Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not asking TotN to accept that God created the universe, nor do I have any expectations of changing his opinions. We are answering "3 big questions" about life, based on our worldviews, and debating the merits of our reasoning for those answers. I would consider an answer of "I don't know" (agnostic) to be a more reasoned answer than a conclusion of, "I know that a God didn't create it" (atheism).
I have never heard an atheist say that. All an atheist claims is that he doesn't believe in any God or gods.
I have never heard an atheist say that. All an atheist claims is that he doesn't believe in any God or gods.
I think that's a fine distinction, but an important one. And part of the issue is that some people can't distinguish the distinction.
I was telling someone the other day about things that happened in my school when I became principal. I began to question certain procedures. An example was when a new student would enroll after the school was already in session, they wouldn't get a locker for 3 days. One day a new student was punished by a teacher for carrying a backpack during the school day, which we didn't allow. But he hadn't been given a locker yet, so he was in a no-win situation. When I questioned the guidance office about how they assigned lockers to new students, they confirmed that's what they did. Three days after a student started classes they would call him out of class to be given a locker. I asked why not just give the locker the day they register? "That's not what we do". I pressed them as to why. They couldn't give any better answer than, "Well that's the way we do it".
To me, that's a little bit like when I came to a point that I first SERIOUSLY questioned my religious beliefs. And most everything came down to, "Well that's just the way I was taught early on". And I began to think to the possibilities:
1. There is no god.
2. There may be no god.
3. God might be deistic.
4. God might be something other than the christian version of god.
I am now at a point where I still see those four possibilities.
I have heard people say there is no god. But the ones that are saying that I think are also people that could be convinced if suddenly we had strong evidence. In listening or reading more about what they think, I find that they are coming from the point of seeing no convincing evidence, and therefore their conclusion is that there is no god...not that they are absolutely positive beyond and doubt that there is not a god.
YOU were the one that introduced the notion that the big bang was the result of the collapse of a giant star. Although admittedly the notion of a star with the mass of the our entire visible universe is a spectacular idea. What did I actually say?
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense #9 of this thread
Based on the example of black holes, what occurred prior to the big bang? The implication is, a period of massive gravitational collapse. And prior to THAT? Attempting to answer that question would be getting to far ahead of ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
No, it was you who introduced this notion in Post #9(that the big bang was the result of a collapsing star)
You're complicating something very simple...
Wikipedia
Stellar black hole
A stellar black hole (or stellar-mass black hole) is a black hole formed by the gravitational collapse of a star. They have masses ranging from about 5 to several tens of solar masses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole
Nowhere did I say or imply that the universe is the result of a collapsing star. The universe may be the result of gravitational collapse.
Wikipedia
Big Bounce
Expansion and contraction
The concept of the Big Bounce envisions the Big Bang as the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce. This suggests that we could be living at any point in an infinite sequence of universes, or conversely the current universe could be the very first iteration. However, if the condition of the interval phase "between bounces", considered the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom', is taken into full contingency such enumeration may be meaningless because that condition could represent a singularity in time at each instance, if such perpetual return was absolute and undifferentiated.
The main idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, the behavior of the quantum foam changes. All the so-called fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in a vacuum, need not remain constant during a Big Crunch, especially in the time interval smaller than that in which measurement may never be possible (one unit of Planck time, roughly 10−43 seconds) spanning or bracketing the point of inflection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
1. if your answer to the 'origin of the universe' question is, "I don't have an answer," then just say so.
2. If you have a specific question about my answer to the same question, ask it. If you don't have any more questions for me about my answer to the 'origin' question, we can move on to question #2.
I agreed with Michio Kaku. "Science is based on testable, reproducible evidence, and so far we cannot test the universe before the Big Bang."
I also pointed out that there is a big difference between between devising possible answers based on deductive reasoning from what evidence does exist, and simply deriving answers based on imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Post #9 of this string
Is it reasonable to suppose that God arose from nothing? Or that God created Himself, thus preexisting His own existence? Which are both explanations for the existence of God that I have seen proposed by sincere believers. The third possibility is that God has existed eternally. The law of conservation of energy indicates that energy has existed eternally. What difference is there between these two possibilities? The law of conservation of energy is derived from centuries of experimentation and observation. The concept of God is derived from centuries of make believe and ignorance of the actual condition of the universe. A noticeably significant difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Post #21 of this string
Effect is always preceded by cause. If one does not know an answer, EVERY POSSIBILITY is derived from the imagination. Some possibilities are the result of reason and direct observation. Deductive reasoning. Other possibilities are derived from pure make believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
My suspicion, though, is that you've lost confidence and you would prefer to try to sabotage this thread rather than having to explicitly state that you're giving up.
My suspicion is that you are attempting to sow confusion by twisting and misrepresenting what I have actually said. What I have actually said is still part of the record, however.
I'm not asking TotN to accept that God created the universe, nor do I have any expectations of changing his opinions. We are answering "3 big questions" about life, based on our worldviews, and debating the merits of our reasoning for those answers. I would consider an answer of "I don't know" (agnostic) to be a more reasoned answer than a conclusion of, "I know that a God didn't create it" (atheism).
No one "knows" the answer to creation. I don't "know" that Santa did not create the universe using the same magic that causes reindeer to fly. I can give many reasons to cast doubt on that bit of make believe, however. Normally one does not need to provide an argument nullifying the argument that Santa is responsible for creation of course. Unless one is arguing with children. For some reason however the same is not true when one is arguing about creation and the existence of God. Both Santa and God have been entirely derived from the imagination. People are expected to outgrow their belief in the existence of Santa as they become adults. Belief in Santa by an adult would be considered pitiable. Believers however continue to maintain their childlike belief in the existence of God, based on faith. And they consider it it be a GOOD thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I would consider an answer of "I don't know" (agnostic) to be a more reasoned answer than a conclusion of, "I know that a God didn't create it" (atheism).
This is an example of twisting and misrepresenting what I or any other atheist has said in order to sow confusion.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 08-30-2019 at 12:12 PM..
I think that's a fine distinction, but an important one. And part of the issue is that some people can't distinguish the distinction.
I was telling someone the other day about things that happened in my school when I became principal. I began to question certain procedures. An example was when a new student would enroll after the school was already in session, they wouldn't get a locker for 3 days. One day a new student was punished by a teacher for carrying a backpack during the school day, which we didn't allow. But he hadn't been given a locker yet, so he was in a no-win situation. When I questioned the guidance office about how they assigned lockers to new students, they confirmed that's what they did. Three days after a student started classes they would call him out of class to be given a locker. I asked why not just give the locker the day they register? "That's not what we do". I pressed them as to why. They couldn't give any better answer than, "Well that's the way we do it".
To me, that's a little bit like when I came to a point that I first SERIOUSLY questioned my religious beliefs. And most everything came down to, "Well that's just the way I was taught early on". And I began to think to the possibilities:
1. There is no god.
2. There may be no god.
3. God might be deistic.
4. God might be something other than the christian version of god.
I am now at a point where I still see those four possibilities.
I have heard people say there is no god. But the ones that are saying that I think are also people that could be convinced if suddenly we had strong evidence. In listening or reading more about what they think, I find that they are coming from the point of seeing no convincing evidence, and therefore their conclusion is that there is no god...not that they are absolutely positive beyond and doubt that there is not a god.
The fine distinction is between "I don't know if there is a God," and "I doubt that there is a God."
You used a lot of words to say “I don’t know.” Maybe to sow confusion about the simple question I asked you to address?
The point I was making is that you think the energy from a gravitational collapse (of any kind) might have caused our Big Bang. Your claim assumes that something existed PRIOR to our Big Bang that ‘collapsed.’. This does not address the cause of the pre-existing universe(s) (infinite regress issue). How about I mark you down as “I don’t know” regarding the original uncaused cause and we’ll move on to question #2?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Wikipedia
Stellar black hole
A stellar black hole (or stellar-mass black hole) is a black hole formed by the gravitational collapse of a star. They have masses ranging from about 5 to several tens of solar masses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole
Nowhere did I say or imply that the universe is the result of a collapsing star. The universe may be the result of gravitational collapse.
Wikipedia
Big Bounce
Expansion and contraction
The concept of the Big Bounce envisions the Big Bang as the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce. This suggests that we could be living at any point in an infinite sequence of universes, or conversely the current universe could be the very first iteration. However, if the condition of the interval phase "between bounces", considered the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom', is taken into full contingency such enumeration may be meaningless because that condition could represent a singularity in time at each instance, if such perpetual return was absolute and undifferentiated.
The main idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, the behavior of the quantum foam changes. All the so-called fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in a vacuum, need not remain constant during a Big Crunch, especially in the time interval smaller than that in which measurement may never be possible (one unit of Planck time, roughly 10−43 seconds) spanning or bracketing the point of inflection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
I agreed with Michio Kaku. "Science is based on testable, reproducible evidence, and so far we cannot test the universe before the Big Bang."
I also pointed out that there is a big difference between between devising possible answers based on deductive reasoning from what evidence does exist, and simply deriving answers based on imagination.
My suspicion is that you are attempting to sow confusion by twisting and misrepresenting what I have actually said. What I have actually said is still part of the record, however.
Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 08-30-2019 at 01:53 PM..
I'm not asking TotN to accept that God created the universe, nor do I have any expectations of changing his opinions. We are answering "3 big questions" about life, based on our worldviews, and debating the merits of our reasoning for those answers. I would consider an answer of "I don't know" (agnostic) to be a more reasoned answer than a conclusion of, "I know that a God didn't create it" (atheism).
I don't care what you think you are debating with ToN. In fact he seems to be the one who wants to Move on and you wanted to keep the fight for First cause going. But, if you are willing to accept that "I don't know" is the only answer well and good.
But I can see a waving red Flag...ah. "ToN doesn't know" will be Interpreted as: "Atheists have no explanation so 'God' is the default answer". Right? No, you will have to sign up to 'Nobody knows', before the discussion can move on. Otherwise, you stay here.
I think that's a fine distinction, but an important one. And part of the issue is that some people can't distinguish the distinction.
I...
Excuse the cut. I just wanted to make the point that Theists will habitually force an extreme claim on atheism (that it doesn't actually make) in order to force an untenable logical position on them.
I don't deny that atheists do contribute to this by saying 'There is no God' (with the implied caveats of 'so far as all the evidence and logic suggests' or 'This is the God of the bible I'm talking about").
I don't care what you think you are debating with ToN. In fact he seems to be the one who wants to Move on and you wanted to keep the fight for First cause going. But, if you are willing to accept that "I don't know" is the only answer well and good.
But I can see a waving red Flag...ah. "ToN doesn't know" will be Interpreted as: "Atheists have no explanation so 'God' is the default answer". Right? No, you will have to sign up to 'Nobody knows', before the discussion can move on. Otherwise, you stay here.
I’m not interested in flag waving or making premature conclusions. That’s all in your head. I get the impression that you and others are hyper-sensitive about what you’re willing to acknowledge (slippery slope?). I already said I respect “I don’t know” as a reasonable answer. Is your worldview that vulnerable that you have to be so on-guard? It make intelligent discussion very difficult.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
