Jump to content


Photo

The "ill" Logic Of Atheism An D Agnosticism


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 06:41 AM

...
We do observe evolution; we observe 'micro' evolution all the time in the real time, and we observe various patterns in the fossil record which constitute macro evolution. Gravity is not a theory because we observe things fall; it is a theory because it explains 'why' things fall. When we observe the patterns in the fossil record that is analogous to observing objects fall, and it is the theory of evolution that explains why we see the patterns we see similar to how the theory of gravity explains why things fall. Get it?

.
We do not possess a theory of gravity that explains it's existence. We are able to predict the behavior of objects under the influence of Gravity--one need only cite successful space probes, missions and so on.

The set of data pertaining to that which is called "micro-evolution" can be considered sound, warranted; that is, it doesn't wither under proper, scientific scrutiny so far.

The set of data pertaining to that which is called "macro-evolution" can NOT be considered sound, warranted; that is, it DOES NOT survive not only proper, scientific scrutiny, but any sound referent analysis.

Further, and for good measure:
.

LOL Humor me! Draw from your all knowing mind. Speak from the chair.


Names are pretty things, but useless. Your brothers are who they are regardless of what vocalization you humans attach to them.
...

.
Preposterous and for more than a few reasons. The least of which is that the written name attached to anything need not be vocalized. The worst of which--and I haven't given it more than 10 minutes of thought--is that we could not refence any proper nouns in any textbooks, nor anything on a map. This minimal account of what's wrong with the subject statement, if realized, would end all of civilization as we know it. Congratulations to the author of the preposterous statement.

The name "Goku" remains on my ignore list.

#22 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 28 August 2017 - 06:47 AM

Nobody can know supernature. What exists in this universe and it's laws, may only belong to this universe. That's one reason I don't accept Big Bang because if something comes before the universe, which is basically some element of the universe, it's to put the cart before the horse. So to say any "nature" that breaks the laws of this particular universe doesn't exist, is a non-sequitur, IMHO.

 

I see this universe as designed to be what it is, supernature, is a realm of existence that can't be scientifically defined, "if" it exists.

 

I don't understand this objection to the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory starts with the "singularity" and goes from there; what happened before is the realm of speculation coupled with educated guesswork. It was a Catholic astronomer who first proposed the idea of the Big Bang, and it was originally atheists that rejected the Big Bang because it sounded too much like theism. Oh how the times have changed.

 

My guess is that creationists started rejecting the Big Bang when YEC became more popular within creationism as the Big Bang timeline contradicts the whole point of Young Earth Creationism. It probably didn't help when you had people like Krauss pushing for the 'universe from nothing' idea explicitly in opposition to religion/God.

 

As for my posts in this thread they are largely tongue in cheek.
 



#23 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 28 August 2017 - 07:11 AM

We do not possess a theory of gravity that explains it's existence. We are able to predict the behavior of objects under the influence of Gravity--one need only cite successful space probes, missions and so on.


The set of data pertaining to that which is called "micro-evolution" can be considered sound, warranted; that is, it doesn't wither under proper, scientific scrutiny so far.

The set of data pertaining to that which is called "macro-evolution" can NOT be considered sound, warranted; that is, it DOES NOT survive not only proper, scientific scrutiny, but any sound referent analysis.

 

I didn't say we have a theory of gravity that explains its existence; I said we have a theory of gravity that explains why objects fall. No theory of gravity is without major flaws, but perhaps the best one so far is General Relativity where objects fall due to the curvature of space-time. Why do objects fall? - the curvature of space, according to GR theory.

 

Macro evolution has survived proper scientific scrutiny; it is the best scientific explanation we have for a wide range of observations. Two basic categories for these observations would be similarities between species and the patterns in the fossil record. I don't know what you mean by referent analysis, so I can't help you there at this time.

 

Preposterous and for more than a few reasons. The least of which is that the written name attached to anything need not be vocalized. The worst of which--and I haven't given it more than 10 minutes of thought--is that we could not refence any proper nouns in any textbooks, nor anything on a map. This minimal account of what's wrong with the subject statement, if realized, would end all of civilization as we know it. Congratulations to the author of the preposterous statement.

The name "Goku" remains on my ignore list.

 

My answer there was not meant to be taken seriously so of course it was preposterous, lol. My mind is not infinite; it is preposterous that Mike S. ascribes such 'infinity' to the paradigm of atheism/agnosticism.

 

You have a strange way of interacting with your ignore list btw.
 



#24 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 August 2017 - 08:02 AM

Nobody can know supernature. What exists in this universe and it's laws, may only belong to this universe. That's one reason I don't accept Big Bang because if something comes before the universe, which is basically some element of the universe, it's to put the cart before the horse. So to say any "nature" that breaks the laws of this particular universe doesn't exist, is a non-sequitur, IMHO.
 
I see this universe as designed to be what it is, supernature, is a realm of existence that can't be scientifically defined, "if" it exists. 

and you can't see why science dismisses such stuff?
IMO, the random coupling of atoms has a much better chance of explaining life than some mysterious force we can't see, measure, or detect.
even this "dark matter" of the universe has been detected, and we have no idea what it is.
 

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]I was only saying that from Goku's perspective he may find God unbelievable in the way that I would find Santa Claus unbelievable, meaning that some people can't treat God as a possibility because to their minds they just can't see God as an entertainable notion.

but why isn't it entertainable?
answer, simply because no one, absolutely no one has, been able to define its nature.
yes we have "clues" such as consciuosness, but why ascribe this to a phenomenon that we can't detect?

i can't say there is or isn't a god, but i find the loving benevolent all powerful god described in the bible illogical.

i can't remember who said it but, i would rather live my life like there was a god only to find out there wasn't, than to live my life any way i choose and find out there was.

mystery?
we got one captain.

unfortunately science cannot invoke this mystery whenever it runs up on an intractable problem.

#25 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 August 2017 - 08:21 AM

FAI (For Anyone's Information), I do not know what's in the two "Goku" posts after my recent reply, post #21, for the one reason that I will not debate anything that is self-evidently true, that is, on it's face true, Prima facie, if you prefer:
.

(Law) of a fact) (Law), evidence which is sufficient to establish the fact unless rebutted.


My reply concerning the use of names is self-evidently true.

My reply concerning "micro-evolution" is treated--by me--as self-evidently true for the simple reason that so many of the Creationists on this forum do not seem to have any substantial dispute with what goes by the name "micro-evolution."

My reply concerning "macro-evolution" is, ... well, you got me there! I've gone all out on a limb and placed something under the dreaded designation "self-evidently true" where it does not belong. We all can agree <*gasp*> that there would be nothing to debate otherwise.

#26 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 August 2017 - 10:07 AM

 

Goku: I don't understand this objection to the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory starts with the "singularity" and goes from there; what happened before is the realm of speculation coupled with educated guesswork. It was a Catholic astronomer who first proposed the idea of the Big Bang, and it was originally atheists that rejected the Big Bang because it sounded too much like theism. Oh how the times have changed.

 

My guess is that creationists started rejecting the Big Bang when YEC became more popular within creationism as the Big Bang timeline contradicts the whole point of Young Earth Creationism. It probably didn't help when you had people like Krauss pushing for the 'universe from nothing' idea explicitly in opposition to religion/God.

 

I think why people rejected a Big Bang yesterday, can't be linked to why I presently would reject it though, Guru, as you would be close to the genetic fallacy on that one.

 

My thoughts on these issues tend to be shared by nobody else because I am an individualist in my beliefs about certain things. Generally most people aren't individualists, but those who are tend to have a somewhat eclectic outlook shall we say. A little bit of this, a little bit of that.

 

I don't really reject scientific results or believe them totally wrong a lot of the time, but an expression of human limitations. In other words, big bangs and macro evolutions, are discoveries to a degree, which have went too far in their conclusions.

 

I think the expansion of the universe which they call a big-bang, could be the way by which God made the table, but to suppose the meal cooked itself and the cutlery was placed perfectly by accident? That's a stretch too far. I accept the ID in the universe for what it is; ID.

 

For me to accept their conclusions would be wrong, I can reject the whole but not the parts. So really I see names like "big bang" and "evolution" as ways of putting the science-brand on the creation. But what I believe obviously myself is that it is a creation event at each stage. The creation of the universe, the creation of the things it contains. That is ultimately what Genesis says, whether the meal is cooked fast or slow.

 

There may be some "science" to those stages, some things God creates to order themselves but ultimately I don't see any of this as a fully scientific matter, and I can't agree with only half the story, for I believe in each thing and at each stage we see miraculous level design, I don't see a random theory of everything, and I think a chaotic mess would fit much better with the materialistic version of events science seeks to give.

 

 

 

 



#27 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 August 2017 - 11:39 AM

Einstein objected to the universe starting with a big bang. He believed the universe was far too lumpy (more stars and planets in some areas of the universe). He believed had there been a big bang all the energy would have  coalesced at the edge of the universe into matter.



#28 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 August 2017 - 09:19 PM

I think why people rejected a Big Bang yesterday, can't be linked to why I presently would reject it though, Guru, as you would be close to the genetic fallacy on that one.

 

My thoughts on these issues tend to be shared by nobody else because I am an individualist in my beliefs about certain things. Generally most people aren't individualists, but those who are tend to have a somewhat eclectic outlook shall we say. A little bit of this, a little bit of that.

 

I don't really reject scientific results or believe them totally wrong a lot of the time, but an expression of human limitations. In other words, big bangs and macro evolutions, are discoveries to a degree, which have went too far in their conclusions.

 

I think the expansion of the universe which they call a big-bang, could be the way by which God made the table, but to suppose the meal cooked itself and the cutlery was placed perfectly by accident? That's a stretch too far. I accept the ID in the universe for what it is; ID.

 

For me to accept their conclusions would be wrong, I can reject the whole but not the parts. So really I see names like "big bang" and "evolution" as ways of putting the science-brand on the creation. But what I believe obviously myself is that it is a creation event at each stage. The creation of the universe, the creation of the things it contains. That is ultimately what Genesis says, whether the meal is cooked fast or slow.

 

There may be some "science" to those stages, some things God creates to order themselves but ultimately I don't see any of this as a fully scientific matter, and I can't agree with only half the story, for I believe in each thing and at each stage we see miraculous level design, I don't see a random theory of everything, and I think a chaotic mess would fit much better with the materialistic version of events science seeks to give.

 

 

The point of bringing up a little history about the formulation of the big bang was to say that the big bang doesn't necessitate some sort of atheistic origin of the universe. Maybe I don't understand your posts, but both posts on the topic seem to say that one reason why you don't accept the big bang is because it somehow necessitates some sort of atheistic origin, and I don't understand that objection. - I mean I understand the words and follow the line of thinking, but I think that thinking is fundamentally flawed.

 

For example:

 

I think the expansion of the universe which they call a big-bang, could be the way by which God made the table, but to suppose the meal cooked itself and the cutlery was placed perfectly by accident? That's a stretch too far. I accept the ID in the universe for what it is; ID.

 

....

 

I don't see a random theory of everything, and I think a chaotic mess would fit much better with the materialistic version of events science seeks to give.

 

 

The big bang theory doesn't say that it was placed by accident, or that the laws of nature are random. People have ideas, educated speculation based on what we know of physics, but no one really knows where the big bang came from or what it was like before. All the big bang theory says, as it relates to this objection, is that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state in the past (in the ballpark of 13.7 billion years ago) and it expanded into what we see today. If you want you can add that this marks the beginning of the universe as we know it. No talk about it coming by accident or that the laws of nature are random.



#29 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 August 2017 - 09:24 PM

Einstein objected to the universe starting with a big bang. He believed the universe was far too lumpy (more stars and planets in some areas of the universe). He believed had there been a big bang all the energy would have  coalesced at the edge of the universe into matter.

 

 

And Einstein was wrong. Ironically what Einstein called his 'greatest blunder' turned out to be the mathematical foundation of dark energy in the physics equations; the very variable responsible for the universe's expansion in the standard view of the cosmos today.



#30 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 August 2017 - 09:47 PM

Goku,

And Einstein was wrong. Ironically what Einstein called his 'greatest blunder' turned out to be the mathematical foundation of dark energy in the physics equations; the very variable responsible for the universe's expansion in the standard view of the cosmos today.

Once again we are submitted to one of your god like decrees; "And Einstein was wrong." Guide us Landru!"



#31 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 August 2017 - 02:28 AM

 

 

Goku: The point of bringing up a little history about the formulation of the big bang was to say that the big bang doesn't necessitate some sort of atheistic origin of the universe. Maybe I don't understand your posts, but both posts on the topic seem to say that one reason why you don't accept the big bang is because it somehow necessitates some sort of atheistic origin

 

As far back as we look we see completed galaxies. For me, with every kind of evolution they expound, be it the evolution of stars, planets, galaxies or critters, there just seems to be no transitional stages. It seems to me we are asked to believe-by-faith that we are simply not seeing those stages. It's also the fact that I don't believe this inflation would create what we see, the various galaxies, etc, but the big bang theory does say that all of the matter came from this one point, that all of the galaxies evolved as the matter expanded. That that is where they came from and why they unfolded.

 

Are you sure you're not really saying; "the theory doesn't say what it says!" Or the more subtle one; "the theory doesn't imply what it implies!"

 

The theory does surely say all of the things we see in the universe came about because of the big bang expanding/exploding it all outward. Ask yourself this; what out of 14.4 billion years, is the percentage 13.8 billion? Yet despite looking that far back all we see is a completed creation. To me that's very encouraging to the belief that God created the galaxies not over a slow evolution.

 

 

 

Goku: All the big bang theory says, as it relates to this objection, is that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state in the past (in the ballpark of 13.7 billion years ago) and it expanded into what we see today. If you want you can add that this marks the beginning of the universe as we know it

 

 I don't believe men with their official scientific answers, always hit the nail on the head. I believe that God created the universe and all the creatures and that mankind tries to give a scientific answer to a creation, like I would try and give a mathematical explanation to why two people divorced. Now my mathematics might not even be faulty, you might even say ; "no mathematician worth his salt would fault the calculations in this theory of divorce". That may be so, but it doesn't matter because the explanation was never mathematical because those two people didn't get divorced because of maths.

 

In the same way the creation I believe we overtly see, isn't a scientific matter, ultimately. There is no collection of processes that add up to an answer because the best answer is the obvious one, that a Creator is the cause of a creation. The various evolutions they use to try and pretend it was a collection of processes, doesn't strike me as strong science, but the historical and weak conjectural sort.

 

So I basically do see the scientific processes, the various evolutions, as an attempt to say how each stage happened on it's own. To give a scientific answer instantly is to give a materialistic, Godless one in a sense, if you are going to say the created things are explainable scientifically, in the sense that science can't include God in it's conclusions. Think the logic through;

 

1. Science can't include God.

2. Scientists INSIST that everything in nature can be explained scientifically.

3. Scientists then provide or attempt to provide scientific answers, saying various processes cause everything.

 

So then, under those parameters, it is a tautology that all of those answers will be a-theistic answers. A-theistic to a Creator God, Who claims responsibility for creating those things the scientists say created themselves.


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#32 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 30 August 2017 - 02:58 AM

Einstein objected to the universe starting with a big bang. He believed the universe was far too lumpy (more stars and planets in some areas of the universe). He believed had there been a big bang all the energy would have coalesced at the edge of the universe into matter.

.
He wasn't alone and he did reconsider.

In 1927, George Lemaitre published his idea that the universe began with a "primordial egg" in Nature under the title, The Beginning of the World From the Point of View of the Quantum Theory; it was an explanation for the apparent expanding universe. From pages 44-46 of The Perfect Theory, by Pedro G. Ferreira, 2014:
.

... [Lemaitre] summarized his view thus: "If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happaned a little before the beginning of space and time."

In January of 1931, [Arthur] Eddington told the audience of his presidential address as the British Mathematical Association what he thought of Lemaitre's newest idea, announcing, "The notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me." Eddington had championed Lemaitre's work on an expanding universe and had convinced Einstein to give up his static universe. ... But this new idea of Lemaitre's was just too much for Eddington to stomach.
...
While Eddington remained unconvinced by Lemaitre's radical proposal for the beginning of the universe, Einstein thought differently. In the winter of 1933, both Einstein and Lemaitre were traveling in the United States and converged on the balmy campus of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, where the abbé was asked to give two lectures. Their meeting in Solvay in 1927, during which Einstein had dismissed Lemaitre's work and thrown it on the pile of correct but irrelevant consequences of his own theory, had not gone too well. But this time it was different, and Lemaitre was respected as one of the leading lights in the new cosmology. ... It was fitting that Einstein was sitting through Lemaitre's lectures at the place where the recession of galaxies had been discovered. At the end of one of Lemaitre's seminars, he stood up and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

After more than a decade of being misled by his own misguided intuition, Einstein finally saw the light. It was an interesting turn of events. The creator of the general theory of relativity hadn't been brave enough to accept the predictions that his theory made about the universe and had tried to fudge the answer by introducing a fix. It was only by embracing general relativity in its full mathematical glory that [Alexander] Friedmann and Lemaitre had been able to propose an evolving, expanding universe, and the observational data had proved them right. ... Lemaitre would go on to become one of the grand old men of modern cosmology. Along with those of Alexander Friedmann, his ideas set the scene for the revolution in cosmology that would take place almost thirty years later.

.
Note that the term "Big Bang" had not been conceived. In 1949, Fred Hoyle had a radio series on BBC called The Nature of the Universe. From pages 85-86, same book:
.

... According to Hoyle, a universe that expanded from nothing was nonsense, and the grand old men of general relativity should have fixed the theory to get more sensible results. He claimed it was ridiculous to assume that the universe started all of a sudden. As he put it, "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in on Big Bang at a particular time in the remote past." He used the expression "Big Bang" disparangingly; he thought there was a much better solution: an endless universe that kept regenerating itself in a steady state of matter creation.
...
Hoyle and his two collaborators, Hermann and Bondi and Thomas Gold, were a group of mavericks distoring the public's perception of what was really going on in theoretical physics, which deepl angered their colleagues. ...

.
(Bold emphasis is mine.)

#33 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:52 AM

...
From pages 44-46 of The Perfect Theory, by Pedro G. Ferreira, 2014:
.

.
For the record, the title refers to Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

#34 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:55 PM

As far back as we look we see completed galaxies. For me, with every kind of evolution they expound, be it the evolution of stars, planets, galaxies or critters, there just seems to be no transitional stages. It seems to me we are asked to believe-by-faith that we are simply not seeing those stages. It's also the fact that I don't believe this inflation would create what we see, the various galaxies, etc, but the big bang theory does say that all of the matter came from this one point, that all of the galaxies evolved as the matter expanded. That that is where they came from and why they unfolded.

 

Are you sure you're not really saying; "the theory doesn't say what it says!" Or the more subtle one; "the theory doesn't imply what it implies!"

 

The theory does surely say all of the things we see in the universe came about because of the big bang expanding/exploding it all outward. Ask yourself this; what out of 14.4 billion years, is the percentage 13.8 billion? Yet despite looking that far back all we see is a completed creation. To me that's very encouraging to the belief that God created the galaxies not over a slow evolution.

 

I don't understand why seeing old galaxies means the big bang didn't happen; seems like a non sequitur. Besides, the CMB is the oldest thing we can see and no galaxies are present. In addition we do see changes in the overall view of galaxies over time, like the abundance of quasar galaxies are much higher in the past. This makes sense as quasars are the result of super-massive black holes in the center of galaxies gobbling up matter around it creating extremely luminous objects, and as a galaxy matures the black hole eats up everything around it until there is no more matter close enough to fall into it to create the light, and thus it ceases to be a quasar.

 

There are three pillars of evidence for the big bang. The first is that we observe the expansion of the universe, and so if you go back in time the universe must have been smaller. You could object and say that just because we observe the universe expanding now doesn't mean that it must have been so small as to be a singularity in the past. This is where the second pillar comes in: the CMB, or cosmic microwave background radiation, which has been dubbed the 'after glow' of the big bang. The CMB didn't come from the big bang event, but roughly 370,000 years after when the universe was cool enough to allow neutral atoms to exist (atoms with electrons attached) allowing light to move freely. The CMB radiation is observed in all observable directions, and there isn't any real alternative explanation/theory besides the big bang for why the CMB exists. It should be noted that the big bang theory predicted the CMB before it was discovered, and it was the discovery of the CMB that ultimately solidified the big bang theory as the leading cosmological paradigm.

 

The third pillar is the distribution of chemical elements throughout the universe. Big bang models give very specific predictions on the ratios of light elements; when the universe first started it was too hot to allow any atoms, and as the universe cooled it allowed the formation of atoms and even the fusion of atoms creating heavier atoms, but as the universe cooled even more there wasn't enough energy for atomic fusion and the synthesis of atoms stopped, all of that taking place in the first 20 minutes or so after the big bang. Observational data matches closely with the theoretical values.

 

The point in bringing all that up is to say that no one is asking you to accept the big bang on blind faith. Sure the big bang theory and our understanding of the early universe is incomplete, as is literally every other scientific theory, but as far as the basics go the big bang is well established.

 

I don't believe men with their official scientific answers, always hit the nail on the head. I believe that God created the universe and all the creatures and that mankind tries to give a scientific answer to a creation, like I would try and give a mathematical explanation to why two people divorced. Now my mathematics might not even be faulty, you might even say ; "no mathematician worth his salt would fault the calculations in this theory of divorce". That may be so, but it doesn't matter because the explanation was never mathematical because those two people didn't get divorced because of maths.

 

In the same way the creation I believe we overtly see, isn't a scientific matter, ultimately. There is no collection of processes that add up to an answer because the best answer is the obvious one, that a Creator is the cause of a creation. The various evolutions they use to try and pretend it was a collection of processes, doesn't strike me as strong science, but the historical and weak conjectural sort.

 

So I basically do see the scientific processes, the various evolutions, as an attempt to say how each stage happened on it's own. To give a scientific answer instantly is to give a materialistic, Godless one in a sense, if you are going to say the created things are explainable scientifically, in the sense that science can't include God in it's conclusions. Think the logic through;

 

1. Science can't include God.

2. Scientists INSIST that everything in nature can be explained scientifically.

3. Scientists then provide or attempt to provide scientific answers, saying various processes cause everything.

 

So then, under those parameters, it is a tautology that all of those answers will be a-theistic answers. A-theistic to a Creator God, Who claims responsibility for creating those things the scientists say created themselves.

 

 

I think the scientific answers are sound answers within their respective purview of explanation. It seems that your underlying objection is that because science deals with natural explanations that therefore means science itself is antithetical to belief in God or the supernatural, a non sequitur. You seem to conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

 

1. In essence yes.

 

2. I don't know what you mean by that statement, but the tools available to scientific inquiry only allow natural explanations so the whole game of science is to look for natural explanations.

 

3. No. Every scientific theory has a purview of explanation. Outside of that purview the theory doesn't attempt to give an explanation. The big bang theory explains that the universe as we know it started off as a 'singularity' and then expanded. Talk of God not being involved or the ultimate creator is both beyond the scope of the theory itself as well as beyond the philosophical scope of science itself.

 

Science is grounded in methodological naturalism, so of course all scientific answers don't invoke God. This doesn't mean that God wasn't involved or that God doesn't exist, it simply means that science cannot test such ideas and thus ignores them. There is nothing preventing you from believing that God created the big bang; it just isn't a scientific explanation, but to say that God doesn't exist and didn't form the universe is not a scientific stance either.
 

Are you sure you're not really saying; "the theory doesn't say what it says!" Or the more subtle one; "the theory doesn't imply what it implies!"

 

I am positive I have given an objective understanding to the purview of the big bang theory as a scientific theory.



#35 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 September 2017 - 02:26 AM

Goku, Goku, Goku, I don't debate matters of personal belief. I am discussing these things with you at a mild level of general talkification since you were tongue-in-cheek and in relaxed mode.

 

Sure, you have studied enough of the Big Bang that I probably couldn't win a debate about it, so what's the point in debating me unless a third party is present that is neutral and knows the alternative explanations? My point is, in times past you have argued similarly, saying, "there is no other explanation", like you do with CMB. I've heard the same types of arguments for macro evolution, "you can't explain whale bones without evolution", and things like that, only to find there are perfectly parsimonious explanations without evolution.

 

There's no point in arguing with my beliefs because like your beliefs they're not really a matter of debate. That's why I defended you in the topic earlier, because if someone is totally convinced by belief and will of X, they have free will so debating it is almost like knocking on the door of freewill and saying, "let me in to control what you think, you should think this."

 

Example;

 

 

 

Goku: There is nothing preventing you from believing that God created the big bang

 

I know, I just don't believe their answers are correct. I am "open" to them being half-correct but when it comes to created things I don't believe natural, random processes can create created things. By definition, the universe has design, and it's organisms.

 

I appreciate that you're genuine enough that you preach big bang to me because you think I am the type of person willing to listen and not be a dogmatic fundy. You're right. In fact if I read about the big bang I would probably not disagree that certain types of evidence might fit, and that they even predicted X but ultimately my position is that I don't believe we are smart enough to figure out how God done it. Now science give the illusion that because the likes of Einstein and Newton's brilliance were off the scale, that science is some sort of omni-tool. No, all I am saying is that science is limited in what it can do for us. If it tells us a bunch of stories about how processes created giraffes, cheese and hairy knees then I say it's only coming up with those stories because it has crossed the line and therefore lost it's usefulness my lad. :D


  • Mike Summers and Gneiss girl like this

#36 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 September 2017 - 09:42 AM

Conversation between Goku and Mike the wiz:
 

mike the wiz, on 30 Aug 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

I don't believe men with their official scientific answers, always hit the nail on the head. I believe that God created the universe and all the creatures and that mankind tries to give a scientific answer to a creation, like I would try and give a mathematical explanation to why two people divorced. Now my mathematics might not even be faulty, you might even say ; "no mathematician worth his salt would fault the calculations in this theory of divorce". That may be so, but it doesn't matter because the explanation was never mathematical because those two people didn't get divorced because of maths.
 
In the same way the creation I believe we overtly see, isn't a scientific matter, ultimately. There is no collection of processes that add up to an answer because the best answer is the obvious one, that a Creator is the cause of a creation. The various evolutions they use to try and pretend it was a collection of processes, doesn't strike me as strong science, but the historical and weak conjectural sort.
 
So I basically do see the scientific processes, the various evolutions, as an attempt to say how each stage happened on it's own. To give a scientific answer instantly is to give a materialistic, Godless one in a sense, if you are going to say the created things are explainable scientifically, in the sense that science can't include God in it's conclusions. Think the logic through;

1. Science can't include God.

What law of the universe backs this Jehovian decree? Me thinks it an attempt to form a neurotic agreement. "Lets all agree to believe God is unreasonanable (unscientific). And yet our claim is God created our ability to reason (practice science)! Go figure! So, I did an experimenmt and told myself to think about God. I did! I felt no force preventing me from doing so! I am unaware of any limits on my reasoning process (practice of science).

2. Scientists INSIST that everything in nature can be explained scientifically.

It can! So, explain it already! Isn't that what humans do?

3. Scientists then provide or attempt to provide scientific answers, saying various processes cause everything.

In other words they create a just so story! Whic is true because they say it is! Sounds like circular reasoning to me!

So then, under those parameters, it is a tautology that all of those answers will be a-theistic answers. A-theistic to a Creator God, Who claims responsibility for creating those things the scientists say created themselves.


Yes because the neurotic agreement to exclude God from our reasoning pprocess mean we don't have to consider creation a valid reason for things existing! We never seem to realize the irony that intelligent beings "created" the idea that their just so story is "the truth!" After all they thought it up and said the magic words, "It's scientific!" LOL
 

 

I think the scientific answers are sound answers within their respective purview of explanation. It seems that your underlying objection is that because science deals with natural explanations that therefore means science itself is antithetical to belief in God or the supernatural, a non sequitur. You seem to conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

What is nature and where did it come from? Who died and left it in charge? Sounds like some people believe in magic (nature).

2. I don't know what you mean by that statement, but the tools available to scientific inquiry only allow natural explanations so the whole game of science is to look for natural explanations.


Personification rears it's ugly deceitful head again! We decide what we wish to think! All options are open! For example, the alleged big bang is supposedly is an anomaly--not observable testable or repeatable. It is therefore unreasonable (unscienific). LOL

3. No. Every scientific theory has a purview of explanation. Outside of that purview the theory doesn't attempt to give an explanation. The big bang theory explains that the universe as we know it started off as a 'singularity' and then expanded. Talk of God not being involved or the ultimate creator is both beyond the scope of the theory itself as well as beyond the philosophical scope of science itself.

All theories were created and written by intelligent beings who can include in their theory any ideas they wish.
Beyond the scope of science itself? Give me a break! Who set this limit? Got to watvh making those nerotic agreements. I am not buying this one!

As an alleged Atheist, consider; "Theisitic Evolution" believed by some.
Many atheists consider those that believe this contradiction of terms "useful idiots!" LOL

Science is grounded in methodological naturalism, so of course all scientific answers don't invoke God. This doesn't mean that God wasn't involved or that God doesn't exist, it simply means that science cannot test such ideas and thus ignores them. There is nothing preventing you from believing that God created the big bang; it just isn't a scientific explanation, but to say that God doesn't exist and didn't form the universe is not a scientific stance either.


But one thing you need to admit the big ban is an explanation created by an intelligent being who seems lacking the power to actually cause what they claim allegedly happened! But then again, they weren't there to observe! Somone might consider their created answer "unscientific!" LOL

The persssonification needs to end! It's very unscientific! Time to leave Babylon LOL


  • mike the wiz likes this

#37 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 September 2017 - 09:31 PM

 

Goku: The point of bringing up a little history about the formulation of the big bang was to say that the big bang doesn't necessitate some sort of atheistic origin of the universe. Maybe I don't understand your posts, but both posts on the topic seem to say that one reason why you don't accept the big bang is because it somehow necessitates some sort of atheistic origin

As far back as we look we see completed galaxies. For me, with every kind of evolution they expound, be it the evolution of stars, planets, galaxies or critters, there just seems to be no transitional stages. It seems to me we are asked to believe-by-faith that we are simply not seeing those stages. It's also the fact that I don't believe this inflation would create what we see, the various galaxies, etc, but the big bang theory does say that all of the matter came from this one point, that all of the galaxies evolved as the matter expanded. That that is where they came from and why they unfolded.

 

Are you sure you're not really saying; "the theory doesn't say what it says!" Or the more subtle one; "the theory doesn't imply what it implies!"

 

The theory does surely say all of the things we see in the universe came about because of the big bang expanding/exploding it all outward. Ask yourself this; what out of 14.4 billion years, is the percentage 13.8 billion? Yet despite looking that far back all we see is a completed creation. To me that's very encouraging to the belief that God created the galaxies not over a slow evolution.

And what percentage of 13.8 billion years is 6,000?

 

The most distant observed spiral galaxy, so far as I know, is some 10.7 billion light years.  That gives it some 3 billion years to form.  It seems far more plausible to me that we don't understand the formation of galaxies than the light reaches us from them in only 6,000 years.

 

To me, the fact we can even see these things is "very encouraging to the belief that God created the galaxies" but billions of years ago, not thousands.

 

So I basically do see the scientific processes, the various evolutions, as an attempt to say how each stage happened on it's own. To give a scientific answer instantly is to give a materialistic, Godless one in a sense, if you are going to say the created things are explainable scientifically, in the sense that science can't include God in it's conclusions. Think the logic through;

 

1. Science can't include God.

2. Scientists INSIST that everything in nature can be explained scientifically.

3. Scientists then provide or attempt to provide scientific answers, saying various processes cause everything.

 

So then, under those parameters, it is a tautology that all of those answers will be a-theistic answers. A-theistic to a Creator God, Who claims responsibility for creating those things the scientists say created themselves.

Yes, scientific answers are necessarily materialistic and Godless.

 

God's supernatural acts are outside the limits of scientific investigation.  For that reason, they are "off limits" to science.


  • Schera Do likes this

#38 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 September 2017 - 02:38 AM

 

Piasan: And what percentage of 13.8 billion years is 6,000?

 

The most distant observed spiral galaxy, so far as I know, is some 10.7 billion light years.  That gives it some 3 billion years to form.  It seems far more plausible to me that we don't understand the formation of galaxies than the light reaches us from them in only 6,000 years.

 

To me, the fact we can even see these things is "very encouraging to the belief that God created the galaxies" but billions of years ago, not thousands.

 

I admit I had to read a long way into this part before I understood the, "6000" year figure because I didn't actually know what it meant for a while there, but then I finally clicked on that you mean the YEC 6,000 years of creation.

 

That is was that far from my mind shows how YEC I am Piasan. I haven't mentioned 6000 years of creation in this thread.

 

What I meant was that 13.8 billion years ago we see fully formed galaxies and the big-bangists say the universe is about 14 billion years old. The clue is in the statement; obviously I myself accept a figure of about 13.8 billion years of age. 

 

I can accept the universe being about that ages if it is. I myself have no interest in the 6,000 year figure personally as I am not a YEC. That's not to say I am against YECs, and their version of creation, obviously I share more in my beliefs with them than I do with anyone else in that I believe in a special creation, and no evolution, and I accept a global flood, etc...

 

So my only point was that if the big bang banged everything at 14 billion years, about 1 billion years later everything was in place. To me that's like saying that all of the fossils existed, as completely diversified, mammals, reptiles, particular species of them, about 1 billion years ago, and then between then and now we only find the same species. (which isn't too far off the truth for a lot of species) Lol.



#39 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 05 September 2017 - 09:40 AM

The big bang is considered an anomolly which is akin to a miracle. As described, I see it as a sort of artificial miracle--one done without the need for an intelligent creator--agent.

But all the miracles I have heard of were done by intelligent agents. Consequently, I find it difficult to fathom--a miracle causing itself! My intelligence gets in the way because I seem to only have access to intelligence to do anything! I guess that's my bias. If I am to do anything I must use intelligence to do it. Letting it do itself doesen't seem to work for me. How about you?



#40 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 05 September 2017 - 11:01 AM

piasan

 

Yes, scientific answers are necessarily materialistic and Godless

 

.

Science is relegated to studying the materialistic, but should not necessarily limit itself to materialistic-only conclusions. 

 

God's supernatural acts are outside the limits of scientific investigation.  For that reason, they are "off limits" to science.

 

 

God's "supernatural acts" might be outside the limit of scientific investigation but not the product of such acts. Science can study the material things, how they behave, how they evolve, etc. Is what is observed best fit what might be predicted in a designed system, naturally occurring system, or both? 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users