Our world came from nothing?

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#312 Aug 6, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>In science, the word "Theory," when capitalized, is used to describe the best explanation for a very large body of evidence. No Theories are devised unless that evidence demands explanation. To find out what evidence any Theory explains, it's better to go to a site that is focused on the branch of science in question. To demand that non-scientists supply it is both unreasonable and clueless. Here are the top-ranked astrophysics departments in the U.S.. You could begin by looking at their web pages.
#1 Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
#2 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
#3 University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
#4 Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
#5 Stanford University, Stanford, CA
#6 University of California—&#8203;Berkeley , Berkeley, CA
#7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
#8 University of California—&#8203;Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA
#9 University of Texas—&#8203;Austin, Austin, TX
#10 Johns Hopkins University (Rowland), Baltimore, MD
Theory is what we think, not what we know.

Theory is not fact my friend.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#313 Aug 6, 2014
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Theory is what we think, not what we know.
Theory is not fact my friend.
That's one point of view, but not a terribly useful one. Science isn't just about facts. Facts are relatively low in the hierarchy of knowledge. Theories make sense out of large collections of facts. As such, they develop over time as greater understanding is achieved. They are what we think about what we know.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#314 Aug 6, 2014
Theories also organize facts so as to make them more coherent. Without that organization, no wider understanding is possible. Theories are not acceptable unless they explain ALL of the facts that pertain to them--that's what the process of peer-review is for.

It seems odd that so many non-scientists act as though they were the final arbiters of scientific truth. Odder still that they expect to be taken seriously.

“come to Richie,, ”

Since: Nov 10

4-corners man

#315 Aug 7, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
That's one point of view, but not a terribly useful one. Science isn't just about facts. Facts are relatively low in the hierarchy of knowledge. Theories make sense out of large collections of facts. As such, they develop over time as greater understanding is achieved. They are what we think about what we know.
They are what we think about what we know? Thats religion! hahaha... ohoh
CunningLinguist

Spring Hill, FL

#316 Aug 7, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
Theories also organize facts so as to make them more coherent. Without that organization, no wider understanding is possible. Theories are not acceptable unless they explain ALL of the facts that pertain to them--that's what the process of peer-review is for.
It seems odd that so many non-scientists act as though they were the final arbiters of scientific truth. Odder still that they expect to be taken seriously.
https://m.youtube.com/watch...

No one describes it or explains it better ...

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#317 Aug 7, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
https://m.youtube.com/watch...
No one describes it or explains it better ...
Agreed.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#318 Aug 7, 2014
Just so folks know what I'm agreeing with, here's a quick transcript of the first three minutes or so of that youtube interview between Bill Moyers and Niel DeGrasse Tyson:

Bill Moyers: Well the astronomer Robert Jasper described it,“like explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb,: not “the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb,“ but “like the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb.”

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Yes, so there you’re stuck with the analogy of the biggest explosion you know, using that to describe something even bigger, which is hard to do, right? I mean, not to get morbid on you, but I was four blocks from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers because I live downtown, and I was trying to describe to others the sound of the collapse of a one hundred seven story building. And it is not like anything else. So I can say,“Well, imagine two trains colliding,” but how many of us have even seen or heard that? Whatever it is, it’s more than that, so you’re stuck… if the biggest explosion we’ve made on earth is a hydrogen bomb, then you say,“It’s a cosmic hydrogen bomb. It is… I think saying “It’s a cosmic hydrogen bomb” cheapens the event. No, it’s way bigger.

Moyers: No, I understand. An incredible flash of energy and light, though.

Tyson: And matter and all of this, all of the above.

Moyers: Do you give people who make this case that that was the beginning and that there had to be something that provoked the beginning, do you give them an A for at least trying to reconcile faith and reason?

Tyson: I don’t think they’re reconcilable.

Moyers: What do you mean?

Tyson, Well, so, let me say that differently. All efforts that have been invested by brilliant people of the past have failed at that exercise. They just failed. So, I don’t—the track record is so poor that going forward, I have zero confidence—near zero confidence –that there will be fruitful things too emerge from the effort to reconcile them. So, for example, if you knew nothing about science, and you read, say, the Bible, the Old Testament, which in Genesis is an account of nature, that’s what that is, and I said,“Give me your description of the natural world based only on this.” You would say,“The world was created in six days,” and that stars are just little points of light, much lesser than the sun, in fact they can fall out of the sky, right?‘Cause that’s what happened during the Revelation. One of the signs of the Second Coming is that the stars will fall out of the sky and land on earth. To even write that means you don’t know what those things are. You have no concept of what the actual universe is. So everybody who tried to make proclamations about the physical universe based on Bible passages got the wrong answer. So what happened was, when science discovers thins and you want to stay religious, you want to continue to believe that the Bible is unerring, what you would od is, you would say,“Well, let me go back to the Bible and reinterpret it.” Then you’d say things like,“Oh, they didn’t really mean that literally, they meant that figuratively. So this whole reinterpretation of how figurative the poetic passages of the Bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded.

Tyson is wonderfully intelligent and articulate. The whole interview is worth nine minutes of your time.
CunningLinguist

Spring Hill, FL

#319 Aug 8, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
Just so folks know what I'm agreeing with, here's a quick transcript of the first three minutes or so of that youtube interview between Bill Moyers and Niel DeGrasse Tyson:
Bill Moyers: Well the astronomer Robert Jasper described it,“like explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb,: not “the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb,“ but “like the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb.”
Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Yes, so there you’re stuck with the analogy of the biggest explosion you know, using that to describe something even bigger, which is hard to do, right? I mean, not to get morbid on you, but I was four blocks from the collapse of the World Trade Center towers because I live downtown, and I was trying to describe to others the sound of the collapse of a one hundred seven story building. And it is not like anything else. So I can say,“Well, imagine two trains colliding,” but how many of us have even seen or heard that? Whatever it is, it’s more than that, so you’re stuck… if the biggest explosion we’ve made on earth is a hydrogen bomb, then you say,“It’s a cosmic hydrogen bomb. It is… I think saying “It’s a cosmic hydrogen bomb” cheapens the event. No, it’s way bigger.
Moyers: No, I understand. An incredible flash of energy and light, though.
Tyson: And matter and all of this, all of the above.
Moyers: Do you give people who make this case that that was the beginning and that there had to be something that provoked the beginning, do you give them an A for at least trying to reconcile faith and reason?
Tyson: I don’t think they’re reconcilable.
Moyers: What do you mean?
Tyson, Well, so, let me say that differently. All efforts that have been invested by brilliant people of the past have failed at that exercise. They just failed. So, I don’t—the track record is so poor that going forward, I have zero confidence—near zero confidence –that there will be fruitful things too emerge from the effort to reconcile them. So, for example, if you knew nothing about science, and you read, say, the Bible, the Old Testament, which in Genesis is an account of nature, that’s what that is, and I said,“Give me your description of the natural world based only on this.” You would say,“The world was created in six days,” and that stars are just little points of light, much lesser than the sun, in fact they can fall out of the sky, right?‘Cause that’s what happened during the Revelation. One of the signs of the Second Coming is that the stars will fall out of the sky and land on earth. To even write that means you don’t know what those things are. You have no concept of what the actual universe is. So everybody who tried to make proclamations about the physical universe based on Bible passages got the wrong answer. So what happened was, when science discovers thins and you want to stay religious, you want to continue to believe that the Bible is unerring, what you would od is, you would say,“Well, let me go back to the Bible and reinterpret it.” Then you’d say things like,“Oh, they didn’t really mean that literally, they meant that figuratively. So this whole reinterpretation of how figurative the poetic passages of the Bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded.
Tyson is wonderfully intelligent and articulate. The whole interview is worth nine minutes of your time.
You have such a wonderful articulate way with words nightserf.

Here is another Takeaway, much shorter than the previous one, from Neil... A discussion about Bill O'Reilly.

Tyson
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance"

https://m.youtube.com/watch...

It's truly sad that the atheist forms have to be populated by religious people. I much prefer conversation with atheists.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#320 Aug 8, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
Theories also organize facts so as to make them more coherent. Without that organization, no wider understanding is possible. Theories are not acceptable unless they explain ALL of the facts that pertain to them--that's what the process of peer-review is for.
It seems odd that so many non-scientists act as though they were the final arbiters of scientific truth. Odder still that they expect to be taken seriously.
This is what I'm getting. Atheist says theory is fact if it was thought of by a Scientist and that scientist must be Atheist for his theory to be fact.

Basically this means that if his Atheist( doesn't matter if his stupid or super intelligent) if his Atheist and comes up with a theory it's accepted no matter how stupid the theory may sound.

If his a Religious person, then basically he is seen a too stupid too take his theory into consideration no matter what.

You Atheists only see things in your point of view and are too ignorant to understand and see other people's point of view. I've studied Evolution and know what it is, I just chosen not to believe it. But that automatically makes me ignorant in your Atheist eyes.
CunningLinguist

Spring Hill, FL

#321 Aug 8, 2014
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what I'm getting. Atheist says theory is fact if it was thought of by a Scientist and that scientist must be Atheist for his theory to be fact.
Basically this means that if his Atheist( doesn't matter if his stupid or super intelligent) if his Atheist and comes up with a theory it's accepted no matter how stupid the theory may sound.
If his a Religious person, then basically he is seen a too stupid too take his theory into consideration no matter what.
You Atheists only see things in your point of view and are too ignorant to understand and see other people's point of view. I've studied Evolution and know what it is, I just chosen not to believe it. But that automatically makes me ignorant in your Atheist eyes.
No, you're not ignorant, you're just to devoid of scientific knowledge.

Perhaps you should study history and by that I mean the history and true origin of your religion.:-/

There are actually only two questions that you need to answer.

Consult your clergy, ask these questions and report back to this forum the answer you received.

Ask your clergy for evidence that proves your God is the one true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot prove with their god.

Ask your clergy for evidence that proves your holy book aka The Bible is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot prove with their alleged Holy Book(s). Quran etc.

A religion impaired mind is always interesting to atheists.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#322 Aug 8, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're not ignorant, you're just to devoid of scientific knowledge.
Perhaps you should study history and by that I mean the history and true origin of your religion.:-/
There are actually only two questions that you need to answer.
Consult your clergy, ask these questions and report back to this forum the answer you received.
Ask your clergy for evidence that proves your God is the one true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot prove with their god.
Ask your clergy for evidence that proves your holy book aka The Bible is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot prove with their alleged Holy Book(s). Quran etc.
A religion impaired mind is always interesting to atheists.
Actually, I have a lot of scientific knowledge I just choose not to believe some of it. Next thing is.

You basically said since I can't prove my God and since I can't be sure my religion is right compared to all the other religions I must become Atheist.

Because I can't be sure my religion is the right one, doesn't mean I should just turn to Atheism. Also, you are asking for evidence? There is evidence out there. They found noah's ark which measured to be the size that it was said to be in the Bible.
Richardfs

Merrylands, Australia

#323 Aug 8, 2014
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I have a lot of scientific knowledge I just choose not to believe some of it. Next thing is.
You basically said since I can't prove my God and since I can't be sure my religion is right compared to all the other religions I must become Atheist.
Because I can't be sure my religion is the right one, doesn't mean I should just turn to Atheism. Also, you are asking for evidence? There is evidence out there. They found noah's ark which measured to be the size that it was said to be in the Bible.
In other works you disregard fact for fantasy.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#324 Aug 9, 2014
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I have a lot of scientific knowledge I just choose not to believe some of it. Next thing is.
You basically said since I can't prove my God and since I can't be sure my religion is right compared to all the other religions I must become Atheist.
Because I can't be sure my religion is the right one, doesn't mean I should just turn to Atheism. Also, you are asking for evidence? There is evidence out there. They found noah's ark which measured to be the size that it was said to be in the Bible.
When you choose not to believe something, you place it outside of the body of your knowledge. When you reject principles of science without refuting it within the context of the scientific method, you reject the basis of all science. Many believers are able to separate faith from science, believing in the former and understanding the latter, and, just as each atheist stops believing in deities in his/her own way, I'm sure that each believer that also uses science to understand the physical universe has his/her own way of doing that. Those who, like you, go the other way. do no real harm either until they insist that others take their nonscience seriously.

If you want to believe in Bible stories that make no sense from a skeptic's point of view, that's fine. Just don't expect any rational skeptics to take your beliefs seriously.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#325 Aug 11, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
When you choose not to believe something, you place it outside of the body of your knowledge. When you reject principles of science without refuting it within the context of the scientific method, you reject the basis of all science. Many believers are able to separate faith from science, believing in the former and understanding the latter, and, just as each atheist stops believing in deities in his/her own way, I'm sure that each believer that also uses science to understand the physical universe has his/her own way of doing that. Those who, like you, go the other way. do no real harm either until they insist that others take their nonscience seriously.
If you want to believe in Bible stories that make no sense from a skeptic's point of view, that's fine. Just don't expect any rational skeptics to take your beliefs seriously.
I know how Evolution works. I just choose not to believe in it. That doesn't make me magically uneducated on the theory of Evolution.

Also, just because I don't believe in Evolution and The Big Bang(Which both of them haven't even been proven yet) doesn't mean I now don't believe in anything about science. I disagree with two things and now you Atheists are acting like I don't agree with anything Science says.

Lastly, when I take a look at life and look at the wonderful technology and the beautiful ocean and the majestic animals of our world. The beauty of love and having children. Learning new things about life and enjoying it. Achieving and watching sports and playing. There is so much to do in life and too just call it a accident. I don't know how you just look at life and then just say "Big Bang did it".

Life is a gift Atheists are not thankful for.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#326 Aug 11, 2014
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
I know how Evolution works. I just choose not to believe in it. That doesn't make me magically uneducated on the theory of Evolution.
Also, just because I don't believe in Evolution and The Big Bang(Which both of them haven't even been proven yet) doesn't mean I now don't believe in anything about science. I disagree with two things and now you Atheists are acting like I don't agree with anything Science says.
Lastly, when I take a look at life and look at the wonderful technology and the beautiful ocean and the majestic animals of our world. The beauty of love and having children. Learning new things about life and enjoying it. Achieving and watching sports and playing. There is so much to do in life and too just call it a accident. I don't know how you just look at life and then just say "Big Bang did it".
Life is a gift Atheists are not thankful for.
One can be grateful without being thankful. The difference is that gratitude need not be directed to a perceived benefactor, but in order to be thankful, one needs someone to thank.

On science, you accept some of its findings without accepting the process by which discoveries are made and verified, i.e., the scientific method. If you did accept it, you could not reject principles derived from it without using it to refute them.

For myself, I am very confident about the Theory of Evolution because I understand it fairly well, it makes sense, and, unlike you, I don't see it as a threat to any of my nonscientific beliefs (and, yes, I do have some of those). I'm less confident about the Big Bang because the science is so complicated that I'd need several years of education about physics to understand it to my satisfaction and I just don't have the time or energy for that. I accept it provisionally because those who do have that training have confidence in it.

You make me think of O'Reilly's recent gaffe, "Tide comes in, tide goes out, you can't explain it!" Well, Bill can't explain it, but, as Neil DeGrass Tyson pointed out, the tidal physics have been well understood for a couple of centuries now. "That's part of the 4% that we do understand." The principals of evolution are likewise well understood and have withstood a century and a half of testing and challenges.

Moreover, the truth of evolution hardly rules out the existence of a creator god. One could have set the process in motion, even nudged it along now and then. Having no faith, I feel no need to reconcile it with science, but I think it can be done. But you must understand that all science is built on the scientific method. To reject fundamental Theories derived from it with its use is to reject science itself even if you accept some of its other principles.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#327 Aug 11, 2014
Oops-- that's, "To reject fundamental Theories derived from it withOUT its use is to reject science itself even if you accept some of its other principles."
Thinking

Sidmouth, UK

#328 Aug 14, 2014
Of course not. You think your god created the maggot burrowing into the eye of a malnourished child.
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one thinking nothing created this beautiful world of ours, or at least it used to be beautiful in some places.
I'm not mental, I just have different opinions, beliefs and views. What's the problem with that.
Thinking

Sidmouth, UK

#329 Aug 14, 2014
Irony.
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm also a very intelligent person.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#330 Aug 14, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Irony.
<quoted text>
Okay, tell me this. If 6billion people are not intelligent, our world would of never been this successful. Not every discovery in mankind was made by a Atheist. You do know that right?

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#331 Aug 14, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
One can be grateful without being thankful. The difference is that gratitude need not be directed to a perceived benefactor, but in order to be thankful, one needs someone to thank.
On science, you accept some of its findings without accepting the process by which discoveries are made and verified, i.e., the scientific method. If you did accept it, you could not reject principles derived from it without using it to refute them.
For myself, I am very confident about the Theory of Evolution because I understand it fairly well, it makes sense, and, unlike you, I don't see it as a threat to any of my nonscientific beliefs (and, yes, I do have some of those). I'm less confident about the Big Bang because the science is so complicated that I'd need several years of education about physics to understand it to my satisfaction and I just don't have the time or energy for that. I accept it provisionally because those who do have that training have confidence in it.
You make me think of O'Reilly's recent gaffe, "Tide comes in, tide goes out, you can't explain it!" Well, Bill can't explain it, but, as Neil DeGrass Tyson pointed out, the tidal physics have been well understood for a couple of centuries now. "That's part of the 4% that we do understand." The principals of evolution are likewise well understood and have withstood a century and a half of testing and challenges.
Moreover, the truth of evolution hardly rules out the existence of a creator god. One could have set the process in motion, even nudged it along now and then. Having no faith, I feel no need to reconcile it with science, but I think it can be done. But you must understand that all science is built on the scientific method. To reject fundamental Theories derived from it with its use is to reject science itself even if you accept some of its other principles.
Now. You just said evolution is a theory. Your Atheist buddies said it's a fact. Cool thing to know that some Atheists agree with me that Evolution hasn't been proven.

There's a basic principle. Either nothing created everything (which is impossible) or something always existed and created everything(Which is at least possible).

Also, I accept most of other science, just not evolution and the Big Bang. For you Atheists, it's a must agree on what science says and no one may give their opinion or argument against science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 10 min Uncle Sam 42
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 55 min Richardfs 48,658
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Richardfs 5,700
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 11 hr Thinking 21,875
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 hr ChristineM 258,041
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 15 hr Mikko 1
More from around the web