The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

I Am therefore I think.

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby chiselray » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:04 pm

humphreys wrote:
chiselray wrote:
Would you find it so absurd if I teased a grown adult for believing in Santa Claus?


No,because you already said its an absurd idea that santa is real..you know he isnt wasnt that what you said.


Sigh, you're still missing the point.

The fact I cannot DISPROVE God is no more telling than the fact I cannot DISPROVE Santa. That's it. It's a simple concept.


yes,i do know and realize this... ;)
I mentioned santa because you already claimed it was an absurd idea..ok yes ? haha
User avatar
chiselray
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: earth

Postby chiselray » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:24 pm

humphreys wrote:Something created it, yes, the Big Bang. We can prove black holes exist by indirect means, we cannot do the same for God.


The big bang is a theory,the best theory they have ,and that is all it actually is..But it may well be true,and if it is true ,then ask why it actually happened ? science cannot answer or has attempted to answer from where a singularity developed from..remember it is a singularity..it could not have come from a universe full of matter because that didnt exist inside absolutely nothing to begin with :!: why did it explode and from where did it come ?
And of course it contained all matter to begin with if the theory is correct..
So within an area of what we call the universe now ,there was nothing ,NOTHING ok.
So why did it contain everything when it actually had nothing to begin with ? Its easy enough to explain away a simple belief that life was the product of evolution following a big bang theory,without explaining with certain fact and knowledge exactly from where that matter came from.
Assuming it just happened to be there is not nearly enough to satisfy anyone ,that conclusion is shortsighted.
User avatar
chiselray
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: earth

Postby chiselray » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:32 pm

mael wrote:
I thought you left ? why did you come back ,thought your mind was made up ?


* I did.

* Because it's better now.

* I changed my mind.

The point was mael,if humpreys can not prove anything,then why tease those who have a faith, something that he may not know is there,is very possibly real,as possible as there may not be a god....


* Of course there's a God. It's the tangible universe as made aware to us by our senses.

btw
The onus of proof is not questioned to a faithful believer,he /she isnt required or compelled to change the ideas of an atheist ..


* Well that's a bit too imprecise to risk a comment on. - But on your last point about 'believers' not being required to change athiests' thinking you are certainly either wrong or you are restricting your list of applicable religions to those who claim the members aren't required to 'enlighten the flock.'


do they need to enlighten the flock?

How can anyone prove the non-existence of anything? And if someone believes something exists then the onus is on them to provide proof of its existence, surely?


why ? and how exactly does one do this..i never disagreed it could be proven..
User avatar
chiselray
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: earth

Postby humphreys » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:55 pm

chiselray wrote:
humphreys wrote:Something created it, yes, the Big Bang. We can prove black holes exist by indirect means, we cannot do the same for God.


The big bang is a theory,the best theory they have ,and that is all it actually is..


It is a theory, yes, but it isn't just a theory.

It is a theory going by these definitions:

"•a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world;"

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

We can be very confident that a Big Bang occurred, as all evidence points to this being the case. What caused the Big Bang, how, and why, is what is usually debated by both scientists and religious types alike.

chiselray wrote:But it may well be true,and if it is true ,then ask why it actually happened ? science cannot answer or has attempted to answer from where a singularity developed from..


I do not know the exact reason it happened, but scientists have come up with a number of competing hypotheses that are all very plausible.

chiselray wrote:remember it is a singularity..it could not have come from a universe full of matter because that didnt exist inside absolutely nothing to begin with :!:


The most popular theory right now is that it was one of probably many inflationary events spawned from within a realm we call the multiverse.

chiselray wrote:why did it explode and from where did it come ?


Again, there are lots of possibilities, I do not know which is correct, but my best guess is that before the Universe existed there were no rules, and no laws, so spectacular and unlikely events like matter coming into existence from nothing occurred constantly as there was nothing to prevent them. In a world with no laws, anything can happen. Again, that is my personal guess, and there are many other plausible explanations out there.

chiselray wrote:And of course it contained all matter to begin with if the theory is correct..So within an area of what we call the universe now ,there was nothing ,NOTHING ok.


There may have been nothing, but just as likely there was a permanent realm, or a vacuum from which matter could come into existence. Quantum Physics has already shown us that something can come from nothing at the quantum level, in a vacuum.

chiselray wrote:So why did it contain everything when it actually had nothing to begin with ? Its easy enough to explain away a simple belief that life was the product of evolution following a big bang theory,without explaining with certain fact and knowledge exactly from where that matter came from.
Assuming it just happened to be there is not nearly enough to satisfy anyone ,that conclusion is shortsighted.


You are trying to get an explanation of something that we do not have precise answers for, only plausible possibilities, but these are the options from the atheistic point of view:

1) The universe came into existence from nothing
2) The Universe, or the realm from which the big bang occurred, always existed, along with the necessary materials to spawn the Universe

The exact same applies to the God you believe in, either he came from nothing, or he always existed. You cannot act like God explains anything here that the no-God explanation fails to, or that the no-God explanation has problems the God explanation does not.

Why is it unsatisfactory to assume the materials for our Universe always existed, but it is satisfactory to assume your God always existed? Remember, the materials themselves are far less complex than your God, who must be complex enough to actually create the materials and the Universe itself. It seems infinitely simpler to me that mere materials existed, rather than an infintely complex being like an all-powerful deity who just happend to have always been there.

It actually makes even more sense to me to assume the creation of Universes and the materials to create them are natural repeatedly occurring events, in another permanent realm (the multiverse), that has no laws to govern what can and cannot potentially happen. We only think that getting something from nothing is impossible because that's what our particular Universe's laws have taught us, but that need not be the case in general, in other Universes or in the multiverse itself.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby chiselray » Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:15 pm

Why is it unsatisfactory to assume the materials for our Universe always existed, but it is satisfactory to assume your God always existed? Remember, the materials themselves are far less complex than your God, who must be complex enough to actually create the materials and the Universe itself. It seems infinitely simpler to me that mere materials existed, rather than an infintely complex being like an all-powerful deity who just happend to have always been there.

It actually makes even more sense to me to assume the creation of Universes and the materials to create them are natural repeatedly occurring events, in another permanent realm (the multiverse), that has no laws to govern what can and cannot potentially happen. We only think that getting something from nothing is impossible because that's what our particular Universe's laws have taught us, but that need not be the case in general, in other Universes or in the multiverse itself.



why is it satisfactory to assume matter always existed ? sort of jumping the que of explanation when it come to those kinds of non facts..Without explaining anything,lets just assume it..Thats Great science :lol:

Remember, the materials themselves are far less complex than your God, who must be complex enough to actually create the materials and the Universe itself. It seems infinitely simpler to me that mere materials existed, rather than an infintely complex being like an all-powerful deity who just happend to have always been there.


Maybe god is multidimentional and is as big as the universe..then it wouldnt be so hard would it..I believe he did say he was the BIG GUY after all...


It actually makes even more sense to me to assume the creation of Universes and the materials to create them are natural repeatedly occurring events, in another permanent realm (the multiverse), that has no laws to govern what can and cannot potentially happen. We only think that getting something from nothing is impossible because that's what our particular Universe's laws have taught us, but that need not be the case in general, in other Universes or in the multiverse itself.


yes another level of dimension.i do wonder if you think God is actually plausible from another dimensional plane ? is it even possible now.

if it has no laws to govern what happens ,then it stands to as much logical proof taht god could easily exist right there ...what are you thoughts on this ?

We only think that getting something from nothing is impossible because that's what our particular Universe's laws have taught us, but that need not be the case in general, in other Universes or in the multiverse itself.


No thats not what science teaches you,you are a believer in what you can see and prove remember?
So if you prefer to believe all that comes from this universe actually came from an area you cannot see or prove exists,then you must admit god may well plausible as well..Even though you have no proof right ?
User avatar
chiselray
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: earth

Postby humphreys » Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:29 pm

chiselray wrote:
Why is it unsatisfactory to assume the materials for our Universe always existed, but it is satisfactory to assume your God always existed? Remember, the materials themselves are far less complex than your God, who must be complex enough to actually create the materials and the Universe itself. It seems infinitely simpler to me that mere materials existed, rather than an infintely complex being like an all-powerful deity who just happend to have always been there.

It actually makes even more sense to me to assume the creation of Universes and the materials to create them are natural repeatedly occurring events, in another permanent realm (the multiverse), that has no laws to govern what can and cannot potentially happen. We only think that getting something from nothing is impossible because that's what our particular Universe's laws have taught us, but that need not be the case in general, in other Universes or in the multiverse itself.



why is it satisfactory to assume matter always existed ? sort of jumping the que of explanation when it come to those kinds of non facts..Without explaining anything,lets just assume it..Thats Great science :lol:


I stated what it made sense to me to assume, not what science or scientists assume. That is my personal opinion, I do not know either way, but it makes most sense to me.

chiselray wrote:yes another level of dimension.i do wonder if you think God is actually plausible from another dimensional plane ? is it even possible now.


If there is a multiverse where anything can happen, then yes, it is possible that God-like beings exist out there, some as Universes themselves, but we're just speculating, no one knows how the multiverse, if it exists, operates.

chiselray wrote:
We only think that getting something from nothing is impossible because that's what our particular Universe's laws have taught us, but that need not be the case in general, in other Universes or in the multiverse itself.


No thats not what science teaches you,you are a believer in what you can see and prove remember?


I only believe with confidence that which I can prove, or have strong evidence for yes, but I'm not telling you what I believe, I'm speculating on things that make logical sense to me, and that seem like good possibilties. There is a difference. We are speculating and hypothesising on things that no one has the answers for, and some possibilties seem more likely than others, and some make more sense than others, I do not actively profess strong belief in any of these ideas.

The point is, there are possible explanations for all of the problems you bring up with the no-God explanation. The something from nothing issue is not an unsolvable problem, and not something that bothers me as an atheist.

chiselray wrote:So if you prefer to believe all that comes from this universe actually came from an area you cannot see or prove exists,then you must admit god may well plausible as well..Even though you have no proof right ?


It is plausible/possible that there is a creator of some kind, sure, I have never stated otherwise. That does not make it likely, however, or suggest that belief in said creator, without evidence, is rational.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby Tairaa » Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:06 pm

There is substantial evidence to suggest that all of the galaxies that we observe had a shared point of origin, physically speaking.

Which is basically what the big bang states, a singularity began to rapidly expand, and that expansion still exists today. Physics is entirely compliant with the "big bang theory".

Stating that it's just a theory is indicative that you're not fully understanding what a scientific theory is. When someone says "My theory is...." that's not a scientific theory, that wouldn't even be a hypothesis, it would be an unsupported statement until it got evidence for it. In order for it to become a theory is has to match all available evidence and not be refuted by any evidence we have.
Edit:
Was supposed to post earlier but someone made a message before the time when I clicked reply and submit, so it got left for a bit. Humphreys has already basically said what I said.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby chiselray » Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:43 pm

kids :roll:

In order for it to become a theory is has to match all available evidence and not be refuted by any evidence we have



It may well be refuted down the track..it could certainly happen...certainly as it is right now it is a plausible theory that the BB is the reality of how the universe was created.But if new data comes into it,that may change..Earth flat then round eg eg eg so...lets all assume what we wish to believe in and see who is right in the next 600-whatever years.



When someone says "My theory is...." that's not a scientific theory,


Duhh ah yes...
User avatar
chiselray
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: earth

Postby Tairaa » Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:32 pm

It may well be refuted down the track..it could certainly happen...certainly as it is right now it is a plausible theory that the BB is the reality of how the universe was created.But if new data comes into it,that may change..


Yes, that is one of the fundamental beauties of science, it changes to give the most accurate representation of facts based on what we can see, experiment, repeat or at least observe. Unlike religion, which only changes when it HAS to in order for people to continue believing. No one would be a catholic if they still dictated that the world was flat.


Earth flat then round eg eg eg so...lets all assume what we wish to believe in and see who is right in the next 600-whatever years.


Perhaps! If I get the chance to copy my conciousness into a robot, I think I might just have to do it and live for a few hundred years. Given any unfortunate accidents that is, or lack of technology at my disposal. :)
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby sandra » Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:58 pm

chiselray wrote:kids :roll:

In order for it to become a theory is has to match all available evidence and not be refuted by any evidence we have



It may well be refuted down the track..it could certainly happen...certainly as it is right now it is a plausible theory that the BB is the reality of how the universe was created.But if new data comes into it,that may change..Earth flat then round eg eg eg so...lets all assume what we wish to believe in and see who is right in the next 600-whatever years.



When someone says "My theory is...." that's not a scientific theory,


Duhh ah yes...


I've tried to explain this many times over. Facts accepted today are subject to misinterpreted evidence, and many times are proven wrong, no different from someone with bellief in God, belief in God is subject to misinterpreted truth, revelations. Many things that are 'fact' now, never were. But belief in God there will always be.
“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great
astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”
“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s
memory works both ways.”
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
User avatar
sandra
 
Posts: 3702
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:27 pm
Location: Minnesota US

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests