the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[BNR32FAN]

Because the observable evidence tells you that it's constant. We humans are prone to believing all sorts of things, many of which aren't true. The only way to avoid this mistake is by comparing what we believe to what we can reliably verify.

For example, I've never actually seen anyone walk on water, Jesus or otherwise. If I had I might think differently. But I have seen a great many claims about the miraculous that turned out to be of questionable authenticity. Therefore I view any such claims with a great deal of skepticism.

Theistic claims about creation are no different. Without evidence I see no reason to accept them as true.

I realize that I could be completely wrong. All that you need to do is to give me evidence.

Faith can be an admirable thing, but it can also be a deceitful thing, and evidence is the only way of determining which type you have. So I will accept the premise that physics is a constant until someone gives me evidence to the contrary.

If God has a problem with that... I'm sorry, but I am after all, only human.

Fair enough but you explained why an atheist should believe that physics is constant. My question was why should a theist believe it?

 

[partinobodycular]

Fair enough but you explained why an atheist should believe that physics is constant. My question was why should a theist believe it?

Because humility is a quality that their God admires, and one of the greatest acts of humility, especially for a devote theist, is to admit that they might be mistaken. Anyone can be pompous and self-assured, there's nothing admirable in that, but for a theist to accept that something is true simply because God's creation attests to it being true... in spite of what their church says, or their dogma says, or even what their understanding of a book says... that I believe is what a God would find admirable.

If I know your God at all, then He wouldn't hold such acceptance of the evidence against you, nor would He consider it to be a lack of faith, rather He'd admire the courage that it took to question that faith.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because humility is a quality that their God admires, and one of the greatest acts of humility, especially for a devote theist, is to admit that they might be mistaken. Anyone can be pompous and self-assured, there's nothing admirable in that, but for a theist to accept that something is true simply because God's creation attests to it being true... in spite of what their church says, or their dogma says, or even what their understanding of a book says... that I believe is what a God would find admirable.

If I know your God at all, then He wouldn't hold such acceptance of the evidence against you, nor would He consider it to be a lack of faith, rather He'd admire the courage that it took to question that faith.

There’s nothing pompous about believing what is written in the Bible. You’re presuming that God would be pleased with people for doubting His word, when the Bible emphasizes the importance of believing repeatedly throughout the scriptures. Why should my belief offend someone?

 

[Larniavc]

Why should my belief offend someone?

Who is offended by your beliefs?

 

[Astrid]

There’s nothing pompous about believing what is written in the Bible. You’re presuming that God would be pleased with people for doubting His word, when the Bible emphasizes the importance of believing repeatedly throughout the scriptures. Why should my belief offend someone?

What is pompous, no, egotistical and arrogant in the extreme, is
for anyone to claim the have it all figured out and cannot be wrong.

If there’s a god who some way authored the bible, then to doubt his words
would be insane.

To doubt, or question whether you or anyone fully understands those word
is eminently sane. I‘d say it’s mandatory, to question one’s self and everyone else.


And what is it to question? How does one do it?

It’s like getting to csrneglie hall, I’d say- study study study.
I doubt God would be pleased with those who just assume they know so much,
but geat it wrong.

Stufy!

AND NOT JUST THE BIBLE

Only looking at the Bible would lead to very odd ideas about animal breeding,cure for snakebite
and the value of Pi.

it has also led people into deep error about such as the age of the earth.

Sure the Bible emphasizes belief.

Your error is mistaking belief in yourself for belief in the Bible.

 

[David Lamb]

What is pompous, no, egotistical and arrogant in the extreme, is
for anyone to claim the have it all figured out and cannot be wrong.

If there’s a god who some way authored the bible, then to doubt his words
would be insane.

If somebody were to say, "I've got everything figured out!" that would indeed be pompous, and egoistic. But that is completely different to believing that God has got it all worked out, and has revealed it to us in His word, the bible.

is eminently sane. I‘d say it’s mandatory, to question one’s self and everyone else.


And what is it to question? How does one do it?

It’s like getting to csrneglie hall, I’d say- study study study.
I doubt God would be pleased with those who just assume they know so much,
but geat it wrong.

Stufy!

AND NOT JUST THE BIBLE

Only looking at the Bible would lead to very odd ideas about animal breeding,cure for snakebite
and the value of Pi.

it has also led people into deep error about such as the age of the earth.

Sure the Bible emphasizes belief.

Your error is mistaking belief in yourself for belief in the Bible.

There are things like the value of pi, how to cross the road safely, where to order a new computer, etc that are not in the bible. But those things that are there are all that is necessary for knowing God's wonderful plan of salvation.

 

[Astrid]

If somebody were to say, "I've got everything figured out!" that would indeed be pompous, and egoistic. But that is completely different to believing that God has got it all worked out, and has revealed it to us in His word, the bible.

There are things like the value of pi, how to cross the road safely, where to order a new computer, etc that are not in the bible. But those things that are there are all that is necessary for knowing God's wonderful plan of salvation.

Let me rephrase.

The “everything” I refer to everything in the Bible.

Do you have everything in it figured out?

10,000 different people with as many ways to
Interpret every passage.

is it not self- belief rather than God-belief to
say any one of those interpretations is surely
correct, nay, perfect?



The value of Pi is in fact clearly shown in the Bible,
but contains a major rounding error.

The error would go unnoticed if one only “ believed the Bible”

 

[Gene2memE]

Fair enough but you explained why an atheist should believe that physics is constant. My question was why should a theist believe it?

Because, to the best of our ability to test, the physical laws of the universe have been essentially unchanged since the very early universe.

The assumption is that 'things go along pretty much as they always have'. Unless you have evidence that they don't or a reason* why they shouldn't, that remains the baseline. Stuff continues to do what stuff has always done.

Here's the thing though, if you have any evidence that physics is non-constant, you can present it. It will be assessed, tested and then either accepted or rejected. If accepted, it may be incorporated into existing theories, or it may lead to the creation of new theories.


*Supernatural claims and religious stories don't count as reasons in physics

 

[AV1611VET]

10,000 different people with as many ways to Interpret every passage.

And all 10,000 believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

Find one atheist who believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

Which would you rather have?

10,000 people arguing how to get around a mine field?

Or 1 person telling you there is no mine field?

 

[David Lamb]

Let me rephrase.

The “everything” I refer to everything in the Bible.

Do you have everything in it figured out?

10,000 different people with as many ways to
Interpret every passage.

is it not self- belief rather than God-belief to
say any one of those interpretations is surely
correct, nay, perfect?



The value of Pi is in fact clearly shown in the Bible,
but contains a major rounding error.

The error would go unnoticed if one only “ believed the Bible”

That is much clearer, thank you. I agree that if someone says they understand everything in the bible perfectly, they are being boastful and arrogant. I don't know where the bible defines the value of pi, though.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because, to the best of our ability to test, the physical laws of the universe have been essentially unchanged since the very early universe.

The assumption is that 'things go along pretty much as they always have'. Unless you have evidence that they don't or a reason* why they shouldn't, that remains the baseline. Stuff continues to do what stuff has always done.

Here's the thing though, if you have any evidence that physics is non-constant, you can present it. It will be assessed, tested and then either accepted or rejected. If accepted, it may be incorporated into existing theories, or it may lead to the creation of new theories.


*Supernatural claims and religious stories don't count as reasons in physics

So you’re saying that people shouldn’t believe the Bible. I mean if you’d like to discuss the topic with people who don’t believe the Bible then you’re probably on the wrong forum. Unless your purpose for being on the forum is to persuade people to stop believing the Bible or to simply ridicule them for believing. You chose the forum, why did you choose this one?

 

[Astrid]

That is much clearer, thank you. I agree that if someone says they understand everything in the bible perfectly, they are being boastful and arrogant. I don't know where the bible defines the value of pi, though.

In kings. In Kings it describes a circle 10:units across, 30 around.

I didn’t say say “defines”. But the value of Pi is as clear to the simplest math
as ” four and twenty blackbirds” meaning 24.

i didn’t say “ everything perfectly” either.

So do you have ANY disagreement with what i did say?


My POINT which you did not address at all is that to claim one’s chosen
interpretation of some passage is “Gods ( infallible) Word“ is NOT “believing Gods word”.

It is self- belief.

 

[Astrid]

So you’re saying that people shouldn’t believe the Bible. I mean if you’d like to discuss the topic with people who don’t believe the Bible then you’re probably on the wrong forum. Unless your purpose for being on the forum is to persuade people to stop believing the Bible or to simply ridicule them for believing. You chose the forum, why did you choose this one?

Are you deliberately misinterpreting?

Coz if you can read a simple post so
wrong what on earth must you believe
when you read something hard, like the Bible?

 

[Gene2memE]

So you’re saying that people shouldn’t believe the Bible. I mean if you’d like to discuss the topic with people who don’t believe the Bible then you’re probably on the wrong forum. Unless your purpose for being on the forum is to persuade people to stop believing the Bible or to simply ridicule them for believing. You chose the forum, why did you choose this one?

Biblical literalism is a minority position, even on these forums.

If by "believe the Bible" you mean rejection of well substantiated facts about reality in favour of an unsubstantiated story, then yes, it's my position you should not believe the Bible. I'd prefer to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Even if that's intellectually uncomfortable at first.

Funnily enough though, the Catholic priests who educated me about geography, biology, history and comparative religion DID believe the Bible. Only they understood large parts of it were genres other than history and did not make truth statements and did not require a literal interpretation.

Even after 30+ years of rubbing up against various stripes of fundamentalists, this idea that ALL of the Bible must be literally true is baffling to me. Particularly given that in order to "believe the Bible" and talk about topics like the origin of the universe, the literalism is required to continually take stances that are prima facie ridiculous and easily disproven by the available evidence, (which has been the case for centuries at this point).

 

[AV1611VET]

Particularly given that in order to "believe the Bible" and talk about topics like the origin of the universe, the literalism is required to continually take stances that are prima facie ridiculous and easily disproven by the available evidence, (which has been the case for centuries at this point).

What evidence?

There was no evidence generated during the creation week.

The creation week was a series of one miracle after another.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Biblical literalism is a minority position, even on these forums.

If by "believe the Bible" you mean rejection of well substantiated facts about reality in favour of an unsubstantiated story, then yes, it's my position you should not believe the Bible. I'd prefer to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Even if that's intellectually uncomfortable at first.

Funnily enough though, the Catholic priests who educated me about geography, biology, history and comparative religion DID believe the Bible. Only they understood large parts of it were genres other than history and did not make truth statements and did not require a literal interpretation.

Even after 30+ years of rubbing up against various stripes of fundamentalists, this idea that ALL of the Bible must be literally true is baffling to me. Particularly given that in order to "believe the Bible" and talk about topics like the origin of the universe, the literalism is required to continually take stances that are prima facie ridiculous and easily disproven by the available evidence, (which has been the case for centuries at this point).

I really don’t care how many people actually believe the Bible, truth is not subjective to personal or popular opinion. Expecting me to jump on the bandwagon just because a bunch of other people don’t believe the Bible isn’t a viable argument. I don’t study the Bible just to have somebody else tell me what it says.

Predictions based on assumptions are not facts, even scientists say that their predicted age of the universe is not a fact. That’s the problem with discussing this topic, nobody seems to know the facts about the dating methods. Nobody seems to know the difference between evidence and proof. If people would actually take the time to learn about them they’d understand that they’re based on the idea that if decay rates remain constant and we calculate how long it would take to back trace the decay back to zero then the material would be approximately X amount of years old. The problem with this idea is we don’t know that there was no decay when the material was created. If the material contained isotopic decay as a result of the creation process then obviously the dating methods would be incorrect. So as long as there’s still a plausible argument to support the creation account in Genesis I’m not about to abandon the word of God.

I never said that the entire Bible is intended to be taken literally you’re exaggerating now. And when it comes to biblical doctrine the RCC isn’t the best source to find it.

 

[public hermit]

Biblical literalism is a minority position, even on these forums.

Are you sure that is the case on these forums? How so? I would think the opposite.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really don’t care how many people actually believe the Bible, truth is not subjective to personal or popular opinion. Expecting me to jump on the bandwagon just because a bunch of other people don’t believe the Bible isn’t a viable argument. I don’t study the Bible just to have somebody else tell me what it says.

Predictions based on assumptions are not facts, even scientists say that their predicted age of the universe is not a fact. That’s the problem with discussing this topic, nobody seems to know the facts about the dating methods. Nobody seems to know the difference between evidence and proof. If people would actually take the time to learn about them they’d understand that they’re based on the idea that if decay rates remain constant and we calculate how long it would take to back trace the decay back to zero then the material would be approximately X amount of years old. The problem with this idea is we don’t know that there was no decay when the material was created. If the material contained isotopic decay as a result of the creation process then obviously the dating methods would be incorrect. So as long as there’s still a plausible argument to support the creation account in Genesis I’m not about to abandon the word of God.

I never said that the entire Bible is intended to be taken literally you’re exaggerating now. And when it comes to biblical doctrine the RCC isn’t the best source to find it.

You sound like a man of faith!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Biblical literalism is a minority position, even on these forums.

If by "believe the Bible" you mean rejection of well substantiated facts about reality in favour of an unsubstantiated story, then yes, it's my position you should not believe the Bible. I'd prefer to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Even if that's intellectually uncomfortable at first.

Funnily enough though, the Catholic priests who educated me about geography, biology, history and comparative religion DID believe the Bible. Only they understood large parts of it were genres other than history and did not make truth statements and did not require a literal interpretation.

Even after 30+ years of rubbing up against various stripes of fundamentalists, this idea that ALL of the Bible must be literally true is baffling to me. Particularly given that in order to "believe the Bible" and talk about topics like the origin of the universe, the literalism is required to continually take stances that are prima facie ridiculous and easily disproven by the available evidence, (which has been the case for centuries at this point).

Oh and FYI the predicted ago of the earth went from 20 million years to 4.5 billion years in the last 160 years according to scientists. So it’s not as if this would be the first time they’ve been wrong on this subject. So what they’ve proven “for centuries” as you claim is that they don’t actually know.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You sound like a man of faith!

I’m a truck driver. I’m not a scientist or a scholar and I don’t pretend to be, but I can read and I’m not an idiot. Why do I know about isotopic and genetic decay? Because I took the time to actually read and learn about them from people who do specialize in these fields and that’s where I got my information from. Nobody else seems to care enough to actually learn about them because it’s not important to them because if they actually did take the time to read about it they wouldn’t be saying things like it’s a fact and it’s been proven because that’s not what the people who actually conduct radiometric dating methods say. It’s so much easier for them to just say no you’re wrong you don’t know what you’re talking about than to actually take the time to research it. I researched it because it is important to me to know about these things so that I can know for sure whether or not scientists have actually disproven the creation account in Genesis and they haven’t.

I see the same thing with the Bible. People aren’t interested in actually studying it or church history or early church writings. They’re just content in believing whatever they want to believe and they don’t care if it’s right or wrong because there’s other people out there that believe the same thing so that somehow makes it ok to believe whatever they want. They think you can just interpret the Bible however you see fit and there’s nothing wrong with it but they miss the fact that there’s only ONE TRUTH and the Bible teaches that one truth, so if you’re not interpreting it the way it was intended to be interpreted then you’re wrong. So many people just don’t care, it’s just not that important to them.