big_dave wrote: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

Indeed, I'm of the opinion that the need for "beginning and end" has more to do with us than the universe. Possibly linked psychologically to our own birth and death... but I'm just guessing. I'm sure Evolutionary Psychology will get to grips with humanity and our myths as the science progresses.

Rick Reuben wrote:Hilarious. How many laws of physics will the atheists confidently ignore to avoid addressing the big gap at the start of their theory of evolution? Did today begin? Did what I am typing right now occur in a later timespace than the post I made five minutes ago?

And this creator of yours is exempt?

Bob, no need to attack me over this, I was just throwing an idea in the ring. I enjoy God-free science communicators like Carl Sagan et al. but I know little about physics. Unlike you Bob, I don't pretend to know everything about everything.

Rick Reuben wrote:

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

Hilarious. How many laws of physics will the atheists confidently ignore to avoid addressing the big gap at the start of their theory of evolution?

What.

Rick Reuben wrote:The case is the one you've been trying to prosecute for five pages: trying to convince a jury that a creator is not a rational theory for explaining original matter. The judge would throw the case out, because five seconds of research tells you that there is not enough evidence to reach a verdict.

Five seconds of research would get you the definition of "rational," which is not only evidence, but enough evidence for a directed verdict in my favor.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote: You are still trying to make current science speak on the subject of original matter, when you know it cannot.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I don't know any such thing.

If current science can explain original matter, make it do so.

Not my job. There are things science can explain that I don't know about. I don't know if this is one of them. Just because I can't explain something, doesn't mean science can't.

If you cannot, concede that all theories are in play.

All theories are in play. As are all non-theory explanations, like god.

Gramsci wrote:

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.

It's odd but I feel like you're the one reducing the scope of possibility.

Fair dos.

I know I'm treading in stale water, and I'm not certain what you mean by a 'man sized' concept, but I do know that modern physics has shown us that you cannot look at the universe without taking into account 'man' and his observation of it.

You just said you don't know much about physics. Go and read some. The theories expounded (by scientists) to explain observed phenomenon go pretty far out - including the suggestion that the universe contains a consciousness which is how things don't just fall apart.

Before you dismiss that go and read about it.

Gramsci wrote:The real universe is a much more interesting and compelling narrative than anything, any religion can express.

what religions express is part of that real universe. And what they express (and why they might be expressing it) is as interesting and compelling as the rest of nature.

You seem afraid of it.

Gramsci wrote: 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.

How come you're going on about 'the universe as we currently understand it' then saying you don't know much about physics?

As far as I understand it mental exercises (or mental processes) are a fundamental part of what anyone can say about the universe - from the most primitive hunter gatherer to the most sophisticated physicist smashing particles in mile long tubes.

Gramsci wrote: 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.

You should read some of those serious scientists before you start speaking on their behalf.

Rick Reuben wrote:Colonel Panic, not remembering what he posts. This happens a lot.

colonel panic wrote:It is true, but the people who come up with nonsense like "Intelligent Design" and "Creation Science" either can't differentiate between emotions and rational thought

If you can't explain the origins of matter or energy and if you concede that the theory of evolution is not meant to explain them, then why do you insist on referring to intelligent design as a 'non-scientific' theory? If you do not have the science to explain creation of energy and matter, then what makes you think that you get to decide what qualifies as a scientifically-sound theory for creation?

There is no scientifically-sound theory for creation. Such a "theory" is by definition unscientific. Science is not the business of proposing supernatural explanations for physical observations and "Intelligent Design" is not science. The term "Intelligent Design" is not used anywhere in academia or in professional scientific literature. In the scientific community, "Intelligent Design" is universally considered a fraud. It was in fact coined by fundamentalist Christians with the specific intention to couch religion in scientific-sounding terms in hopes of getting it taught in grade school science classes.

Allow me offer a brief history of "Intelligent Design". The term was initially proposed by Dr. Charles B. Thaxton of the Discovery Institute (a fundamentalist Christian "think tank" or political organization) to replace the terms "Creationism" and "Creation Science" because the concepts behind those terms had already been judged in Federal courts to be religion and not science, and therefore illegal to teach in public schools.

So the fundamentalist Christians, not being the most original of thinkers, just reused the same old trick, rebranding the Bible as science yet again with a new label. When prominent Christian citizens in Dover, Pennsylvania tried to coerce their school board to promote the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms, the teachers saw through the ploy and unanimously refused. Political pressure was applied to the school board, and the teachers were threatened with dismissal, leading to the Federal lawsuit of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

During the course of proceedings, evidence was presented that "Intelligent Design" was not a real scientific theory but a pseudoscientific synonym for "Creationism", yet it was being promoted in textbooks as a viable competing theory to Evolution. The word was referred to in Discovery Institute internal documents as "the wedge" by which their religious teaching might be shoehorned into the grade school science curriculum. There was also blatant evidence that a schoolbook intended for science classes was edited to replace the word "Creationism" with "intelligent design" or "design theory". The court decided that ID was religion and not science, therefore it was unconstitutional to teach it in public schools.

I have no evidence regarding what type of fringe was on the flag that hung in that particular courtroom on that day, but I tend to agree with Judge Jones' decision, even though he himself was a devout Christian and a Bush administration appointee.

So that's why I say Intelligent Design is not a scientifically viable theory. Rick, I suggest you do a little research into what constitutes a 'theory' in the scientific community. Pay special attention to the peer review process, the degree of physical testing and the quantity of evidence needed. You may think twice before bandying the word "theory" around to give weight to your psychotic rants.

You can go ahead and start in with your name-calling now.

A theory is a logical deduction or a model that can be applied and tested.

God is neither of these things, by definition.

Earwicker wrote:You should read some of those serious scientists before you start speaking on their behalf.

Considering 85% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists it'll be a struggle.

Seriously, I really don't think you get it. You are basically saying, "anything goes, therefore we can pin a badge on this." For last time, you stating that this God of yours is "complex and beyond understanding etc." doesn't make your god real. You are the one setting the boundary and therefore you think you have have some kind of argument. You don't you have conjecture and a vivid imagination.

You dismiss Thor, yet this god you propose is merely an extenyion of the same kind of idea down a path. There is no more evidence for this "post-Thor" god you propose. You simply establish the terms of debate which are so vague you may as well say, "God is energy, man".

As for my lack of physics knowledge, maybe I should have added, "compare to someone that has never even thought about it." Compared to a Physicist... I know every little, compared to a lot of people, apparently, I know a lot.

Gramsci wrote:

Earwicker wrote:You should read some of those serious scientists before you start speaking on their behalf.

Considering 85% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists it'll be a struggle.

That leaves 15%. That's quite a percentage.

Before I carry on I'll just remind you that I've already said that according to your narrow conception of what God is I am an atheist.

That said, I'll carry on - trying my hardest to maintain civility.

Gramsci wrote:For last time, you stating that this God of yours is "complex and beyond understanding etc." doesn't make your god real.

You're missing something.
We can't say anything, with certainty, about 'reality'.
Science tells us that.
We are bound to it. We can't say anything certain about an objective universe. The universe is participatory.

That is a conclusion of science verified by experiment.
So you can keep your real to yourself and I'll keep mine - thank you very much.

Gramsci wrote:You are the one setting the boundary and therefore you think you have have some kind of argument. You don't you have conjecture and a vivid imagination.

'Imagination is more important than knowledge' - who was it said that again?

Gramsci wrote:You dismiss Thor, yet this god you propose is merely an extenyion of the same kind of idea down a path. There is no more evidence for this "post-Thor" god you propose.

Read my response again. I didn't entirely dismiss it. And this post Thor God you think i have conjured up is of your own imagining - not mine.

Here's how it goes (again).

There is some 'feeling' that humans have had since the dawn of man.
This 'feeling' is of something beyond the ordinary experience of day to day reality. This 'feeling' manifests itself in many different ways but one common manifestation has been the creating of different 'god' personalities.
There's loads of em - pick up a book on Greek Myths or Norse Myths or The Bible.
the fact that this feeling (and these manifestations) span all of human history and all cultures makes them significant and worthy of investigation.
To me anyway.

I am saying these manifestations (these inventions - if you like) come from the same place in us (or out of us).

I am not saying that any of those manifestations exist or existed in the 'real' everyday world. But they developed from some kind of experience that Science hasn't figured out yet.
In fact it isn't likely to (any time soon) because Science can't say too much about human consciousness.
If anything that's the realm of psychology but that's troubled in terms of describing the 'real' world because well like I asked before, I'd like you to prove to me that anyone has ever had a 'real' dream.

What I am saying is this experience or 'feeling' can fit into the concept of 'God' - it can't be fully experienced (if generations of thinkers are to be believed) with the rational mind so science isn't going to be able to say a lot about it in the near future.
That doesn't mean people aren't feeling it.
It just means that right now science can't say much about it.

If anything science has come closer to this idea rather than the other way round. Quantum Physics can't be understood rationally, or explained clearly with language. The quantum world goes beyond our capacity to describe it fully as something separate from ourselves.

Of course the religious experience that i am talking about itself is beyond language so talking about it like this is pretty futile.
Especially to someone like yourself.
Though it's fascinating to note (for me) that some thinkers long before the invention of complex scientific apparatus, when they tried to describe their experience, seemed to have figured the same things out about the nature of the universe as modern physicists have in the last hundred years.

I think that's interesting.
I suppose you might take it a coincidence.

Gramsci wrote:You simply establish the terms of debate which are so vague you may as well say, "God is energy, man".

I'll repeat what I said above. If you are defining the terms (i.e God as Judeo Christian conception - a conception so narrow you seem to condemn it yourself) then I am an atheist - you win.
Well done.
You can carry on your day feeling good and clever with your witty use of facetiousness.

That my conception of what God might be is different to yours, seems to annoy you.
And I think that says more about you than me (or God).

I'll grant the connotations with the word aren't helpful - but any other word or description i could offer up would be met with the same kind of incredulity and facetiousness that you are leaking now - because you're a small minded cock end.



Shit!

and I was doing so well.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:There is no scientifically-sound theory for creation.

So all existing theories are ranked equally, because science cannot grade the quality of any of them.

No, but for something to even be considered a "theory", it must be based on sound, verifiable information, must stand up to rigorous logic, be exhaustively reviewed by colleagues in the sciences and finally stand up to repeated experimental testing and be borne out in everyday real-world experience.