I'm not uncharitable towards theists. I apologize if my comments came off that way.

I have nothing against most of them as people. A lot of them are arrogant and self-righteous. But not most. All that I do have against them is that most of them refuse to deal with the arguments against their worldviews.

I have nothing to say specifically about the creation of matter and energy from void. I don't even know how it came up. We were talking about god, then we were talking about evolution, which has nothing really to do with god, then we were talking about the origin of matter and energy, which has nothing to do with evolution.

Any "theory" which includes a deity is not scientific, not a theory, and not rational. It might be true, but it is not any of those other things.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. God-designed evolution, "naturally occurring" evolution, and unicorn fart-caused evolution are equally compatible with the theory of evolution.

There are scientific theories of abiogenesis. Needless to say, the "theories" of abiogenesis that involve a deity are not scientific, not theories, and not rational. They might be true, but they are not any of those other things.

The reason I can make the statements I made in the second and fourth paragraphs of this post is not that I have or claim some special knowledge about the universe, but because I have an understanding about what the words "scientific," "theory," and "rational" mean.

To say that the god-hypothesis is not rational or not scientific is not an insult to the god-hypothesis. It is merely a description. If I were to say that Abraham Lincoln was taller than James K. Polk, that's not an insult to Polk. If someone took it as an insult to Polk, it reveals that person's (not my) bias in favor of height. If someone takes the statement that the god-hypothesis is nonscientific and irrational as an insult to the god-hypothesis, it reveals that person's (not my) bias in favor of the scientific and the rational.

I have never answered the origin of the universe question with "I don't know, but I know it wasn't a Creator." I never would. It could have been a Creator. It could have been a unicorn fart. I don't know. I might say "I don't know, but I believe it wasn't a Creator," or better, "I don't know, but I don't believe it was a Creator." Is anything wrong with those? Most likely, if the question came up outside of the context of a discussion on theism/atheism, I would answer "I don't know." Is anything wrong with that?

P.U.!!!

Linus and Bob!

Get a room! Your Sex Juices are stinking up the place!

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Any "theory" which includes a deity is not scientific, not a theory, and not rational.

Still wrong. You are still trying to make current science speak on the subject of original matter,

I'm doing no such thing. I have nothing (scientific or nonscientific) to say about original matter. All I'm saying is that scientific explanations and god-explanations are, by their very nature, mutually exclusive. This is true. The truth of the statement does not depend on the state of "current science." The truth of the statement depends on the meaning of the term "scientific."

when you know it cannot.

I don't know any such thing. I don't have anything to say about the origins of matter and energy. I don't know why you're talking about it. What I do know about is that an explanation (about anything) cannot be both theistic and scientific. I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding this.

If this was a courtroom, you would be told by the judge to stop trying to prejudice the jury .

If this were a courtroom, what would be the case? Who would be the parties and what would be the claims and defenses? If a judge allowed you to say that a god-explanation isn't necessarily nonscience, I have a hard time seeing how that judge could stop me from pointing out that it is.

Especially if it was that judge from Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Earwicker wrote:I think you cannot look beyond the Judeo-Christian idea of 'God' that you condemn others for not being able to look beyond. And as such you get angry when people like me say 'there's more to it than that'.

I don't get angry anymore to be honest. I just makes me sad that people have such a lack off imagination - or maybe too much - that they reduce the universe to this "man sized" concept.

I'll take Carl Sagan over the Pope on any day of the week for inspiration and a real and genuine curiosity about the universe and our place in it. The real universe is a much more interesting and compelling narrative than anything, any religion can express. The myths of the human story, however fascinating and inspiring - or frightening and genocidal - are just that, myth. You are creating this idea of a god from nothing other than your imagination, you can beef it up as much as you like but it will always remain a purely mental exercise without the slighted foundation in universe as we currently understand it.

I'm not simply arguing against "God", neither do I hate etc. theists. It is simply God as a conscious being has no foundation in reality and as much as we can know anything not real, and no matter what you say, simply giving this God, or idea of God attributes that are beyond the pale is not an argument, for anything.

You say, "people like me say 'there's more to it than that'". I agree, and there certainly is more, much much more, possible than we will ever know about the universe, it's origins, the origin of life etc. But simply handing all of this knowledge to be discovered - if it even can be - over to God is sad and frankly, the worst kind of small mindedness.

You may well be happy with one possible answer being simply throwing your hands in the air and saying "God did it." But I and fortunately the serious scientists and philosophers of the world do not.

I'm still laughing at Bob's time-cube post, but this thread will continue to get better.

Bob, there was no "original matter" and nothing appeared out of a "void".

There was no "before". Just the same as days, weeks and seconds do not exist in the context of the universe as a whole, before and afterwards do no figure into the equation for shit that was as dense and energetic as what we have measured the 'young' universe to be like.

You cannot have "before" the universe, the same as you cannot have "left" of the universe or "above" the universe.

The dimension of time is a function of the universe and all that it is it, so it doesn't apply to anything outside of it.

A lot of physicists have argued that the "early" universe was very hot, very dense and very "curved" as a result. This would mean that time would get exponentially slower as you got further back before stopping completely at a singular point. Like a black hole.

That also gives us another good point. Tying the creator to the young universe doesn't really make any sort of logical sense. It is arbitrary, based on human psychology more than anything else. Creation of the supernatural sort might have happened a thousand years ago, a few seconds ago, or a few days in the future. All of these are as likely as creation during the young universe. Positioning the argument for creation there plugs your argument with defeatism from the get-go. It can only be shot down.

Space is curved. It doesn't have a beginning or and end. The passage of time is nothing more than a symptom of how our brains take in and react to our senses.

This is all stuff that we know, and can be measured.

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:Bob, there was no "original matter" and nothing appeared out of a "void".

Of course there was, you dopey troll. If there is current matter, there was original matter.

There is one argument within Physics that argues there was no beginning, therefore no need for a creator.

Food for thought.

Gramsci wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:Bob, there was no "original matter" and nothing appeared out of a "void".

Of course there was, you dopey troll. If there is current matter, there was original matter.

There is one argument within Physics that argues there was no beginning, therefore no need for a creator.

Food for thought.

I think anyone who subscribes to the "big bang" idea at this point concedes that there is no beginning and no end. Whether the universe gets "hotter" and condenses or just expands forever, there is no end involved either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_bac ... _radiation