Religious debate (split from main board)

[Snakes on a Wii]

How did it all start though? How did the Big Bang start, and if nothing was there, how was there a bang? I can't prove to you there is a God, but there are definitely things that science doesn't answer.

I posted about this awhile ago. And yes, any intelligent person concedes that there are things science cannot answer. That is because science is concerned with what is testable. It could be argued, philosophically, that the only truly knowable things are testable ones, because without testing you have no way of knowing which of many equally likely possibilities is correct. Hence why we might say there should be a god, it is impossible to determine whether this god is Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Jehovah, etc. But to suppose that god is necessary already assumes that the origin of the universe is a problem. How do we know that there was something beforehand? Time and space themselves started with the big bang, to say that time existed beforehand contradicts the model.

 

[tvolsfan]

I posted about this awhile ago. And yes, any intelligent person concedes that there are things science cannot answer. That is because science is concerned with what is testable. It could be argued, philosophically, that the only truly knowable things are testable ones, because without testing you have no way of knowing which of many equally likely possibilities is correct. Hence why we might say there should be a god, it is impossible to determine whether this god is Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Jehovah, etc. But to suppose that god is necessary already assumes that the origin of the universe is a problem. How do we know that there was something beforehand? Time and space themselves started with the big bang, to say that time existed beforehand contradicts the model.

If there is nothing there before, how was their a bang?

 

[IPorange]

Not really. I'm pretty sure you could look up the origins for Santa very quickly. You could probably find out who was involved in starting the custom and you could probably figure out everything about the image of Santa itself. It isn't nearly that easy with God. You can try, and assume it's not real, but you'd have a hard time finding evidence of someone creating the idea of God.

Abram came out of Ur, which had a rich history of religion already at that point. In fact, the early religions of mesopotamia have identical creation and flood myths.

Zoroastrianism certainly could have influenced Jesus early in his life, and seems to have possibly borrowed a few concepts.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

Not really. If you believe a creator set off evolution, then why would it be perfect as soon as the first humans developed?

Ah I see. I thought you were advocating an active designer (the so-called Intelligent Design). You're right, a deist watchmaker god is consistent. But again, I claim that it is unnecessary.

 

[IPorange]

If there is nothing there before, how was their a bang?

He mentioned the explanation of a closed loop universe.

 

[tvolsfan]

Abram came out of Ur, which had a rich history of religion already at that point. In fact, the early religions of mesopotamia have identical creation and flood myths.

Zoroastrianism certainly could have influenced Jesus early in his life, and seems to have possibly borrowed a few concepts.

There is a difference between noticing similarities to other things and actually finding the source of how the idea came to be.

 

[BeecherVol]

See, I made a bunch of examples about this in my post on evolution. If you read it these questions would be answered.

But since you probably won't here's one to think about:

The human head is too big. The brain has to fold itself to fit inside the skull because if the skull was any bigger it would be impossible to give birth. It's tough enough already. This is evidence against an intelligent designer, since such a designer would have made the brain more efficient and the skull smaller, or the birth canal wider.

What is the problem with the brain being folded over?
Would that cause humans to be less intelligent?
And if so, how would we be intelligent enough to figure that out?

 

[IPorange]

There is a difference between noticing similarities to other things and actually finding the source of how the idea came to be.

Well, what's your explanation for the missing time from Noah to Abram? Why did the whole world turn away from God, since after the flood, accept for Abram and his nephew?

 

[tvolsfan]

He mentioned the explanation of a closed loop universe.

Still doesn't really change anything. How does stuff just happen like that? Science is great, but there will always be things it really can't prove or even come close to realistically explaining.

 

[IPorange]

Still doesn't really change anything. How does stuff just happen like that? Science is great, but there will always be things it really can't prove or even come close to realistically explaining.

And so you insert a "god" concept.

 

[tvolsfan]

Well, what's your explanation for the missing time from Noah to Abram? Why did the whole world turn away from God, since after the flood, accept for Abram and his nephew?

I'm not sure, does it matter?

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

If there is nothing there before, how was their a bang?

There wasn't in the way you think about it. It's not like the universe was sitting in a package and then exploded. The Big "Bang" is just a term for the early part where the Universe expanded in size.

The entire reason we think there had to be one is the concept of entropy. All the energy and matter in the Universe had to be concentrated at one point because it's all expanding outward now. In physics we have something called the "arrow of time". On the small scale, time is little more than another dimension for events. You can think of this like a pool table that has no friction, if you send a bunch of pool balls in motion you could take a film and run it forward and backwards and it would make logical sense. Time is symmetric for events like this; there's no preferred before and after, just one state and another.

But entropy is what sets "before" and "after". You will never see a glass dropped onto the floor unbreak itself, or a gas released from a chamber suddenly flow from the room back into the chamber. The reason why is statistics; there are so many possible states where the glass is in shards on the floor and only one where it is together and intact, that you will never see a glass unshatter itself when you drop shards of it on the floor. In this same way, you will never see a coffee cup sitting on a cool counter suddenly get hotter. "Before" and "After" only make sense in the light of entropy. So if you wanted to say "Before" something of zero entropy (the moment of the "big bang") it would make no sense.

 

[IPorange]

I'm not sure, does it matter?

You mentioned something about where ideas came from. The trail starts with Abraham. But why, if the WHOLE WORLD were descended from Noah's sons after the flood? Why didn't the peoples of China or the New World have any sort of monotheistic concept, if they all were descended from monotheists? Why was Abram and Lot the only guys they encountered who were monotheists?

That doesn't add up, as far as "where ideas started."

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

What is the problem with the brain being folded over?
Would that cause humans to be less intelligent?
And if so, how would we be intelligent enough to figure that out?

There's no problem. In fact we need it to be as smart as we are. But there's nothing special about the folds, just the fact that there's more area on the surface. It seems odd that a God would make the skull that way, but it makes perfect sense from evolution.

 

[tvolsfan]

And so you insert a "god" concept.

People say religion was invented to explain stuff that people can't understand. It's really the same argument for non-relgious people. Many simply don't believe in God because they aren't able to understand it, and they don't like that either.

 

[IPorange]

People say religion was invented to explain stuff that people can't understand. It's really the same argument for non-relgious people. Many simply don't believe in God because they aren't able to understand it, and they don't like that either.

I don't understand calculus very well, but I still believe it is real because there are tangible reasons to. There is no reason I have found to think there is some sort of deity.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

People say religion was invented to explain stuff that people can't understand. It's really the same argument for non-relgious people. Many simply don't believe in God because they aren't able to understand it, and they don't like that either.

That's true, but not in the sense you think of. The idea of a god is not understandable in principle, since the god transcends logic and reason. An atheist would question the use of such a thing. It would be like claiming to believe in an invisible pink box. You can't say that the box is simultaneously invisible and pink, and such a box is unnecessary to our understanding of nature, so why bother believing in it?

 

[tvolsfan]

You mentioned something about where ideas came from. The trail starts with Abraham. But why, if the WHOLE WORLD were descended from Noah's sons after the flood? Why didn't the peoples of China or the New World have any sort of monotheistic concept, if they all were descended from monotheists? Why was Abram and Lot the only guys they encountered who were monotheists?

That doesn't add up, as far as "where ideas started."

If someone just decided to make this all up a long time ago, they would have probably accounted for that. You probably don't know about many generations in between because there was nothing to write about. And I don't think everyone is Noah's descendant, or anything like that. I think a lot of the earliest parts of the bible were very simplified for the people it was written for. I don't thing every bit of it was literal.

 

[BeecherVol]

There's no problem. In fact we need it to be as smart as we are. But there's nothing special about the folds, just the fact that there's more area on the surface. It seems odd that a God would make the skull that way, but it makes perfect sense from evolution.

You would think at some point,(past or future), evolution would fix this flaw. If it really is a flaw.

 

[volmanbill]

You would think at some point,(past or future), evolution would fix this flaw. If it really is a flaw.

Has anyone ever declared evolution a perfect process? Like religion, I mean.

 

[IPorange]

You would think at some point,(past or future), evolution would fix this flaw. If it really is a flaw.

I am not meaning to be rude, but you just aren't getting how evolution works if you think it "fixes" things. It doesn't. It doesn't make the best possible specimen, like you hear in movies. It makes the specimen that just happens to (barely) beat out the others.

 

[BeecherVol]

That's true, but not in the sense you think of. The idea of a god is not understandable in principle, since the god transcends logic and reason. An atheist would question the use of such a thing. It would be like claiming to believe in an invisible pink box. You can't say that the box is simultaneously invisible and pink, and such a box is unnecessary to our understanding of nature, so why bother believing in it?

So basically you have to decide for yourself, is there a purpose for life, and everything around us. Or evolution.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

You would think at some point,(past or future), evolution would fix this flaw. If it really is a flaw.

Others have made this point. The reason is that evolution does not produce perfect results. It only produces minimally decent results. The goal of evolution is to be better than one's competitors, not the best possible. But an all-knowing designer has no excuse.

 

[IPorange]

If someone just decided to make this all up a long time ago, they would have probably accounted for that. You probably don't know about many generations in between because there was nothing to write about. And I don't think everyone is Noah's descendant, or anything like that. I think a lot of the earliest parts of the bible were very simplified for the people it was written for. I don't thing every bit of it was literal.

I disagree. Things that are untrue almost always have holes in them. In fact, that is how you know someone is lying, is it not? It is possible that there is just some missing collection, or there was "nothing worth writing about" (although there sure is a lot of pointless genealogy in the Bible, as is), but that doesn't seem very likely considering the scope of things that must have changed in the world in that time, without explanation.

And if you don't think every bit of the Bible is literal, you are saying the word of God is not accurate. It starts a whole slippery slope of problems with the Bible, in regards to things that were miracles or divine.

 

[tvolsfan]

I don't understand calculus very well, but I still believe it is real because there are tangible reasons to. There is no reason I have found to think there is some sort of deity.

I don't see why there can't be a deity, other than it wouldn't follow what people consider to be natural rules. I also don't see why I would assume that something that spread throughout the world from a small region is nothing more than a scam created by people looking for something to explain their origin.