What caused the Universe?

[MasonP]

God created life
-is-
a reasonable explanation for life
-and-
it is the only one

I guess the "believe my religion" people have captured you then.

 

[quatona]

God created life
-is-
a reasonable explanation for life
-and-
it is the only one

There is a difference between an assertion and an explanation.

 

[victorinus]

There is a difference between an assertion and an explanation.

that's why we have so many words
-
they are all different
-and-
meaningful

 

[victorinus]

I guess the "believe my religion" people have captured you then.

I am ruled by reason and logic
-and-
a need to understand why I am here

 

[quatona]

that's why we have so many words
-
they are all different
-and-
meaningful

I´m sure your words are meaningful to you.

 

[victorinus]

I´m sure your words are meaningful to you.

they are not my words
-but-
I put them together in a meaningful way using reason, logic, and common sense

 

[Chriliman]

Actually I said I trust science.

I know, but science is nothing without humans to make it what it is, agreed? Science is driven by humans, not the other way around.

The question we're attempting to answer here is "what force formed the universe and humans?" We know it's not science because humans are the force that formed science and made it what it is today. Whatever force formed the universe is the same force that formed humans and therefore is the same force that makes science possible. Agreed?

So this force that formed the universe and humans and science is greater than science and humans and the universe. Agreed?

That is different from trusting scientists as my revealers. I trust the process of science, that is the process of proposing and testing hypotheses, of continuously analyzing all claims, and of revising views where new evidence requires it. As most scientists engage in science, I trust them. But they are not my "revealers". They are engaging in a process that I find to be revealing.

Science is a process that humans have formed, but it's not what formed the universe or humans. Since this is true we can know that the true answer about origins will not come from the human made process of science, but rather, the true answers will come from the force that formed the universe and humans and science.

That fact that they may never know the whole truth of origins does not mean they will never know the entire basics of the process. Perhaps some day we will have a well understood theory of everything. The fact that we do not have that now does not mean that logically the entire theory of everything will never be known.

I didn't say they will never know, I said they may never know, which is what you said earlier as well.

How would the fact that I don't know some things prove that I don't value truth and logic? I value truth and logic, and hope that those scientists who study origins will learn more about it.

If you value truth and logic then that's good. I hope the same for scientists and everyone, learning is good as long as what you're learning is true, but again, how can you know it's true if there isn't a truth revealer about everything you're learning? Even the evidence that is presented to us is interpreted and a truth is revealed based on it. This means the truth revealed is more important than the evidence that supports it. Sure the evidence is important but the truth that the evidence points to is more important. Agree?

Others know the heavens and earth were formed by Allah and they know this because they first accepted it as true, they believed it. Are their beliefs therefore true?

They do have true belief because they've accepted a conveyed truth, but what matters is if what they believe is actually true or not and the only way to figure that out is to test their beliefs against other conveyed truths to see if it holds up and if it doesn't hold up then they can either admit error and accept the actual truth or continue in the delusion. The point is that there has to be an objective truth that can inform us of our delusions and either free us from the delusion if we accept it or keep us in the delusion if we don't accept it.

Muslims believe God created/formed heaven and earth, which is true, where they get confused is that they think God doesn't mind if they keep sinning because they think He loves to forgive them and that he always wants to be forgiving people forever and ever. This isn't true, God forgives each man once through Christ and therefore doesn't need to keep forgiving because He makes us perfect through Christ.

Think about it; If God loves to forgive people's sins then this means he has no desire to stop forgiving sins, which means sin will exist as long as God exists, which is forever. The true God would not allow sin to exist forever because it is evil, He will destroy it so His creation can be free from evil. God has and is and will destroy sin and evil by sending His son, Jesus Christ to accomplish this and we're still experiencing the effects of what God is doing through Christ until the end when all creation is made new and free from sin and evil and death.

This is what all Christians look forward to, creation free from the effects of sin and evil, which only cause death and destruction and we thank God and Christ for the hope of a pure and free and everlasting reality that is to come on earth. Of course all of this is a truth statement that you can either accept or not and the evidence is logic.

If you don't accept it, then we can stop talking because the truth has been stated and the evidence has been presented. I don't want to carryon in endless debating with you.

Matthew 10:14
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town(or internet thread) and shake the dust off your feet."

The thing I like about CF is that I get to speak to new people, I'm aware of those who do not accept what I say.

I listen to Jesus when He says:

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

This will be my last post on this thread.

 

[quatona]

they are not my words
-but-
I put them together in a meaningful way using reason, logic, and common sense

I´m sure you perceive your own post that way.

Now, after this short episode of you patting your own shoulder, back to the difference between assertions and explanations.

 

[victorinus]

I´m sure you perceive your own post that way.

Now, after this short episode of you patting your own shoulder, back to the difference between assertions and explanations.

we have a dictionary for that

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Essentially, all the conclusions you reach based on the senses must be taken as faith since their is absolutely no way to prove that you aren't a brain in a vat.

lol!

No, we can't prove that we are "not" brains in vats, just like we can't prove that there is "no" cookie monster hiding in another dimension, ready to eat you alive. Just like we can't prove that there is "no" easter bunny.

You people are so funny.
If this is the kind of "arguments" you need to push forward in order to be able to prevent that religious bubble you live in from bursting, then ... well... I guess you know.

 

[MasonP]

I am ruled by reason and logic
-and-
a need to understand why I am here

Yet you still don't understand because all you have to go on is words in an old book, you don't even know if you're reading the right book, you might think you are but you have no real way of knowing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An eternally existing universe (even if punctuated by repeated "big bangs") shaped by an eternal God requires the fewest leaps of logic to understand.

You mean... aside from the leaps required to assume an unsupportable, undetectable, unfathomable, "supernatural" entity exists and created the universe?

You know what requires NO leaps whatsoever? Simply acknowledging ignorance, when you don't know something.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've been leaning towards this line of thought as well. I would like to find Scripture that backs it up though.

Why "scripture"? Wouldn't actual supportive and verifiable evidence be more usefull and meaningfull?

One thing I've come up with so far is Genesis 1:1 Young's literal translation which states:

"In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --"

Which clearly implies God has prepared the heavens and the earth, not necessarily created the heavens and the earth from nonexistent material.

Or how people can "re-interprete" scripture, just so they can hang on to their religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

-because-
you don't know what did

Ignoring for a moment the absurd idea that we don't know that the sun will come up tomorrow (we actually do off course, and explain in remarkable detail how and why), your reasoning here is a textbook example of the argument from ignorance.

"x is the answer, because we don't know".

For crying out loud... does it get more blatantly fallacious then that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

-and-
you prefer not to have any reasonable explanation

"I don't know, therefor X" is the very opposite of a reasonable answer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

do you have a reasonable explanation?
-if not-
how can you object to our?

And this only burries the "argument" even deeper into the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

"you don't know, therefor my baseless faith based story is correct!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

do you have any idea on how life got started?

Translation: when one of the gaps in which god was injected, is closed by an actual explanation... there is always some other gap in our knowledge we can stuff this god into.


In Neil deGrass Tyson's words: "If that is how you define your god, then your god is no more then an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance".

 

[victorinus]

Yet you still don't understand because all you have to go on is words in an old book, you don't even know if you're reading the right book, you might think you are but you have no real way of knowing.

you keep using the word knowing
-and-
I keep saying that I have a reasonable explanation
-so-
do you have a reasonable explanation?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No need was found by atheist scientists you mean. Not all non-religious scientists are atheists. Many if not most are agnostics who leave the possibility wide open.

Are top Scientists Overwhelmingly Atheist?
http://randalrauser.com/2013/06/are-top-scientists-overwhelmingly-atheists/

You are welcome to post any scientific publication by any scientist - theist or otherwise - in which gods are demonstrated to play a role in anything.

 

[quatona]

we have a dictionary for that

Then use it.