Are you an atheist? (5 Viewers)

[Bladerunner]

Exactly

It seems to become rather recursive. We have no way of knowing what happened before the Big Bang about 14 Billion years ago so why worry about it.

What concerns me more are the people that believe that everything was created about 10,000 years ago. I have seen reports that indicate that over 40% of US citizens believe this. If it were true then that particular god has a somewhat warped sense of humour. Why did he create so much evidence for a much older planet if that was the case. The really spooky bit was creating distant galaxies complete with light already most of the way towards us.

Forty percent of the people of the US are uninformed and mostly under-educated regardless of what they tell you. They have no idea about the age of the earth and heavens. Hey, most of them don't even know who the president is?

I have no doubt that the universe and earth are as old (maybe older) as science teaches us. But on the way to get there, some men have decided that for what ever reason, it was too big a job for any entity to create and control thus logic dictates that it happened spontaneously.

Your right. we have no way of knowing what happened prior to the big bang (a theory only). Maybe someday.

Hey, (by a 'unreasoned hypothesis) there could be another ('place' unknown to this universe) where lived the entity (God) that created this universe and all its inhabitants.

Again it comes down to 'Logic vs Faith'

Your Choice!

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

The really spooky bit was creating distant galaxies complete with light already most of the way towards us.

And our science is 'so good and perfect' that we know without a doubt 'the light' that is already halfway here came from that galaxy and not somewhere else or vice-versa.

I read a book (sci-fi) were a telescope existed that was so good it could produce in detail what was happening on a planet at the time that the 'microsecond of light' left the planet toward us. On one planet, I remember they saw Dinosaurs .

The point being that when our science gets that good, we might get some answers instead of theories.

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[dan-cat]

What am I demanding of you? I thought this was a debate. simple.

Nothing from me personally. Your mind has come across a gap in knowledge and you demand it to be filled with an answer. So you fill it with something that has yet to be proved or disproved. That is what faith requires. The acceptance of a proposition that is unproven.

You imply that because the gap has been filled by something, that it is more truthful than nothing, which it isn't.

What does your 'radiometric dating' date to say there is no God! that is what I don't understand. If he has never been seen by man , at least in the physical form, how can you date him by any means?

It doesn't. I was trying to understand what you meant by your "few thousand years" comment. Did that comment have any relevance at all?

 

[Bladerunner]

The Bible is probably (at best, and IMHO) a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a man's interpretation of the words of a mythical being who's existence has been neither proved nor disproved.

To see the Bible as the word of God would definitely require faith.

Nanscombe, the first fifteen chapters of bible was not written down until the time period of Moses (approx 1500 BC). They were handed down for thousands of years. Funny thing is, usually when something is handed down over a long period of time, it gets embellished and most of the bad things are dropped completely. As Galaxiom will attest; Abraham's God of war should have been deleted. The other books (19+) were written separately over a thousand years. They all still contain one consistency, there is a God in Heaven. As far as man's interpretation, the bible is taken from the scrolls that were actually written by the authors (supposedly). Yes, someone could have rewritten them but as in most cases did they rewrite them fromt he originals or heresay? Then where did all of the originals go. We still have them. In fact , the last book, Malachi, wrote his script around 450 BC. Until about 95 AD, nothing was written that has been found during these two periods. Then the New Testament started.

Have a nice day :>)


Bladerunner:

 

[Bladerunner]

All based on stories from a book by an unknown author which has been altered time and time again.

No,, written by the Apostles that were with him during this time. The original scrolls are the source.

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

Nothing from me personally. Your mind has come across a gap in knowledge and you demand it to be filled with an answer. So you fill it with something that has yet to be proved or disproved. That is what faith requires. The acceptance of a proposition that is unproven.

You imply that because the gap has been filled by something, that it is more truthful than nothing, which it isn't.

Dan-cat: Faith does not require anything. Your heart and mind and worldview require it. You have also come upon a gap in knowledge (there is or is no God), so you fill it in with Logic. Faith, Logic or any other fill-in is in response to your worldview. Your are a naturalist, evolutionist where all things can be defined by science and /or evolution. My worldview is Theist where I believe that all things were created by a higher being with a purpose not yet here. These world views require that we use Logic and Faith to get to their respective end. It is that simple.

It doesn't. I was trying to understand what you meant by your "few thousand years" comment. Did that comment have any relevance at all?

As far as the ' few thousand years' 'more' expression, It was just an expression to counter the statement you made :

A being that has been around for 0.0044% of Earth's existence has either #3652

I know not how old God is but I do know he has been around since the beginning whenever that was. Do you know when the beginning was? NO! With all the science we have at our disposal, we do not know. YET! there is hope. The big difference in me and the some of the other authors on this thread, is that I buy into science that it will in the future find the answers associated with the beginning of time as we know it. The difference is that I go there with the faith that we will find God, period. The other authors and you go there with the logic that there can be no God along with the hope (no matter how faint that hope is) that your Logic is right.

Have a nice day :>)


Bladerunner

 

[Mihail]

No, I believe that science in the end will show that there is a God. The question I ask each of you to explain :Why is there anything and how did it come into existence?
There is only one answer and yes, God is older than the Universe(s). My world view (Theist).

No, I believe that the science already show that there is no God. The question I ask each of you (the believers) to explain :Why the God do anything ?
There is only one answer: the God did nothing because is no reason for He to do something.

You say that the God is older than the Universe(s).
May I ask you how much older ? Of course that I don't expect a very exact answer. Thank you.

 

[nanscombe]

No,, written by the Apostles that were with him during this time. The original scrolls are the source.

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

Are the scrolls in English, or a language who's meaning has remained unaltered over the centuries? (I'm guessing the answer is probably no).

I would also surmise that "A being that has been around for 0.0044% of Earth's existence..." is more likely to be Man than God.

Even if there were evidence to prove the existence of the apostles, or Jesus himself, none of that would be actual proof of an omnipotent non terrestrial being.

I guess that is where faith comes in.

 

[Bladerunner]

Are the scrolls in English, or a language who's meaning has remained unaltered over the centuries? (I'm guessing the answer is probably no).

Since we are talking about some of the earliest years that are recorded, it would probably be in Hebrew. It is close to being one of the oldest (not quite but close to) written languages. I don't think their meanings have changed in all that time but not sure.As far as the translations into English, over the years I am sure there have been some changes. Even today, we have people that want it to denote the masculine and feminine pronouns even though in the early days it was only masculine. Also, over the years, THE and THOU have changed somewhat. I would think the church both Jewish and Christian churches (they hold the scrolls) would make sure it does not vary very much.

I would also surmise that "A being that has been around for 0.0044% of Earth's existence..." is more likely to be Man that God.

I agree but the way he wrote it was not pointed toward man.

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[nanscombe]

I agree but the way he wrote it was not pointed toward man.

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

The original quotation.

What is more likely to you?

A being that has been around for 0.0044% of Earth's existence has either

a) Managed to grasp the fundamental mechanics of how the cosmos has come to be

or

b) Created a comforting belief system that defines that being as the focal point of the cosmos.

0.0044% is 200,000 (the age of Man) divided by 4,500,000,000 (the age of the Earth) as a percentage.

So the question was actually ..

What is more likely to you?

Man has either

a) Managed to grasp the fundamental mechanics of how the cosmos has come to be

or

b) Created a comforting belief system that defines that being as the focal point of the cosmos.

So has Man begun to unravel the secrets of how parts of the universe work or has Man just sat back and said "Because that's how God made it."

 

[Bladerunner]

Nascombe
Even if there were evidence to prove the existence of the apostles, or Jesus himself, none of that would be actual proof of an omnipotent non terrestrial being.

I guess that is where faith comes in.

I have always said that there has been no records of physical sightings of God in the history of man that I can find. He spoke in spirit or through his angels. However, Jesus called him father and that is good enough for me. Accordingly, Jesus said: "that who-so-ever believed in me shall have everlasting life". He then left this world a little better than when he came into it with no claims or requirements on man other than you have a choice to believe in him........or NOT!

have a nice day:>)

Balderunner\

 

[Bladerunner]

The original quotation.



0.0044% is 200,000 (the age of Man) divided by 4,500,000,000 (the age of the Earth) as a percentage.

So the question was actually ..



So has Man begun to unravel the secrets of how parts of the universe work or has Man just sat back and said "Because that's how God made it."

Then I owe the original poster an apology, I did not read nor comprehend his post correctly.


Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[nanscombe]

This could get confusing.

One minute I'm posting about Microsoft Access VBA the next about biblical philosophy.

Perhaps I could condense it down to a bit of VBA.

Debug.Print Not IsMissing(God)

True or False.

 

[Bladerunner]

Nascombe said: So has Man begun to unravel the secrets of how parts of the universe work or has Man just sat back and said "Because that's how God made it."

There are several ways to look at that statement meaning but here is mine. I have never seen anywhere in scripture where God nor Jesus told man to leave specific area of science alone. In fact, he gave us a good enough brain to decipher anything we might come across. I guess the question for you and the others to ponder upon would be ' Would God be pleased that we found him?'

I think Jesus will return before we even get close to that scenario. No, not the end of the world just the beginning.

have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

This could get confusing.

One minute I'm posting about Microsoft Access VBA the next about biblical philosophy.

Perhaps I could condense it down to a bit of VBA.

Debug.Print Not IsMissing(God)

True or False.

LOL, guess it could get difficult especially if you have a one tracked mind, like mine is.


Have a nice day:>)


Bladerunner

 

[Galaxiom]

God choose to appear as a burning bush to Moses.

Plenty of people have seen gods after rolling small amounts of particular bush into a cigarette paper and burning it.

 

[Galaxiom]

Perhaps I could condense it down to a bit of VBA.

Debug.Print Not IsMissing(God)

Well God does have the first requirement for this to work. He is certainly a Variant as the hundreds of thousands of versions of gods worshiped on the planet can attest.

 

[Galaxiom]

It is more that the organization of our universe - the known one at least, implies an intelligence to me.

If you knew more about science you would not be under that illusion. You go on to show that your grasp of both maths and science is quite poor, leading you to conclusions that cannot be substantiated.

If you saw a table with a bunch of scrabble tiles arranged on it, and you read what it said, and you saw this exact paragraph written out, would it not be an absurd conclusion to propose that someone had just scattered the tiles without any thought and they happened to be arranged just so? Or would you propose that someone must have arranged them to form these sentences?

No. If I looked at trillions of Scrabble boards I would be very surprised if many different paragraphs were not written out. Maybe not this exact but this exact one but neither is this Universe the only one where a sentient being capable of reading it could have occurred.

If there are more variations on a chess board after just several moves
than there are atoms in the universe (I've heard it said - and it may
not be literally true but it is in spirit),

Not even close. There is something like 10^80 atoms in the visible Universe. This would be at least 70 orders of magnitude more than the total number of all possible chess games.
http://www.chess.com/chessopedia/view/mathematics-and-chess

The actual universe is far more complex

The Universe is incredibly simple at its basic level. Indeed even the way stars work is very very simple. The complexity we see is built up from combinations of that simplicity.

and who says it started out with this complexity anyway?

Those who claim that a designer is behind it all. The designer would have to be more complex than the design. Hence the pointlessness of proposing a designer is behind it.

All that does is move the conundrum one step further without explaining anything. One might as well say that the Universe has always existed. Indeed that is where the religious belief started with "In the beginning there was a void". Their God put stuff in that void.

In science, not even the void was here. Over the history of science there have been less and less things that required a god to explain. There is so little space left for a god now it might as well be completely abandoned.

A life form - especially a multicellular one - especially an intelligent one, is a trillion times more complex than this paragraph or any chess position. A blade of grass has far more going on than the most complicated supercomputer ever conceived of.

Yes but that complexity didn't just come about by random changes alone. It was driven by natural selection. Life is really nothing more than minerology. Mineral crystals are self replicating. The crystals of life are just very complex.

Is there a higher intelligence or is there not?
Nobody really knows now, do we? The physicists and the theologians may disagree fundamentally, but neither of them can prove their position.

Science has already shown that no higher intelligence is necessary for the Universe and everything in it to exist. Science has already completely refuted the claims made by theists about the origins. Slowly but surely, their dearly held beliefs such as the Earth being the centre have crumbled. Why should we expect any of them to endure?

And for whatever reason, believing is comforting.

By all means believe if that makes you feel comfortable. However this in no way provides the slightest evidence for the existence of a god. And it certainly does not comprise a valid basis for the religious to decree that they have a sound base to guide the development of public policy.

 

[Galaxiom]

I have never seen anywhere in scripture where God nor Jesus told man to leave specific area of science alone.

Like all the religious, your position is inseparable from the complete acceptance of old stories dreamed by by ancient arrogant misogynists. It is called "circular reasoning" which invariably comes to irrational conclusions because it has no solid foundations.

I think Jesus will return before we even get close to that scenario. No, not the end of the world just the beginning.

Your religion is nothing more sophisticated than a cargo cult.

 

[Libre]

Galaxion, you are nothing more than a puffed out bloviator, masquerading (poorly) as an authority.
You've made some valid points, but they are undone by your statements "the Universe is incredibly simple at its basic level"; that "the way stars work is very very simple"; and that "life is nothing more than mineralogy". These contentions are so foolish that it is ridiculous to debate this with you. Fundamental discoveries are still being made, and Nobel Prizes have just been awarded for the Higgs Boson and allotropes of carbon, like graphene. The Nobel committee missed you, for some reason. Must be politics, politics, politics. If you're so familiar with the eternal secrets of the universe, why, I wonder, do you waste your genius posting on an internet forum and taking pot-shots at an ignoramus such as myself. Establishing a stable environment for superconductivity or cold fusion would be a nice feather in your cap, or proving Einstein's unified field theory is still up for grabs if you want to take a shot at it.
I don't claim to have specific knowledge of cosmology and particle physics, as you do - I'm just a college educated man with a 35 year technical career in mechanical design and database programming. You even go so far as to state the number of atoms in the universe (you missed a few - there are some dust bunnies under my bed you forgot to count), and claim to know just how many chess variations there are, as though you were counting beans in a jar. I can search on the internet as well as anyone, and Shannon's number is just one man's attempt to calculate the incalculable. There are estimates from 10^43 up to 10^123 and beyond.

I have no evidence that God exists. I don't even insist on it - I was simply pondering the issue, as other thinking men and woman have done since there were people capable of it. You seem to think that this is a mechanical problem that simple calculation can resolve. It is an eternal philosophical question, open to debate, interpretation, and opinion, and only an arrogant fool would claim that it has all been proven beyond any doubt.