|
Post by billt on May 18, 2007 12:27:17 GMT -5
dont understand space/time??? indeed i do, BOTH are infinite, there was no beginning and will be no end, space ALWAYS had to exist, either it had matter in it or NOT, but an infinite empty space HAS TO EXIST.
time is the name we give to the transitions among past, present and future, we break it down into seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, etc.....BUT actual "time" existed long before humans and will continue after humans are gone!
i do grasp these concepts are far beyond the thoughts of most people.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 18, 2007 12:42:30 GMT -5
We may not be sure the Big Bang theory is true but there is real evidence for it. Unlike "God" That's interesting. Your belief in the Big Bang requires faith. You have some supporting evidence but, to actually make that final commitment of belief, you have to take a step of faith. Very interesting.....
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 18, 2007 12:49:10 GMT -5
there is no actual "evidence" of a big bang.....there are some UNexplained cosmic rays/waves that some claim to come from the big bang BUT there is NOT one iota of proof they did.
the real "evidence" should be obvious and observable, a huge void where it happened.
as to it not being an "explosion" well, explode means to burst forth because of internal pressure.....THAT is EXACTLY what the big bang theory is, that ALL matter was located in one small space under tremendous pressure, and it BURST forth due to that immense internal pressure!
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 13:11:08 GMT -5
dont understand space/time??? indeed i do, BOTH are infinite, there was no beginning and will be no end, space ALWAYS had to exist, either it had matter in it or NOT, but an infinite empty space HAS TO EXIST. time is the name we give to the transitions among past, present and future, we break it down into seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, etc.....BUT actual "time" existed long before humans and will continue after humans are gone! i do grasp these concepts are far beyond the thoughts of most people. It's fun that you can make up your own definitions for stuff. Space/Time is one thing. There is no both.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 13:24:04 GMT -5
We may not be sure the Big Bang theory is true but there is real evidence for it. Unlike "God" That's interesting. Your belief in the Big Bang requires faith. You have some supporting evidence but, to actually make that final commitment of belief, you have to take a step of faith. Very interesting..... I notice some folks like to misuse the words faith and theory. Maybe we should capitalize Faith when we mean the theological definition (faith in things unknown) and Theory when we mean a scientific theory. Since you don't understand what faith is here's the definition from dictionary.com: faith 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 18, 2007 13:31:48 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying that you have faith, blondie.
"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 13:37:39 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying that you have faith, blondie. "2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." Um, note that it's not the same as 8.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 18, 2007 13:53:31 GMT -5
WTH? Did I ever say you had "#8" faith? I simply said you had faith which, according to your very own post defining faith, is an accurate discription.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 14:26:37 GMT -5
WTH? Did I ever say you had "#8" faith? I simply said you had faith which, according to your very own post defining faith, is an accurate discription. So what does this mean? "That's interesting. Your belief in the Big Bang requires faith. You have some supporting evidence but, to actually make that final commitment of belief, you have to take a step of faith. Very interesting....."We have "faith" in everything. That's not the same as blind faith. Faith is a bad word. It's often used by Christian apologists as a trick to equate something we have no proof for with something we do. The Big Bang is just a scientific Theory. There's evidence to support it but there are other theories. No need for faith on way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 18, 2007 14:39:50 GMT -5
in the interest of accuracy....the big bang IS a hypothesis, NOT a theory....we lack the evidence and ability to determina a scientific theory about the origins of the universe at this time.
for someone so critical of everyone elses' use of words, blondie maybe YOU need to learn some before you make your own errors!
another example space and time being the SAME...under our definitions of english they clearly are NOT the same! space is PHYSICAL, time is a word we use to label the present past and future! time is NOT physical!
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 18, 2007 14:56:02 GMT -5
So what does this mean? "That's interesting. Your belief in the Big Bang requires faith. You have some supporting evidence but, to actually make that final commitment of belief, you have to take a step of faith. Very interesting....."We have "faith" in everything. That's not the same as blind faith. Faith is a bad word. It's often used by Christian apologists as a trick to equate something we have no proof for with something we do. The Big Bang is just a scientific Theory. There's evidence to support it but there are other theories. No need for faith on way or the other. You're amazing. The Big Bang cannot be proven but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The existence of a deity who created this universe cannot be proven but that doesn't mean one does not exist. Science has no provable answer for how the Universe began yet you accuse Christian's of having "blind faith"? All right. I'll play your stupid, little semantic game. What word would you use instead of "faith"?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 15:10:26 GMT -5
"I'll take magic debate words for 300 Alex."
"Objectivity".
What is blondie's response?
"Correct!...the other acceptable response would be "rationalizing".
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 18, 2007 15:13:37 GMT -5
LOL!!!!
|
|
|
Post by MaccusGermanis on May 18, 2007 15:24:50 GMT -5
"Special Pleading"
What does blondie say when having nothing left to say?
Just wait for it.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 15:27:32 GMT -5
in the interest of accuracy....the big bang IS a hypothesis, NOT a theory....we lack the evidence and ability to determina a scientific theory about the origins of the universe at this time. for someone so critical of everyone elses' use of words, blondie maybe YOU need to learn some before you make your own errors! another example space and time being the SAME...under our definitions of english they clearly are NOT the same! space is PHYSICAL, time is a word we use to label the present past and future! time is NOT physical! If your second point wasn't so incredibly wrong I would say your first point was good. I think it's fair to say that the Big Band is a hypothesis and hasn't made it to Theory yet. Space and time are the same thing. It's all relative. Bu-dump-cha. You either understand what I'm saying and are arguing semantics or you don't know your science.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 15:37:32 GMT -5
The Big Bang cannot be proven but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The existence of a deity who created this universe cannot be proven but that doesn't mean one does not exist. Science has no provable answer for how the Universe began yet you accuse Christian's of having "blind faith"? All right. I'll play your stupid, little semantic game. What word would you use instead of "faith"? The Big Band is science. God is vague magic. We know what the Big Bang is and a lot about how it's supposed to work. We don't know what God is or how it works. Hypothesis is a good word. Maybe theory: Wouldn't the Big Bang theory be considered a hypothesis and not a theory? Wouldn't the Big Bang theory be considered a hypothesis and not a theory? In my research done by free will I realized that not much proof has actually been given of this major event in space.Actually I disagree with that. I think that there is now a lot of evidence in favour of the Big Bang Theory. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is according to my dictionary:
HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.
THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.
I think that there is enough evidence for the Big Bang that it should be called a theory.
1. We can observe radiation left over from the Big Bang in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and even see fluctuations in that from which it is believed the galaxies formed.
2. The expansion of the universe implies that at some time in the past everything must have been a lot closer together and hotter, which sounds a lot like the Big Bang to me!
3. In GR (General Relativity), there is a theory called the singularity theory which can be used to prove that there must have been a singularity (ie. a Big Bang) at some point in the past for every possible way we know to describe the Universe.
There is probably more evidence I could quote if I thought about it some more, but at least this will give you something to think about.
curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=362
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 15:48:16 GMT -5
".......God is vague magic"
Vague? I though we had a magic book that gave details?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 16:07:35 GMT -5
".......God is vague magic" Vague? I though we had a magic book that gave details? Lots of magic books out there.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 16:12:44 GMT -5
Like the one with Darwin's name on it. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 18, 2007 16:18:11 GMT -5
Here's another one!!!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 18, 2007 18:38:56 GMT -5
For another, I find that most people who try so very hard to disprove God really have an issue with personal morality. You find wrong. I can't believe Evangelicals use this silly straw man argument. Almost all Atheist reject the gods because they find the idea absurd not because they secretly want to shoplift. AHA! Presuming again, I see. Did I say "it is well established that most people" or anything similar? Nope, I said "I find that most". Me. Personal experience, not something on a Website, in a poll, or in some whacked out book. You see, I've been in Christian circles for years. One of the top reasons people refused to accept God was that they didn't want to give up certain aspects of their life -- be it drinking, casual sex, whatever. In other words, they felt that the "Christian thing" would cramp their style. In other words, an issue with personal morality. So if they can continue to convince themselves that there is no God, than they can pretty much carry on doing whatever they want. Again, this is not from Wikipedia or some Website. I know you'll struggle with that because I don't know if I've ever seen you pull out personal experiences. You seem to debate the reality of anything that is not documented some where. Well, I love my kids and I can't really document that where it could be proven. But I can show them I love them and they'll have to have faith that it is true. Yep, you guessed it: faith. Because some things do require that word. Love just happens to be one of those things. Do you love anyone? Can you prove that love or will the people in your life just have to doubt you too because you can't prove it? After all, there's always room for doubt...
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 18, 2007 21:28:12 GMT -5
Speaking of faith... I always liked Calvin & Hobbes .
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 22:30:09 GMT -5
AHA! Presuming again, I see. Did I say "it is well established that most people" or anything similar? Nope, I said "I find that most". Me. Personal experience, not something on a Website, in a poll, or in some whacked out book. You see, I've been in Christian circles for years. One of the top reasons people refused to accept God was that they didn't want to give up certain aspects of their life -- be it drinking, casual sex, whatever. In other words, they felt that the "Christian thing" would cramp their style. In other words, an issue with personal morality. So if they can continue to convince themselves that there is no God, than they can pretty much carry on doing whatever they want. Again, this is not from Wikipedia or some Website. I know you'll struggle with that because I don't know if I've ever seen you pull out personal experiences. You seem to debate the reality of anything that is not documented some where. Well, I love my kids and I can't really document that where it could be proven. But I can show them I love them and they'll have to have faith that it is true. Yep, you guessed it: faith. Because some things do require that word. Love just happens to be one of those things. Do you love anyone? Can you prove that love or will the people in your life just have to doubt you too because you can't prove it? After all, there's always room for doubt... Fair enough. My personal experience is that Christians are incapable of objective reasoning and empathy. But beyond anecdotal evidence Atheists commit less crimes than Christians and are more moral by definition because we behave ethically by our own accord and not because we fear supernatural punishment.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 18, 2007 22:35:35 GMT -5
We may not be sure the Big Bang theory is true but there is real evidence for it. Unlike "God" That's interesting. Your belief in the Big Bang requires faith. You have some supporting evidence but, to actually make that final commitment of belief, you have to take a step of faith. Very interesting..... Just to revisit this. Obviously you mean a belief in the Big Bang involves faith like I have faith the sun will rise in the morning. You can't possibly be implying it's like faith in the supernatural because that would be a tired, old, disingenuous Christian apologetic talking point that tries to equate fact and fiction.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 19, 2007 5:01:30 GMT -5
Fair enough. My personal experience is that Christians are incapable of objective reasoning and empathy. But beyond anecdotal evidence Atheists commit less crimes than Christians and are more moral by definition because we behave ethically by our own accord and not because we fear supernatural punishment. Well, if we put personal experience into play, then you have something to work with. And I will agree with your statement of objective reasoning and empathy. I experience it with fellow Christians on both counts. Since I've really only encountered (to my knowledge) one self-proclaimed atheist (besides you, but forum conversation is not the same), I have very little to work with as to agreeing or disagreeing with you. However, I have ventured into the online conversations of atheists as an observer. I would dare say that empathy is not an attribute that they easily displayed. In fact, whenever a well-intentioned Christian ventured into the fray, they were beat down with insults. Some deserved the insults (they were dufuses and attacked first) but some tried to be objective and the atheists just ganged up and "attacked" them. And objective reasoning was not exhibited evenly amongst them either. Would it not be fair to say that there are bad examples on both sides of the fence? After all, atheists and Christians have one important characteristic in common: humanity. I do want to address one aspect of your post: That's a common misunderstanding of true Christianity, by both nonbelievers and believers. Again, its the humanity thing. Parents can use the threat of punishment, bosses can do the same, many people use it. The threat can be very real. This is where I differ. And it should be, IMO, why Christians do what they do. I don't act in life out of fear of divine punishment or reward. If I did so, it would be selfish. If I do something because I think I will be rewarded, then I'm looking for personal benefit. Likewise, if I avoid doing something out of fear of punishment, again, that benefits me. Me, me, me. Its not about me. If you had a child and they had a messy room (and you disliked that, some people don't ), would you rather they cleaned it because they feared your wrath or desired your reward, or because they just wanted to show they cared for you? People are not dogs, so they need not fear a swift kick or a Scooby Snack just to do something, but its true that these things are sometimes needed. Humanity rears its ugly head again. Yet how much greater would it be if we walked throughout life without such selfish intentions? That's what true Christianity is about. Its about doing what you do to glorify God. I'm sorry if you don't see enough of that in action.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 19, 2007 13:21:43 GMT -5
Just to revisit this. Obviously you mean a belief in the Big Bang involves faith like I have faith the sun will rise in the morning. You can't possibly be implying it's like faith in the supernatural because that would be a tired, old, disingenuous Christian apologetic talking point that tries to equate fact and fiction. Not even close, Blondie. Go back to post #25 if you need to. That's a really poor analogy.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 20, 2007 11:03:13 GMT -5
From blondie's favorite: Wikipedia " Precise modern models of the Big Bang appeal to various exotic physical phenomena that have not yet been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments or incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics. Of these features, dark energy and dark matter are the most secure, while inflation and baryogenesis remain speculative: they provide satisfying explanations for important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory. Explanations for such phenomena remain at the frontiers of inquiry in physics." That means they made it up. They might have good reason and evidence to believe it but, the fact still remains. They don't know. I'll even give you a, "they don't know yet" for the sake of argument. As soon as you guy start attacking science you've lost whatever point you're trying to make. Science is the best method we've got for figuring stuff out. I don't understand how you can dismiss something based on evidence and be so gullible when it come to something based on faith or revelation. If you're going to attack science and be intellectually honest you have to be a nihilist. If you think the Big Bang is just "made up" you're out of your mind. Go back and reread the looooooooooong Wikipedia entry on the Big Bang. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidenceOne of the greatest thing about science is it makes predictions about the natural world. For instance dark matter: www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070516.wdarkmatter0516/BNStory/Science/home
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 20, 2007 19:58:39 GMT -5
Blondie, maybe you're just really busy but your reading comprehension skills seemed to have slipped for a moment. If you'll notice, post #55 is a response to post #53 and the analogy therein. Go back and read post #25 as it relates to your analogy and then come back and let's try this again.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 21, 2007 11:56:25 GMT -5
Blondie, maybe you're just really busy but your reading comprehension skills seemed to have slipped for a moment. If you'll notice, post #55 is a response to post #53 and the analogy therein. Go back and read post #25 as it relates to your analogy and then come back and let's try this again. Instead off attacking my comprehension try restating what you mean more coherently. It looks to me like you're trying to equate the uncertainty of a scientific theory with the uncertainty of faith–a vague concept at best. All uncertainties aren't equal.
|
|