How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

From what we do know there is zero evidence of any "creator".

The universe is in motion. According to Newton, there is no such thing as spontaneous motion.

The currently observed motion stems from an event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This is consistent with Newton.

Then something caused the event. Couldn't have been something physical since things can't create themselves.

 

[dnsmith35]

No it's not. It's based on a speculation from incomplete information to date.

Projecting your own shortcomings again?

Nope. Just stating a fact. Your little knitting circle is as "religiously faithful" as GISYMS, you just have faith in a different "truth" is all.

The religion of atheism is no more scientifically valid that the Luddite's belief the earth is flat.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hi, you have received -56 reputation points from dnsmith35.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Your opinion is nothing but guesswork and has nothing to do with science.

Regards,
dnsmith35

Note: This is an automated message.

You can't provide a single link to substantiate your own BS so you go ballistic and resort to negging instead?



Do you even have a clue how that reflects on you and your beliefs?



Of course you don't!



Let me put this into context for you. Your neg is so pathetic I am not even going to waste one of my reps negging you back. I would much rather that my rep went to someone more worthy of receiving it.

 

[emilynghiem]

From what we do know there is zero evidence of any "creator".

The universe is in motion. According to Newton, there is no such thing as spontaneous motion.

The currently observed motion stems from an event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This is consistent with Newton.

Since none of us was alive 13.7 billion years ago
to verify the whole process that happened since then,
this is all faith based on some level and depends on interpretation.

Since not everyone is going to be convinced this way,
any argument proving a consensus on God cannot depend on this approach
which will not work for all people. Can we find a better approach
that works for each person that does not require faith in either God or science
but their own experiences natural to that person,
so we include all people with or without depending on faith in science, God, etc.

 

[Montrovant]

Antony Flew was a reknown Atheist for most of his life. He is probably best known to Atheists for his "No True Scotsman" argument. He is said to have concluded by the age of 15 that there was no God. This was not a man who was undecided or meek in his Atheistic beliefs, he was a devoutly Atheistic person who argued vociferously with theists on the concept of God. In 2004, he converted to theism because of "the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species."

Here is another such testimony from Philip Vander Elst.

"Growing up in a non-Christian family with intellectually gifted but unbelieving parents, I used to think that belief in God and the supernatural had been discredited by the advance of science, and was incompatible with liberty. Religious faith seemed to me to involve the blind worship of a cosmic dictator, and the abandonment of reason in favour of ‘revelation’. Why, in any case, should I take religion seriously, I thought, when the existence of evil and suffering clearly discredited the Christian claim that our world owed its existence to a benevolent Creator?"

Here are but two examples of people who believed as strongly as anyone on this forum that God was not real, did not exist, was a silly and foolish notion to believe in. Yet we see, they changed their minds. There are literally thousands of such examples, and this happens daily around the world. It's not because they are stupid or weak minded, it's not because some televangelist is beating them over the head with a Bible, and it's not because they've been brainwashed by religion. Quite simply, it's because they dared to open their minds and explore the possibilities objectively.

Too many of you are simply stuck in a rut. You've made up your minds and nothing can change it. But the mere fact that you spend such inordinate amounts of your personal time, here, debating against God, trying to convince people to believe as you do, that shows you are not fully content with your beliefs. It's not enough satisfaction for you to disbelieve, you need others to disbelieve with you. So you come here, day in and day out, to enter one post after another, garnering strength in support of each other like co-dependent enablers. And it frustrates you because even that is not enough, you have to be mean and vindictive as well, insult and denigrate, attempt to hurt people with your words.

This is where Moonbat usually pops in to interject the "pot and kettle" analogy, but my purpose here is to fight the decline of humanity. I don't need to justify my beliefs. I don't have anything to prove.

Of course, you don't need to justify your beliefs or have anything to prove. The fact that you spend such inordinate amounts of your personal time, here, debating for god, trying to convince people to believe as you do, that couldn't show that you are not fully content with your beliefs. You would never be mean and vindictive as well, insult and denigrate, attempt to hurt people with your words, would you?

As to your examples of people going from atheism to theism, so? If I go post some links to theists who turned to atheism, what would be the point? Couldn't I just as easily, and with just as much evidence, claim that they turned from theism to atheism because they dared to open their minds and explore the possibilities objectively?

The reason I would use the pot and kettle phrase here, and the reason you know I would do it, is because you are complaining about the exact thing you are doing. That level of blatant hypocrisy just screams to be called out.

Perhaps the people you denigrate and insult for their atheism are simply trying to fight the decline of humanity as they see it. As you've shown so often, however, you are convinced you know what atheists think and feel, even if it is directly contradicting the things they post. Of course, when anyone attempts to discuss what you think or feel about a subject, you get in a huff about how wrong they are, even if it is actually completely in line with what you post.

But hey, you're fighting against the decline of humanity! What's a little hypocrisy and assumption in the face of such a noble cause, right?

 

[dnsmith35]

Hi, you have received -56 reputation points from dnsmith35.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Your opinion is nothing but guesswork and has nothing to do with science.

Regards,
dnsmith35

Note: This is an automated message.

You can't provide a single link to substantiate your own BS so you go ballistic and resort to negging instead?



Do you even have a clue how that reflects on you and your beliefs?



Of course you don't!



Let me put this into context for you. Your neg is so pathetic I am not even going to waste one of my reps negging you back. I would much rather that my rep went to someone more worthy of receiving it.

I have consistently asserted THAT THERE IS NO PROOF EITHER WAY. And in your ignorance you persist in demanding you know better. YOU DON'T. Go away little man, worship your own ignorance or provide CONCRETE PROOF I AM WRONG.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The universe is in motion. According to Newton, there is no such thing as spontaneous motion.

The currently observed motion stems from an event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This is consistent with Newton.

Then something caused the event. Couldn't have been something physical since things can't create themselves.

The event wasn't "caused". It occurred. All of the matter and energy of the Universe was compressed into a Singularity. Do you know what happens when you compress things? Of course you don't. The pressure in the singularity exceeded the force of gravity that was holding it together and that resulted in the Big Bang. The event of the Big Bang resulted in the motion we observe today.

No need for anything else involved. Just matter and energy doing what they do best.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course you, AKA Don Quixote, haven't established that there is any "decline of humanity" in the first place.

Ha ha [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] thanks for chiming in.

For "decline of humanity" I was going to point to proof by comparing
the popularity of reality TV versus historic classics (like "Don Quixote"?)
but that would not be fair. Because of our broader access to media technology,
which is a huge advancement, of course, there is going to be more garbage as well.

To be fair, neither Boss nor you nor anyone here needs to prove your
understanding of "what is spiritual" or "what areas are declining"
This is not necessary to bring about agreement on vital points.

As long as we agree X is positive for humanity's future and
Y is negative or unsustainable, we can have the same discussions
and likely arrive at better conclusions faster than arguing over
our reasons for seeing X as good and Y as bad. Can't we agree on
that without challenging each other's systems of reasoning?
My bf and I agree don't agree on how we got our answers,
but we agree X is right and Y is wrong. Can we focus there instead?

On what works which we should pursue in unified agreement
and what fails which we should avoid and prevent where we can.
Hagging over points that are not necessary does not work for me, can we do better?
Thanks for your help to point out those places that do not work!
So we can eliminate and stick to points that do. I will ask Boss to do the same,
or he will try to answer and defend each point which isn't necessary but distracting.

emily, in some cases I would say that yes, we can certainly skip the 'why' or even the 'how' of things and agree that some things are good and should be promoted. Unfortunately, those things seem to be few and far between. Just look at the political discussions on this board; even the smallest things seem to find extreme opposition between people. It is often very hard to find things that people can agree on.

 

[dnsmith35]

The currently observed motion stems from an event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This is consistent with Newton.

Then something caused the event. Couldn't have been something physical since things can't create themselves.

The event wasn't "caused". It occurred.

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. We have no proof of either.

All of the matter and energy of the Universe was compressed into a Singularity.

Which of course does not prove causality. It is simply your opinion, and everyone, like an excremental orifice, has one.

Do you know what happens when you compress things? Of course you don't. The pressure in the singularity exceeded the force of gravity that was holding it together and that resulted in the Big Bang. The event of the Big Bang resulted in the motion we observe today.

Again, your opinion! No fact involved!

No need for anything else involved. Just matter and energy doing what they do best.

I did not come here to assert a right way to think about a higher power. I came here to ridicule everyone who thinks they have concrete physical evidence either way. Only the quantum idiocy of some people who think proof exists outside of faith EITHER WAY exists.

The very idea anyone believes, that the existence, or non existence of God, can be proved with science is stupidity.

 

[Boss]

The event wasn't "caused". It occurred. All of the matter and energy of the Universe was compressed into a Singularity. Do you know what happens when you compress things? Of course you don't. The pressure in the singularity exceeded the force of gravity that was holding it together and that resulted in the Big Bang. The event of the Big Bang resulted in the motion we observe today.

No need for anything else involved. Just matter and energy doing what they do best.

First of all, there is no scientific basis to support Singularity. It is a theory without evidence. Second, gravity and energy in a physical sense, are part of physical nature... which didn't exist before the universe existed. Finally, even IF gravity and energy are immortal and can't be created or destroyed, you have not proven they are not spiritually manifested.

So boom, boom, boom... there goes your hypothesis.

All the science and physics in the world cannot explain why gravity has the properties it has or energy has the properties it has. Why mathematics works. Why physics operate. Why atoms, particles and molecules behave as they do. You simply take all of this stuff for granted and pretend there need be no explanation whatsoever. But there IS an explanation, and humans have been intrinsically connecting with it for all their existence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The universe is in motion. According to Newton, there is no such thing as spontaneous motion.

The currently observed motion stems from an event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This is consistent with Newton.

Since none of us was alive 13.7 billion years ago
to verify the whole process that happened since then,
this is all faith based on some level and depends on interpretation.

Since not everyone is going to be convinced this way,
any argument proving a consensus on God cannot depend on this approach
which will not work for all people. Can we find a better approach
that works for each person that does not require faith in either God or science
but their own experiences natural to that person,
so we include all people with or without depending on faith in science, God, etc.

No one has "faith" in science. We have empirical scientific data from with it is possible to use the scientific discipline of mathematics to reach logical deductions. The scientific evidence for the Big Bang can be heard in the static on your radio and TV when they are not tuned into any specific station.

There is no compromise in Mathematics. It is either right or wrong. The Scientific Process is self correcting. All of our current knowledge of the Universe comes from science. 25 years ago we didn't know that there were planets around other stars. Thanks to science we not only know that they exist but we have found some where water can exist on the surface.

I will stick to science because it is providing real credible answers. I really don't need to reach a consensus with those whose agenda is to deliberately mischaracterize science as a "religion". Once upon a time this nation respected knowledge and science. I would rather work with immigrants who have come here to work hard and obtain an education for themselves and their children than with fear based theists who are doing their utmost to drag this nation back into the Dark Ages.

 

[dnsmith35]

Of course you, AKA Don Quixote, haven't established that there is any "decline of humanity" in the first place.

Ha ha [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] thanks for chiming in.

For "decline of humanity" I was going to point to proof by comparing
the popularity of reality TV versus historic classics (like "Don Quixote"?)
but that would not be fair. Because of our broader access to media technology,
which is a huge advancement, of course, there is going to be more garbage as well.

To be fair, neither Boss nor you nor anyone here needs to prove your
understanding of "what is spiritual" or "what areas are declining"
This is not necessary to bring about agreement on vital points.

As long as we agree X is positive for humanity's future and
Y is negative or unsustainable, we can have the same discussions
and likely arrive at better conclusions faster than arguing over
our reasons for seeing X as good and Y as bad. Can't we agree on
that without challenging each other's systems of reasoning?
My bf and I agree don't agree on how we got our answers,
but we agree X is right and Y is wrong. Can we focus there instead?

On what works which we should pursue in unified agreement
and what fails which we should avoid and prevent where we can.
Hagging over points that are not necessary does not work for me, can we do better?
Thanks for your help to point out those places that do not work!
So we can eliminate and stick to points that do. I will ask Boss to do the same,
or he will try to answer and defend each point which isn't necessary but distracting.

emily, in some cases I would say that yes, we can certainly skip the 'why' or even the 'how' of things and agree that some things are good and should be promoted. Unfortunately, those things seem to be few and far between. Just look at the political discussions on this board; even the smallest things seem to find extreme opposition between people. It is often very hard to find things that people can agree on.

 

[dnsmith35]

The currently observed motion stems from an event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. This is consistent with Newton.

Since none of us was alive 13.7 billion years ago
to verify the whole process that happened since then,
this is all faith based on some level and depends on interpretation.

Since not everyone is going to be convinced this way,
any argument proving a consensus on God cannot depend on this approach
which will not work for all people. Can we find a better approach
that works for each person that does not require faith in either God or science
but their own experiences natural to that person,
so we include all people with or without depending on faith in science, God, etc.

No one has "faith" in science. We have empirical scientific data from with it is possible to use the scientific discipline of mathematics to reach logical deductions. The scientific evidence for the Big Bang can be heard in the static on your radio and TV when they are not tuned into any specific station.

There is no compromise in Mathematics. It is either right or wrong. The Scientific Process is self correcting. All of our current knowledge of the Universe comes from science. 25 years ago we didn't know that there were planets around other stars. Thanks to science we not only know that they exist but we have found some where water can exist on the surface.

I will stick to science because it is providing real credible answers. I really don't need to reach a consensus with those whose agenda is to deliberately mischaracterize science as a "religion". Once upon a time this nation respected knowledge and science. I would rather work with immigrants who have come here to work hard and obtain an education for themselves and their children than with fear based theists who are doing their utmost to drag this nation back into the Dark Ages.

Yet in spite of your atheistic religious beliefs, there is still no proof of the existence or non-existence of God. So where is your credible answer? POOF, up in smoke!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Then something caused the event. Couldn't have been something physical since things can't create themselves.

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. We have no proof of either. Which of course does not prove causality. It is simply your opinion, and everyone, like an excremental orifice, has one. Again, your opinion! No fact involved!

No need for anything else involved. Just matter and energy doing what they do best.

I did not come here to assert a right way to think about a higher power. I came here to ridicule everyone who thinks they have concrete physical evidence either way. Only the quantum idiocy of some people who think proof exists outside of faith EITHER WAY exists.

The very idea anyone believes, that the existence, or non existence of God, can be proved with science is stupidity.

Thanks for admitting to being a complete and utter waste of time! Have a nice day!

PS You have a place of honor on my ignore list!

 

[Derideo_Te]

The event wasn't "caused". It occurred. All of the matter and energy of the Universe was compressed into a Singularity. Do you know what happens when you compress things? Of course you don't. The pressure in the singularity exceeded the force of gravity that was holding it together and that resulted in the Big Bang. The event of the Big Bang resulted in the motion we observe today.

No need for anything else involved. Just matter and energy doing what they do best.

First of all, there is no scientific basis to support Singularity. It is a theory without evidence. Second, gravity and energy in a physical sense, are part of physical nature... which didn't exist before the universe existed. Finally, even IF gravity and energy are immortal and can't be created or destroyed, you have not proven they are not spiritually manifested.

So boom, boom, boom... there goes your hypothesis.

All the science and physics in the world cannot explain why gravity has the properties it has or energy has the properties it has. Why mathematics works. Why physics operate. Why atoms, particles and molecules behave as they do. You simply take all of this stuff for granted and pretend there need be no explanation whatsoever. But there IS an explanation, and humans have been intrinsically connecting with it for all their existence.

Your absurd pretensions to knowledge are highly amusing. That is all that keeps you from joining dnsmith35 on my iggy list! Have a nice day!

 

[emilynghiem]

No one has "faith" in science. We have empirical scientific data from with it is possible to use the scientific discipline of mathematics to reach logical deductions. The scientific evidence for the Big Bang can be heard in the static on your radio and TV when they are not tuned into any specific station.

There is no compromise in Mathematics. It is either right or wrong. The Scientific Process is self correcting. All of our current knowledge of the Universe comes from science. 25 years ago we didn't know that there were planets around other stars. Thanks to science we not only know that they exist but we have found some where water can exist on the surface.

I will stick to science because it is providing real credible answers. I really don't need to reach a consensus with those whose agenda is to deliberately mischaracterize science as a "religion". Once upon a time this nation respected knowledge and science. I would rather work with immigrants who have come here to work hard and obtain an education for themselves and their children than with fear based theists who are doing their utmost to drag this nation back into the Dark Ages.

Hi DT and thanks for not running away, you and your input are most valued and needed.

1. for you, science may not require faith because you understand all the steps
To those of us who do not, we must take it on faith that you are correct
and someone else who interprets data differently is the one in error, etc.
So to others it is faith based.
Similar if you do not feel God/Jesus is automatically true without need to for proof,
then references to this system is faith based. to some they feel it is proven to them.

2. the people I know working hardest to help the immigrant community are faith based.
when I bring up science, they take it on faith and trust the doctors and scientists on faith.

to divide religion from science would be to divide the community,
so no I do not believe in either rejecting science for religion
or religion for science. we need both to reconcile and serve the community.

3. as for math YES let us take this approach as a model
like Math if we agree on general patterns, we don't have to have all the same answers
X Y Z can mean spirit mind and body to one person
A B C can mean collective level, psychological level of conscience, and individual level
1 2 3 can mean God Christ and Holy Spirit
yet we can agree to align our systems respectively.

1, A and X mean the abstract or collective level of truth
3, C, Z can mean our individual beliefs and experience in life
2 B Y can be the areas we can agree on joining the other two.

So as long as we align our variables we don't have to prove these are the same
because they are not. but we can still communicate across our different systems.

can we try this -- to align our terms and concepts
and try to agree on common principles? thanks dt!

 

[dnsmith35]

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. We have no proof of either. Which of course does not prove causality. It is simply your opinion, and everyone, like an excremental orifice, has one. Again, your opinion! No fact involved!I did not come here to assert a right way to think about a higher power. I came here to ridicule everyone who thinks they have concrete physical evidence either way. Only the quantum idiocy of some people who think proof exists outside of faith EITHER WAY exists.

The very idea anyone believes, that the existence, or non existence of God, can be proved with science is stupidity.

Thanks for admitting to being a complete and utter waste of time! Have a nice day!

PS You have a place of honor on my ignore list!

Since I proved conclusively you have no proof, I am content to revel in your ignorance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Of course you, AKA Don Quixote, haven't established that there is any "decline of humanity" in the first place.

Ha ha [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] thanks for chiming in.

For "decline of humanity" I was going to point to proof by comparing
the popularity of reality TV versus historic classics (like "Don Quixote"?)
but that would not be fair. Because of our broader access to media technology,
which is a huge advancement, of course, there is going to be more garbage as well.

To be fair, neither Boss nor you nor anyone here needs to prove your
understanding of "what is spiritual" or "what areas are declining"
This is not necessary to bring about agreement on vital points.

As long as we agree X is positive for humanity's future and
Y is negative or unsustainable, we can have the same discussions
and likely arrive at better conclusions faster than arguing over
our reasons for seeing X as good and Y as bad. Can't we agree on
that without challenging each other's systems of reasoning?
My bf and I agree don't agree on how we got our answers,
but we agree X is right and Y is wrong. Can we focus there instead?

On what works which we should pursue in unified agreement
and what fails which we should avoid and prevent where we can.
Hagging over points that are not necessary does not work for me, can we do better?
Thanks for your help to point out those places that do not work!
So we can eliminate and stick to points that do. I will ask Boss to do the same,
or he will try to answer and defend each point which isn't necessary but distracting.

I appreciate your desire to build consensus, my dear Emily. But dnsmith35 openly admitted that he was only here to "ridicule". Don Quixote is also a lost cause in my opinion.

In order for what you want to succeed you are going to have to find people with 2 positive attributes. A willingness to compromise and an open mind. Neither of those two meet that criteria.

Please let me know when you do find theists who are willing to make this happen. We can move forward together. This thread is a dry hole because it is infested with "godaholics" AKA people addicted to their theist beliefs to the point where they will destroy everything else that is good and worthy about religion.

Peace
DT

 

[dnsmith35]

The event wasn't "caused". It occurred. All of the matter and energy of the Universe was compressed into a Singularity. Do you know what happens when you compress things? Of course you don't. The pressure in the singularity exceeded the force of gravity that was holding it together and that resulted in the Big Bang. The event of the Big Bang resulted in the motion we observe today.

No need for anything else involved. Just matter and energy doing what they do best.

First of all, there is no scientific basis to support Singularity. It is a theory without evidence. Second, gravity and energy in a physical sense, are part of physical nature... which didn't exist before the universe existed. Finally, even IF gravity and energy are immortal and can't be created or destroyed, you have not proven they are not spiritually manifested.

So boom, boom, boom... there goes your hypothesis.

All the science and physics in the world cannot explain why gravity has the properties it has or energy has the properties it has. Why mathematics works. Why physics operate. Why atoms, particles and molecules behave as they do. You simply take all of this stuff for granted and pretend there need be no explanation whatsoever. But there IS an explanation, and humans have been intrinsically connecting with it for all their existence.

He is not smart enough to understand what you said, and he will continue stupidly claiming he can prove something.

 

[dnsmith35]

Of course you, AKA Don Quixote, haven't established that there is any "decline of humanity" in the first place.

Ha ha [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] thanks for chiming in.

For "decline of humanity" I was going to point to proof by comparing
the popularity of reality TV versus historic classics (like "Don Quixote"?)
but that would not be fair. Because of our broader access to media technology,
which is a huge advancement, of course, there is going to be more garbage as well.

To be fair, neither Boss nor you nor anyone here needs to prove your
understanding of "what is spiritual" or "what areas are declining"
This is not necessary to bring about agreement on vital points.

As long as we agree X is positive for humanity's future and
Y is negative or unsustainable, we can have the same discussions
and likely arrive at better conclusions faster than arguing over
our reasons for seeing X as good and Y as bad. Can't we agree on
that without challenging each other's systems of reasoning?
My bf and I agree don't agree on how we got our answers,
but we agree X is right and Y is wrong. Can we focus there instead?

On what works which we should pursue in unified agreement
and what fails which we should avoid and prevent where we can.
Hagging over points that are not necessary does not work for me, can we do better?
Thanks for your help to point out those places that do not work!
So we can eliminate and stick to points that do. I will ask Boss to do the same,
or he will try to answer and defend each point which isn't necessary but distracting.

I appreciate your desire to build consensus, my dear Emily. But dnsmith35 openly admitted that he was only here to "ridicule". Don Quixote is also a lost cause in my opinion.

In order for what you want to succeed you are going to have to find people with 2 positive attributes. A willingness to compromise and an open mind. Neither of those two meet that criteria.

Please let me know when you do find theists who are willing to make this happen. We can move forward together. This thread is a dry hole because it is infested with "godaholics" AKA people addicted to their theist beliefs to the point where they will destroy everything else that is good and worthy about religion.

Peace
DT

I admitted I was here to ridicule ANY ONE WHO ASSERTS THERE IS CONCRETE PROOF EITHER WAY. Your opinion has been ridiculed very effectively.

As I said, you have proved NOTHING, but that you follow atheistic religion.