A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by KellyJay
“…you should know that those that believe that the big bang happened and have understood the theory believe time began at the big bang and thus there is no “time before the big bang” as you said. -so how can they be trying to avoid the “metaphysical” of time before the big bang when they don’t believe such a time exists? “

Yes, they believe time began at ...[text shortened]... s must have had a beginning caused by something beyond
itself according to you I assume.
Kelly

…Yes, they believe time began at the Big Band, heard that before, which makes
time part of that something from nothing doesn’t it?…

Who said that small dense object came from nothing?
-read on and my comments will clarify what I mean by that:

…does not for an instant change my point, you either have time in or part of you small object and BEFORE that you had NOTHING,….(my emphasis)

You fail to understand this:
For our universe, time started at the big bang. Therefore there was no “NOTHING” BEFORE the big bang because there was no BEFORE! Therefore, it makes no logical sense to say that “the universe came from nothing” because “the universe merely came (into existence)” -but not from “nothing”

…and THEN you had SOMETHING, ...…(my emphasis)

The “THEN” in the above implies that there was a BEFORE the SOMETHING which there wasn’t.

…It certainly CONNOT mean all things must have had a beginning caused by something BEYOND ITSELF according to you I assume. ...…(my emphasis)

?
I am not sure what you mean by that because I assume we BOTH believe that! -although we completely disagree on WHAT the cause of the beginning is.
Isn’t believing that a “god” caused the beginning of “the universe” means that you are assuming that there is at least one thing (in this case, “the universe&ldquo😉 that had a beginning caused by something BEYOND ITSELF (in this case, “god&rdquo😉?

Originally posted by whodey
True. In fact, many many gods have gone by the way side because of what you have pointed out. However, the Biblical God seems very much alive as he has been through the millinea so you could say it is additional evidence. In fact, what are the major religions in the world today? Christianity, Islam, and Judism come to mind and are all based on the Biblica ...[text shortened]... God but did not interact with mankind he would be essentially dead to us despite his existence.

However, the Biblical God seems very much alive as he has been through the millinea so you could say it is additional evidence. In fact, what are the major religions in the world today? Christianity, Islam, and Judism come to mind and are all based on the Biblical God. What are some others?

The fact that a religion (or any belief) has endured doesn't really say anything about its veracity. Effectively you're using the argument ad populum or the argument from popularity. So it's a popular view so it must be true.

The belief that the earth revolved around the sun lasted a very long time and if we were at a stage where they still believed it, you could make the same argument.

In effect, God is only as real to us as he interacts with us.

And that supposed interaction manifests how? How would that be measured?

There have been studies on the effects of prayer by setting up a control group and a test group. They both are told that they are being "prayed for" and then the monitor the effect on their lives. Up until now I don't think any effect has been found.

This evidence is subjective and frankly, not scientific at all unless you can measure it objectively.

I have noticed that that some equate the existence of god with the innerrant truth of the bible. I.e. If there is a flaw found in the bible such as the flood not having happened or the earth isn't really 6000 years old then somehow god must not exist.

The problem is, the bible has errors in it. The evidence we see is not consistent with a 6000 year old planet, nor is it consistent with there having been a world wide flood. We also see no amount of significant evidence of the exodus or other events that should show some traces if they were true.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Yes, they believe time began at the Big Band, heard that before, which makes
time part of that something from nothing doesn’t it?…

Who said that small dense object came from nothing?
-read on and my comments will clarify what I mean by that:

…does not for an instant change my point, you either have time in or part of you small ob ...[text shortened]... e, “the universe&ldquo😉 that had a beginning caused by something BEYOND ITSELF (in this case, “god&rdquo😉?

[/b]There was no before, uh right. You have a start of a process, the
big bang, and there was nothing, null, na da before the big bang and
that is, science? That is like saying you have an up with no down. I'm
sure it makes perfect sense to you, the evidence for it must be
huge, can I see some? I'd say you have stepped in a huge pile of
faith here, a strong belief system at best which puts you on equal
footing with someone who believes in creation.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There was no before, uh right. You have a start of a process, the
big bang, and there was nothing, null, na da before the big bang and
that is, science? That is like saying you have an up with no down. I'm
sure it makes perfect sense to you, the evidence for it must be
huge, can I see some? I'd say you have stepped in a huge pile of
faith here, a s ...[text shortened]... system at best which puts you on equal
footing with someone who believes in creation.
Kelly[/b]

…There was no before, uh right. You have a start of a process, the
big bang, and there was nothing, null, na da BEFORE the big bang and
that is, science? …(my emphasis)

What is “na da”? -I cannot find it in the dictionary.

There was no “BEFORE” the big bang. To extrapolation from observation that the universe is expanding as well as extrapolation from relativity and quantum mechanics and certain mathematical equations etc that there was a big bang and there was no “before“ the big bang is science. This is often the kind of way how real science is often done.

As I was at pains to point out in my last post:

“Therefore there was no “NOTHING” BEFORE the big bang because there was no BEFORE! Therefore, it makes no logical sense to say that “the universe came from nothing” because “the universe merely came (into existence)” -but NOT from “nothing” “

Do you comprehend this above concept?

…That is like saying you have an up with no down. sure it makes perfect sense to you…

Just because you cannot comprehend it doesn’t mean that it isn’t so. There are many things that I do not fully understand such as certain things in quantum mechanics -that doesn’t mean quantum mechanics “doesn’t make sense”, it just means, like you, I have finite intellect.

…I'd say you have stepped in a huge pile of faith here …

You are wrong. Extrapolation from observation that the universe is expanding as well as extrapolation from relativity and quantum mechanics and certain mathematical equations that the universe began with a big bang and time started at this big bang is not “faith”, it is just science.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…There was no before, uh right. You have a start of a process, the
big bang, and there was nothing, null, na da BEFORE the big bang and
that is, science? …(my emphasis)

What is “na da”? -I cannot find it in the dictionary.

There was no “BEFORE” the big bang. To extrapolation from observation that the universe is expanding as well as rse began with a big bang and time started at this big bang is not “faith”, it is just science.[/b]

There was no before the Big Bang, you may as well just say there is
a God. The fact that you have to cut off reality before an event should
tell you that you have a “hole” in your theory so vast you have to
say it isn't there. It isn't my fault you model is that flaky, the universe
came into existence from a time before time out of nothing that isn't
called nothing!
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…There was no before, uh right. You have a start of a process, the
big bang, and there was nothing, null, na da BEFORE the big bang and
that is, science? …(my emphasis)

What is “na da”? -I cannot find it in the dictionary.

There was no “BEFORE” the big bang. To extrapolation from observation that the universe is expanding as well as ...[text shortened]... rse began with a big bang and time started at this big bang is not “faith”, it is just science.[/b]

You are wrong. Extrapolation from observation that the universe is expanding as well as extrapolation from relativity and quantum mechanics and certain mathematical equations that the universe began with a big bang and time started at this big bang is not “faith”, it is just science.

This does nothing for that hole you have at the start of the process.
Suggesting that you see the movement of the universe and it is thus
and so, does not mean "automatically" there was simply no time at
the beginning of it all, it only means that you see movement in the
univsere.
Kelly

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
The fact that a religion (or any belief) has endured doesn't really say anything about its veracity. Effectively you're using the argument ad populum or the argument from popularity. So it's a popular view so it must be true.

There is a difference between saying that a particular religion is popular verses saying that a particular religion has survived. As I have said before, if a religion "dies", so to must the god of that religion in terms of his or her relationship to mankind.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
And that supposed interaction manifests how? How would that be measured?

Can God be measured? Can God be tested? Can a God that is immaterial and infinite adhere to such criteria?

Once again, all we have is the testimony of those who claim to have experienced divine. All we can hope for is a taste of such an infinite and unmeasureable God.

Originally posted by whodey
There is a difference between saying that a particular religion is popular verses saying that a particular religion has survived. As I have said before, if a religion "dies", so to must the god of that religion in terms of his or her relationship to mankind.

There is a difference between saying that a particular religion is popular verses saying that a particular religion has survived

Yes, a slim one, but I would say that it being popular is the major reason it has survived.

As I have said before, if a religion "dies", so to must the god of that religion in terms of his or her relationship to mankind

So Thor used to exist, he just died? Or does he just not have a relationship with mankind anymore?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
There have been studies on the effects of prayer by setting up a control group and a test group. They both are told that they are being "prayed for" and then the monitor the effect on their lives. Up until now I don't think any effect has been found.

And there are scriptures that indicate that God does not condone such testing. Such a God, if he exists, is not our lab rat.

Originally posted by whodey
Can God be measured? Can God be tested? Can a God that is immaterial and infinite adhere to such criteria?

Once again, all we have is the testimony of those who claim to have experienced divine. All we can hope for is a taste of such an infinite and unmeasureable God.

Can God be measured? Can God be tested?

Good questions.

Can a God that is immaterial and infinite adhere to such criteria?

Depends on the definition of god of course. It seems most religious people define their god specifically to avoid their detection.

All we can hope for is a taste of such an infinite and unmeasureable God.

I think we can hope for much more than that. I hope for more objective knowledge of our reality. I hope for the advancement and survival of our species through investigating our world without requiring the supernatural to fill in the gaps.

Originally posted by whodey
And there are scriptures that indicate that God does not condone such testing. Such a God, if he exists, is not our lab rat.

Of course, isn't that convenient. God hates being discovered objectively.

God hates such a ridiculous and unreasonable desire for "evidence". We're in trouble if god is that illogical.

No one is suggesting god be a lab rat.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn

I have noticed that that some equate the existence of god with the innerrant truth of the bible. I.e. If there is a flaw found in the bible such as the flood not having happened or the earth isn't really 6000 years old then somehow god must not exist.

The problem is, the bible has errors in it. The evidence we see is not consistent with a 6000 year old ...[text shortened]... nificant evidence of the exodus or other events that should show some traces if they were true.[/b]

Some do equate the existence of God with the innerrancy of scripture. What you then come up with are people who percieve errors and then do not believe or people who explain away apparent errors and continue to believe. However, then you have people like me who have issues with the belief in innerrancy of scripture when in and of itself makes no such claim.

I view scripture as the inspired word of God. That is all that it claims to be. However, I would say that the "errors" contained in scripture are simply man's attept at translating and/or fully comprehending the inspired word. For example, I take issue with those who read the Genesis account, for example, and say that the earth should then only be 6000 years old. As I have pointed out rabbis who lived well before the advent of modern science studied the original Hebrew text did not make such claims and, in fact, made claims that seem to indicate that the earth was much older than a mere 6000 years.

What gives me comfort is that fact that scripture is repetitive. For example, you have four gospels about the same life of Christ. You then have the old Testament pointing to one Messiah. As far as general teachings about such things as love and faith these teachings remain remarkably cohesive despite reading a book that spans thousands of years and many, many authors throughout the ages.

Originally posted by whodey
Some do equate the existence of God with the innerrancy of scripture. What you then come up with are people who percieve errors and then do not believe or people who explain away apparent errors and continue to believe. However, then you have people like me who have issues with the belief in innerrancy of scripture when in and of itself makes no such claim. ...[text shortened]... fact, made claims that seem to indicate that the earth was much older than a mere 6000 years.

However, I would say that the "errors" contained in scripture are simply man's attept at translating and/or fully comprehending the inspired word.

Why the superfluous quotes around the word errors? Are you suggesting they aren't errors?

Where's the original and untranslated inspired word then? Is it the greek? Do we have a copy of it anywhere?

How would you or anyone know the original when they saw it? Would god mind us testing that?

For example, I take issue with those who read the Genesis account, for example, and say that the earth should then only be 6000 years old.

The 6000 years old number comes from the complete supposed genealogy through jesus noting ages, etc... it isn't just from genesis. In fact, I think the person who originally came up with the number actually gave the exact time of creation, funnily enough.

As I have pointed out rabbis who lived well before the advent of modern science studied the original Hebrew text did not make such claims and

Well, not everyone makes every claim. I'm not claiming every christian believes or makes that claim nor that every religious person does. I'm most definitely happy not all do - it gives me hope for our future.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I think we can hope for much more than that. I hope for more objective knowledge of our reality. I hope for the advancement and survival of our species through investigating our world without requiring the supernatural to fill in the gaps.[/b]

What about principles laid out by Christ? Would you consider them objecitve knowledge? For example, the commandment to love God and man will ensure you of livng a sinless life and even if that means loving those who hate you. Using your objective lense is this not an inescapable truth? In addition, is love not what makes our lives worth while? Is it not the primary need above all else in our lives and without it, our lives become a meaningless unfulfilled dung heap? If so, what we have is an unmeasurable phenomenon that impacts every aspect of our existence even though, in and of itself, love does not really exist.

Don't get me wrong, science is interesting and I enjoy it very much but it is not a need in my life that is at all comparible to my need for love. Love is the connecting phenomenon that links the material with the immaterial world and, ironically, it rules both.