What caused the Universe?

[Subduction Zone]

If indeed I responded to a post meant for someone else as if directed to me and called it strawman of my argument then you are right.
My apologies.

No problem.

 

[Radrook]

No, I was simply pointing out how unreasonable that explanation was. How the universe began is still being studied but so far no need for a god of any sort has been found.

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/

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Wrong, no need by any scientist. Let's see a bit of science, that means an idea where someone was not afraid of making a fool of himself and was introduced in a well respected peer reviewed journal, that says a god is needed. Videos made by idiots for idiots are not "science". You made a positive claim, the burden of proof is upon you to support it.

ETA: And for someone that loves to shout "strawman" at the drop of a pin you just made a bit of one. I never said that atheists had eliminated the need for a god. I said that no scientist had never found a need for a god. Scientists leave themselves open to ideas that have not been proven wrong. So even atheist scientists have not ruled out the possibility of a god, they merely cannot find a need for a god, and neither has anyone else.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Were over 400 post into your original question...which you must come to realize there is a need for a God...then the topic turns a bit and shows how DNA also requires a God....and you squalk.

Uh, no, actually I didn't squalk when you turned to DNA. I ignored it because it was off topic. When you complained that you were being ignored, I explained that it was off topic.

We recently had a thread on DNA that you and I participated in. That thread went well over 1000 posts. So no, I am not afraid to talk about DNA. We could pick the topic up again if you like.

And you must have missed it, but I have explained over and over in this thread how Hawking's "god" satisfies the requirements for a universe as well as your God. If you missed all that, would you please go back and review it before you claim I admit I have no case?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're turning into a question avoider, I had hope for you. Still have some hope. I understand it's easier to avoid the questions than to face the logical consequences.

I am doing no such thing. In that post you asked one question, "how can we determine if it's false if there's no truth revealed by a revealer?"

And I think I have mentioned over and over that I turn to science as the best source of information on origins. And yes, there are some things science does not know, and may never know. And I am fine with knowing that there are some things I cannot know.

If you think a revealer is a better source of knowledge than science is, please share one fact of origins that you learned from this revealer, and how you know that what you heard from this revealer is true.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you quote the correct poster?

I am doing no such thing. In that post you asked one question, "how can we determine if it's false if there's no truth revealed by a revealer?"

And I think I have mentioned over and over that I turn to science as the best source of information on origins. And yes, there are some things science does not know, and may never know. And I am fine with knowing that there are some things I cannot know.

If you think a revealer is a better source of knowledge than science is, please share one fact of origins that you learned from this revealer, and how you know that what you heard from this revealer is true.

 

[Astrophile]

do you have any idea on how life got started?

No. I'm an astronomer, not a biologist or a chemist.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Did you quote the correct poster?

Thanks for catching that. I fixed the error.

 

[Chriliman]

I am doing no such thing. In that post you asked one question, "how can we determine if it's false if there's no truth revealed by a revealer?"

And I think I have mentioned over and over that I turn to science as the best source of information on origins.

I'm aware of the fact that human scientists are your revealer of truth, even though you admit they may never know the entire truth, so logically the entire truth will not come from human scientists. This alone, should cause you to reconsider your sources if you value truth and logic. If your fine with never knowing the truth about existence, then we can stop talking now.

And yes, there are some things science does not know, and may never know. And I am fine with knowing that there are some things I cannot know.

At best, you know there are some things you don't currently know, not that you cannot know.

If you think a revealer is a better source of knowledge than science is, please share one fact of origins that you learned from this revealer, and how you know that what you heard from this revealer is true.

I know the heavens and earth were formed by God and I know this because I first accepted it as true, I believed it. One must first accept something as true before they can say they know it's true, this is a fact. A person can't say they know something without first accepting a truth - believing. If you think a person can then explain how it's possible for a person to convey knowledge to others without first accepting a truth?

 

[MasonP]

I know the heavens and earth were formed by God and I know this because I first accepted it as true, I believed it. One must first accept something as true before they can say they know it's true, this is a fact. A person can't say they know something without first accepting a truth - believing. If you think a person can then explain how it's possible for a person to convey knowledge to others without first accepting a truth?

Accepting something is true without evidence to back up that truth only ever applies to Gods, what else do you accept as being true without evidence? nothing, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if I tell you I have a pet dog you would believe me because people having pet dogs is common, if I tell you I have a pet fire breathing dragon I think you would require a little more evidence..

 

[AV1611VET]

... what else do you accept as being true without evidence?

A fetus is a child in the womb?

 

[MasonP]

A fetus is a child in the womb?

That tells people more about you than you think.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm aware of the fact that human scientists are your revealer of truth, even though you admit they may never know the entire truth, so logically the entire truth will not come from human scientists. This alone, should cause you to reconsider your sources if you value truth and logic. If your fine with never knowing the truth about existence, then we can stop talking now.



At best, you know there are some things you don't currently know, not that you cannot know.



I know the heavens and earth were formed by God and I know this because I first accepted it as true, I believed it. One must first accept something as true before they can say they know it's true, this is a fact. A person can't say they know something without first accepting a truth - believing. If you think a person can then explain how it's possible for a person to convey knowledge to others without first accepting a truth?

That's a pretty bass ackwards way of figurin' things out, wouldn't ya' say?

 

[victorinus]

No, as long as you admit your previous error I am fine with you moving the goal posts.

Of course it is a bit off topic. The title of this thread is about what started the universe, not what started life.

do you think the rock evolved into a tree and then into an ape?

 

[victorinus]

With respect to life in particular, no, I don't know how it started, nor does anyone else at present.

do you have a reasonable explanation for it?

 

[victorinus]

No. I'm an astronomer, not a biologist or a chemist.

no -
you're an atheist
-and-
you don't want to know

 

[MasonP]

do you have a reasonable explanation for it?

No one does, if they say they know for sure then they are either lying or trying to get you to believe in their religion, either way you would be a fool to believe either one.
Life started here chemically when the circumstances were right or it was seeded by life in ice on an asteroid that crashed into the earth. they are just a couple of possible ideas.

 

[MasonP]

no -
you're an atheist
-and-
you don't want to know

If you could show some evidence to support your ideas I would stop being an atheist.
Which I suspect is a lot more than you are prepared to admit.

BTW. I believe in fairies because no one can prove to me that fairies do not exist. (Joke)

 

[victorinus]

No one does, if they say they know for sure then they are either lying or trying to get you to believe in their religion, either way you would be a fool to believe either one.

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

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm aware of the fact that human scientists are your revealer of truth, even though you admit they may never know the entire truth, so logically the entire truth will not come from human scientists.

Actually I said I trust science. 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.

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.

This alone, should cause you to reconsider your sources if you value truth and logic. If your fine with never knowing the truth about existence, then we can stop talking now.

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.

At best, you know there are some things you don't currently know, not that you cannot know.

Correct. So why are you jumping from "scientists don't currently know" to "scientists will never know?"

I know the heavens and earth were formed by God and I know this because I first accepted it as true, I believed it. One must first accept something as true before they can say they know it's true, this is a fact. A person can't say they know something without first accepting a truth - believing. If you think a person can then explain how it's possible for a person to convey knowledge to others without first accepting a truth?

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?