It's nice to know, that i am not the only battling science here.

Bobbyaf:

My question about the big bang.

1. Did it create the universe?

It could have caused Space and time to come into being

2. Did the big bang occur after the universe existed?

Couldn't say.

3. How extensive was the big bang relative to the size of the universe? Did it occur in a smaller section of the universe?

The Big Bang would have caused the expansion of the Universe, so it was in a sense the entire Universe.

4. If the big bang was an explosion why is it that the universe is so orderly?

The Big Bang was an expansion. And, just so you know, explosions can eventually lead to order.

Why aren't bodies crashing over each other?

You mean like meteors crashing into Earth and colliding bodies in Space?

I am under the impression that explosions tend to lead to chaos, and not order. I mean if one wwere to blow up a building, or a junk yard would you expect to see something being formed automatically from the chaos?

Eventually. However, that's the not the same thing as the Big Bang.

5. Was the big bang the only one of its kind?

Hard to say.

[quote] If there was one why haven't we heard about another since? Do the same forces exist today in the universe that once supposedly caused the big bang?

Look into string theory.

Just one more question. How do you explain the origin of atoms and the extensive force which they possess. Did they just happen to be like that, or were they created?

E.G. Nucleogenesis http://www.cns.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/omeg03/presentation/Takibayev1.pdf
Nucleosynthesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

[/quote]

i believe very much in GOD.i love him very much

@ nferyn,

I'm new to this thread.
first, you said you haven't seen atheists that become theists, there are very many. A notable example is C. S. Lewis. i can give others if you need them.

You don't believe in God, that does not change anything. God exists. if i tell you that there is a lion with two heads somewhere in the antartica, you cant prove that it does NOT exist, so in all practicality you can't say there is no God. now you can reject the claims about God, ie creation and all, but you can't prove it not to be true. science has never been able to and definitely wouldnt prove that God didnt create the universe. what science can offer is alternative explanations for what is observed, whilst rejecting the theory of creation.

you said you want evidence that God exists, there are many; the whole of creation (the universe) itself proves it (if the theory of creation is right). what we should ask for is evidence that he DOESNT exist. do you have any?

now God exists in a totally different realm from that of the physical, in a supernatural realm. there is profound evidence (albeit not scientific, because science is limited to observations of physical evidence) of the supernatural. Within that same realm exists the ultimate reality, who is God, without whose influence nothing exists.

personally, i dont just know that HE exists, i know Him because i relate to or with Him. many people believe in his existence but dont necessarily relate to Him. thats not the case with me.

now, just a jab at the scientific theory of big bang and all. everything in nature is obviously degenerative, ie apart from evolution (which is just another unproven theory), things move from a high energy to low energy state. why then, does evolution propound a contrary theory where everything becomes more complex on its own. for things to become more complex there has to be an external input eg for a compound to be formed, you dont just need elements you need something extra. that just shows that it is impossible for the universe to spontaneously form on its own because it doesnt have what it takes to develop into more complex forms. hope you get my drift. i'll await your response.

ricadelide:

@ nferyn,

I'm new to this thread.
first, you said you haven't seen atheists that become theists, there are very many. A notable example is C. S. Lewis. i can give others if you need them.

I haven't seen any of these claims of former atheism that don't collapse under close scrutiny. Lewis is just one such example. But even if you could come up with some real examples of atheists that convert to a form of theism, the [url=http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Eslocks/conversion_asymmetry.html]asymmetry [/url](both qualitatively and quantitatively) between atheist to theist and theist to atheist deconversions is staggering.

ricadelide:

You don't believe in God, that does not change anything. God exists.

Assertion does not an argument make. I have sound logical, philosophical and scientific reasons for my disbelief. I am yet to find the first theist that has any reasons for his/her belief that are grounded in rationality, either they're emotional or based on sloppy thinking.

ricadelide:

if i tell you that there is a lion with two heads somewhere in the antartica, you can't prove that it does NOT exist, so in all practicality you can't say there is no God. now you can reject the claims about God, ie creation and all, but you can't prove it not to be true. science has never been able to and definitely wouldnt prove that God didnt create the universe. what science can offer is alternative explanations for what is observed, whilst rejecting the theory of creation.

Frame the debate in these terms and you can get away with everything. There is as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster as there is for the God of Christianity, which makes the flying spaghetti monster equiprobable to the Christian God.
By the way, how can I reject something which I don't know, What exactly is the theory of creation?

ricadelide:

you said you want evidence that God exists, there are many; the whole of creation (the universe) itself proves it (if the theory of creation is right). what we should ask for is evidence that he DOESNT exist. do you have any?

There is no evidence that God exists. There is no evidence for creation. There is plenty of evidence for the state of the universe to be the result of natural processes. I can claim, without a shadow of a doubt that the God as presented in the Bible (the omnimax God, who's miracles and actions are portrayed in the Bible) does not exists. Are you talking about that God?

ricadelide:

now God exists in a totally different realm from that of the physical, in a supernatural realm.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen (L. Wittgenstein) - (transl. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent) How can I (or anyone) possibly determine that the so called supernatural isn't some figment of your imagination?

ricadelide:
there is profound evidence (albeit not scientific, because science is limited to observations of physical evidence) of the supernatural. Within that same realm exists the ultimate reality, who is God, without whose influence nothing exists.

You're just making up things as you go, defining things into existence. That may convince the gullible, but it won't convince anyone that values truth over the comfort of sophisticated fairy-tales.

ricadelide:

personally, i don't just know that HE exists, i know Him because i relate to or with Him. many people believe in his existence but don't necessarily relate to Him. thats not the case with me.

Either you're not making sense, or I just don't understand your logic. Can you ellucidate?

ricadelide:

now, just a jab at the scientific theory of big bang and all. everything in nature is obviously degenerative,

Imprecise statement. What is everything in nature and what is degenerative? What do you mean by obvious? I don't see anything obvious here.

ricadelide:

ie apart from evolution (which is just another unproven theory),

How so?

ricadelide:

things move from a high energy to low energy state.

I must misunderestimate your ability to misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics. You're not making any sense.

ricadelide:

why then, does evolution propound a contrary theory where everything becomes more complex on its own. for things to become more complex there has to be an external input eg for a compound to be formed, you don't just need elements you need something extra.

Sigh, not again? Let's make it as simple as possible: earth = open thermodynamic system; input of energy from sun = decrease in entropy in open system earth; decrease in entropy = possibility of forming complex systems and increase in complexity over time.

ricadelide:

that just shows that it is impossible for the universe to spontaneously form on its own because it doesnt have what it takes to develop into more complex forms. hope you get my drift. i'll await your response.

No it doesn't. Your drift is way off.

@nferyn,
the theory of creation is that God made everything as it is, including you! sciene does not acknowlegde anything beyond the physical realm so its not hard to see why it rejects such an assertion.

when i said 'God exists and that does not change anything' i was not trying to sound 'rational' perhaps i should have made that clear. that would seem stupid to you but let me explain. What is rationality? rationality is just accepting things to be true based on prior understanding of what is true or what is known. as a person, i cannot afford to base all my judgements on rationality. many things have not been able to be explained and more can't be explained. so it will be impossible to think rationally about something of which there is no (present) premise. i don't know if you understand me. flying as we do today was irrational 150 years ago, because they didnt have the right premises. and believe me they were not stupid for considering it irrational.  until premises continue to be made, rationality will continue to be modified. the only time rationality can be fully 'right' is when science knows everything and is omniscient. and that would never happen. so in my opinion science can never dictate to me what rational thinking constitutes, because it does not understand my premises. many discoveries in science usually start out being considered 'irrational' before evidence is found that exonorates it. i don't need to base my beliefs on science that does not acknowledge what it does not have present evidence for (many times even when the assertion is true).

so when i make statements i'm not just trying to be 'rational'. I believe that God is omniscient, my human mind cannot fathom many things, but i know that i'm constantly increasing in knowledge and the more i know the more 'rational' i become. so let me restate; i know God because i relate with Him. that may sound 'illogical' to you but i've explained why. i have 'premises' for believing in God, i acted on them and now i know them to be true.

there is a whole realm of knowledge and understanding that is totally oblivious to you (and am not trying to be mean, i'm just telling you what i know)

thus, you're right that i did not first come to know God via 'rational' thinking. No. Neither was it via 'emotional or sloppy thinking' (i wonder what that is). i came to know him by spiritual revelation (and i can assure you, you don't know what that means ). God is Spirit, and those who know him, know him in the spirit. there is no scientific evidence for the spiritual, it is impossible for science to provide 'evidence' for something ethereal. I've said it before, God is not physical. its not very hard to see why you don't believe, you've chosen to take a path through which it is impossible to know Him, its like looking for polar bears in the tropics, he requires faith (ie belief) as the path to knowing Him. i know you would question why it has to be by faith but there are reasons for that which i can't go into now. since you can't believe something you don't have physical evidence for, i can assure you it would be very hard for you to find Him. He hides Himself from people who believe and seek not to talk of one who doesnt Prov 25.2, 1Pet. 4.18, Ps. 104.2

there are many things you don't know but sincerely i hope you find Him one day, because He is very REAL. cheers!  

ricadelide:

@nferyn,
the theory of creation is that God made everything as it is, including you! sciene does not acknowlegde anything beyond the physical realm so its not hard to see why it rejects such an assertion.

[i]That [/i]is what you call a theory? The second part of your statement is more to the point though, it is ultimately only and assertion without anything to back it up. As far as science is concerned, you're absolutely right. Science can only deal with the natural, by necessity. The scientific enterprise implies methodological naturalism; it presupposes the regularity and lawfulness of nature, as this is necessary to make predictions. The supernatural on the other hand can neither be investigated nor understood, as it lacks that regularity and lawfulness. By calling something supernatural (even though there is no reason to do so), you're putting it out of the reach of scientific investigation and shield it from inquiry. It's the epithetome of organised and institutionalised ignorance.

ricadelide:

when i said 'God exists and that does not change anything' i was not trying to sound 'rational' perhaps i should have made that clear. that would seem stupid to you but let me explain. What is rationality? rationality is just accepting things to be true based on prior understanding of what is true or what is known.

I'm really not following. Rationality is the application of logic on premisses and drawing conclusion from these logical inferences. Obviously, these premisses need to be accepted by both parties. The problem lies in the fact that theist hardly ever make their premisses explicit (e.g. what is God?) or shy away from their logical outcome (i.e. the logical impossibility of the omnimax God)

ricadelide:
as a person, i cannot afford to base all my judgements on rationality. many things have not been able to be explained and more can't be explained.

In our day to day life, we go by approximations, stereotypes, etc and as a consequence, our judgements are not always correct or truthful. The scientific method explicitly tries to exclude these human perception and interpretation biases and their successes can only be achieved through a rigorous application of rationality

ricadelide:
so it will be impossible to think rationally about something of which there is no (present) premise. i don't know if you understand me. flying as we do today was irrational 150 years ago, because they didnt have the right premises. and believe me they were not stupid for considering it irrational.

This has nothing to do with rationality but rather with a lack of knowledge or understanding. Flying wasn't less rational then than it is today; facts don't change because our knowledge and understanding of these facts change. I think it was Douglas Adams that said the any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic for those not possessing it. That doesn't mean that there is magic at work though.

ricadelide:
until premises continue to be made, rationality will continue to be modified. the only time rationality can be fully 'right' is when science knows everything and is omniscient. and that would never happen.

I guess you don't fully understand what rationality is. It is not a result but rather a method.

ricadelide:

so in my opinion science can never dictate to me what rational thinking constitutes, because it does not understand my premises. many discoveries in science usually start out being considered 'irrational' before evidence is found that exonorates it.

Please be a little more precise. I cannot understand what you're trying to say.

ricadelide:

i don't need to base my beliefs on science that does not acknowledge what it does not have present evidence for (many times even when the assertion is true).

So instead of taking the prudent approach and saying that you don't know (yet), you just attribute it to an inscutible entity like God? The ever shrinking God-of-the-gaps.

ricadelide:

so when i make statements i'm not just trying to be 'rational'. I believe that God is omniscient, my human mind cannot fathom many things, but i know that i'm constantly increasing in knowledge and the more i know the more 'rational' i become. so let me restate; i know God because i relate with Him. that may sound 'illogical' to you but i've explained why. i have 'premises' for believing in God, i acted on them and now i know them to be true.

And that knowledge is based on what facts exactly? Or is it rather based on your personal feelings and thoughts?

ricadelide:

there is a whole realm of knowledge and understanding that is totally oblivious to you (and am not trying to be mean, i'm just telling you what i know)

The difference is that you attribute these subjective feelings and ideas to something without sound underpinning. How exactly do you know? You just do?

ricadelide:

thus, you're right that i did not first come to know God via 'rational' thinking. No. Neither was it via 'emotional or sloppy thinking' (i wonder what that is). i came to know him by spiritual revelation (and i can assure you, you don't know what that means ).

Just like the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Toaists, Confucianists, Janeist, etc come to their truths through exactly the same mechanism. Why then is your truth more valuable than theirs and how else can you compare them than through the application of rational thought?

ricadelide:

God is Spirit, and those who know him, know him in the spirit. there is no scientific evidence for the spiritual, it is impossible for science to provide 'evidence' for something ethereal. I've said it before, God is not physical. its not very hard to see why you don't believe, you've chosen to take a path through which it is impossible to know Him, its like looking for polar bears in the tropics, he requires faith (ie belief) as the path to knowing Him.

You're just deluding yourself. These spiritual experiences can easily be triggered by simple neurological stimuli. The interpretation of these experiences will differ depending on the existing memeplexes in the subjects' brains, ie. a Christian will have a Christian spiritual experience, a Buddhist a Buddhist one.

ricadelide:

i know you would question why it has to be by faith but there are reasons for that which i can't go into now. since you can't believe something you don't have physical evidence for, i can assure you it would be very hard for you to find Him. He hides Himself from people who believe and seek not to talk of one who doesnt Prov 25.2, 1Pet. 4.18, Ps. 104.2

I am incapable of faith. Belief without evidence is something I have built psychological barriers against.

ricadelide:

there are many things you don't know but sincerely i hope you find Him one day, because He is very REAL. cheers!

How do you know it's a Him and not a Her?

@nferyn,

That is what you call a theory?
Why? Because its not acceptable to you, its not worth propounding? i'm wrong for calling it a theory though. its a fact; in the proper time you'd know the truth of that statement.

As far as science is concerned, you're absolutely right. Science can only deal with the natural, by necessity. The scientific enterprise implies methodological naturalism; it presupposes the regularity and lawfulness of nature, as this is necessary to make predictions. The supernatural on the other hand can neither be investigated nor understood, as it lacks that regularity and lawfulness. By calling something supernatural (even though there is no reason to do so), you're putting it out of the reach of scientific investigation and shield it from inquiry. It's the epithetome of organised and institutionalised ignorance.
i must let you know that, in all sincerity, YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural. the books by Dawkins and others that you've been reading have, rather than enlighten, made you more ignorant of realities that are beyond your scope (because all you do is reject anything that is beyond your scope) i don't want to mention any scripture but please indulge me; it is the ignorance you are manifesting that made the Bible say; 'the fool says in his heart, there is no God'. fact is, there are many things beyond the physical realm. in fact, the physical realm is less real than the spiritual, the least of the reasons, the mere fact that the physical is governed by space and time, concepts which are limited to the physical and do not exist in the supernatural. space and time are finite, but the supernatural is infinite.

The scientific method explicitly tries to exclude these human perception and interpretation biases and their successes can only be achieved through a rigorous application of rationality
i don't think you know what you are talking about. what is the scientific process? i'll focus mainly on the field of biology; you do some reading (gathering of premises) you make a hypothesis and then you try to prove your hypothesis via experiments by making deductions and interpretations based on observations you make that seem to align with your hypothesis (which is a form of bias in the least sense). In case you didnt know, you only need to attend a reputable scientific journal club for one week and it wont take you long to discover that many of the inferences made in scientific experiments (even those published in top journals like science and nature) are based on inconclusive evidence, biased information (in order to be able to publish a paper), and many other inconsistencies. its only if you're insincere or just unaware of the facts that you'd deny this assertion. many times, an assertion may be accepted as true based on 'evidence' presented this year only for it to be refuted the following year based on 'new evidence'. but the flaw of inconsistency isnt the only flaw in science, many times, especially in biology there is the flaw of never being able to know, because we'd never have the right techniques nor proper resolution (in terms of equipments) to make the right deductions.
all i'm trying to say is; don't rate the scientific process too highly. like most things human, it has many flaws and it takes someone on the inside to know this. (these flaws are especially obvious in biology unlike in technology because technology merely involves application of scientific principles whereas biology tries to understand those principles that have been used to create and sustain life)

This has nothing to do with rationality but rather with a lack of knowledge or understanding. Flying wasn't less rational then than it is today; facts don't change because our knowledge and understanding of these facts change. I think it was Douglas Adams that said the any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic for those not possessing it. That doesn't mean that there is magic at work though. I guess you don't fully understand what rationality is. It is not a result but rather a method.
rather YOU don't understand my argument. let me help you further. the METHOD of rationality is flawed because it makes use of the human mind which is basically flawed because it can only consider probable what it finds believable based on current understanding. one's 'rationality' is constrained by his/her level of knowledge. i can't make it anymore clearer. let me give you an example. the chemiosmotic theory was propounded by Peter Mitchel in 1961. at the time, he was debunked as inconsequential and 'illogical' based on their current understanding. it took a long while before others were able to provide evidence (and thus new premises) to prove him right and debunk what was priorly held to be true. unlike what you said, in science, 'facts' (i mean what is scientifically accepted as true) are constantly changing depending on available evidence. in all reality, facts don't change, but scientific facts are always being modified. i must ask you if you are a scientist and what field you are in so i can understand why you had a problem with this.
thus like i said, until all the necessary premises for educated guesses (hypothesis) of that which is probable is available to science, it can't be fully rational, the method is flawed because the minds involved have insufficient premises to predict what can be true and what can't be true. things that are in reality probable and true will keep on being thought to be improbable and thus 'illogical' until new premises are provided that will allow for new understanding of what is 'rational'. do you get it? in biology, many theories havent even been propounded yet because there is insufficient literature available in such fields to make hypotheses not to talk of designing experiments to verify them. the scientific process in biology is in its infancy!!

The ever shrinking God-of-the-gaps.
this phrase is all yours, its just a way for your spiritually uneducated mind to 'grasp' the concept of God. if you knew GOd like i do, you'd know he's the God of the universe, he's completely awesome, and doesn't need any gaps to accomodate Him.

And that knowledge is based on what facts exactly? Or is it rather based on your personal feelings and thoughts?
there are spiritual facts, but you are spiritually ignorant. that is why i said it is beyond you. if you really want to know God and not just trying to make an arguement we can talk about them; but then you don't believe in God so why try to know Him

Why then is your truth more valuable than theirs and how else can you compare them than through the application of rational thought?
contrary to what you think, people of faith go through a lot of scrutiny. ie they question things. personally i was born into the roman catholic faith, i had to question many of the false assertions and beliefs and discovered them to be untrue and i forsook that sect. i eventually found the right path, and i've since subjected it to the proper scrutiny and found it overwhelmingly true. of course, i did not use test tubes to verify the path i now follow though, lol

How do you know it's a Him and not a Her? 
i know you're joking. you might have as well said 'it'. God is neither male nor female (another thing your mind cannot grasp because of its 'flaws' lol) the english language is very sex-conscious, in my native language i would have used the term 'o' which does not imply or assume a gender.

the baseline;
sincerely i must let you know that there are many things you do not know. i am not just some uneducated religious bigot who has had his mind stuffed down with hallucinations (i'm sure you think i am though); i'm a medical doctor turned molecular biologist. i am not anti-science, however i am not ignorant enough to think that science can explain everything. i am deeply involved in science so i know its many limitations. i have not raised many issues here like good and evil and morality and death and the beginning and conscience etc. these are issues that cannot be explained by science.
i have been on the wrong path before (in the catholic religious institution) before i found it baseless and, to use your term, 'irrational'. the issue of God is not a matter of gaps like you claim but a matter of dimensions or realms. i sincerely hope that you'd be curious enough to enquire why a scientist can believe what i believe rather than just, uninformedly, conclude that i have to be deluded.  i am not here to propound arguments and trade words because its totally not beneficial to me, you can't change my mind about what i know (spiritually) and if i wouldnt be able to change yours then there's no use. i really hope that you'd be willing to look for understanding on the proper approach to take in verifying spiritual or supernatural matters, rather than making demands based on your limited understanding on what your requirements will be for accepting a deity. the scientific process involves making the right approaches (and techniques); you wont try to examine the cristae in the mitochondrion by using a light microscope. neither can you try to understand God by making use of scientific techniques. God will not stoop down to your own terms, no. He is God, and HE has his own terms. However, not to sound pompous or concieted, if you knew what i know, you wont be making the statements you are making.
I believe in Jesus, He saved me and i live a blissful life in fellowship with Him. i really hope one day you find Him one day. I'd be praying for you. cheers!

ricadelide:

@nferyn,

That is what you call a theory?
Why? Because its not acceptable to you, its not worth propounding? i'm wrong for calling it a theory though. its a fact; in the proper time you'd know the truth of that statement.

If it is, why don't you bring some sound evidence of that fact? Assertion is no substitute for reason.

ricadelide:

As far as science is concerned, you're absolutely right. Science can only deal with the natural, by necessity. The scientific enterprise implies methodological naturalism; it presupposes the regularity and lawfulness of nature, as this is necessary to make predictions. The supernatural on the other hand can neither be investigated nor understood, as it lacks that regularity and lawfulness. By calling something supernatural (even though there is no reason to do so), you're putting it out of the reach of scientific investigation and shield it from inquiry. It's the epithetome of organised and institutionalised ignorance.
i must let you know that, in all sincerity, YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural.

Some more assertion. Where's your evidence?

ricadelide:

the books by Dawkins and others that you've been reading have, rather than enlighten, made you more ignorant of realities that are beyond your scope (because all you do is reject anything that is beyond your scope) i don't want to mention any scripture but please indulge me; it is the ignorance you are manifesting that made the Bible say; 'the fool says in his heart, there is no God'.

I'm open for your arguments and evidence. Currently you have only brought empty assertions to the table. Why don't you give me a proper method for assessing your claims of the supernatural?

ricadelide:

fact is, there are many things beyond the physical realm.

Possibly. Define the non physical and ellaborate on how one can investigate that non physical. If you are unable to do that, your claims are empty talk.

ricadelide:
in fact, the physical realm is less real than the spiritual, the least of the reasons, the mere fact that the physical is governed by space and time, concepts which are limited to the physical and do not exist in the supernatural. space and time are finite, but the supernatural is infinite.

Defining things into existence while using vague terminology and failing to provide ways of investigating these things does not make them real, let alone more real than those things that can be investigated.

ricadelide:

The scientific method explicitly tries to exclude these human perception and interpretation biases and their successes can only be achieved through a rigorous application of rationality
i don't think you know what you are talking about. what is the scientific process? i'll focus mainly on the field of biology; you do some reading (gathering of premises) you make a hypothesis and then you try to prove your hypothesis via experiments by making deductions and interpretations based on observations you make that seem to align with your hypothesis (which is a form of bias in the least sense).

That is a very impoverished presentation of the scientific method. Since when does science necesserily need to include experiment, especially in biology? Moreover, the fact that hypotheses and assumptions are explicitly stated and the data is free to be investigated by others, alls inferences and deductions are open to falsification. Add to that the peer review process and it will become abundantly clear that the scientific enterprise includes self-correction in it's core processes. Try to compare that to religious claims.

ricadelide:

In case you didnt know, you only need to attend a reputable scientific journal club for one week and it wont take you long to discover that many of the inferences made in scientific experiments (even those published in top journals like science and nature) are based on inconclusive evidence, biased information (in order to be able to publish a paper), and many other inconsistencies.

Yes, and how long does it take for these shoddy results to be rejected and/or improved upon? All human enterprise is flawed because humans are flawed. Science, as far as I know, is the only area of human activity where the rigor of it's methods and the self-correcting nature of it's processes ensures a continuous improvement of our knowledge and understanding of the universe. Compare that to the intellectual sclerosis of religion.

ricadelide:

its only if you're insincere or just unaware of the facts that you'd deny this assertion.

I'm not, but you're putting up a strawman of science. For what reason exactly?

ricadelide:

many times, an assertion may be accepted as true based on 'evidence' presented this year only for it to be refuted the following year based on 'new evidence'.

Your point? Are you now criticising the very fact that the scientific process is self-correcting? If you look at the big picture (and not the publication rat-race), you'll easily see that your criticism doesn't apply.
Maybe you can apply your criticism to e.g. the Modern Synthesis in Biology and see where that gets you?

ricadelide:

but the flaw of inconsistency isnt the only flaw in science, many times, especially in biology there is the flaw of never being able to know, because we'd never have the right techniques nor proper resolution (in terms of equipments) to make the right deductions.

This might be a valid criticism. Please be more precise and give some examples so that I can judge. As it stands it's only an assertion.

ricadelide:

all i'm trying to say is; don't rate the scientific process too highly. like most things human, it has many flaws and it takes someone on the inside to know this. (these flaws are especially obvious in biology unlike in technology because technology merely involves application of scientific principles whereas biology tries to understand those principles that have been used to create and sustain life)

I am aware of it's flaws, but I still rate it very highly. There is no other human intellectual activity that has consistently been so successful. As I'm not a working biologist, but merely an interested layperson, I'm quite interested in these fundamental flaws, as the works of the biologists I've been reading don't mention these. Can you explain?

ricadelide:

This has nothing to do with rationality but rather with a lack of knowledge or understanding. Flying wasn't less rational then than it is today; facts don't change because our knowledge and understanding of these facts change. I think it was Douglas Adams that said the any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic for those not possessing it. That doesn't mean that there is magic at work though. I guess you don't fully understand what rationality is. It is not a result but rather a method.
rather YOU don't understand my argument. let me help you further. the METHOD of rationality is flawed because it makes use of the human mind which is basically flawed because it can only consider probable what it finds believable based on current understanding. one's 'rationality' is constrained by his/her level of knowledge.

Yes, but that doesn't disqualify rationality as a method for obtaining knowledge. The cumulative and self-correcting nature of rationality as applied in the scientific process ensure that it becomes a close to "truth" as humanly possible.
Other methods of asserting the truthfulness of statements carry in themselves the same flaws, but on a much grander scale. The application of rationality to situations elevates the understanding of these situations to something inter-subjective, rather than merely subjective. It allows communication and comparison of experiences. Does any other way of assessing truth even get that far?

ricadelide:

i can't make it anymore clearer. let me give you an example. the chemiosmotic theory was propounded by Peter Mitchel in 1961. at the time, he was debunked as inconsequential and 'illogical' based on their current understanding. it took a long while before others were able to provide evidence (and thus new premises) to prove him right and debunk what was priorly held to be true. unlike what you said, in science, 'facts' (i mean what is scientifically accepted as true) are constantly changing depending on available evidence.

Those fact, as you define them here, are not my facts. The facts are the raw data. Hypotheses and theories may change, but the facts don't. But you say so much as well.

ricadelide:

in all reality, facts don't change, but scientific facts are always being modified. i must ask you if you are a scientist and what field you are in so i can understand why you had a problem with this.

I'm a social scientist by training and, as such, I'm very well aware of the methodological difficulties and pitfalls of science (especially if you compare social sciences to the 'hard' sciences)

ricadelide:

thus like i said, until all the necessary premises for educated guesses (hypothesis) of that which is probable is available to science, it can't be fully rational, the method is flawed because the minds involved have insufficient premises to predict what can be true and what can't be true. things that are in reality probable and true will keep on being thought to be improbable and thus 'illogical' until new premises are provided that will allow for new understanding of what is 'rational'. do you get it?

Yes and no. I understand what you're saying here, but i don't see your point. Scientific knowledge is cumulative and self-correcting. We may never reach the summit of 'perfect knowledge', but the relative probability of certain truth statements in relation to others can most definitely be assessed and that's all we can ever hope for.

ricadelide:

in biology, many theories havent even been propounded yet because there is insufficient literature available in such fields to make hypotheses not to talk of designing experiments to verify them. the scientific process in biology is in its infancy!!

All sciences are in their infancy, but I can't see why you single out biology here.

ricadelide:

The ever shrinking God-of-the-gaps.
this phrase is all yours, its just a way for your spiritually uneducated mind to 'grasp' the concept of God. if you knew GOd like i do, you'd know he's the God of the universe, he's completely awesome, and doesn't need any gaps to accomodate Him.

Right, and you obtain that knowledge how exactly?

ricadelide:

And that knowledge is based on what facts exactly? Or is it rather based on your personal feelings and thoughts?
there are spiritual facts, but you are spiritually ignorant. that is why i said it is beyond you. if you really want to know God and not just trying to make an arguement we can talk about them; but then you don't believe in God so why try to know Him

Give me a method and definitions and we can talk. I have no clue what spirituality is. How do you obtain it? How do you set it apart from non-spirituality?

ricadelide:

Why then is your truth more valuable than theirs and how else can you compare them than through the application of rational thought?
contrary to what you think, people of faith go through a lot of scrutiny. ie they question things. personally i was born into the roman catholic faith, i had to question many of the false assertions and beliefs and discovered them to be untrue and i forsook that sect. i eventually found the right path, and i've since subjected it to the proper scrutiny and found it overwhelmingly true. of course, i did not use test tubes to verify the path i now follow though, lol

Method of determining truth?

ricadelide:

How do you know it's a Him and not a Her?
i know you're joking. you might have as well said 'it'. God is neither male nor female (another thing your mind cannot grasp because of its 'flaws' lol) the english language is very sex-conscious, in my native language i would have used the term 'o' which does not imply or assume a gender.

okay

ricadelide:

the baseline;
sincerely i must let you know that there are many things you do not know. i am not just some uneducated religious bigot who has had his mind stuffed down with hallucinations (i'm sure you think i am though); i'm a medical doctor turned molecular biologist. i am not anti-science, however i am not ignorant enough to think that science can explain everything. i am deeply involved in science so i know its many limitations. i have not raised many issues here like good and evil and morality and death and the beginning and conscience etc. these are issues that cannot be explained by science.

Indeed they cannot (directly) be explained by science, but what makes you think religion is up to the task?

ricadelide:

i have been on the wrong path before (in the catholic religious institution) before i found it baseless and, to use your term, 'irrational'. the issue of God is not a matter of gaps like you claim but a matter of dimensions or realms. i sincerely hope that you'd be curious enough to enquire why a scientist can believe what i believe rather than just, uninformedly, conclude that i have to be deluded.

It is indeed hard for me to understand how educated, intelligent people can continue to believe in religion. That's the main reason why I enter these debates.

ricadelide:

i am not here to propound arguments and trade words because its totally not beneficial to me, you can't change my mind about what i know (spiritually) and if i wouldnt be able to change yours then there's no use. i really hope that you'd be willing to look for understanding on the proper approach to take in verifying spiritual or supernatural matters, rather than making demands based on your limited understanding on what your requirements will be for accepting a deity.

As I've written before, I would very much appreciate it if you could provide a method for verifying these claims, but I must say that mere faith, to quote CS lewis, doesn't cut it for me. There don't seem to be any rational reasons for belief, do you have any other?

ricadelide:

the scientific process involves making the right approaches (and techniques); you wont try to examine the cristae in the mitochondrion by using a light microscope. neither can you try to understand God by making use of scientific techniques. God will not stoop down to your own terms, no. He is God, and HE has his own terms. However, not to sound pompous or concieted, if you knew what i know, you wont be making the statements you are making.

Again, a lot of assertions. how do I verify them?

ricadelide:

I believe in Jesus, He saved me and i live a blissful life in fellowship with Him. i really hope one day you find Him one day. I'd be praying for you. cheers!

Happy for you, but you still haven't given me any reason to believe.

Interesting take on Creationism -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I

When you die,you become organic material,,help to norish the the soil,you will come back as part of food, eaten go back and come back again,It is a continious process.

there is nothing wrong in feeling a lil doubt. I think u are a doubting thomas, You need evidence to believe.I pray that u have a might contact with God in the name of Jesus .Just like Paul experienced

its good to believe but wait , only the father draweth forth to him those he loves.Jesus loves u. all u gotta do is simply , just ask God to releve himself to you ,

Theories concerning the mechanistic origin of the Universe come and go. Today’s “science” is tomorrow’s superstition. A few years ago scientists were touting the Steady-State Theory as the most reasonable explanation of the origin of the Universe. It asserted that new matter is constantly being created to replace that which is lost by the expanding Universe. “Today most astronomers regard the steady-state theory as dead” (Weaver, 1974, p. 625). The current inclination concerning the beginning of our Universe is known as the Big Bang Theory, but even the “Bang” notion is receiving competition from a newer view called the “Plasma Theory” (DeYoung, 1992, pp. i-iv).

@nferyn
do you seriously believe that we can get this beautifully designed universe by chance or an explosion? No designer involved, just an explosion and the universe just crept up. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting “bang.” The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, p. 40).

Since the big bang theory alleges that all of the matter in the known Universe was tightly packed into a microscopic cosmic “egg.” before the bang, can you please tell be where this cosmic egg came from - what bang produced it? Or have you found any cosmic chicken yet?

If the Universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter/energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center – consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the Universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris, 1984, p. 150).

For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the Universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original Big Bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the Universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the Big Bang Theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the Universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.

The Big Bang Theory is without validity. It has the support of neither genuine science nor responsible biblical exegesis. For once we agree with several evolutionists who admit: “Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts” (Arp, et al., 1990, p. 812).

In view of that, it can hardly be classified as “science.”

@ somze
You're using the typical Christian apologetical tactic of plagiarism. Please properly show your sources if none of the arguments you propose are yours.

The presented dissection of the Big Bang theory doesn't do it any justice, as:
1 the BB theory fits with the observations, does Chrsitian cosmology?
2 it allows for predictions, which perfectly fit with the observations (i.e. cosmic background radiation points to a singularity)
3. the tornado in a junk yard argument is ridiculous prima facie, because it uses concepts from our everyday experience that don't apply to a singularity, e.g. there was no explosion
4. the anthropic argument is plainly ridiculous, because it is above all begging the question and presupposes what needs to be proven and does not offer any basis for falsification, which makes it scientifically useless

Maybe we can validate your alternative cosmology using the same criteria the author of your post, Wayne Jackson, has used to critique the Big Bang theory

@nferyn
Document was saved on my computer way back but would find the links and send asap, i normally post reference links. Yes it was from Wayne Jackson. Never said it was mine as you noticed i left references to other stuff there.

1 the BB theory fits with the observations, does Chrsitian cosmology?
A few obsevations were given in my last post that it does not seem to fit with.

2 it allows for predictions, which perfectly fit with the observations (i.e. cosmic background radiation points to a singularity)
It also shows discrepancies with clear evidence provided and how much of the "predictions" have actually fit with the observations.

3. the tornado in a junk yard argument is ridiculous prima facie, because it uses concepts from our everyday experience that don't apply to a singularity, e.g. there was no explosion
My paragragh which you refer to -
Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting “bang.” The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, p. 40).
What exactly are you saying? BB is a once in a forever plural (dont know what caused) explosion? It can not be compared to anything else that explodes? Even scientists presume that there is uniformity in the universe. Thats why experiments done in a place can be carried in another place and thesame result expected. Though it is not yet proven, it is accepted everywhere. If i give you a recipe i expect the outcome to be thesame as what i have irrespective of when i wrote the recipe. Is Wayne Jackson wrong to point out that disorderliness or chaos or "nothing" can ever leat to order, design and "something"? Not even science is with you on this matter.

4. the anthropic argument is plainly ridiculous, because it is above all begging the question and presupposes what needs to be proven and does not offer any basis for falsification, which makes it scientifically useless
For this you would need the complete link, i cut some things out becuz of reference and length.

Maybe we can validate your alternative cosmology using the same criteria the author of your post, Wayne Jackson, has used to critique the Big Bang theory
You can do that, it would only be fair to use thesame standards for the two theories but for now lets stick to disvalidating yours. Thank you

Ok here's the link
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/noDesignerArgument.htm

@nferyn
Sorry
This is the link, but that one is good too.
http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/december99.htm

somze:

@nferyn
Document was saved on my computer way back but would find the links and send asap, i normally post reference links. Yes it was from Wayne Jackson. Never said it was mine as you noticed i left references to other stuff there.

1 the BB theory fits with the observations, does Chrsitian cosmology?
A few obsevations were given in my last post that it does not seem to fit with.

Which ones and in what sense? It's not because something is (or can be made to be) consistent with something that it is contingent upon it. Please before we enter into a back and forth argument, it is possible that my understanding of Christian cosmology is skewed. Could you please explain the main elements of Christian cosmology?

somze:

2 it allows for predictions, which perfectly fit with the observations (i.e. cosmic background radiation points to a singularity)
It also shows discrepancies with clear evidence provided and how much of the "predictions" have actually fit with the observations.

Which discrepancies are you talking about? Are you talking about an explosion, something that is nowhere implied in the Big Bang theory, or are you rather talking about this gem it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the Universe itself is not uniform, which reads like water does not harmonise with fire, therefore God exists.
Maybe you're referring to something else?

somze:

3. the tornado in a junk yard argument is ridiculous prima facie, because it uses concepts from our everyday experience that don't apply to a singularity, e.g. there was no explosion
My paragragh which you refer to -
Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting “bang.” The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, p. 40).

1. The BB was no chaotic explosion
2. the analogies don't apply
3. the fact that the mechanisms of something are not fully understood are no reason to go for another view for which there is no evidence whatsoever. this is personal incredulity at it's best

somze:

What exactly are you saying? BB is a once in a forever plural (don't know what caused) explosion?

It is nothing even remotely close to an explosion. An explosion is caused by a rapidly expanding gas, nothing of that sort happened during the BB.

somze:

It can not be compared to anything else that explodes?

No it can't because it is not an explosion.

somze:

Even scientists presume that there is uniformity in the universe.

Above everyone else, scientists do that, it is the basis of scientific thought. Your point?

somze:

Thats why experiments done in a place can be carried in another place and thesame result expected. Though it is not yet proven, it is accepted everywhere.

Ok, your point?

somze:

If i give you a recipe i expect the outcome to be thesame as what i have irrespective of when i wrote the recipe.

Again, seems about right. What was your point again?

somze:

Is Wayne Jackson wrong to point out that disorderliness or chaos or "nothing" can ever leat to order, design and "something"?

Who ever brought forth such nonsensical claims? It's only your flawed analogy between the BB and an explosion that could make you think such a thing. Who again claimed that the singularity was disorderly or the BB event was a disorderly event? It's definitely not the proponents of the BB theory.

somze:

Not even science is with you on this matter.

Maybe not your straw man version thereof, no. Real science on the other hand

somze:

4. the anthropic argument is plainly ridiculous, because it is above all begging the question and presupposes what needs to be proven and does not offer any basis for falsification, which makes it scientifically useless
For this you would need the complete link, i cut some things out becuz of reference and length.

Ok then, maybe you can expand the argument?

somze:

Maybe we can validate your alternative cosmology using the same criteria the author of your post, Wayne Jackson, has used to critique the Big Bang theory
You can do that, it would only be fair to use thesame standards for the two theories but for now lets stick to disvalidating yours. Thank you

Prey tell me, what is my cosmology? As far as I know, the question hardly came up for me, I find the question of ultimate origins rather empty, as far as your quote mining goes, I do agree with the following: Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts. Personally, I find it not very interesting, but, let's be brutally honest here, the few facts underlying scientific cosmology are far more solid than the spurious claims underlying Christian cosmology, but then again, maybe you can enlighten me.

sorry it took long to reply, i initially felt it was pointless.

If it is, why don't you bring some sound evidence of that fact? Assertion is no substitute for reason.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a supreme being made everything in the earth. THe only reason why you think it is not plausible is because you are a naturalist, pressupossing that everything in the universe is material in nature, thus you seek material evidence for a spiritual being - which will never happen. I'm sure you've been exposed to numerous arguments about the many immaterial parts of our universe, and many abstractions notably the very logic you claim to be a basis for obtaining and verifying truth. Just like you presuppose, i presuppose the revelation of God through His Word, and it is a perfectly plausible explanation for the universe as it is - in all its vastness and order.

The supernatural on the other hand can neither be investigated nor understood, as it lacks that regularity and lawfulness. By calling something supernatural (even though there is no reason to do so), you're putting it out of the reach of scientific investigation and shield it from inquiry. It's the epithetome of organised and institutionalised ignorance.i must let you know that, in all sincerity, YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural. Some more assertion. Where's your evidence?
First, it isn't true that the supernatural cannot be investigated. In actual fact, it can. But like i said the last time, you can't use a light microscope to view a picornavirus, it hasn't got the proper resolution. HOwbeit there are physical manifestations of the supernatural, it is subject to each person's interpretation and for a naturalist, the possibility of a physical manifestaiton having its origins in the supernatural is ruled out ab initio.

Possibly. Define the non physical and ellaborate on how one can investigate that non physical. If you are unable to do that, your claims are empty talk.
Unfortunately we don't have a common ground when it comes to discussing spiritual issues. In my sphere, spiritual issues are constantly being investigated. But to quote someone; "the evidence used to prove something exists must correspond to its nature".
Apart from the spiritual though, the mental process including logic as well as consciousness and personality is immaterial, and you'd really have a hard time trying to prove that it is a mere product or illusion of our brain's physical activity.

Indeed they cannot (directly) be explained by science, but what makes you think religion is up to the task?
First, I'm not trying to defend 'religion' here; i'm not an advocate of religion and, it might surprise you that i view atheism as just another religion masquerading itself as being seperate from it. it takes faith to be an atheist (faith in the presupposition that the universe is material, amidst other presuppositions i wont mention now). the only thing difference is that many religions believe in a supreme being, but not all - buddism for example doesnt.
However, my major presupposition is that God has revealed himself in His Word; the Bible, and from that point i think i have answers to many things - at least to the limits by which my finite mind can grasp. I search and investigate the Word, and it proves itself. what makes my faith as a child of God different from other faith-systems is that it self-validates, and we have assurance (through logic and what not) of our faith. I'm perfectly sure of what i believe and my spiritual journey continually takes me to greater levels of certainty. No other belief system including atheism is perfectly sure of its initial presupposition.

It is indeed hard for me to understand how educated, intelligent people can continue to believe in religion. That's the main reason why I enter these debates.
First to address the issue of 'religion'. We're all religious beings - if the common denominator for religions is the employment of faith. You have faith in the natural realm, and that affects your whole outlook. I once read a sticker which said; "i don't have enough faith to be an atheist".  if anything, if you talk to a christian who has been 'saved' they don't see themselves as religious but as spiritual. Many of the most intelligent people i've ever known are christians. the two terms are not mutually exclusive. I find it hard to see how intelligent people will reject God - but, again, i know the reason why this is so. I'm a biologist that's why i talk about biology. If anything, my faith in God gives me more interest in science because i can see everything i observe in the right perspective and it makes perfect sense. Many times when you listen to biologists you can 'hear' the deification of 'nature', like it is an entity on its own who dictates what is and shouldn't be. For someone with a revelation of God, everything falls in proper place.

As I've written before, I would very much appreciate it if you could provide a method for verifying these claims, but I must say that mere faith, to quote CS lewis, doesn't cut it for me. There don't seem to be any rational reasons for belief, do you have any other?
what you fail to acknowledge is that all philosophical systems or world outlooks involve faith. Faith is the foundation for logic, because logic makes pressupositions. Christian faith presupposes a God who has revealed himself. From that point on, logic helps to understand and explain what is revealed. But the process of revelation is not mental, but rather spiritual. God reveals himself not in mere words but in spirit and those who have their hearts enlightened can receive the revelation of God.

Cheers.

@nferyn,
On re-reading your posts, one thing i notice is that you seem to think that the reason people believe in the existence of God is because they don't have sufficient answers for what is found in nature. thus you feel that it is understandable that people of old could place God where their understanding was limited, but that since knowledge has increased and all, God seems to and will continue to have little or no 'space' to occupy in the universe. I guess that's why you find it hard to understand why intelligent people can believe in God.
i must let you know that you are VERY wrong. You are putting the cart before the horse. God is not a creation of man's mind but vice versa. our consciousness of God is innate; rather than being a response to the vastness of our universe. In fact, the more we know, the more we get to appreciate God and His work. Increase in knowledge doesn't take the place of God, rather it increases His place in creation because we know more things about the details of His work than was known. Before creation, GOD IS. Creation is a result of God, it didn't CREATE God. there are realms of knowledge, the physical, the mental and the spiritual. for someone like me, i get to know God more continually irrespective of any new scientific knowledge,,,,,knowledge can try to suppress God consciousness in people who presuppose God's non-existence. However, it cannot replace God. Neither will scientific knowledge be able to define or explain the meaning of life or answer the many questions that plague our consciousness. For those who know Him, knowledge increases His place.

@nferyn
Asking about christian cosmology probably means you disregarded my links (wonder why you asked for them). I dont know why you called it that - cosmology- but anyways i'll lift something from the site cuz its a simple summary.

Basically there are two views of the origin of the Universe. One of these is the supernatural position set forth in the book of Genesis (Chapters 1-2), with ample confirmation from other inspired writings. The Genesis narrative affirms that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of the initial week of earth’s history. Subsequently, during the remaining five days of creation activity, attention was directed to this planet, the abode of man—who was uniquely fashioned in the image of the Creator (Gen. 1:26,27). The sun, moon, and stars were also made (v. 14ff). The Scriptures make it perfectly clear that the whole creation (inorganic and organic) came into being during this six-day period (see Ex. 20:11).

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_big_bang_theory_vs_gods_word

I'm studying about the big bang to fully understand it. Due to your "no explosion ever occured". will get back to you

ricadelide:

sorry it took long to reply, i initially felt it was pointless.

If it is, why don't you bring some sound evidence of that fact? Assertion is no substitute for reason.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a supreme being made everything in the earth. THe only reason why you think it is not plausible is because you are a naturalist, pressupossing that everything in the universe is material in nature, thus you seek material evidence for a spiritual being - which will never happen.

I think you're on to something here. It is not as much as I seek direct material evidence for a spiritual being, but rather, in as much as that spiritual being interacts with the material world, there will be consequences for the material world and these consequences can be studied. When on investigates a phenomenon that seems to be a manifestation of that spiritual being upon the material world, then the causality involved in that manifestation, must by necessity first eliminate the possible material causes of that manifestation before one can establish whether or not that manifestation can possibly have an immaterial, spiritual cause.

ricadelide:

I'm sure you've been exposed to numerous arguments about the many immaterial parts of our universe, and many abstractions notably the very logic you claim to be a basis for obtaining and verifying truth. Just like you presuppose, i presuppose the revelation of God through His Word, and it is a perfectly plausible explanation for the universe as it is - in all its vastness and order.

It might very well be consistent with the observations we can make in the universe, but nowhere can one make the claim that the material universe is contingent upon the existence of a deity and his revelation through his word (I assume you're referring to the Bible here). If you're talking about a literal reading of the Bible, then one cannot even claim that it is consistent with our current scientific understanding. The stories in Genesis are clearly not scientifically correct representations of our natural history. The story of Noah and his Ark e.g. is so laughably impossible that it hardly merits investigation.

ricadelide:

The supernatural on the other hand can neither be investigated nor understood, as it lacks that regularity and lawfulness. By calling something supernatural (even though there is no reason to do so), you're putting it out of the reach of scientific investigation and shield it from inquiry. It's the epithetome of organised and institutionalised ignorance.i must let you know that, in all sincerity, YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural.

And how then could I get to that knowledge?

ricadelide:

Some more assertion. Where's your evidence?
First, it isn't true that the supernatural cannot be investigated. In actual fact, it can. But like i said the last time, you can't use a light microscope to view a picornavirus, it hasn't got the proper resolution. HOwbeit there are physical manifestations of the supernatural, it is subject to each person's interpretation and for a naturalist, the possibility of a physical manifestaiton having its origins in the supernatural is ruled out ab initio.

It is indeed a premisse of the naturalist that the universe is lawful and that logic applies. To find conclusive evidence for the supernatural, you would need to establish:
1. that some phenomena are not following natural laws
2. that these phenomena (if evidence of their non-lawfulness is found) are the result of agency that exists outside the natural.
Could you come up with a (possibly experimental) set-up to establish those 2 point? Without this your supernatural entities are purely speculative.

ricadelide:

Possibly. Define the non physical and ellaborate on how one can investigate that non physical. If you are unable to do that, your claims are empty talk.
Unfortunately we don't have a common ground when it comes to discussing spiritual issues. In my sphere, spiritual issues are constantly being investigated. But to quote someone; "the evidence used to prove something exists must correspond to its nature".

Can you explain, because I just don't understand how that investigation works.

ricadelide:

Apart from the spiritual though, the mental process including logic as well as consciousness and personality is immaterial, and you'd really have a hard time trying to prove that it is a mere product or illusion of our brain's physical activity.

Why should I have to prove that? As long as it is the most parsimonious explanation and it fits with the observation, the material origin of consciousness and personality is a perfectly acceptable hypothesis. And some aspects of consciousness have been proven to have a material cause, so we're getting ever closer in our understanding of consciousness.

ricadelide:

Indeed they cannot (directly) be explained by science, but what makes you think religion is up to the task?
First, I'm not trying to defend 'religion' here; i'm not an advocate of religion and, it might surprise you that i view atheism as just another religion masquerading itself as being seperate from it.

No, that doesn't surprise me at all. It just shows a basic misunderstanding of what atheism is, though. It is merely the lack of god-belief.

ricadelide:
it takes faith to be an atheist (faith in the presupposition that the universe is material, amidst other presuppositions i wont mention now).

It only takes faith in two things:
1. the lawfulness of the universe
2. the applicability of logic
Everything else is based upon those 2 premisses. But most atheists (and the same goes undoubtedly for most theist as well) don't really look for a deeper epistemological underpinning of their atheism.

ricadelide:

the only thing difference is that many religions believe in a supreme being, but not all - buddism for example doesnt.
However, my major presupposition is that God has revealed himself in His Word; the Bible, and from that point i think i have answers to many things - at least to the limits by which my finite mind can grasp.

Could you give an example of one of these answers?

ricadelide:

I search and investigate the Word, and it proves itself. what makes my faith as a child of God different from other faith-systems is that it self-validates, and we have assurance (through logic and what not) of our faith.

What makes you think that's any different for other religions?

ricadelide:

I'm perfectly sure of what i believe and my spiritual journey continually takes me to greater levels of certainty. No other belief system including atheism is perfectly sure of its initial presupposition.

Depends on what you consider perfectly sure. I'm as certain as anyone can be about the two premisses I mentioned before. Even more so because without it any discourse about anything at all would be impossible

ricadelide:

It is indeed hard for me to understand how educated, intelligent people can continue to believe in religion. That's the main reason why I enter these debates.
First to address the issue of 'religion'. We're all religious beings - if the common denominator for religions is the employment of faith. You have faith in the natural realm, and that affects your whole outlook. I once read a sticker which said; "i don't have enough faith to be an atheist". if anything, if you talk to a christian who has been 'saved' they don't see themselves as religious but as spiritual. Many of the most intelligent people i've ever known are christians. the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, I definitely wouldn't claim that intelligence and religiosity are mutually exclusive and that's exactly what puzzles me

ricadelide:

I find it hard to see how intelligent people will reject God - but, again, i know the reason why this is so.

You do? Care to explain?

ricadelide:
I'm a biologist that's why i talk about biology. If anything, my faith in God gives me more interest in science because i can see everything i observe in the right perspective and it makes perfect sense. Many times when you listen to biologists you can 'hear' the deification of 'nature', like it is an entity on its own who dictates what is and shouldn't be. For someone with a revelation of God, everything falls in proper place.

You mean the Dawkinsian awe in the face of nature?

ricadelide:

As I've written before, I would very much appreciate it if you could provide a method for verifying these claims, but I must say that mere faith, to quote CS lewis, doesn't cut it for me. There don't seem to be any rational reasons for belief, do you have any other?
what you fail to acknowledge is that all philosophical systems or world outlooks involve faith. Faith is the foundation for logic, because logic makes pressupositions.

Logic only presupposes itself. An entity can not both be and not be. It is the basis of all discourse and actually of all world views, even those rejecting it.

ricadelide:
Christian faith presupposes a God who has revealed himself. From that point on, logic helps to understand and explain what is revealed. But the process of revelation is not mental, but rather spiritual. God reveals himself not in mere words but in spirit and those who have their hearts enlightened can receive the revelation of God.

So that process is then decoupled from the factual claims the Bible makes about the universe?

Thanks for your rejoinder, I think we're getting closer to a mutual understanding of each other's positions

somze:

@nferyn
Asking about christian cosmology probably means you disregarded my links (wonder why you asked for them). I don't know why you called it that - cosmology- but anyways i'll lift something from the site because its a simple summary.

Basically there are two views of the origin of the Universe. One of these is the supernatural position set forth in the book of Genesis (Chapters 1-2), with ample confirmation from other inspired writings. The Genesis narrative affirms that God created the heavens and the earth on the first day of the initial week of earth’s history. Subsequently, during the remaining five days of creation activity, attention was directed to this planet, the abode of man—who was uniquely fashioned in the image of the Creator (Gen. 1:26,27). The sun, moon, and stars were also made (v. 14ff). The Scriptures make it perfectly clear that the whole creation (inorganic and organic) came into being during this six-day period (see Ex. 20:11).

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_big_bang_theory_vs_gods_word

So you are believing in the literal truth of the Genesis account, even though it is in clear contradiction with almost all established scientific knowledge? I guess then that all discussion is pointless, but please don't drag in any scientific underpinnings of of your belief.

somze:

I'm studying about the big bang to fully understand it. Due to your "no explosion ever occured". will get back to you

looking forward to it.

nferyn:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_big_bang_theory_vs_gods_word
So you are believing in the literal truth of the Genesis account, even though it is in clear contradiction with almost all established scientific knowledge? I guess then that all discussion is pointless, but please don't drag in any scientific underpinnings of of your belief.

Observations (some of which i made earlier and many more to come) and occurences are also in contradiction with your "established scientific knowledge". Why just then should i not show natural and scientific validations that point towards what I believe? You dont want ricadelide to show it based on faith, reason and supernatural, now i cant use scientific observations for mine? What exactly do you want? Ricadelide sums you up very well. Atleast you and I agree on something - this discussion is pointless.

Now to your big bang theory, Do you remember you strongly denied any sort of (disordely or chaotic) explosion took place? Let me remind you

The BB was no chaotic explosion

It is nothing even remotely close to an explosion. An explosion is caused by a rapidly expanding gas, nothing of that sort happened during the BB.

No it can't because it is not an explosion.

Who ever brought forth such nonsensical claims? It's only your flawed analogy between the BB and an explosion that could make you think such a thing. Who again claimed that the singularity was disorderly or the BB event was a disorderly event? It's definitely not the proponents of the BB theory.

I almost believed i was backing up the wrong tree until i found these ( please feel free to check my links) -

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

Even wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) points in that direction but uses words like - inflation, expansion but any physics student knowing what happens at incredibly high density, high pressure and temperature that leads to expansion can decifer that some form of huge explosion has occured
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1738.html

One thing that kept creeping up in most of the study was that the big bang contained so much "speculations" - check wikipedia link, ", it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." - check liftoff link, ", we can only speculate and give our best guess" - check umich link. ricadelide are you thinking what i'm thinking? It seems clear that nferyn can believe his "literal truth" - we cant believe our Genesis account, he (like most scientist do) can use some observations to validate their theory but we cant either. What a level playing field!

My next post propose intelligent design to validate creation theory. If thats ok with you.

Thanks

@ somze
From your quote (emphasis mine):

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

You see why your analogies are inapplicable? that explosion was nothing like a chaotic even, nothing like a tornado in a junk yard.

somze:

Observations (some of which i made earlier and many more to come) and occurences are also in contradiction with your "established scientific knowledge". Why just then should i not show natural and scientific validations that point towards what I believe? You don't want ricadelide to show it based on faith, reason and supernatural, now i can't use scientific observations for mine? What exactly do you want? Ricadelide sums you up very well. Atleast you and I agree on something - this discussion is pointless

Either you accept the scientific method to arrive at truth or you don't. But if you do, you have to accept one of the basic principles of the scientific method as well, the criterium of falsifiability [/b]of hypotheses. You then should accept any attempt at falsification of your hypothesis on the basis of how well the evidence lines up with your hypothesis and if the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you should accept it to be falsified. You cannot pick and choose the evidence that fits your hypothesis and reject the evidence that doesn't. Either your hypothesis is valid or it isn't.
[b]Christian Cosmology based on a literal reading of Genesis is manifestly not a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

somze:

My next post propose intelligent design to validate creation theory. If thats ok with you.

Thanks

You can try, but I warn you, I don't take prisoners when it comes to the evolution/creation debate. Many attempt have been made here on this board to debunk the TOE, none have succeeded.

what i found out is that it's fruitless to argue religion.

christianity is not a religion of logic. Because of how most of the stuff in the bible didn't make sense to me and some of my pastors preaching never made sense to me, i was thinking too that God didn't exist but i was scared that if he did exist (. . .if) I'll go to hell.

i'm about 80% believer now. even though i still think I'll end up in hell for doubting his existence.

like my pastor told me "God is not a God of logic. he does his stuff in mysterious ways" i guess that's a good explanation.

it's normal not to believe in God for a while i guess. maybe you're going through that stage of questioning who you are and what your place is in life. I knew i was going through that stage. I still am sort of.

There is definitely such thing as evolution though.

sigh, i'm still confused

like my pastor told me "God is not a God of logic. he does his stuff in mysterious ways" i guess that's a good explanation.

It is not a good explanation. It's a clever way to dodge your question. WesleyanA, you have been 419ed!

wesleyana
i too have been there, we all question. Like i always say this religion and faith business is an individual thing, it is up to each to decide based on their life experience. Every one believes in something, from the highly spritual to the intellectuals and analytical minds like Nferyn , seun and co

@seun no she has not being 419ed lmao

there certainly are stuff that happen that aren't logical.
plus, I've gained back my old confidence when i started reading passages in the bible back again. That feeling that there's someone greater than everybody backing you up.
yeah it's weird. but true. I still question but it's normal to question i guess. Elie Wiesel questioned. I would have, if i were in his shoes too.

wesleyana
i too have been there,

does this mean i won't end up in hell after all? lol


seriously though. even if we don't know if he exist or not (my faith isn't all that solid strong yet) just think about what if he did. . .