesus walking on water? No! You CAN'T go and see for yourself, so all you have is faith! You can do nothing BUT take the word of other people! You cannot test religion like you can science, and so you cannot verify it as fact!

So, you can not test science like you can test religion either. Big whoop! Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't test history like you can test science either. Double big whoop! You CAN'T see who is buried in Grant's tomb, now can you? So all you have is faith!

Herein is the problem... you want to "test" religion as a science. It's not a science. Why don't you test an orange like it's a computer. What??? You can't get it to complete a POST? Better replace the motherboard in that orange!

Only a fool thinks that they do not have ANY faith.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And how can the same not apply to a non-spiritual process that started the universe?

Why does it have to? By extending YOUR line of thought, we are not here.

 

[Scuba Pete]

For those who think that Science has ALL of the answers (or will have), please present us with proof that there is no God.

Show us that you have more than just "faith" in science.