U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2019, 04:43 PM
Status: "I care about your eternity. Sorry." (set 26 days ago)
 
289 posts, read 39,936 times
Reputation: 35

Advertisements

Comparing Atheism and Christianity



This thread is intended for a debate/discussion between Tired of the Nonsense and Iwasmadenew, comparing how our worldviews answer some of "life's big questions."

Proposal for how to proceed:
1. We each briefly answer all three ‘big questions’ (summarized points explaining our reasoning).
2. Discuss/debate each question, one at a time, in more detail.
3. Additional questions/comments to each other.
4. Invite other people’s questions/comments.

-----
3 Big Questions:

1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?

2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?

3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?
-----

Tired of the Nonsense's worldview: "Genuine atheist"
"I am an atheist in the truest sense of the meaning of the word. I do not subscribe to any concept of a creator Being. One of the great revelations of modern science has been the recognition that everything that occurs, all of existence, can be understood and explained as naturally occurring, derived from the observation that matter/energy is continuously interacting with itself. No creator Being is observed, and non is apparently necessary."
"I used the term 'creator Being' in an attempt to be all inclusive. Specifically, I do not consider those that subscribe to any aspect of the supernatural to be genuine atheists."

Iwasmadenew's worldview: "Biblical Christianity"
"I believe that God exists and has revealed himself to mankind in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe in the core elements of Christian faith that are agreed upon by the major Christian denominations. I believe the Bible is inspired text, but I don't believe that translations of the Bible are necessarily inerrant, nor do I believe that errors or contradictions necessarily invalidate the core message of the Bible."

[*NOTE: We would like to have a productive exchange, so we've both agreed to focus on each others comments and to avoid getting side-tracked. It would be helpful if others refrained from making comments that do not add anything of value (i.e. informative) to the conversation. Obviously people are permitted to comment on any forum/thread they wish to, but making off-topic comments or insults to this thread will not be helpful. These kind of comments will just clutter the thread with distractions. Please honor this request. Thank you.]


[TofN - Do you have any revisions to any of this? I'll wait until you respond before I post my reply to the 3 questions.]

Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 08-24-2019 at 05:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2019, 01:41 AM
 
Location: USA
3,695 posts, read 1,316,106 times
Reputation: 1060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post
Comparing Atheism and Christianity



This thread is intended for a debate/discussion between Tired of the Nonsense and Iwasmadenew, comparing how our worldviews answer some of "life's big questions."

Proposal for how to proceed:
1. We each briefly answer all three ‘big questions’ (summarized points explaining our reasoning).
2. Discuss/debate each question, one at a time, in more detail.
3. Additional questions/comments to each other.
4. Invite other people’s questions/comments.

-----
3 Big Questions:

1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?

2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?

3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?
-----

Tired of the Nonsense's worldview: "Genuine atheist"
"I am an atheist in the truest sense of the meaning of the word. I do not subscribe to any concept of a creator Being. One of the great revelations of modern science has been the recognition that everything that occurs, all of existence, can be understood and explained as naturally occurring, derived from the observation that matter/energy is continuously interacting with itself. No creator Being is observed, and non is apparently necessary."
"I used the term 'creator Being' in an attempt to be all inclusive. Specifically, I do not consider those that subscribe to any aspect of the supernatural to be genuine atheists."

Iwasmadenew's worldview: "Biblical Christianity"
"I believe that God exists and has revealed himself to mankind in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe in the core elements of Christian faith that are agreed upon by the major Christian denominations. I believe the Bible is inspired text, but I don't believe that translations of the Bible are necessarily inerrant, nor do I believe that errors or contradictions necessarily invalidate the core message of the Bible."

[*NOTE: We would like to have a productive exchange, so we've both agreed to focus on each others comments and to avoid getting side-tracked. It would be helpful if others refrained from making comments that do not add anything of value (i.e. informative) to the conversation. Obviously people are permitted to comment on any forum/thread they wish to, but making off-topic comments or insults to this thread will not be helpful. These kind of comments will just clutter the thread with distractions. Please honor this request. Thank you.]


[TofN - Do you have any revisions to any of this? I'll wait until you respond before I post my reply to the 3 questions.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?
Humans were not around to witness the universe begin. So we are forced to draw our conclusions based what can currently be observed.

Astronomers observe that the universe is expanding in all directions. This leads to the conclusion that everything in the universe was once together all in an infinitely dense state that physicists refer to as the initial or cosmic singularity. Understand that the state of a singularity is purely theoretical. No such state can be observed, and the very existence of such a state cannot currently be explained by classical physics. So the current expansion of the universe seems to indicate that the universe was once in a very VERY condensed state, at least, and at a critical juncture all of the energy of the universe underwent a period of nearly instantaneous expansion. As the universe expanded, it cooled, allowing for subatomic particles, protons, neutrons and electrons to form. Matter was born.

One might well ask if there is any actual physical evidence of this big bang? And the answer is, YES! Echoes of the big bang, in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation, is still detectable.

So the universe, time and space (which are components of the same phenomenon), as well, ultimately, as matter, seem to have been BORN as a result of a gigantic cosmic expansion of energy.

It is often said, and widely supposed to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this assumption is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No discrete spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, none of us existed as discrete individuals prior to our conception. The material that had the potential to become us however existed with our parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in our bodies, from the moment of our conception to this very moment in time has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms.

But what about the big bang? Surely THAT represents a discreet beginning? The problem here, of course, is that we are forced to assume that the big bang occurred about 14 billion years ago or so. We do not witness the big bang. We can only interpolate the big bang from the condition of the universe that we observe now.

Einstein's famous equation E=MC² tells us that matter and energy are co-equivalent. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes. And as nuclear fission has abundantly established, the energy potential of even small amounts of matter is quite enormous. The law of conservation of energy specifically tells us that energy itself can neither be created or destroyed. If the law of conservation of energy is a valid and inviolate law of physics, which is the very purpose of describing the physical laws of nature as "laws," then every particle of our bodies has existed eternally in various forms prior to our current existence, and will continue to exist eternally in other forms after we have passed away. Everything is recycled and reused again and again, eternally. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, as it appears to be, then energy, which is what the universe is, can neither be created or destroyed. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the observable universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Our experience is that CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was BORN as a result of energy which already existed. And within our own universe this pattern of ongoing change, this FRACTALIZATION, continues through the process of the formation of black holes.

How did our universe begin? As something approximating a singularity, when matter/energy was squeezed into a point so dense that space would have nearly, at least, ceased to exist, and time would have approached, at least, infinite slowness. What happens when massive stars explode? The lightest elements are blown away and their heaviest elements are then reduced by the force of gravity into something approximating a singularity, (a gravitational or black hole singularity) from which not even light can escape, the information of which then disappears from our plane of existence. Leaving only gravity for us to mark their passage.

The question "Where did the energy for our universe come from" is echoed in the question, "Where did the energy in a black hole go?"

The obvious answer in both cases is SOMEPLACE ELSE. A direction which is beyond the plane of our existence which we can not, as of yet at least, perceive. It IS clear however, that the energy in a black hole WAS ORIGINALLY DERIVED FROM OUR UNIVERSE. In other words, A CONDITION IN WHICH THE ENERGY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE BLACK HOLE. This and the law of conservation of energy implies, at least, that the energy of our universe existed in a condition prior to the big bang. And this of course implies a multi-verse.

How many infinite possibilities of universes have been realized and will yet be realized, each with it's own set of parameters, given that energy is apparently eternal? There is no answer to this of course, because eternity is beyond all calculation. And within this range of, essentially, infinite possibility, what are the chances that a just right bowl of porridge which allows for a universe which further allows for our sort of existence, will be produced? Given that we are dealing with eternity, the answer is SOMETHING APPROACHING 100%. The driving force behind this process seems to derive from quantum mechanics. Believers choose to call the process God, because this allows them to feel safe and secure in the belief that their existence is the result of some cosmic plan. Science simply calls it quantum mechanics however. Something to be studied and understood, but not worshiped.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?
First of all you must recognize that life is COMPOSED of non living material. The protons, neutrons and electrons that form a rock are entirely interchangeable with the protons, neutrons and electrons that form your body. Life in an ongoing experiment in organic chemistry, continuously powered. like everything else, by quantum mechanics.

Scientists classify things as alive if they can carry out these 8 LIFE FUNCTIONS.

R- Respiration
R- Regulation
R- Reproduction
E- Excretion
G- Growth
N- Nutrition
T- Transport
S- Synthesis

The 8 Life Functions

Life is composed of four basic organic compounds; carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. In between these simple organic compounds and the prokaryotes, the simplest form of true life (single celled bacteria) which are formed from these organic compounds, there is a stage known as protobiont.

Wikipedia
Protocell
A protocell (or protobiont) is a self-organized, endogenously ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life.[1][2] A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell

Biology Cabinet
Scientists think that the protobionts are the evolutionary precursors of prokaryotic cells. Protobionts may be originated as an array of microspheres of diverse organic and inorganic compounds enclosed by lipidic membranes. Proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and other organic substances were the most important autocatalytic organic compounds. Water was a very important factor in the assembly of the protobionts' endoplasm. After this event, several microspheres could self-organize into organelles that were able to perform specific functions; for example, lysosomes, peroxysomes, vacuoles, etc.

Gradually, some segments of the external membrane would invaginate for forming membranous organelles, like endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus. First protobionts would not have a nucleus membrane (nuclear envelope); consequently, they could be identified like prokaryotes.
Protobiont

So we turn to the viruses. The simplest of the viruses are nothing but a chain of molecules that incorporate a simple RNA molecule. Literally, all they do is replicate themselves. They don't respire, they don't excrete, and they don't die, because they were never "living" to begin with. They can be broken apart and destroyed easily enough, but if left intact they can remain inert apparently indefinitely. Then, given the necessary environmental conditions, they replicate themselves. I am not suggesting that viruses represent "first life" either. They are not life at all, for one thing. But it is generally held that something like this, something which blurs the distinction between what is living and what is a result of simple on going process of chemistry rather than organic biology, is responsible for process of becoming earliest life itself. What we clearly observe is that life moved from simple to complex with the passage of time. And that life is composed of nonliving organic compounds which form through natural processes.

The history of planet earth has been the 4.5-5 billion year history of organic chemistry in action. That significant and ever more complex changes would occur over the course of this amount of time is entirely predictable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?
Objective truth and objective morality are concepts, essentially opinions. This does not prevent you and I, and everyone watching, from sharing, and coming to agreement on, the same opinions.

"If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible." - Dostoevsky

"If everything is permissible, then living together in a society is impossible." - Tired of the Nonsense

Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 08-25-2019 at 01:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2019, 04:19 PM
 
40,119 posts, read 11,246,158 times
Reputation: 5177
is this end of discussion? Surely not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
7,059 posts, read 3,860,489 times
Reputation: 4719
Good luck with these threads. Have fun.
I think you are missing the point of a public forum though.
They are meant to be interactive.

If you want to have a discussion between yourselves, that's fine, but I can't see anyone else interacting if they have to wait around to be invited.
I'll be totally honest, I wouldn't even bother reading through the thread (I certainly haven't read through this one, two posts in). Maybe I have a short attention span .

I think you'll end up just talking to yourselves and if you want to do that, why bother with a public forum? In short, I'm not seeing the point.

Last edited by Cruithne; 08-26-2019 at 11:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Mars City
5,195 posts, read 2,225,793 times
Reputation: 7613
Or, neither of these two sides can ultimately say. It's obvious that no human can know ultimate reality of how we came into existence. We can read this or that and say, I agree with "that", but it still proves nothing. It's theory. These two groups are actually more alike than different in this regard. They're opposite sides of the same coin, bent on and obsessed with their own side, rather than the whole.

In the end, we're just ignorant in many areas. That doesn't have to a problem though. We can simply recognize that, admit it, and move on to something that can be useful and productive, and within our grasp and control.

Instead of being thankful for having knowledge and capacities at the top of the food chain among species, we act like babies and demand to know and have more.

Last edited by Thoreau424; 08-26-2019 at 11:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 03:03 PM
 
10,723 posts, read 15,916,495 times
Reputation: 12149
1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?



There is no time. Universe ALWAYS was, just in various forms. Those forms are contained in the real Space, that no one knows anything about, that Space being eternal.


2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?


Earth always was, is and will be. In various forms. Intelligent life, presuming that is what you are referring to, ALWAYS was on Earth, in various forms. Earth changes, down to complete revamp of its size, geography etc, but it is always present, as home to humanity.


3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?


Truth is something that exists. Something that is not true, can't exist. Hence, Reality is an objective Truth, as it IS. Reality is not concerned with your or humanity opinion about it. Reality is not concerned with human morality also, as that is nothing but ever changing opinion. As such, morality and opinion about morality is transient and Reality is permanent. What is objective, is neither moral or immoral, as it IS as it is and what it is. Objective Reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 03:36 PM
 
40,119 posts, read 11,246,158 times
Reputation: 5177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Good luck with these threads. Have fun.
I think you are missing the point of a public forum though.
They are meant to be interactive.

If you want to have a discussion between yourselves, that's fine, but I can't see anyone else interacting if they have to wait around to be invited.
I'll be totally honest, I wouldn't even bother reading through the thread (I certainly haven't read through this one, two posts in). Maybe I have a short attention span .

I think you'll end up just talking to yourselves and if you want to do that, why bother with a public forum? In short, I'm not seeing the point.
It is a departure from the usual general debate, though sometimes some of the lads and ladessess stand back to let a couple of Champions slash it out (me and Eusebius in the Old days, and Harry and Pneuma more recently). The one on ones can be quite good and people do get the hint and leave them alone.

On this one an Adjudicator would start the counting out....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2019, 05:52 PM
Status: "I care about your eternity. Sorry." (set 26 days ago)
 
289 posts, read 39,936 times
Reputation: 35
[My proposal was to start off with an answer to each big question and a brief summary of the reasoning for that conclusion. Since TotN provided a more extensive answer, I will do the same.]

I will deal with these two questions together, since, for me, there is much overlap in the reasoning for my conclusions:
1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?
2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?


The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe. We know the universe (energy, time, and space) had a beginning and we know the universe is expanding, but it’s not infinite. Background microwave radiation from the ‘Big Bang is still detectable.

What “caused” the Big Bang to happen?
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang cosmological model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. The Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space originated, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra dense and high-temperature “singularity”. Current knowledge is insufficient to determine if the singularity was primordial (i.e. existed prior to the Big Bang event).
[Reference: Big Bang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ]

No one knows who wrote the laws of physics or where they come from. Science is based on testable, reproducible evidence, and so far we cannot test the universe before the Big Bang.
Michio Kaku


Since time started with the Big Bang, it’s not possible for us to even conceive of “prior to” the Big Bang.

The odds of this “big bang” producing anything at all is astronomically unlikely. This explosion/expansion of the Big Bang had to occur with mind-boggling precision in order for galaxies to form, let alone life…

If the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin.
Robert Lanza


Whatever “caused” the Big Bang to happen would exist outside of time, space and matter. This “cause” would necessarily be timeless, immaterial, incredibly powerful and creative. This level of precision is so exacting that it almost seems like a purposeful act by an supremely intelligent and creative force of some kind. In fact, the formation of galaxies and life on planet earth to begin fits the definition of a miracle…

[Miracle] A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (especially a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint, or a religious leader. A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle


It seems reasonable to me to consider the possibility of a creator God. Yes, this would require a leap of faith, but so would believing that humans just lucked out and won the cosmological lottery and and that chaos can create order.

Former astrophysicist and head of mathematics at Wales University, Dr. Wickramasinghe and Sir Fred Hoyle, describe the likelihood of human evolution to be as mathematically plausible as:
"...a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving behind a complete and flyable Boeing 747...


Is it a reasoned conclusion to assume that our universe exploded out of nothing for no reason with the unfathomable precision required to form galaxies, planets and even conscious life on planet Earth… AND that it happened all on its own? If a person prefers to believe all that, this is also a leap of faith.

“A proponent of [the Big Bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing."
Anthony Kenny


Based on the information I've presented so are, it would seem that agnosticism is a more reasoned position on the origin of the universe and the origin of life than atheism. When I factor in additional evidences (which I can address later) my conclusion is that a creator God is responsible. For now, I’m just making a case that a person should not rule out supernatural involvement.

[Supernatural] The concept of the supernatural encompasses anything that is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

-------

3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?

To make the claim, “There is no absolute truth” leads to the question... “Are you absolutely sure?” If the answer is “yes,” this is an absolute statement, which itself implies the existence of absolutes. To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical (a self-contradiction).

Objective truth exists, whether we are able to determine a truth or not. The Earth was a sphere before humans could prove that fact. Individuals cannot have "their own truth" but instead their own subjective interpretation of objective truth. If everything is relative to something else, then there can be no actual reality.

"Postmodernism" regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid, but if morality is subjective and everyone sets their own rules of right and wrong then chaos would ensue as one person's values clash with someone else's. Is the act of torturing and murdering babies for fun ever "right" in certain circumstances? We would all agree this would be wrong in all circumstances, and this seems to be universally true in all cultures throughout history.

Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 08-26-2019 at 06:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 11:18 AM
 
Location: USA
3,695 posts, read 1,316,106 times
Reputation: 1060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew View Post

[My proposal was to start off with an answer to each big question and a brief summary of the reasoning for that conclusion. Since TotN provided a more extensive answer, I will do the same.]

I will deal with these two questions together, since, for me, there is much overlap in the reasoning for my conclusions:
1. How did the universe originate (time, space, matter)?
2. How did life originate on Earth from non-life?

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe. We know the universe (energy, time, and space) had a beginning and we know the universe is expanding,

but it’s not infinite. Background microwave radiation from the ‘Big Bang is still detectable.

What “caused” the Big Bang to happen?
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang cosmological model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. The Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space

originated, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra dense and high-temperature “singularity”. Current knowledge is insufficient to determine if the

singularity was primordial (i.e. existed prior to the Big Bang event).
[Reference: Big Bang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ]

No one knows who wrote the laws of physics or where they come from. Science is based on testable, reproducible evidence, and so far we cannot test the universe before the Big Bang.
— Michio Kaku
Michio Kaku is correct. We have no direct knowledge of what occurred before the big bang. The big bang itself is not something that we can observe and conduct experiments on. We can only observe and conduct experiments on conditions which exist today.

As I already pointed out, one of the things we observe, and which was the subject of many experiments over the years, is the nature of energy itself. It has been observed that energy can be changed from form to form, but that no energy is neither gained or lost in the process. This is stated in the law of conservation of energy.

Wikipedia
Conservation of energy
In physics and chemistry, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is eternal. That is pretty much the definition of eternal. We have NO EXPERIENCE of energy simply popping into existence from nothing.

Another thing that I pointed out is that is that no discreet beginnings are observed. NONE. Every effect occurs as the result of an earlier cause without fail! This chain of cause and effect stretches back to the big bang itself. We cannot observe the big bang of course, only interpellate its occurrence based on observational evidence.

The big bang represents the earliest cause that we can interpellate. Does that mean it is the first cause, and was itself without cause? That question cannot be currently answered with certainty, but since we have NO EXPERIENCE of effect without earlier cause, we have no reason to suppose that the big bang was without cause.

The religious of course maintain that God was the cause. God created energy from nothing. And what was God's cause? In violation of all observation, God is declared to be without cause!

And from whence came THIS observation? It's not an observation at all. It was simply made up and declared to be true. It therefore represents make believe!

The sort of make believe that humans have traditionally manufactured as a result of ignorance since before the dawn of recorded history. Just as we are ignorant of what cause resulted in the big bang. We can make a few educated guesses concerning what may have occurred prior to the big bang, however, based on observation.

The idea of a body so massive that even light could not escape was briefly proposed by English clergyman John Michell in 1784. No one took the idea seriously. The idea would reappear in the 20th century however as a puzzling consequence of Einstein's theory of relativity. Even Einstein thought the idea of an infinitely dense point mass was unrealistic. The math kept indicating that such a thing was not only possible, but unavoidable, however. The term "black hole" was coined in the 1960's to refer to what was still considered an unreliable and unrealistic conclusion. Today of course black holes are not only accepted, but are considered to be one of the greatest insights of physics. It is now recognized that supermassive black holes reside at the core of all giant galaxies.



A black hole can result from the collapse of a star several times the mass of the sun. When it occurs all the material, which Steven Hacking referred to as "information," disappears entirely from our plane of existence. Only its gravity remains.

Where does this "information" go? Someplace else. Someplace outside of our universe of space/time. Another dimension that we cannot, as yet, perceive.

So when the question is asked, "where did the energy of the big bang come from, the answer, based on the example of black holes, is someplace else Energy can neither be created or destroyed. But it can disappear and reappear someplace else.

Based on the example of black holes, what occurred prior to the big bang? The implication is, a period of massive gravitational collapse. And prior to THAT? Attempting to answer that question would be getting to far ahead of ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Since time started with the Big Bang, it’s not possible for us to even conceive of “prior to” the Big Bang.

Since time started with the Big Bang, it’s not possible for us to even conceive of “prior to” the Big Bang.
Time is relative to the conditions being experienced by the observer. It's not something that can be strictly confined within the parameters of your preferences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
The odds of this “big bang” producing anything at all is astronomically unlikely. This explosion/expansion of the Big Bang had to occur with mind-boggling precision in order for galaxies to form, let alone life…

[i]If the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin.
Robert Lanza
[/I
What are the odds of the occurrence of an incalculable number of random "big bangs" producing "galaxies, let alone life, you ask?" Something approaching 100% certainty. What we are looking at here is the possibility that EVERY BLACK HOLE represents a unique universe unto itself. The known universe potentially has trillions of black holes. If the universe itself is the end result of the formation of a black hole, the number of black holes is unknowable. An unknowable number of universes, each with its own unique set of rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Whatever “caused” the Big Bang to happen would exist outside of time, space and matter. This “cause” would necessarily be timeless, immaterial, incredibly powerful and creative. This level of precision is so exacting that it almost seems like a purposeful act by an supremely intelligent and creative force of some kind. In fact, the formation of galaxies and life on planet earth to begin fits the definition of a miracle…
Outside of the parameters that govern space/time in this, our known universe. I am unable to comment on what possible parameters rule other areas outside of the known universe. ARE THERE other areas outside if the known universe? Where did the information in a black hole GO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
[Miracle] A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (especially a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint, or a religious leader. A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle
Wikipedia
Miracle
A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

A miracle is a supernatural explanation typically proposed as a result of being ignorant of the actual cause. Ancient people were ignorant of modern science. As a result they concluded that naturally occurring events must be the result of a supernatural cause. Wind and rain and earthquakes, for example, were caused by various gods. Eventually it was concluded that only one god was responsible for everything.

And then along came modern empirical science to explain things.

So let me explain things.

The sun is a super heated ball of mostly hydrogen and helium, which, because of its mass, is undergoing a thermonuclear reaction. As the material of the sun is compressed, it causes the atoms of gas to be in rapid motion. HEAT! This occurs because certain of the quanta (the minimum amount of any physical entity), vibrate at a frequency arbitrarily referred to as negative, and other of the quanta vibrate at a frequency arbitrarily referred to as positive. Quanta which vibrate with a positive frequency are strongly attracted to quanta which vibrate at a negative frequency. However, quanta which vibrate at the SAME frequency (positive/positive negative/negative) are repelled by each other. This unending process of attraction/repulsion is the basis (the cause; the foundation) of quantum mechanics.

The sun beams out radiation in all direction. Some of this radiation is composed of positively and negatively charged particles. The Earth is bathed in this ongoing source of energy. When the charged particles from the sun strike the material of the Earth, the positively and negatively charged particles that compose the Earth are forced to move in response to the positive and negatively charged radiation coming from the sun. As a result the material that comprises the Earth is forced to move. Faster and faster. HEAT! The surface of the Earth however, does not heat up uniformly. more radiation strikes the equator while less strikes the poles. The side of the planet facing away from the sun cools, while the side facing the sun heats up. Also, land heats up quicker than water. Warm air rises. Cooler denser air is pulled into the vacuum caused by the rising warm air.

We call this movement of air WIND!

The same radiation from the sun causes molecules of water to percolate up into the air. HUMIDITY. When the water molecules rise high enough to cool down, they combine forming drops too heavy to remain suspended in the air and fall back down again.

We call this RAIN!

The mass of the Earth compresses the material deep underground. As the material is compressed the positively and negatively charged particles that compose the material the Earth is forced to move faster and faster. The result is superheated magma, which pushes its way up into the cooler rock of the Earth's crust, causing the crust to spread.

Causing movement along fractures in the Earth's crust. EARTHQUAKES

No god is responsible for ANY of this. It's all the result of a process called quantum mechanics. The concept of God/gods and miracles which are outside of natural or scientific laws is the result of residual ignorance. It's the make believe conceived by our ignorant ancient ancestors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
It seems reasonable to me to consider the possibility of a creator God. Yes, this would require a leap of faith, but so would believing that humans just lucked out and won the cosmological lottery and and that chaos can create order.
A "leap of faith" typically derived from individuals who are ignorant of the current state of natural or scientific laws.

Which is understandable. Most of this knowledge was unknown until modern (the 20th century) times.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Former astrophysicist and head of mathematics at Wales University, Dr. Wickramasinghe and Sir Fred Hoyle, describe the likelihood of human evolution to be as

mathematically plausible as:
"...a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving behind a complete and flyable Boeing 747...
Fred Hoyle also rejected the big bang, and was at the center of many conflicts with other scientists. Fred Hoyle was a self described atheist, who at the same time stated that there must be a super intellect behind physics. Like many people raised in a world dominated by the religious (Hoyle was born in 1915), Fred Hoyle remained influence by religious ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Is it a reasoned conclusion to assume that our universe exploded out of nothing for no reason with the unfathomable precision required to form galaxies, planets and even conscious life on planet Earth… AND that it happened all on its own? If a person prefers to believe all that, this is also a leap of faith.
Is it reasonable to conclude that the universe exploded out of nothing? I have never made such a claim. Is it reasonable to conclude that the universe is the result of an earlier cause?

That is in fact the OBVIOUS conclusion.

Is it reasonable to suppose that God arose from nothing? Or that God created Himself, thus preexisting His own existence? Which are both explanations for the existence of God that I have seen proposed by sincere believers. The third possibility is that God has existed eternally. The law of conservation of energy indicates that energy has existed eternally. What difference is there between these two possibilities? The law of conservation of energy is derived from centuries of experimentation and observation. The concept of God is derived from centuries of make believe and ignorance of the actual condition of the universe. A noticeably significant difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
“A proponent of [the Big Bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing."
Anthony Kenny
Not really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Based on the information I've presented so are, it would seem that agnosticism is a more reasoned position on the origin of the universe and the origin of life than atheism. When I factor in additional evidences (which I can address later) my conclusion is that a creator God is responsible. For now, I’m just making a case that a person should not rule out supernatural involvement.
The whole agnosticism/atheism question is a semantics game. Do I, as an atheist, know that there is no God? I do not possess any greater supernatural powers of "knowing" anything to a perfect certainty than any other person? NOPE! On the other hand, is there any real reason to suppose that the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy are real? Humans are fallible, and none of us has the superpower of infallible knowledge. And yet it is possible to reach what are essentially unequivocal conclusions on certain questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
[color=DarkRed]3. Does objective truth and/or objective morality exist?

To make the claim, “There is no absolute truth” leads to the question... “Are you absolutely sure?” If the answer is “yes,” this is an absolute statement, which itself implies the existence of absolutes. To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical (a self-contradiction).
This is the same semantics game as above. If I claim there is no absolute truth, how can I declare ANYTHING to be true?

There are two classes of "truth" to consider. One is physical truth. There is truth to be found in physical events. The other kind of truth is philosophical "truth." This truth is in reality simply opinion.

Let's take a hypothetical example. A mother lion tracks, stalks and subsequently kills a baby antelope. She then drags the baby antelope home to feed to her young. The precise accurate details of what happened to the baby antelope represents "physical truth." Declaring the lioness to be "evil," for killing the baby antelope, or "good," for feeding her cubs, is an opinion. A HUMAN opinion. It is neither absolutely true, or absolutely false. What occurred was simply an event. The universe is indifferent to events. Humans tend make a judgement of the event based upon an arbitrary personal response to it. A response largely dictated by the ramifications the event has for them personally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Objective truth exists, whether we are able to determine a truth or not. The Earth was a sphere before humans could prove that fact. Individuals cannot have "their own truth" but instead their own subjective interpretation of objective truth. If everything is relative to something else, then there can be no actual reality.
My point exactly. The shape of the Earth is a physical truth, independent of human opinions. Human opinion concerning the shape of the Earth has changed over time. The truth of the shape of the Earth has not changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
"Postmodernism" regards all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims as equally valid, but if morality is subjective and everyone sets their own rules of right and wrong then chaos would ensue as one person's values clash with someone else's. Is the act of torturing and murdering babies for fun ever "right" in certain circumstances? We would all agree this would be wrong in all circumstances, and this seems to be universally true in all cultures throughout history.

While it is my opinion that murdering babies is unacceptable under any circumstance, this is not exactly a universal truth. According to the Bible, disemboweling and decapitating children and babies is right and necessary under certain circumstances.

Numbers 31
[15] And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
[16] Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
[17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
[18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Joshua 6
[20] So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
[21] And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.


Joshua 11:
19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, [/b]as the Lord had commanded Moses.[/b]

Ezekiel 9
[4] And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
[5] And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
[6] Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
[7] And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

Samuel 1 15:
[2] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.


Other examples of the wanton murder of children and babies throughout history exist, including Christian history.

The massacre of the Waldensians by soldiers of the Pope which occurred in 1655, for example:

"Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

Was the massacre of the Waldensians right or wrong? The massacre of the Waldensians was an EVENT. Concluding ot to be either right or wrong is AN OPINION.

So where might we find an absolute standard of "objective truth" that we might regard as beyond dispute? In the Bible? Clearly not. In Christianity? Clearly not. Because there is no such "absolute standard of morality." The best we can do is attempt to come together in mass, condemn such events, outlaw them, and vow (make laws) promising to bring any such perpetrators to justice.


Wikipedia
Genocide convention
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 as General Assembly Resolution 260. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

Senate Ratifies Treaty That Outlaws Genocide - Los Angeles Times
Feb 20, 1986

- The Senate, overcoming almost four decades of opposition from conservatives, voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to ratify a post-World War II declaring genocide to be a crime.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...800-story.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 12:51 PM
 
40,539 posts, read 27,058,863 times
Reputation: 6102
Thank you, Mensaguy & MQ. I am enjoying this thread immensely. I am refraining from posting in it for fear of having it closed, but it is quite interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top