Atheism was easier before modern science

[Percivale]

The Big Bang theory does not say the universe came from nothing as I stated in my original post that you quoted from. It says that the universe was much hotter and denser and it expanded and cooled into the matter, stars and galaxies that we observe. Current theories do not describe what happened before the big bang. So my thinking is in accord with the current understanding. Scientists freely admit that the theory is incomplete because we don't have a unified theory of gravity yet. Loop quantum gravity, which I would call a hypothesis not a theory, does describe a contracting universe before what it calls a big bounce. It says that there was never a singularity and instead that space can only contract so much before it bounces back and at the moment of the bounce entropy is re-set.

I do recognize that the universe is expanding and that according to our current understanding the universe will end in heat death. but our current understanding is very incomplete. We don't know what caused the universe to expand or what dark energy is and a lot more. We just don't have the data to say one way or the other what will happen. If any evidence comes to light that the universe sprang from nothing then I'll consider it.

Whether there was a singularity doesn't make a difference to my arguments.

You recognize that our current understanding points to eventual heat death. If that is true the universe is not eternal, at least not one in an eternal succession. My point was that the current state of science supports creation more than the state of science in the past did, so you basically concede my point. But you have faith in science that it will provide a different explanation in the future. Is that not what you are saying?

The God hypothesis thrives on ignorance and holes in our understanding. It needs these gaps in knowledge to wedge in its imaginary God. I think time is running out for it though as more and more science gains an understanding of reality.

Why do you believe this?

If I can't prove something then I don't accept it as true.

I trust you don't apply this principle all the time; if you apply this principle in your relationships I expect they don't do so well. If you apply it in your daily decisions I doubt you accomplish a lot. Unless you make a significant distinction between accepting something as true and acting as if it is true.

 

[agua]

Originally Posted by agua

Yes; not understanding the implications and benefit of keeping these commands will result in an disappointing concliusion.
​

Quantona

Which, of course, is not what I said nor meant - so the introductory "yes" is inadvertantly or intentionally misleading, and for whatever reason distracting from my point.

On another note (and to my mild disappointment), you answered my question for this unchanging, static meaning of life (which I hear is important to have because without it we are left to our personal opinions) with a "Personally, I think...". I mean, I appreciate the honesty and all, but I can´t help noticing the paradox.

Thirdly, when we look at the content of those particular commandments, they turn out to be of exactly the broad, unspecific, vague kind that Mark (Eudaimonist) was alluding to.

[/quote]

Can you explain the paradox ? I'm not sure where you have the idea that the 2 great commands are in any wat left unexplained, by Yahweh. Maybe you can give me an example where you may have trouble discerning a situation ?

 

[agua]

Apologies for the above mess of a post the quote and edit function is plating up on me again

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is your opinion for you can no more disprove the existence of the creator than I can scientifically prove the existence of the creator.

There are many things I can't disprove.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

True. But in the past they had the option of positing an eternal cosmology using the universe basically as we know it, but now they must posit a state of the universe totally different from anything we know. It is not likely we will ever know what was there before the Big Bang. A multiverse, a previous collapsing universe, or the logically contradictory cosmic egg are all totally different from the universe as we know it, just as different as God is, i think.

You expect them to be the same? That our intuitions within the universe apply to the universe as a whole?

If you count 'political science', plenty. Science has also given man the power to kill a lot more people at once or to improve our lives, just as religion gives some people the power to motivate a large number of people to join things like the crusades or like humanitarian ministries.

You've missed the point.

 

[BukiRob]

Sorry, but "commandments" is what the quotes said.


That´s all fine and dandy, but I was asking for this ominous "meaning of life" that allegedly depends on a God existing.

And I'm telling you the Hebrew rendering means instruction go ask any Jewish rabbi.

And the meaning of life is not following a list of do's and don'ts

 

[BukiRob]

There are many things I can't disprove.

Then one should not apply absolutes about things that can not be proven like was postulated earlier

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then one should not apply absolutes about things that can not be proven like was postulated earlier

Who is applying absolutes?

 

[BukiRob]

Who is applying absolutes?

Those who exclude the possibility of intelligent design based on a lack of evidence yet science has to start with base line assumptions about the universe prior to the big bang that is little more than speculation and they treat this as though it is proven fact.

Statements like assigning intelligent design to G-d is based in ignorance... statements like that are hubris at its finest

 

[juvenissun]

I notice that "meaning of life" became "value of life" in the meantime.

It is not a legal reply. You are welcome to change it back if you can see the difference.

 

[Loudmouth]

Those who exclude the possibility of intelligent design based on a lack of evidence yet science has to start with base line assumptions about the universe prior to the big bang that is little more than speculation and they treat this as though it is proven fact.

They start with, "I don't know". Then, they look at how productive science has been. They see all of these supernatural explanations that have been replaced by scientific explanations. Nowhere do they find a scientific explanation that has been replaced by a verified supernatural mechanism.

It would seem that the best way to gain knowledge about how our universe came to be would be science.