Gods Big Bang

[Naraoia]

These 'horrible and creepy things' -- including thorns and thistles, are all a result of the Fall.

In other words, they are the result of perfect genes being cursed.

A good way to picture it would be to watch a beautifully-sculpted snowman slowly melt under the hot sun.

Yes, I've heard that explanation. But why must every other creature be punished for humans' sin?

Though, considering that God had no qualms about punishing the sinning humans' every unborn descendant, I'm not sure I'm surprised.

 

[AV1611VET]

Though, considering that God had no qualms about punishing the sinning humans' every unborn descendant, I'm not sure I'm surprised.

In that case, are you for Jesus Christ coming back for each and every person ever born, and dying on a cross for each individual?

If so, would you volunteer to hammer the nails?

Or is it okay to just made one man the federal head of the human race, and have Jesus Christ die on the cross 'once for all'?

 

[Michael]

Then you obviously have no idea as to the meaning of the words "Empirical" and "Theory". What you call Empirical evidence is nothing more than pure speculation if not philosophical pondering.

Either give us empirical evidence of God's whereabouts or be bold enough to admit that you have none!

I humbly suggest you at least study the history of pantheism a bit. Assuming it were true, exactly what sort of evidence might you accept, particularly if demonstrations of electrical processes doesn't even seem to pique your interest?

 

[Michael]

Sorry, wrong. Circularity lies in the structure of an argument, not in its content.

You assumed your conclusion, plain and simple. That doesn't make you wrong, it only makes your conclusion unsupported by that argument.

No, not really.

Pantheism is simply supported by the fact that universe is quite literally filled with electrical circuits, just like living things on Earth. You can deny that fact all you like, but it's simply an empirical fact. I've listed the appropriate scientific papers in the appropriate thread.

 

[mzungu]

I humbly suggest you at least study the history of pantheism a bit. Assuming it were true, exactly what sort of evidence might you accept, particularly if demonstrations of electrical processes doesn't even seem to pique your interest?

You can start by giving us EMPIRICAL evidence. Since you seem not to understand the word Empirical then let me make it clear for you: Give us evidence that is measurable, testable, and peer reviewed! I am willing to accept a mathematical model based on tested theories.

 

[mzungu]

No, not really.

Pantheism is simply supported by the fact that universe is quite literally filled with electrical circuits, just like living things on Earth. You can deny that fact all you like, but it's simply an empirical fact. I've listed the appropriate scientific papers in the appropriate thread.

Oh brother!

Do yourself a favour and take the time to watch the whole documentary (I know it is something creationists never do) but perhaps you may learn something!:
Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09 - YouTube

 

[Michael]

Oh brother!

Do yourself a favour and take the time to watch the whole documentary (I know it is something creationists never do) but perhaps you may learn something!:

Wow! You want a whole hour of my day off? I'll nibble at it as I get time, but frankly I've heard all this stuff before. He also spent the first three or four minutes just thanking everyone. I've got things to do on this beautiful day. Is there some specific highlight you really think is important for me to hear that you think I haven't already heard a hundred times before? I'll give you a 10 minutes slice for starters, but you have to pick the best slice.

FYI, I responded to your other post in the appropriate thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-16/#post58482945

 

[mzungu]

Wow! You want a whole hour of my day off? I'll nibble at it as I get time, but frankly I've heard all this stuff before. He also spent the first three or four minutes just thanking everyone. I've got things to do on this beautiful day. Is there some specific highlight you really think is important for me to hear that you think I haven't already heard a hundred times before? I'll give you a 10 minutes slice for starters, but you have to pick the best slice.

FYI, I responded to your other post in the appropriate thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-16/#post58482945

Alas! This is so true of creationists; They always seem to be in want of an attention span when faced with erudition! Suit yourself my good man and enjoy your life! All I can say now is Have a nice day there

 

[Michael]

Alas! This is so true of creationists; They always seem to be in want of an attention span when faced with erudition! Suit yourself my good man and enjoy your life! All I can say now is Have a nice day there

Er, no. Imagine me insisting you sit through ANOTHER sermon for a hour. Would you really be impressed by me badgering you by (falsely) accusing you of being a "creationist" for not sitting through the entire hour long video? FYI, I don't even believe in a "big bang" and I've heard the atheistic wrap now for over a decade while posting on this board.

 

[AV1611VET]

Er, no. Imagine me insisting you sit through ANOTHER sermon for a hour. Would you really be impressed by me badgering you by (falsely) accusing you of being a "creationist" for not sitting through the entire hour long video? FYI, I don't even believe in a "big bang" and I've heard the atheistic wrap now for over a decade while posting on this board.

If you don't watch it, they'll think lowly of you.

Why don't you go ahead and watch it, so they can really think lowly of you, should you disagree with any of it?

 

[Michael]

If you promise to sit through an *ENTIRE* hour long video of my choosing at a time of my choosing, I'll sit through your "oh so important" (materials I've undoubtedly seen a hundred times before) video. Deal?

 

[British Bulldog]

If you promise to sit through an *ENTIRE* hour long video of my choosing at a time of my choosing, I'll sit through your "oh so important" (materials I've undoubtedly seen a hundred times before) video. Deal?

Sounds a fair deal to me. Go on then, pick a video and I'll watch it if you watch the video mzungu posted.

 

[Michael]

Well, I have sat through about the first twenty minutes and there's no indication that he even understands the fact that one can accept the tenets of evolutionary theory and the concept of God, let alone any mention of the fact that evolutionary adaptations are typically designed to allow us to interact and experience REAL THINGS too (like light). It's mostly stuff I've heard a million times, although he has his unique own "lingo" (specific terms) for cognitive development. Most of it is rather more of the same "evolution takes place, therefore God does not exist" false dichotomy fallacy laden nonsense. It's pretty sad so far actually.

 

[Michael]

Sounds a fair deal to me. Go on then, pick a video and I'll watch it if you watch the video mzungu posted.

Your on. I'm 20 minutes into it so far.

 

[Michael]

My favorite line so far: Children will "invent" (his words) the concept of God without adult supervision". Ya, and they'd probably "invent" the concept of light and sound without adult supervision too.

 

[Michael]

Alright, I sat through the video till the Q&A segment (about 50 minutes) when it delved into politics.

My impressions of his video are the following:

Many of his same criticisms apply not strictly to organized religion alone as he tried to imply, but they apply to pretty much all organizations in general, most certainly "organized science." For instance, the fear of peer pressure and loss of financial income might directly effect one's beliefs about "inflation", if one happens to be on the "inside" of that particular field of scientific study (cosmologist by trade).

He talks about the neuroscience of religion, but really it's the neuroscience of all socials structures in general that he is describing. That same 'deferential toward authority' argument can CERTAINLY be made toward BB theory, even particle physics theory to some degree. Have astronomers stopped writing about SUSY theory yet? No, of course not. I just saw another published paper on Arxiv this weekend. It's "natural" to defer to authority. It's HARD to buck the system and be a 'rouge' or a "disbeliever" of some "popular" idea. These criticisms are valid criticisms of human behavior of course, but his criticisms were just as well applied to pretty much any and all social structures of any sort. He makes a big deal about the fact that the areas of the brain that light up during brain scans are the same regions we use for other socially involved processes. So what? Of course that would be the case since those areas of the brain process EVERY social process we are involved in.

IMO his speech amounted to a "rant" toward religion. I could just as easily turn that process back around on him. Notice how everyone clapped the moment that he said that religion and science are in conflict? That's only "partially" true in the sense that SOME religious organizations teach weird stuff, but that certainly isn't true of all religions. That "clap" was a perfect example of the conformational bias in that room. All organizations and people are susceptible to that behavior, but we do still have the ability to rise above that behavior as well.

 

[British Bulldog]

My favorite line so far: Children will "invent" (his words) the concept of God without adult supervision". Ya, and they'd probably "invent" the concept of light and sound without adult supervision too.

I think the point is that the concept of God is one that arises naturally from the way our brain has evolved to function. Understanding the connection explains why religions take the form they do and have common themes throughout every culture in the world. And yes, children do naturally attribute unknown causes to a human like agent with a human like mind. It is what our brain naturally does. It is no surprise therefore that God in every religion has a human mind with human emotions and human motives.

 

[Michael]

I think the point is that the concept of God is one that arises naturally from the way our brain has evolved to function.

Yes, but my point is that the same could be said for light and sound. Anything we "experience" we tend to name.

Understanding the connection explains why religions take the form they do and have common themes throughout every culture in the world.

It's more likely to explain a much broader range of human social structures, not just religious ones, but scientific ones as well. Since this is about BB theory, note that many of those same criticisms about fear motivations (loss of job, income, prestige, deferential treatment to authority figures, etc) pretty much apply to any scientific organization, or any political organization too. Atheists hold up "authority" figures related to "atheism" that they seem to revere more than others. It's actually pretty natural for all groups to have "authority' figures. It's simply an effective way to manage various organizations.

For instance, do you personally believe in mainstream BB theory, yes or no? If yes, why? If not, why not?

And yes, children do naturally attribute unknown causes to a human like agent with a human like mind.

That is probably because much of what happens in an "unknown" manner for children is a direct result of the efforts of another intelligent being, typically their parent. The tend to recognize a pattern after awhile.

It is what our brain naturally does. It is no surprise therefore that God in every religion has a human mind with human emotions and human motives.

Well, that same conformational bias argument applies equally well to atheists. For some reason most atheists for instance will typically associate evolutionary theory with some sort of 'disproof' of God. Even your speaker was guilty of that behavior. He simply *ASSUMED* that life began as some sort of cosmic accident, and he ASSUMES that his "great findings' somehow apply ONLY to religion for instance. These are just two very blatant biases. Lots of atheists seem to think that science somehow disproves the existence of God, or is somehow in conflict with ALL religion. That's why everyone in that room clapped when the speaker claimed that religion and science were in conflict. They don't have to be in conflict. Evolutionary theory doesn't conflict with the Catholic faith in any way for instance.

I'm afraid his whole argument seems to be based on a (false) belief that his same argument do not apply to other 'organizations' specifically "scientific" ones. I can easily demonstrate to you that "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), and metaphysical dogma is just as prevalent in mainstream cosmology theories. Where does "dark energy" come from? How do you know it's real or has any ability to 'accelerate' anything?

 

[mzungu]

Yes, but my point is that the same could be said for light and sound. Anything we "experience" we tend to name.

Experiencing something is basically how the brains interprets the electrical signals it receives. The eyes do not actually see and the brain does not actually see reality but interprets it. In fact our brain learns to see; in fact much of what we think we see is basically our brains ability to fill in the picture with what it expects to see! (An excellent documentary on this will be posted later).

It's more likely to explain a much broader range of human social structures, not just religious ones, but scientific ones as well. Since this is about BB theory, note that many of those same criticisms about fear motivations (loss of job, income, prestige, deferential treatment to authority figures, etc) pretty much apply to any scientific organization, or any political organization too. Atheists hold up "authority" figures related to "atheism" that they seem to revere more than others. It's actually pretty natural for all groups to have "authority' figures. It's simply an effective way to manage various organizations.

For instance, do you personally believe in mainstream BB theory, yes or no? If yes, why? If not, why not?

You are mixing apples with oranges here. Science does not need faith in order to function and in fact faith can be a negative factor in some cases. Strict adherence to the fundamental principles governing science are required else one is doomed to delve into the quasi world of goblins and leprechauns.

That is probably because much of what happens in an "unknown" manner for children is a direct result of the efforts of another intelligent being, typically their parent. The tend to recognize a pattern after awhile.



Well, that same conformational bias argument applies equally well to atheists. For some reason most atheists for instance will typically associate evolutionary theory with some sort of 'disproof' of God.

This happens when one is confronted with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Atheists will choose science over the supernatural for obvious reasons.

Even your speaker was guilty of that behavior. He simply *ASSUMED* that life began as some sort of cosmic accident, and he ASSUMES that his "great findings' somehow apply ONLY to religion for instance. These are just two very blatant biases. Lots of atheists seem to think that science somehow disproves the existence of God, or is somehow in conflict with ALL religion. That's why everyone in that room clapped when the speaker claimed that religion and science were in conflict. They don't have to be in conflict. Evolutionary theory doesn't conflict with the Catholic faith in any way for instance.

Like I said before; it is due to the creationists who insist on imposing into science that is the root of the problem. Many scientists worldwide are religious people yet atheists have no problem with them because faith has no room in science. My Biology professor was a devout Anglican yet he taught Evolution with a passion! Of course he was a Brit and not an American (there is a big difference). I attended hourly mass every morning at our schools chapel and was never bored. Not once was fire and brimstone mentioned in the sermon. Not once were we told by the vicar that atheists will be damned and or other faiths are evil etc. Instead we were told true stories of how people against great odds managed to achieve their goal(s) when they had faith in what they wanted to do. No Guns, God, and Glory rants. No anti Evolution sermons. And above all NO HATE messages! This was in England of course and not some backwater southern US school. BIG difference. Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey and he was an Atheist, yet the Anglican Church saw fit to honour him by burying him in the Abbey and the British people and people worldwide respect the memory of this great man.

I'm afraid his whole argument seems to be based on a (false) belief that his same argument do not apply to other 'organizations' specifically "scientific" ones. I can easily demonstrate to you that "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), and metaphysical dogma is just as prevalent in mainstream cosmology theories. Where does "dark energy" come from? How do you know it's real or has any ability to 'accelerate' anything?

Ah but here is the BIG difference; You cannot question God nor can you change what is in the Bible. Whereas in science you are supposed to question and change whatever needs changing. It will be science that will refute a theory. Big Bang is basically a rock solid theory up to + zero hour. What happened to cause the big bang we do not know. But we did not know many things until science discovered them. That is how science works. Religion is basically static and the only way for it to continue is to follow it in a spiritual sense. What Americans are doing by building Creation museums and spreading creationism through TV and live sermons will eventually cause the whole world Atheists and religious people to say "Enough of this nonsense". The whole world is laughing at you and for a good reason too.

I am glad you watched it and gave your opinion on the documentary. See it was not that bad was it? I am sure you have seen your face a million times in the mirror yet you have not grown bored of it!

Have a nice day!

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's more likely to explain a much broader range of human social structures, not just religious ones, but scientific ones as well. Since this is about BB theory, note that many of those same criticisms about fear motivations (loss of job, income, prestige, deferential treatment to authority figures, etc) pretty much apply to any scientific organization, or any political organization too. Atheists hold up "authority" figures related to "atheism" that they seem to revere more than others. It's actually pretty natural for all groups to have "authority' figures. It's simply an effective way to manage various organizations.

That is what tenure is supposed to be for - removing the fear of ridicule and loss of income and prestige in scientific inquiry so that people can focus on the important part, which is analyzing and interpreting the evidence that we get.

And in reply to your point about authority figures, I think this is appropriate:

Well, nobody insults Ann Coulter without a reply from me. I love Ann Coulter (Platonically, of course). Love, love, love. She's basically right about everything, and the only thing I don't like about her books and T.V. appearances is that when she attacks atheists/Darwinists/liberals she's so clever that my sides ache from laughing. I still can't look at a picture of John Edwards without thinking of her name for him: 'Silky Pony'.

I have all of Coulter's books, paper and electronic (so I can always have her insights close). Coulter has more wisdom in one of her neurons than P.Z. Myers and his Pharyngula inmates have collectively in their telencephalons and diencephalons (I know, I know, that implies a materialist reduction of the mind. It's a metaphor).

From "Egnorance", the blog of neurosurgeon Michael Egnor. It is an interesting passage, to say the least. I don't mean to imply that this is extensible to all Christians, or that there are no atheists, sceptics, or scientists who revere their respective role models with such...vigour. Nevertheless, this is simply a camp, childish exaggeration of the same principle visible everywhere: the reverence that many Christians have here for the Bible stems from a similar reverence of authority.

By the way, I believe P. Z. Myers' challenge still stands.

For instance, do you personally believe in mainstream BB theory, yes or no? If yes, why? If not, why not?

This does not show that accepting a particular interpretation of the available scientific evidence from an authority figure is a fallacious argument from authority. There are fallacious arguments from authority, and there are legitimate arguments from authority.

That is probably because much of what happens in an "unknown" manner for children is a direct result of the efforts of another intelligent being, typically their parent. The tend to recognize a pattern after awhile.

Really? I never believed lightning was caused by my parents.

Well, that same conformational bias argument applies equally well to atheists. For some reason most atheists for instance will typically associate evolutionary theory with some sort of 'disproof' of God.

This is sloppy thinking, regardless of who it comes from. However, evolution's validation as a theory does make the existence of god less likely, and the arguments for god's existence weaker.

Even your speaker was guilty of that behavior. He simply *ASSUMED* that life began as some sort of cosmic accident, and he ASSUMES that his "great findings' somehow apply ONLY to religion for instance.

As I am sure I have noted elsewhere, using the word "accident" is also sloppy, uncharitable, and a straw man. Because for an accident to occur there must have been an original purpose or goal.

These are just two very blatant biases. Lots of atheists seem to think that science somehow disproves the existence of God, or is somehow in conflict with ALL religion. That's why everyone in that room clapped when the speaker claimed that religion and science were in conflict. They don't have to be in conflict. Evolutionary theory doesn't conflict with the Catholic faith in any way for instance.

They are not really incompatible; but scientific advancement, again, makes the existence of god less likely, and the arguments for god weaker.

I'm afraid his whole argument seems to be based on a (false) belief that his same argument do not apply to other 'organizations' specifically "scientific" ones. I can easily demonstrate to you that "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), and metaphysical dogma is just as prevalent in mainstream cosmology theories. Where does "dark energy" come from? How do you know it's real or has any ability to 'accelerate' anything?

I always thought dark energy was a bit strange. Nevertheless, the fact that science is a self-correcting process makes your objection to dark energy a bit irrelevant.

And if dark energy is real, then your questions are very good ones. I am fine with saying that I don't know the answers, and I doubt anyone else does either. That's what makes science so exciting.

As for 'faith' in instruments of scientific inference, it is a false analogy.