Big Bang

Requim
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Big Bang

You can not simply say you do not believe God created the world and not give a reason. What do you believe? Try me.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum.Requim

Welcome to the forum.

Requim wrote:

You can not simply say you do not believe God created the world and not give a reason.

I have a reason. Not enough evidence.

Requim wrote:
What do you believe?
 

As in, what do I believe in general?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Requim
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Truth

Thats not a reason. Is there more evidence for something else? I mean what do you believe about the creation of the earth, as indicated by my previous statement and the title Big Bang. Why do you believe it?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:Thats not a

Requim wrote:

Thats not a reason.

Yes it is, unless you're changing the definition of reason. That's the most rational reason to not accept any positive claim.

Requim wrote:
Is there more evidence for something else?

About the origin of the universe? I don't know how the universe came to be.

Requim wrote:
I mean what do you believe about the creation of the earth,

Planets are usually formed as clouds of dust and gas collect together via gravity.

Requim wrote:
as indicated by my previous statement and the title Big Bang.

The Earth was not created in the Big Bang.

Requim wrote:
Why do you believe it?

Objects with mass attract each other.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2397
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:Thats not a

Requim wrote:

Thats not a reason. Is there more evidence for something else? I mean what do you believe about the creation of the earth, as indicated by my previous statement and the title Big Bang. Why do you believe it?

 

 

                       It is the best answer science and rational thinking can give us.  For now.  The beauty of science is that it keeps looking for answers; to reinforce the answers we have or to find new answers. What do you believe?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Requim wrote:Thats not a

Requim wrote:

Thats not a reason. Is there more evidence for something else? I mean what do you believe about the creation of the earth, as indicated by my previous statement and the title Big Bang. Why do you believe it?

There is no evidence whatever for a God as creator of the Universe.

There is no evidence that the Universe could not have emerged from purely natural physical processes. According to Stephen Hawking, it is quite unnecessary to posit a 'God' as creator.

There is no explanation for where a God came from.

There is no logical reason why whatever initiated the 'Big Bang' had to be either infinite or conscious.

We cannot prove that some kind of conscious entity was involved, but that idea just adds an unnecessary complication, something extra to be explained, so it does not actually provide any ultimate explanation.

There could have been a whole troup of God-like entities involved. They could have been Satanic. There is no evidence for any of them. They could have been created by some higher being again. Once you start proposing things like this, there are an infinite number of 'possible' scenarios.

You need some actual positive empirical evidence that something resembling your particular concept of God is more likely than all these alternatives, or than a simple quantum-scale energy fluctuation.

EDIT: For what happened after the Big Bang, we have far more evidence for the scientific scenario than what is in any religious texts.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Requim
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-01-31
User is offlineOffline
There is no explanation for

There is no explanation for where the clouds of gas came from either. Were those always there? Where did they come from? Let me ask you this. You go for a walk in the woods, and you come across a buetiful and intricate statue carved in to a cliffside. What do you think? You either think: "Wow. Thats amazing. I wonder who made that? They did good." or: "Wow. Look at that random asortments of rock. That must have been carved there over thousands of years! What a coincedence that it was arranged into that exact size and shape! One in a million!" I would guess the first one because thats the one that makes sense. Thats the one thats resonable. Name one case in science that chaos comes directly out of chaos. Something cannot come from nothing. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. THAT is against scientific reason. Fact: from an outside cosmic sense the sciencetists view of billions of years can be compressed into 7 days due to the expansion of the universe since its creation. No offense to Hawkins, but it is quite nessacary to do so since there is no better explanation.


Requim
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Truth

So what if it makes things more complicated if I claim there's a God? Do we stop studying physics when it gets to complicated? Do we stop trying to make a new fuel source when it gets to complicated?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:You can not

Requim wrote:

You can not simply say you do not believe God created the world and not give a reason. What do you believe? Try me.

Yes I can, watch me, " I do not believe that your God or ANY for that matter created the world"

You want a reason?

Does a raindrop have to think about gravity to fall? Is gravity a god? Is lighting made by Thor?

If you can accept that a raindrop is the cause of weather conditions and is not caused by a thought, but by a climate in natural processes, why would the universe have to have "thought" to start it either?

You want another reason?

Humans have always had a history of making shit up and falsely believing it to be fact. That is a much more simplistic and realistic explanation of mundane human behavior than an actual comic book super hero being real.

Maybe YOU fail to consider that there is no cosmic comic book super hero with magical super powers and a simple non-cognitive "what" being a natural process is all there is.

Why do you feel the need to insert a "who" when one is not required? Would you buy the argument for a God you made here if someone other than you were making the same argument for their god and not yours?

OR maybe humans make up gods and they are nothing but anthropomorphic fancies of mundane human imagination.

Your argument is based on the emotional appeal of "isn't life pretty and isn't the size of this big?"

Some of life is very pretty, a kitten, a flower, a loved one's hug. But there is also the nasty side of nature, such as cancer, ecoli, anthrax, tsunamis. Not to mention the cosmos is full of things that could wipe us out in the blink of an eye, like a meteor, or comet, or exploding sun.

Your problem is that you are allowing your sense of awe to be filled in with a superstitious answer. I can find the good in life without a fictional super hero. I also accept the bad in life without a fictional super villain.

You might find that prospect depressing, I dont. I cant get upset over the natural world I ultimately cant control. All I can do is live and do the best I can here and now. Life after I die will be exactly like it was before I was born. Just like the universe will continue long after our own sun dies. Accepting reality doesn't make me negative, it just means I don't ignore it.

All god claims will die when our species goes extinct because there will be no future generation to sell the myth to. Macbeth act 5 scene 5 says it best about the nature of reality, "full of sound and furry, signifying nothing".

Knowing that the fire works display will end, or that the movie will end, or that the football game will end doesn't take away my ability to appreciate both the good and bad outcome might happen in those events. It simply means I don't invent comic book super heros or super villains to explain them.

You accept that Thor doesn't make lighting, so just take it one step further and apply that same logic to your own pet god.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:So what if it

Requim wrote:

So what if it makes things more complicated if I claim there's a God? Do we stop studying physics when it gets to complicated? Do we stop trying to make a new fuel source when it gets to complicated?

Occam's Razor - the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions is most likely correct.

"Magic Man (or as you call him, God) Done it" isn't even close

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Requim
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Truth

Oh boy. Your calling me a hypocrit seems to have made you a hypocrit. What happens if I think your making shit up when you claim that humans make shit up. What happens then? Oh. Your statemement self distructs. I'm not stunned by the beauty of the universe I am struck by the order. Morals could not have come from nothing. Feeling could not have come from nothing. The only thing that comes from nothing is nothing. Something always comes from something name a time in science when it doesn't. Life comes from life. Life does not come from death. Its what happens. Its what is true, resonable, and sensable.

P.S. In the future please realize we are argueing the most basic of aruements here. Is it more resonable for a competent creator to have created the universe or any of the number of sciencetific theories.

P.S.S. I can shout religion has more evidence too. But if I don't state any evidence it really doesn't prove anything.


Requim
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Truth

No offense too him but William of Ockham can say whatever he wants. I would like actual facts please. Examples. Proven data.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Requim wrote:There is no

Requim wrote:

There is no explanation for where the clouds of gas came from either. Were those always there? Where did they come from? Let me ask you this. You go for a walk in the woods, and you come across a buetiful and intricate statue carved in to a cliffside. What do you think? You either think: "Wow. Thats amazing. I wonder who made that? They did good." or: "Wow. Look at that random asortments of rock. That must have been carved there over thousands of years! What a coincedence that it was arranged into that exact size and shape! One in a million!" I would guess the first one because thats the one that makes sense. Thats the one thats resonable. Name one case in science that chaos comes directly out of chaos. Something cannot come from nothing. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. THAT is against scientific reason. Fact: from an outside cosmic sense the sciencetists view of billions of years can be compressed into 7 days due to the expansion of the universe since its creation. No offense to Hawkins, but it is quite nessacary to do so since there is no better explanation.

We do have explanations for where the clouds of gas came from, you are simply ignorant there.

The whole progression from very shortly after the Big Bang is pretty well covered.

Some modern 'works of art are very similar to random collections of natural materials. Intricately shaped representations of the human form or other very recognizable specific objects would obviously most likely be the result of a conscious carver. So? Life-forms themselves can reproduce, unlike statues, which means they can emerge by natural evolution, if that's where you were going.

The Earth and the Universe and general are pretty chaotic.

Chaos classically comes initially from non-linear deterministic feed-back processes. There is much scientific study of such processes, often popularly symbolized by "The Butterfly Effect".

Chaos can most certainly cause further chaos.

There is no evidence that there ever was literally nothing. In any case, positing a God does not get around that question.

The Big Bang does not require that the net quantity of matter + energy changed - gravitational potential energy only makes sense as a negative energy, so there is solid science that the total energy /matter equivalent of the BB is zero. IOW, E + -E = 0.

An arbitrary supernatural 'explanation' is not a real explanation. We do have plausible scenarios, broadly consistent with modern science, for what may have preceded the Big Bang, whereas the Genesis story is wildly in conflict with modern understanding, so in no way can it be considered a better explanation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:There is no

Requim wrote:

There is no explanation for where the clouds of gas came from either. Were those always there? Where did they come from?

 

You know, I have always wondered about the sanity of people who make this argument. You have such a hard time imagining that a cloud material has simply always existed but then turn around and quickly believe that an invisible, all powerful god has always existed. What is more likely? A gas cloud simply existing, or an intelligent invisible being that can build universes simply existing?

 

 

Requim wrote:

You go for a walk in the woods, and you come across a buetiful and intricate statue carved in to a cliffside. What do you think? You either think: "Wow. Thats amazing. I wonder who made that? They did good." or: "Wow. Look at that random asortments of rock. That must have been carved there over thousands of years! What a coincedence that it was arranged into that exact size and shape! One in a million!" I would guess the first one because thats the one that makes sense. 

Your analogy might hold up if the planet was intricately designed. As it is, pretty much everything on the planet is haphazard and things that are not were designed by us or animals that we can identify. Go for a walk in the woods, you will see millions of beautiful designs, but they are all haphazard. Considering God is so powerful, I would think that he could make something obvious that would last but alas, apparently the Egyptian Pharaohs were more powerful than god, their Pyramids still stand as a testament to their existence. I have traveled to a lot of mountains and climbed up many of them but I have not seen one as intricately or purposefully designed like the pyramids were. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote: . I'm not

Requim wrote:

 . I'm not stunned by the beauty of the universe I am struck by the order.

Define what you mean exactly by order ?

Requim wrote:

Morals could not have come from nothing. Feeling could not have come from nothing.

 It did not come from nothing. It came from evolution, billions of years of it to be exact.

Requim wrote:

The only thing that comes from nothing is nothing. Something always comes from something name a time in science when it doesn't. Life comes from life. Life does not come from death. Its what happens. Its what is true, resonable, and sensable.

If everything and anything has to come from somewhere, where does god come from ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:No offense too

Requim wrote:

No offense too him but William of Ockham can say whatever he wants. I would like actual facts please. Examples. Proven data.

Yet there are no facts or proven data that support the notion of god.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Form and structure and order

Form and structure and order can indeed come from absence of such.

Even the basic particles of matter can come from nothing, as long as they appear in complementary pairs, which can recombine and cancel each other out (see 'virtual particle pairs').

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:So what if it

Requim wrote:

So what if it makes things more complicated if I claim there's a God? Do we stop studying physics when it gets to complicated? Do we stop trying to make a new fuel source when it gets to complicated?

You can claim anything that you wish, it simply does not mean that it is true. I can claim that the universe seems complex because we are all designed by aliens from another planet that do not want us to learn too much outside of our testing lab : The Earth.   Are you going to buy that claim ? Why not ?

Actually, complexity exists in many things, but the root beginnings of them were quite simple. Take the beginnings of evolution for example.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:You can not

Requim wrote:

You can not simply say you do not believe God created the world and not give a reason. What do you believe? Try me.

You simply can not say that you believe god is the cause of everything without giving me a reason why. Why do you believe it has to be all designed by a god ? Try me .

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Requim
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Truth

I have yet to see a better reason. We are using the same arguements here. I am using your logic to show yours to be false while you tell me off for using your logic. Everytime I try to prove God by your logic you tell me it makes no sense. You are telling me that your logic makes no sense.


Alexicov
Alexicov's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-11-04
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:There is no

Requim wrote:

There is no explanation for where the clouds of gas came from either.

Yes there is, they come from supernova. We can see molecular clouds around supernova everywhere. They confirm and amplify our models, including what we know about their composition, temperature, etc, etc. 

You see, you doubt all of science that goes against your biblical perspective, even if it is completely consistent with the laws of conservation of energy.
Mind you scientists don't know where the universe came from. In fact, you are begging the question by asking "How did the universe start". You are assuming it had a beginning. Modern science makes no such assumption, it only knows that it existed a fraction of a second after the big bang.

It is YOUR assumption that needs to be shaved by Occam, not our.

Best, 
An Astrophysicist.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:I have yet to

Requim wrote:

I have yet to see a better reason. We are using the same arguements here. I am using your logic to show yours to be false while you tell me off for using your logic. Everytime I try to prove God by your logic you tell me it makes no sense. You are telling me that your logic makes no sense.

 

You have made absolutely no attempt to prove God through logic unless you have another thread going somewhere. I just reviewed all the posts you have made and you have pretty much said "God exists prove to me there is evidence otherwise." You have not addressed any of the direct arguments to your points, the evidence presented that some creator was not required, and you have completely ignored direct questions. So if you have an argument, make it.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Alexicov
Alexicov's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-11-04
User is offlineOffline
Reality isn't about what is reasonable

 

requiem wrote:
 Is it more resonable for a competent creator to have created the universe or any of the number of sciencetific theories.

You see, that's a statement of opinion. What you find reasonable doesn't mean it's a description of reality.
I've studied enough quantum mechanics to tell you that IT isn't reasonable. A particle being in two places at the same time, particles acting like waves and vice versa, uncertainty principle, measurement effect, etc, etc.

All those theories have been proven in the lab, and are an accurate way to describe the miniature world. If they were false, the computer you're reading this on wouldn't work.

Even though they seem unreasonable to you, doesn't mean they are true and vice versa.

 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote: Let me ask

Requim wrote:

 Let me ask you this.

No, ppplease, your not going to do it, please dont parrot the bankrupt "look at the mountians, there so pretty and intricate, you wouldn't suspect a statue to have no sculptor" argument for bafoons.

Requim wrote:

You go for a walk in the woods,

 

OMFG here we go...

Requim wrote:

and you come across a buetiful and intricate statue carved in to a cliffside.

Oh for F**K sakes

Requim wrote:

What do you think? You either think: "Wow. Thats amazing. I wonder who made that? They did good." or: "Wow. Look at that random asortments of rock. That must have been carved there over thousands of years! What a coincedence that it was arranged into that exact size and shape! One in a million!"

This is the biggest load of crap.  This is one of the top theistic arguments that annoys me the most, not for any particular intellectual reason it is just as retarded as some others, but because my mom used this crap to indoctrinate me as child (0-8).  It makes me cringe the level of stupidity and religious dellusion is needed to ACTUALLY say this crap and think it makes good sense, to think your coming off intelligent, to think you are making any form of good argument.  I'm assuming in your church world, this kind of crap is considered good evidence, sickening.   She used to say "look at the trees, look at the mountains, look at the earth, they are so beutiful so intricate, they appear designed, from this we can be sure god exists,"  and "a painting has a painter, and house has a builder, logically the universe has a creator" you know the old Ray Comfort smart as a doberman special.  By 9 years old I had come to my senses on the logic in this crap.  It was very sad when I realised I was smarter and more rational than my mother at 9.   Do you seriously not understand why these are such stupid things to say?  You really don't? 

A)-The earth and universe is a poor design for life, ir is barely good enough, BARELY, if the sun farts were toast.

B)-The way planets, the mountains etc are formed is completey understood.

C)-You can contact the builder of any home, and the painter of any painting (alive anyway, if not...records!!!)

D)-Snow flakes do not have a designer yet they seem designed MUCH MORE THAN A MOUNTAIN

E)-Scultures and rocks don't repreduce

I mean there are so many things wrong with this "things appear designed, sculture in the rocks" argument I cannot imagine how anyone can think it is solid in their own mind.  Truly low level thinking.

 

Seriosuly this sculpture in the mountain/tornado making a 747 jet=must be creator of all things argument, is so primitve it makes me gag this is as reasonable as some people can think (oh mommy).  We are dealing with a very average minded theist here guys, keep your words short and easy to understand. 

 

 

Requim wrote:

I would guess the first one because thats the one that makes sense. Thats the one thats resonable. Name one case in science that chaos comes directly out of chaos. Something cannot come from nothing. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. THAT is against scientific reason. Fact: from an outside cosmic sense the sciencetists view of billions of years can be compressed into 7 days due to the expansion of the universe since its creation. No offense to Hawkins, but it is quite nessacary to do so since there is no better explanation.

Seriously?  WOW???  We haven't had a brilliant one like this is a while.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:No offense too

Requim wrote:

No offense too him but William of Ockham can say whatever he wants. I would like actual facts please. Examples. Proven data.

None taken.

It would not be an equal exchange, however. Any facts I bring up would be matched by your nothing. Besides, too many others are giving you want. Piling on is a penalty.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Requim wrote:

 Let me ask you this.

No, ppplease, your not going to do it, please dont parrot the bankrupt "look at the mountians, there so pretty and intricate, you wouldn't suspect a statue to have no sculptor" argument for bafoons.

Requim wrote:

You go for a walk in the woods,

 

OMFG here we go...

Requim wrote:

and you come across a buetiful and intricate statue carved in to a cliffside.

Oh for F**K sakes

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

This is the biggest load of crap.  

 Hawkins, but it is quite nessacary to do so since there is no better explanation.

Seriously?  WOW???  We haven't had a brilliant one like this is a while.

ROFLMAO. That was great  No More Crazy People. I almost sprayed my keyboard with coffee reading that one.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:I have yet to

Requim wrote:

I have yet to see a better reason. We are using the same arguements here. I am using your logic to show yours to be false while you tell me off for using your logic. Everytime I try to prove God by your logic you tell me it makes no sense. You are telling me that your logic makes no sense.

How have you shown mine to be false ? No we are NOT using the same argument here. Your making assertions. How have you tried to PROVE god by my logic ? Where have I told you that my logic makes no sense ?

Please point out specific examples of everything you have stated above because I am not seeing them anywhere.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:There is no

Requim wrote:
There is no explanation for where the clouds of gas came from either. Were those always there? Where did they come from?

Everything after the Big Bang is fairly well covered. You are simply ignorant. Go wiki or google your 2 million random, irrelevant science questions.

Even if we knew absolutely nothing about the universe, you would still have no evidence for God. We are not going to explain every little in the entire universe just so you can parrot your argument from ignorance.

Requim wrote:
Let me ask you this. You go for a walk in the woods, and you come across a buetiful and intricate statue carved in to a cliffside. What do you think? You either think: "Wow. Thats amazing. I wonder who made that? They did good."

How do they know someone made it?

Requim wrote:
or: "Wow. Look at that random asortments of rock.

Reality is deterministic, not random.

Requim wrote:
That must have been carved there over thousands of years! What a coincedence that it was arranged into that exact size and shape!

The chance of that rock being some specific shape and size is 100%. Based on your logic, everything is a striking coincidence.

Requim wrote:
One in a million!"

Do you consider it to be miracle every time someone wins the lottery?

Requim wrote:
I would guess the first one because thats the one that makes sense. Thats the one thats resonable.

That's the one that's a naked assertion, an emotionally satisfying religious belief without any justification.

Requim wrote:
Name one case in science that chaos comes directly out of chaos. Something cannot come from nothing.

"Chaos" is an undefined, scientifically inept term.

The Big Bang does not assert that "something" comes from "nothing." That is a strawman used by the simple-minded to ridicule what they don't understand.

Requim wrote:
Fact: from an outside cosmic sense the sciencetists view of billions of years can be compressed into 7 days due to the expansion of the universe since its creation.

Introducing a naked assertion with "Fact:" doesn't make it a fact.

Requim wrote:
No offense to Hawkins,

Stephen Hawking?

Requim wrote:
but it is quite nessacary to do so since there is no better explanation.

There is a better explanation.

Lack of an alternative explanation doesn't mean God did it. That is an argument from ignorance.   

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:So what if it

Requim wrote:
So what if it makes things more complicated if I claim there's a God? Do we stop studying physics when it gets to complicated? Do we stop trying to make a new fuel source when it gets to complicated?

It is not about the amount of work or studying you have to do into the subject; it is about assessing the veracity of explanations, recommending those which make the least unnecessary assumptions. Occam's Razor.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote: Name one case

butterbattle wrote:
Requim wrote:

Name one case in science that chaos comes directly out of chaos. Something cannot come from nothing.

"Chaos" is an undefined, scientifically inept term.

The Big Bang does not assert that "something" comes from "nothing." That is a strawman used by the simple-minded to ridicule what they don't understand.

And I would like to add that it is not only a strawman used by the simple-mided to ridicule what they don't understand, it is ironically exactly what the simple minded theist is positing happened, that "god" made something out of nothing.  That "god" made all the matter and energy in the universe appear from nothing, poof, like magic.   It's fucking hillarious to me that no matter how many theists you explain this to, there just seems to be a larger sea of complete idiots coming around the mountain with their "get a brain morans" signs shouting "something can't come from nothing, something can't come from nothing."  Bwahahaha

Do you not see how deliciously ironic it is req?  You claim that someone is asserting something came from nothing, when no one is except for the dellusional theist.  Do you not see how bankrupt your statement is?  As far as we know pal, "nothing" might not even be possible.  Not knowing forsure doesn't =  god.  I'm sorry but after reviewing all of your posts here, I'm going to have to say you are one of the most simple minded and dimwitted theists we've had through here in a while, it's really not looking good for you.  Your just saying the same old crap, bbboring. You should have tea with my mom, you can discuss how there are no "transitional" fossils, how mountains make you feel, and how evolution is a global conspiracy.  I would call that a dinner for shmucks.

 

Thanks for coming out.     


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:Thats (lack of

Requim wrote:

Thats (lack of evidence) not a reason.

 

Sure it is.  Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  Same reason, lack of evidence.

Apply Bayes' Theorem and you'll find that lack of evidence is evidence of a lack.  We are lacking evidence for God's existence where there should be evidence.  This is evidence against God's existence.  The same holds for the FSM, Zeus, Ra, pixies, etc.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:There is no

Requim wrote:

There is no explanation for where the clouds of gas came from either. Were those always there? Where did they come from? Let me ask you this. You go for a walk in the woods, and you come across a buetiful and intricate statue carved in to a cliffside. What do you think? You either think:  or: "Wow. Look at that random asortments of rock. That must have been carved there over thousands of years! What a coincedence that it was arranged into that exact size and shape! One in a million!"

Consider the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast:

"Wow. Thats amazing. I wonder who made that? They did good."

Requim wrote:

I would guess the first one because thats the one that makes sense. Thats the one thats resonable. Name one case in science that chaos comes directly out of chaos. Something cannot come from nothing. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. THAT is against scientific reason. Fact: from an outside cosmic sense the sciencetists view of billions of years can be compressed into 7 days due to the expansion of the universe since its creation. No offense to Hawkins, but it is quite nessacary to do so since there is no better explanation.

You should probably do a fact check to and read up on zero point energy etc. and read about time dilation and singularities too...


 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:Thats not a

Requim wrote:

Thats not a reason. Is there more evidence for something else? I mean what do you believe about the creation of the earth, as indicated by my previous statement and the title Big Bang. Why do you believe it?

Not believing something because there is no evidence for is a good reason not to believe something...

And not having evidence for something does not make something else with no evidence more true....

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Requim wrote:I have yet to

Requim wrote:

I have yet to see a better reason. We are using the same arguements here. I am using your logic to show yours to be false while you tell me off for using your logic. Everytime I try to prove God by your logic you tell me it makes no sense. You are telling me that your logic makes no sense.

We are blasting you for using our logic because we know you cant do it.

I am quite sure a pesky hospital gown in a hospital lab where scientist could poke your invisible magical sky daddy shouldn't be a problem. According to you he "poof" suddenly made all this. Surely a simple visit to a lab shouldn't be a problem for an all powerful being?

What you are doing is this:

Naked assertion<=made up formula, or formula used to retrofit to myth<=desired outcome

Here is how good logic works.

Established data=plugged into established formula=projected outcome independent of personal bias

Of course you have to TRY to use our logic and mimic us because the old ways of bible quoting have been established as circular reasoning. Just like you would rightfully see quoting the Koran by a Muslim as circular reasoning.

The problem is that you are trying to stick a myth into modern scientific method. If it doesn't work for believers in Allah or Vishnu or Yahweh, what makes you think plugging your god into modern scientific method will work either?

You have as much chance of convincing us of your god with modern methods as the believers in Thor could convince us that Thor exists by pointing at lightening.

THOUGHTS require a material process to exist. There never was or will be an example of a thought arising out of a non material process, much less one with magical super powers.

YOU claim otherwise. Fine, go work on collecting empirical established, independently tested universal data, set up a model to test this data, then hand it over to independent peer review for independent testing. WHEN you can do that, I am sure you will get a Nobel Prize in science.

So unless your sky daddy wants to show himself now in a lab where we can poke and prod him and take samples, I'd say you have a shitload of homework to do. But don't expect us to do it for you.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Wow Requim = logic fail

Wow... so much fail in your posts Requim (I'm going to have such a hard time intentionally misspelling requiEm each time for your name...) in such little time. I'm actually impressed. Usually (there are exceptions, like hopefully former RSSLand creotroll Mind over Matter) it takes people much longer to make so many stupid assumptions. Not you though, apparently.

Requim wrote:
Let me ask you this. You go for a walk in the woods, and you come across a buetiful and intricate statue carved in to a cliffside. What do you think? You either think: "Wow. Thats amazing. I wonder who made that? They did good." or: "Wow. Look at that random asortments of rock. That must have been carved there over thousands of years! What a coincedence that it was arranged into that exact size and shape! One in a million!"

You creationists always use something (a statue in this instance) that we only ever see made by humans, claim it's just there, then claim that we would assume it just happened by chance. Sorry pal, but that's stupid. It just shows you don't understand biological evolution or atheists. If I saw a statue in the middle of the woods, I would assume that a human had carved it at one time, no need to leap to something which we have no evidence even exists. Now, when we look at things like mountains or trees, unlike things which we know are only made by humans, your analogy falls flat on it's idiotic face. Because that's what you're really talking about, not something we both know are only created by humans like a statue, but things created by natural processes which you are claiming was created by some invisible sky daddy like the universe.

Requim wrote:
Fact: from an outside cosmic sense the sciencetists view of billions of years can be compressed into 7 days due to the expansion of the universe since its creation. No offense to Hawkins, but it is quite nessacary to do so since there is no better explanation.

So now you're smarter then Hawking? I don't think so Mr. Delusions of Grandeur! And just because you don't know any better explanations doesn't mean they are not out there, or are you now the smartest person in the universe?

Requim wrote:
So what if it makes things more complicated if I claim there's a God?

The problem isn't that it's more complicated in itself, since there are many complicated explanations for natural processes we have found. It's that no one has been able to answer any of the problems brought up by some cosmic conscious power existing and creating everything, like where it came from, how it is so powerful, etc.

Requim wrote:
Oh boy. Your calling me a hypocrit seems to have made you a hypocrit. What happens if I think your making shit up when you claim that humans make shit up. What happens then? Oh. Your statemement self distructs.

So you think that his argument (that humans make shit up) somehow self destructs because you think he's making shit up  And you don't see how that would prove his point? Wow... just wow...

Requim wrote:
Morals could not have come from nothing.

No, they came from social life forms evolving over billions of years, developing skills to better work together and strengthen group cohesion. Sorry, no cosmic invisible sky daddy required.

Requim wrote:
Feeling could not have come from nothing.

No, it comes from brains sending electrical signals throughout their neural network and throughout their body. Again, no invisible sky daddy required.

Requim wrote:
The only thing that comes from nothing is nothing. Something always comes from something name a time in science when it doesn't. Life comes from life. Life does not come from death. Its what happens. Its what is true, resonable, and sensable.

Ok then, where did your god come from? Remember that according to you, something can never come from nothing. And you do think that your god is a something right? And if you think that this god of yours has always been there, then why couldn't the universe have always been here. Your god is just another level of complexity that isn't necessary and can't be explained, which is where Occam's razor comes in.

Requim wrote:
P.S.S. I can shout religion has more evidence too. But if I don't state any evidence it really doesn't prove anything.

This one is really funny! You could shout that, but you would be wrong. And which religion I wonder? What a surprise! It's the one you happen to believe in. What a coincidence!

Sorry buddy, but evidence has been listed and you just haven't been reading! But if you want more, you should start at http://www.talkorigins.org/ and you can go from there.

Requim wrote:
We are using the same arguements here.

No we are not, unless you happen to be arguing that deities have no evidence behind them or that we have been using horrible analogies that don't make sense.

Requim wrote:
I am using your logic to show yours to be false while you tell me off for using your logic. Everytime I try to prove God by your logic you tell me it makes no sense. You are telling me that your logic makes no sense.

No dude, you are not using logic, period. Obviously you have never taken a logic course or read a book on logic because if you had, your arguments would take a much different form. I have dealt with creationists that have been trained in logic (not many though, since they have to fight tooth and claw to protect their delusions from their own mind at that point) and your arguments don't even hold a candle to theirs.

You have no evidence for your claims Requim or you wouldn't be using horrible analogies (a statue was created by something with a mind so a mountain must have been too!) and your "I can't think of any better explanation" kind of statements. Stick around, you might learn a thing or two about ACTUAL scientific reality and not the load of crap fed to you throughout your life. Or you might just troll...

Either way, all you have been able to prove here is that creationism has no intellectual foundation and survives solely in the minds of people ignorant of scientific evidence about the universe we find ourselves in. If you think "your" (already made many times) "arguments" (if you can call them that) have made any converts, you are even less intelligent then your posts have already made you look!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Does anyone realize how

 Does anyone realize how little intellectual energy was spent to rally us all?  I mean, he has postulated the intellectual equivalent of a Shard (when you intend to fart but end up shitting yourself) and we all respond as if he were an equal.  My knee jerk reaction is to respond to these comments but something holds me back.  I don't think he would understand any response that I can coherently conceive.  I'm a firm believer in balancing the playing field.

For that reason I propose an experiment.  Since said experiment involves drinking wine, I will volunteer myself as the subject.  I have consumed two glasses of wine, my IQ should be about 40 point below normal (yes it goes in the negatives, hardy har har)... When my wife straps a helmet on me to prevent me from licking the window on the short bus I will prepare my response and present it as an equal.  Perhaps we will establish communication (understand eachother) because all we're doing now is wasting valuable energy on someone that hasn't the intelligence god gave a wooden post. (Invoked gods name -10 more IQ points, this experiment is doing 'good')

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
ktulu

The only reason I respond to things like this is on one hand, the hope that the person I am responding to will actually read the arguments and links I give and take a moment to think about the issue and, on the other hand, anyone who may be on the fence just happens to read it and then causes more think about the subject.

I usually have little hope for the person I'm talking to, especially when they make these kinds of posts, so it's more for any undecided people who see it.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to start with your

I'm going to start with your opening post, and demonstrate the incredible amount of errors you made.

Requim wrote:

You can not simply say....

False.

Individuals can do as they please.

Mind your manners.

Requim wrote:

You can not simply say you do not believe God...

Your flaw here is that you've gotten too far ahead of yourself.

1- You presume a supernatural godlike figure exists, that transcends time and the laws that pattern our universe.

2- You haven't yet understood that what you presume is only a theory that arises from legend and folklore.

3- Despite 1 and 2, you are willing to proceed with a weak presupposition, based merely on conjecture.

4- Despite 3, you are willing to make a quantum leap even further, and assert that this fantastic legend is an absolute, unequivocal reality, and created the universe, all the matter in it, and established a pattern of laws that govern the energy and matter occupying it, in a predictable manner, and chose to create decay and instability.

Requim wrote:

You can not simply say you do not believe God created the world and not give a reason. 

Your assertion here is completely false.

Being absolutely convinced of a trandscendent godlike figure being the absolute origin of our universe, without anything more than conjecture, legend and folklore, mixed with circular reasoning, are only possible by a conscious effort to avoid 'reason'.

Requim wrote:

What do you believe?

That's the common mistake that's made too often.

Presuming that because you presume one thing, another individual must be bound by 1 of only 2 options.

1- Presume what you do.

2- Presume something different.

This is an insidious rhetorical device, that creates the illusion that only 2 options are possible to a given scenario.

 

In my case, the answer to your question is:

3- I don't presume anything in regards to the origins of the universe and life.

I haven't had the need to reconcile it.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:In my case, the

redneF wrote:

In my case, the answer to your question is:

3- I don't presume anything in regards to the origins of the universe and life.

I haven't had the need to reconcile it.

 

I admire your pacifistic views on the universe, but the fact still stands that the universe likely has an origin as we understand it (well at least time does).  Life ( as we understand it) just kind of follows as soon as the first round of supernovae has created enough heavier elements to support it.  

You seem like an articulated individual, you must have some sort of a basic position regarding the origins of the universe.  Simply saying I haven't gotten around to it yet doesn't really give you the intellectual highround.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: I admire your

Ktulu wrote:

 I admire your pacifistic views on the universe, but the fact still stands that the universe likely has an origin as we understand it (well at least time does).  

I'm inclined to think that perhaps why the answers to the problem have been so elusive, is that the 'problem' itself is a false premise, greatly over simplified, and based on a grand assumption. That assumption being that 'there MUST be a point of origin, EVERYTHING has a starting point'.

Or 'Nothing can come from nothing'.

Those are assertions based on circular reasoning, although they seem completely logical, since they are compatible with our natural world.

What has been proven over and over in regards to humans, is that often, our very knowledge is what prevents us from uncovering undiscovered realities.

If we can hypothesize something, there's potential for it to be correct.

Which can lead us to posit that the universe and life did not come from 'nothing' since 'absolute and complete nothingness' potentially could not occur, or be possible. Therefore, there's potential that the universe always existed.

See what I mean?

You get an infinite loop of possibilities.

 

Ktulu wrote:
You seem like an articulated individual, you must have some sort of a basic position regarding the origins of the universe.  Simply saying I haven't gotten around to it yet doesn't really give you the intellectual highround.

I never stated, or implied I haven't gotten around to it. You've made an assumption.

I said I haven't had the need to reconcile it.

I have no idea about the origins of the wheel. I'm completely satisfied with it's mere existence.

My feelings about life and the universe are very similar.

It's actually difficult to articulate my 'feelings' on how life and the universe came to be, or evolved, or whatever.

I actually started a thread about it, http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/28761 because it seems I contrast most people in this regard. I don't have an insatiable curiousity in regards to the topic, and I don't have any 'intuitive' feelings on what the 'reality' of life and the universe is.

Maybe it's because I've learned too much for my mind to begin to even contemplate the vastness of the 'problem', and for any strong 'intuition' to have begun to develop.

IMO, the more we learn, the clearer it becomes how vast and difficult to comprehend, the realities of life and the universe are.

 

What theists propose as 'knowledge' of the origins of life and the universe, clearly demonstrate their lack of scientific understanding of the entire universe, and the vastness of the nonsensical nature of their claim.

You have to take into account what the Bell curve looked like, back then, and understand how easy it was to be intellectually superior, if people nodded in agreement with "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" "And God saw that it was good".

Oh ya, that's a profoundly brilliant explanation!

Thanks for clarifying life and the universe for me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT!

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Yea, it is an interesting

Yea, it is an interesting dilemma.

 

Regardless though, at some point the "law" of causality must be false.  Either something has existed forever, or something sprang into being from nothing.  We can speculate on is the origins of *our* universe though.  Unless one of the giant brains comes up with something novel, we're stuck with that basic problem no matter what.

 

The fallacy only enters when people assume that the answer to those problems *must* be some sort of conscious creator-deity.  That assumption is entirely without merit, and indeed makes the problem even more complex.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.