What of the fact that what is perhaps the dominant cosmological model is based, in part, on the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem and Hawking's principle of ignorance. Hawking has claimed that: "A singularity is a place where the classical concepts of space and time break down as do all the knwon laws of physics because they are all formulated on a classical space-time background." And, more importantly, that the initial singularity "would thus emit all configurations with equal probability." If you want to see an elaboration of the problem that this creates for your argument (and where I lifted those quotes) you should check out the essay Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology by Quentin Smith.bshoc said:
Does God exist? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
Yes. Because Christianity is in fact an extension of Judaism. At the start, Jesus, His Disciples, and the early Christians all practiced Jewish customs, rituals and traditions. These eventually differed over time as the Religion grew.Exphate said:
Answer your question?
ur_inner_child
.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 6,084
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
Buddhism? Hinduism?
i.e. dharmic religion
i.e. dharmic religion
Last edited:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Exphate said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion That'll give you the basic idea. I know it pretty well and was going to do a write up... but including all the prophets and where religions stand on them etc really is quite tough lol
Last edited:
el gwapo
Member
isn't Islam an off-shoot of Judaism or Christianity?Exphate said:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Please visit my wiki link, it explains it much better than I think most people here could in a short amount of time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpgKFunk said:
that goes for most other militant atheists in this thread ...
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
He was wrong at the first point, if he came over to my house I would have an answer instantly to why the big bang theory is more rational than genesis and it doesn't require me to have even a meagre grasp of physics.
Anyway, let's see your arguments for God bshoc... I'll begin.
-------------
It is logical in my opinion to claim that does not exist because the evidence for his existance is exactly on par with Santa Claus, leper gnomes, magic pink elephants and any other supernatural concoction. I would argue if in 13th century britain you came to the conclusion based off your observations that there are no black swans - you would be logically correct, based off what you know, even if ultimately it is incorrect to say there are no black swans and your only problem was that you could not make observations of black swans.
Anyway, let's see your arguments for God bshoc... I'll begin.
-------------
It is logical in my opinion to claim that does not exist because the evidence for his existance is exactly on par with Santa Claus, leper gnomes, magic pink elephants and any other supernatural concoction. I would argue if in 13th century britain you came to the conclusion based off your observations that there are no black swans - you would be logically correct, based off what you know, even if ultimately it is incorrect to say there are no black swans and your only problem was that you could not make observations of black swans.
Last edited:
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
It's not on par with santa clause for the simple fact that santa clause isn't used to explain something else. It's like saying the primordial ooze which is used in the Big Bang theory never existed just because there is no proof of it. It would have to exist for the big bang to have occured, and even then we have no way of proving either of the two ever existed or occured, things make sense if they do. Even if we assume the big-bang did occur, we have no way of explaining where the initial material, or energy, or whatever you want to call it came from.Not-That-Bright said:
It still comes down to one or two fictional stages that we'll use to try and explain the beginning. The Big-Bang is a load of crap if you ask me. Besides, you know what my theory of the formation of our universe so I don't find any reason to repeat it.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
1) That has nothing to do with big bang theory and has everything to do with abiogenesis.
2) If the Big Bang theory relied upon the existance of 'the primordial ooze' to be correct and there was no evidence of the primordial ooze then IMO the big bang theory would require more evidence. However of course if there's still other evidences, perhaps the theory could be modified... with God, since you have no evidence of God there's nothing more to work with.
3) Santa Claus is used to explain where presents come from
4) You'd make a better argument if you got into quantum mechanics and started talking about the existance of wave functions etc
I disagree completely. Even if things 'make sense' if something was true if there's no evidence for it then it doesn't exist.
Yes and even if we assume God did it all, we have no way of explaining where God came from.
Er yea ok.
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
It has everything to do with the Big-Bang theory.
I thought I explained what my thoughts on 'God' were? In my opinion, god is what created the first law of our universe. The Big Bang theory doesn't rely on the existance of 'the primordial ooze', but if you're going to use that to refute the existance of 'God', then it needs an explanation of where that primordial ooze came from. As for the evidence, I can see it myself using the doppler effect, and the expansion of the universe.
Santa Clause never gave me any presents.3) Santa Claus is used to explain where presents come from
Not really, I'm more of a 'bigger picture' person. Details are nothing but details. I've seen just about as much as you have when it comes down to the quantum mechanics of it all. (ofcourse with my own personal bias.)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the universe wasn't all in one central super-heated sphere at the beginning. I'm just doubting the assumption that the material magically came there. (it's just as plausible as your santa clause argument.)
Here is an overview of how the universe where we are today was created.
1. Nothingness, not bound by any laws.
Laws without value are created.
2. A value less law, is the reason for the creation of a law with a value.
3. That value is neutral in all aspects, but has a function.
4. More laws like those are created, till one of the functions cause for another universe to be created, with a law with a value.
5. Our universe was one of those, with the value being 'energy' and the law being "energy exists".
6. The energy needs a way to maintain itself, and so more laws are created to protect the first law. (since the universe is based upon the first law.)
7. Gravity, and matter come in existance as a way of protecting energy.
8. The matter and energy, exists under thermodynamics, and so the Big-Bang Occurs.
9. The universe expands, and then stars form.
10. Many of those stars expel planets in which there are the basic building blocks for life (water, nitrogen, and carbon)
11. Elements and compounds attracted to water, wrap around it, and elements which repel it, are repelled near by. The nitrogens and carbons become apart of it (cells)
12. >> Life
13. >> Evolution.
14. >> Humans.
15. >> Big Crash
16. >> Big Bang > Go to step 8.
The End.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
How?
Ok, relevant how?
Not really, abiogenesis generally starts with the assumption that we have the earth and it is made up of these different materials.
How?
My point wasn't about the "quantum mechanics of it all", it was simply to encourage you to go down a path whereby there is some reasonable contention about the existance of something that we can see the effects of.
Magically came there? Can you show me a paper on BBT which claims material 'magically came there' or anything of that sort? You're mounting a strawman argument.
Prove this, to begin with.
Xayma
Lacking creativity
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,953
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Assuming that we are above a critical density. If we aren't then one of two things could occur, a big rip, or continual expansion. At the moment it looks most like continual but ever slowing expansion. Not a big crunch. Also why does gravity exist before the big bang? It didn't exist until a period after the big bang it was unified with the other forces.sam04u said:
sladehk
le random
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 1,000
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2006
I have got teh best answer, since *god* cannot be proven, its kinda like intelligent design, or teh aether experiment, since you can't prove it, it doesn't matter or it's IRRElevant....
ie.
"God exists if you believe in him."
ie.
"God exists if you believe in him."
sladehk
le random
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 1,000
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2006
I have got teh best answer, since *god* cannot be proven, its kinda like intelligent design, or teh aether experiment, since you can't prove it, it doesn't matter or it's IRRElevant....
ie.
"God exists if you believe in him."
ie.
"God exists if you believe in him."
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
or leper gnomes
and it might as well not exist.
No, god either exists or doesn't exist... our belief/disbelief doesn't really affect the outcome at all.
Can you really use that argument when you're not studying physics yourself? I would be good if you could provide a counter-argument which is directed at my claims, rather than vaguely directed at my person (argumentum ad hominem?). Even if one accepts your assumption that I know nothing about physics, which you have simply asserted through youtube footage without actually showing it to be the case, why should that imply that Quentin Smith knows nothing?bshoc said:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Hey there KFunk, just wondering whether you've read that contraversial book "The God Delusion". If so, have you read Terry Eagleton's critique http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html ? What do you think of it?
I find it to be less of a critique of his arguments (though many from the book do have gaping flaws). I think while his claim that dawkins knows little about theology is likely true and in many cases this leads him to set up straw men, the strongest attacks are against faith at its very foundation before such questions can even arise.
I find it to be less of a critique of his arguments (though many from the book do have gaping flaws). I think while his claim that dawkins knows little about theology is likely true and in many cases this leads him to set up straw men, the strongest attacks are against faith at its very foundation before such questions can even arise.
I'm afriad I haven't read it, however I did read the review. I think you're right to point out that the critique, rather than criticising Dawkins' arguments, attacks his negative views of religion and grasp of theology - which may well be reasonable objections to make against Dawkins' book. Something which did strike me as a fairly poor argument is the following:Not-That-Bright said:
"Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster. "
In the above and in parts of the article there seems to be a certain undercurrent of 'God is a being whose existence is undeniable/unfalsifiable and hence we must accept God's existence' (which more or less begs the question). Eagleton does not make a case for why God is in a category above and beyond other supernatural beings - instead he asserts God's "transcendence and invisibility", perhaps hoping for us to accept this on faith. While I will happily think through most arguments for the existence of god I ussually find that I have little time for those which define God as outside of rational inquiry- or necesarily existent for that matter - for if that were the case, how did they come to that fact in the first place?