Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
'We don't know' is the only honest and reasonable answer we can make to these questions.
That's quite an irony from an Atheist.
When "You don't know" then you don't know. And if you don't know then why would you believe that God does not exist? Didnt you just say "You didnt know"?
So if you really "don't know" then you are contradicting yourself when you believe you DO know that God does not exist. That's a lie. Truth of the matter is, if you honestly don't know then there always a possibility that God does exist. Atheism goes out of the window, doesn't it?
What started the universe? For a long time science claimed that its the Big Bang - and the Atheists put a blind faith in it. And now yet once again, science proves itself wrong - what happens to your blind faith in science?
The only logical outcome should be, "Yes, scientific knowledge is one of the greatest tool humans have, to benefit humanity and try to study the dominions of universes BUT science has a historically proven record of proving itself wrong at many times - so, on one hand we should keep excelling in gaining scientific knowledge to benefit humanity and figure out how God made it but we should not use science to prove God in a lab experiment because the scientific claims whether God exist or not can change anytime - science is just that reliable and perhaps too immature."
In contrast, the message of religion to believe in God has always remained the same but science keeps on changing its claims.
06-15-2014, 04:02 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll0OoO0ll
That's quite an irony from an Atheist.
When "You don't know" then you don't know. And if you don't know then why would you believe that God does not exist? Didnt you just say "You didnt know"?
This has been beaten to death on here. One has to do with knowlegde the other with belief. Most atheists are agnostic when it comes to saying whether they know God/gods exist - unless that particualr God is logically impossible. Their belief is based upon the quality of evidence or lack thereof.
Quote:
So if you really "don't know" then you are contradicting yourself when you believe you DO know that God does not exist. That's a lie. Truth of the matter is, if you honestly don't know then there always a possibility that God does exist. Atheism goes out of the window, doesn't it?
No, see above. The arrogance you display is what is ironic given that it is based upon your complete misunderstanding and ignorance regarding those you disagree with.
Quote:
What started the universe?
Again, that depends on what you mean by 'universe' and the assumption that it actually needed to be started.
Quote:
For a long time science claimed that its the Big Bang - and the Atheists put a blind faith in it. And now yet once again, science proves itself wrong - what happens to your blind faith in science?
Again - ignorance.
Quote:
The only logical outcome should be, "Yes, scientific knowledge is one of the greatest tool humans have, to benefit humanity and try to study the dominions of universes BUT science has a historically proven record of proving itself wrong at many times - so, on one hand we should keep excelling in gaining scientific knowledge to benefit humanity and figure out how God made it but we should not use science to prove God in a lab experiment because the scientific claims whether God exist or not can change anytime - science is just that reliable and perhaps too immature."
Science never claimed it could or should try to prove God or disprove God - again ignorance displayed.
Quote:
In contrast, the message of religion to believe in God has always remained the same but science keeps on changing its claims.
No it has not - more ignorance - and futhermore your religion/God is constantly losing out to science - once where God was thought to necessarily be science has shown that he is not needed to explain it.
What started the universe? For a long time science claimed that its the Big Bang - and the Atheists put a blind faith in it. And now yet once again, science proves itself wrong - what happens to your blind faith in science?
...snip...
I'd be interested in seeing a link to your proof the Big Bang theory has been proven wrong.
Cosmologists usually call the birth of the universe the Big Bang. The closer we approach the Big Bang in time, the stronger the geometry of space and time curves. Physicists call this a singularity – a term describing conditions whose physical laws are not defined. In the Big Bang scenario, the spacetime curvature becomes infinitely large. Shortly after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. Prof. Wetterich believes, however, that a different “picture” is also possible. If the masses of all elementary particles grow heavier over time and gravitational force weakens, the universe could have also had a very cold, slow start. In that view, the universe always existed and its earliest state was virtually static, with the Big Bang stretching over an infinitely long time in the past. The scientist from the Institute for Theoretical Physics assumes that the earliest “events” that are indirectly observable today came to pass 50 trillion years ago, and not in the billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang. “There is no longer a singularity in this new picture of the cosmos,” says Prof. Wetterich.
Quote:
Wetterich stresses that this in no way renders the previous view of the Big Bang “invalid”, however. “Physicists are accustomed to describing observed phenomena using different pictures.” Light, for example, can be depicted as particles and as a wave. Similarly, his model can be seen as a picture equivalent to the Big Bang.
That's quite an irony from an Atheist.
When "You don't know" then you don't know. And if you don't know then why would you believe that God does not exist? Didnt you just say "You didnt know"?
So if you really "don't know" then you are contradicting yourself when you believe you DO know that God does not exist. That's a lie. Truth of the matter is, if you honestly don't know then there always a possibility that God does exist. Atheism goes out of the window, doesn't it?
Nope. Nearly all atheists are agnostic atheists. We don't claim absolute knowledge of god's (non)existence, and for that reason we withhold belief in god pending evidence of god. Atheism is a belief position not a knowledge position. It is about gods being vanishingly unlikely, not about gods not existing. And it is about specific, particular gods being even more highly unlikely -- but still not about them not existing.
It is just the same as you believe about Odin or Thor. You don't absolutely know that Odin or Thor don't exist. You can't. You haven't been everywhere and seen everything. Odin and Thor are not falsifiable propositions in any case. However, you don't BELIEVE in them, either. Why? Because you see no evidence that they exist. That is precisely the atheist position.
Which is a problem for you if you're like most theists, because it ruins your idea that we "arrogantly" claim to absolutely know.
Atheists are not afraid to admit when we don't have enough data to claim knowledge. Theists, on the other hand, ARE afraid of what I've come to call "the three naughty words": I don't know. They know no more than anyone else, but claim to because they MUST have the answers.
"I don't know" is not a weak answer to a question when it's an accurate answer. It is an HONEST and HUMBLE answer. And then the question is, what is the appropriate response when we don't know something? WE DON'T MAKE SOMETHING UP AS A PLACEHOLDER FOR OUR IGNORANCE. Instead, we wait until new knowledge / understanding presents itself. We follow the evidence (or lack of evidence) where it leads us.
The Big Bang "started" it all is in question. Watch the video again.
The idea that the Big Bang was the start of everything was always going to be questioned. I have long considered it very likely that the Big bang (or 'unfolding' as is now thought to be more of an accurate model) is just one of many creation and uncreation events going on in a much wider Cosmos that is far older.
So what? The evidence for the Big bang is simply being ever more validated, even if we get more information about what was going on. It is no way upsets the whole of cosmology any more than the fiddling posts we get about DNA upset the evidence for evolution.
And what Cosmology and evolution do is completely discredit Genesis as a science textbook. It doesn't disprove a creator - god of some kind, but it sure kicks the slats out of Genesis.
Even that doesn't itself disprove Biblegod, but increasing doubts about the veracity of the Bible as history, let alone the God -claims, is good reason to doubt that the god of the bible is real. That means that all the religion of the Book go down the sink.
That is the case and pretty much everything you have posted, ll0OoO0ll, has been based on a misunderstanding of it.
06-16-2014, 10:02 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll0OoO0ll
The Big Bang "started" it all is in question. Watch the video again.
It being in question is irrelevant. It is not the only model in play- just the most popular. No scientific model can get you to 'nothing' behind which is your or anybody else's cherished god.
It's not the BB or God. In fact it is most theistic apologists that love the BB because they abuse it to suggest that it proves an ultimate beginning when in fact it does not and could not.
Hold on. If the Big Bang was the start of spacetime - then it could have been the start of time. If this is true, the word "before" goes out of the window. Before, earlier than, prior to, antecedent to etc. are all time-bound concepts, they all fail when it comes to a supposed "start of time." It also leaves open the possibility that there is no question of cause prior in time, because there may have been no "prior".
As for the nonsense about "who wrote the rules?," apart from assuming they need to have been "decided" or written in the first place (sounds decidedly human-limited-thinking to me), if there were no rules and things were entirely chaotic one could ask "who created this unruly state without rules?". Its a nonsense position either way.
As for the biblical rule "Don't wear mixed fibers" - clearly written by a human with mundane concerns on his mind.
It being in question is irrelevant. It is not the only model in play- just the most popular. .
Fair enough.
So then, you tell us which model do you believe that perhaps may not be the most popular one but still an acceptable one to you?
Lets hear your side of the story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
