KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism is defined by atheists as the lack of belief in God/gods. This definition is wrong, but let's assume that its correct for the sake of the message I want to pass in this writeup. So, atheists explain that lack of belief in deities is attributed to a supposed lack of evidence for the existence of deities. And they are rational human beings for not believing in deities yadi yadi yada.

Atheism is merely lack of belief in the existence of God due to lack of substantial evidence. I think this definition is self explanatory and easy to grasp.

Do you realize that atheists have beliefs in things that have no evidence or subscribe to positions that have no evidence that proves they are true. Positions like materialism (nothing exists except matter), naturalism (everything that exists arises from natural properties and causes *this position is self refuting*), positivism (another self-refuting position lol), skepticism (yet another position that is self refuting... Oh dear... This is getting embarrassing ) the list is endless.

You just committed bunch of fallacies in other to sound smart. Please take a breath and stop generalizing. If there is something that atheists detest so much, it is philosophical stance since most of them are unprovable. I'm an atheist and I don't believe in those.

So, come again.

Some believe that aliens exist (without any evidence), other minds apart from theirs exist (without a sound philosophical argument to support this notion). Some subscribe to nihilism (without evidence to prove that life is meaningless, that there is no transcendent reality and death is the ultimate end) etc

The possibility of the existence of aliens is huge judging by our vast universe. Believing that earth is the only planet housing life might sound ridiculous. That however doesn't mean I believe in aliens. We only assume. If we can exist on earth, chances of that happening elsewhere in the universe isn't impossible.

This is juicy part, pay close attention. If they can subscribe to belief systems or take philosophical positions that are self refuting, not proven to be true, and are comfortable doing so, why don't they extend this to God

I have already addressed this philosophical brouhaha that seems to be messing with your mind.

If there is anything that atheist detest so much, it is philosophical beliefs since they have no base or proof. You really can't type a sentence without committing tons of fallacies, can you?

If by any chance an atheist happens to believe in most of these beliefs, that doesn't mean all atheist do. You don't have to be fallacious.

I'm an atheist cause I don't believe in God for lack of evidence. It is not out of ego or hatred. Don't confuse other beliefs with atheism. We have misotheists, (hatred in God).. You theists are fond of branding them atheists and usually rejoice when most of them convert back to theism.

There are bunch of other labels that has nothing to do with atheism. Please don't ascribe them to us..

If you know the meaning of atheism, this thread won't exist.

They do they lose their minds when it comes to believing in God? Why are they so uncomfortable with the belief in God but not with naturalism which logically refutes itself or with materialism which is ancient and ridiculous? Stephen Hawkins, an atheist and like some other atheists believe aliens exist, and would even subjugate mankind and destroy our civilisation if they ever find us. But there isnt evidence that such intelligent extraterrestrial living beings exist. And he claimed he had good reasons to believe they exist. Oh wait, don't theists have and have presented good reasons why God exists? What are we missing here? You are smart and super smart for lacking belief in God but obdurately take positions that are self-refuting, irrational and unproven. Take your time, if you have to, to cachinnate at the glaring contradiction.

Stephen said it is completely rational to assume there was intelligent life elsewhere

The idea that we are alone in the universe seems to me completely implausible and arrogant.

Considering the number of planets and stars that we know exist, it's extremely unlikely that we are the only form of evolved life.

If humans can exist on earth, there is a huge possibility for life to exist elsewhere. Everything is built on assumption. Not as fact. ASSUMPTION!

You believe God exist.. You are 100% convinced. Why is proving his existence such a hard nut to crack?

plaetton:


If spirit exists, by your own simple logic, spirit should also have a source.

Whatever exists must have a source .

If want to claim here that spirit is self-existent or self - begotten, then you should also allow me to equally argue that energy would also be self-existent or self-begotten.
Now, since we know that matter is simply condensed energy, therefore we can conclude that matter , all creation, including you and I, are self-existent and self begotten.

NO GOD REQUIRED.

everything we observed today did not exist before the bang . it was something outside of time,outside of space, and outside of matter that caused all of this to come into existence.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth...and God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

It came about not from matter, but from pronouncement. A SPOKEN word. "Let there be light."
ALL the matter did NOT exist before THE SPOKEN WORD.

so, it is possible that God, who is from the beginning, eternal and outside of time, created time. God who is present everywhere and cannot be confined to space, created space. God who is spiritual, non-physical and
outside of matter is the SOURCE of our universe and all that is.

malvisguy212:
everything we observed today did not exist before the bang . it was something outside of time,outside of space, and outside of matter that caused all of this to come into existence.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth...and God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

It came about not from matter, but from pronouncement. A SPOKEN word. "Let there be light."
ALL the matter did NOT exist before THE SPOKEN WORD.

so, it is possible that God, who is from the beginning, eternal and outside of time, created time. God who is present everywhere and cannot be confined to space, created space. God who is spiritual, non-physical and
outside of matter is the SOURCE of our universe and all that is.

How did you come to know this being? Where you with him in the beginning? Did he appear to you?

Do you by any chance have a video or audio record of him saying, "let there be light?"

Everything you know was merely from a book, right? If that is so, then you have no argument here, and a piece of book is not evidence since we have other hundreds of spiritual self-acclaimed holy books believing in ridiculous things.

Whatever question science tries to answer is merely from observance, not from a book written by primitive middle east desert men.

You have a brain, use it!

HenryDion:


How did you come to know this being? Where you with him in the beginning? Did he appear to you?

Do you by any chance have a video or audio record of him saying, "let there be light?"

Everything you know was merely from a book, right? If that is so, then you have no argument here, and a piece of book is not evidence since we have other hundreds of spiritual self-acclaimed holy books believing in ridiculous things.

Whatever question science tries to answer is merely from observance, not from a book written by primitive middle east desert men.

You have a brain, use it!

I do not need sign to believe in God, all what I need , I've already got it, I see God in my everyday activities.

If you watch a man walking with his dog, you may think that the dog is leading the way, because the dog will be in front pulling the leash, but what happened when they reach a conner ? the man wants to turn ? the dog will still continued walking straight up, until he realized the man has turn, moment later, the dog is leading again.

The dog only appears to be leading, but is in reality
subject to the whims of the master.

malvisguy212:
I do not need sign to believe in God, all what I need , I've already got it, I see God in my everyday activities.

If you watch a man walking with his dog, you may think that the dog is leading the way, because the dog will be in front pulling the leash, but what happened when they reach a conner ? the man wants to turn ? the dog will still continued walking straight up, until he realized the man has turn, moment later, the dog is leading again.

The dog only appears to be leading, but is in reality
subject to the whims of the master.

At least, in this case, the man leading the dog can be seen. We can prove he exist and that he leads.

Your God on the other hand can not be proven to exist, talk of leading.

Let me assume for argument sake that a supernatural being exist, how sure are you it is Yahweh that is leading you and not Thor?

malvisguy212:
everything we observed today did not exist before the bang . it was something outside of time,outside of space, and outside of matter that caused all of this to come into existence.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth...and God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

It came about not from matter, but from pronouncement. A SPOKEN word. "Let there be light."
ALL the matter did NOT exist before THE SPOKEN WORD.

so, it is possible that God, who is from the beginning, eternal and outside of time, created time. God who is present everywhere and cannot be confined to space, created space. God who is spiritual, non-physical and
outside of matter is the SOURCE of our universe and all that is.

Lol.
You are simply regurgitating the articles of your faith.

Well then, for the sake of this discussion, let me say we might be in partial agreement, except for the different terminologies we use.

For example, I would say that instead of your god, Energy is the only all pervading, self-existent thing in the universe that exists beyond space and time.
And that at a certain juncture there came about a micro-second spark of energy.
Thereupon, space and time were begotten, and from thenceforth, the spark of energy expanded spread forth into the vastness of the void.
Over time, the energy condensed to form matter. The rest, as they say , is history.

plaetton:


Lol.
You are simply regurgitating the articles of your faith.

Well then, for the sake of this discussion, let me say we might be in partial agreement, except for the different terminologies we use.

For example, I would say that instead of your god, Energy is the only all pervading, self-existent thing in the universe that exists beyond space and time.
And that at a certain juncture there came about a micro-second spark of energy.
Thereupon, space and time were begotten, and from thenceforth, the spark of energy expanded spread forth into the vastness of the void.
Over time, the energy condensed to form matter. The rest, as they say , is history.

why is it hard to acknowledged God? I mean one tiny spark of energy bringing this super intelligent UNIVERS into existence is impossible. you say luck ? how do you reconcile luck and miracle ? I believed it is logical to believe in miracle than luck.

Genesis 1:1 in the beginning IT JUST HAPPENED.

so it is very logical for the Bible to begin like this ?

HenryDion:


At least, in this case, the man leading the dog can be seen. We can prove he exist and that he leads.

Your God on the other hand can not be proven to exist, talk of leading.

Let me assume for argument sake that a supernatural being exist, how sure are you it is Yahweh that is leading you and not Thor?

lol, am not surprise, that how you understand scripture when you are a Christian. cannot discern message.

malvisguy212:
why is it hard to acknowledged God? I mean one tiny spark of energy bringing this super intelligent UNIVERS into existence is impossible. you say luck ? how do you reconcile luck and miracle ? I believed it is logical to believe in miracle than luck.

Genesis 1:1 in the beginning IT JUST HAPPENED.

so it is very logical for the Bible to begin like this ?

I never mentioned the word luck in my post.

God is borne out of superstition.

Energy is derived from scientifically established facts, from centuries of observation and experimentation.

Faith, from which your arguments are springing from, and scientific deductions are not in the same universe.
Your worldview and my worldview spring from 2 different universes.

plaetton:

I never mentioned the word luck in my post.

God is borne out of superstition.

Energy is derived from scientifically established facts, from centuries of observation and experimentation.

Faith, from which your arguments are springing from, and scientific deductions are not in the same universe.
Your worldview and my worldview spring from 2 different universes.

that's the different between me and you. I believed energy has a source (God) . you believed energy has no source and Even its has source you are absolutely sure its not God. alright. thank you and stay alive.

frank317:


Nice talk but permit me to help u get some things straight (my opinion)....

The reason why we argue God and reject his existence is not because it has been presented to us as a reasonable suggestion..No.

God has been ingrained into our emotions, he has been said to be REAL, he has been claimed to be seen and spoken with. He is said to be in charge of the earth and watches over us, he gets angry, loves, makes miracles, punishes and has a home called heaven.

No, God is not just a reasonable assumption like seeing an old wooden shield and saying it must be have been carved by an ancient man. God is like seeing an old wooden shield and say is was creates by Mr. Thomas, who had three wives and was a great warrior. His best food was semo and he loved his last child the most.

Yes if we assume aliens exist, we can also assume God is real. But God is not about assumption (according to religionists), God is a confirmation.

I see your point but i think the first disconnect is the fact that your opinion about God is based of what others claim and not you following the trail yourself. If i was to base my knowledge of evolution on what a couple of atheist say, i would probably write it off as babble myself.
you'd be surprised how many evolutionist don't understand what natural selection actually mean; i still see people who believe we evolved from monkeys or that evolution means progress.
Look at it this way, if its plausible to say that life randomly emerged from an organic soup and with what we know today, the chances of that happening is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power(Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe), then i don't think saying a believe in a creator God is not logical especially when we look at ourselves and what we've been able to build.

God has been ingrained into our emotions, he has been said to be REAL

Energy is as real as it gets but for all our knowledge of how to use it,make theorems with it, and manipulate it to work for us, nobody really knows what it actually is. crazy right

Take consciousness as another example. we can't feel,see or touch it. There's actually no settled scientific way to test for it(there's currently a debate on whether plants are conscious) but, you and i can both agree consciousness is as real as the device we are using to communicate.

As you can see there are phenomena in our universe that don't fit into our stringent definition of real and our believe or lack thereof doesn't change their existence.

My position is not to give you irrefutable prove for God, that's not something i'm equipped to do. My point is, saying it's unreasonable to believe in God; is not an honest position to hold(my opinion), especially when your opinions are based of what a handful of people saying...

I personally didn't come to accept Jesus in a church. There was no powerful preaching the stirred up my emotions, the ground did not shake neither did i receive some supernatural vision. I was all alone in my house with a bible,laptop and internet. And till now, i still have questions that have led me down the road of history, philosophy,science etc (full disclosure i was born a christian but stopped going to church as soon as i was old enough to say i wasn't going again... I think ss1 or so).

If we're being honest in the pursuit of truth, then we have to look at the various possibilities and go down the trail. Either your believe in a naturalistic worldview gets stronger or you might see some sense in the religious worldview.

I stop taking atheist seriously when i discovered the owner of this forum is using juju to drive traffic to his website yet claiming atheism.

FreelanceRebel:
I stop taking atheist seriously when i discovered the owner of this forum is using juju to drive traffic to his website yet claiming atheism.

How did you discover he was using juju?

FreelanceRebel:
I stop taking atheist seriously when i discovered the owner of this forum is using juju to drive traffic to his website yet claiming atheism.

are you joking or serious? Is there any evidence to back this your claim up ?

malvisguy212:
lol, am not surprise, that how you understand scripture when you are a Christian. cannot discern message.

Understand scripture? Did I quote any biblical passage? I want to know why you believe so strongly in a deity without any proof of his existence.

From our little chat, I can deduce that you are merely a product of infant indoctrination. You still have a long way to go.

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism is defined by atheists as the lack of belief in God/gods. This definition is wrong, but let's assume that its correct for the sake of the message I want to pass in this writeup. So, atheists explain that lack of belief in deities is attributed to a supposed lack of evidence for the existence of deities. And they are rational human beings for not believing in deities yadi yadi yada.

Do you realize that atheists have beliefs in things that have no evidence or subscribe to positions that have no evidence that proves they are true. Positions like materialism (nothing exists except matter), naturalism (everything that exists arises from natural properties and causes *this position is self refuting*), positivism (another self-refuting position lol), skepticism (yet another position that is self refuting... Oh dear... This is getting embarrassing ) the list is endless.


Some believe that aliens exist (without any evidence), other minds apart from theirs exist (without a sound philosophical argument to support this notion). Some subscribe to nihilism (without evidence to prove that life is meaningless, that there is no transcendent reality and death is the ultimate end) etc


This is juicy part, pay close attention. If they can subscribe to belief systems or take philosophical positions that are self refuting, not proven to be true, and are comfortable doing so, why don't they extend this to God Why do they lose their minds when it comes to believing in God? Why are they so uncomfortable with the belief in God but not with naturalism which logically refutes itself or with materialism which is ancient and ridiculous? Stephen Hawkins, an atheist and like some other atheists believe aliens exist, and would even subjugate mankind and destroy our civilisation if they ever find us. But there isnt evidence that such intelligent extraterrestrial living beings exist. And he claimed he had good reasons to believe they exist. Oh wait, don't theists have and have presented good reasons why God exists? What are we missing here? You are smart and super smart for lacking belief in God but obdurately take positions that are self-refuting, irrational and unproven. Take your time, if you have to, to cachinnate at the glaring contradiction.

This failed wanna be philosopher is here again with his empty fallacies. . .How is naturalism self refuting?

You just make things up about atthiest just to tell lies to yourself. By lying and making the atheist position similar to that of the thiest you claim you've won.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe in all these nonsense you just assembled and are presenting as the atheist position. . .Atheist simply do not believe in God, it doesn't mean that atheist believe in aliens as you lied, some atheist might do that but many do not so your pint is totally fallacious and useless, anyway I still waiting for the day you'll come up with a reasonable argument to support your imaginary God idea that was forced on your through childhood indoctrination and nothing else. . .

LordReed:

How did you discover he was using juju?

Could he be talking of Foolish Folly Kaze?

IAmSabrina:

Could he be talking of Foolish Folly Kaze?

You maybe unto something there. LoL!

Kingebukasblog the number one artful Dodger.

The guy will post nonsense and then dodge when he is called out for the rubbish he posted.

omokoladejames:


I see your point but i think the first disconnect is the fact that your opinion about God is based of what others claim and not you following the trail yourself. If i was to base my knowledge of evolution on what a couple of atheist say, i would probably write it off as babble myself.
you'd be surprised how many evolutionist don't understand what natural selection actually mean; i still see people who believe we evolved from monkeys or that evolution means progress.
Look at it this way, if its plausible to say that life randomly emerged from an organic soup and with what we know today, the chances of that happening is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power(Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe), then i don't think saying a believe in a creator God is not logical especially when we look at ourselves and what we've been able to build.

God has been ingrained into our emotions, he has been said to be REAL

Energy is as real as it gets but for all our knowledge of how to use it,make theorems with it, and manipulate it to work for us, nobody really knows what it actually is. crazy right

Take consciousness as another example. we can't feel,see or touch it. There's actually no settled scientific way to test for it(there's currently a debate on whether plants are conscious) but, you and i can both agree consciousness is as real as the device we are using to communicate.

As you can see there are phenomena in our universe that don't fit into our stringent definition of real and our believe or lack thereof doesn't change their existence.

My position is not to give you irrefutable prove for God, that's not something i'm equipped to do. My point is, saying it's unreasonable to believe in God; is not an honest position to hold(my opinion), especially when your opinions are based of what a handful of people saying...

I personally didn't come to accept Jesus in a church. There was no powerful preaching the stirred up my emotions, the ground did not shake neither did i receive some supernatural vision. I was all alone in my house with a bible,laptop and internet. And till now, i still have questions that have led me down the road of history, philosophy,science etc (full disclosure i was born a christian but stopped going to church as soon as i was old enough to say i wasn't going again... I think ss1 or so).

If we're being honest in the pursuit of truth, then we have to look at the various possibilities and go down the trail. Either your believe in a naturalistic worldview gets stronger or you might see some sense in the religious worldview.

I am not sure u picked up my points to critically dissect them.

God is not real... U and I know it. If God is real prove him to me.

God is just an assumption, a wish, just the way we all desire super heroes in our lives.

Consciousness is a term used to describe certain human characteristics. U don't need to see it, all u need is to see someone who acts in a particular way and u will understand what consciousness is.

Believing in God is just a waste of time. It changes nothing and makes no difference that we cannot achieve without the believe. But u can decide to believe if it makes u feel good, but understand that u are as good or as bad as someone who believes in Superman.

Like I said before, its okay to assume there might be a creator, but its very bad to assume u know a creator that has never been proven.

frank317:


I am not sure u picked up my points to critically dissect them.

God is not real... U and I know it. If God is real prove him to me.

God is just an assumption, a wish, just the way we all desire super heroes in our lives.

Consciousness is a term used to describe certain human characteristics. U don't need to see it, all u need is to see someone who acts in a particular way and u will understand what consciousness is.

Believing in God is just a waste of time. It changes nothing and makes no difference that we cannot achieve without the believe. But u can decide to believe if it makes u feel good, but understand that u are as good or as bad as someone who believes in Superman.

Like I said before, its okay to assume there might be a creator, but its very bad to assume u know a creator that has never been proven.

Well said.

So the lying Christian kingebukasblog is back?

Why are many people participating in this clown's thread?

frank317:


I am not sure u picked up my points to critically dissect them.

God is not real... U and I know it. If God is real prove him to me.

God is just an assumption, a wish, just the way we all desire super heroes in our lives.

Consciousness is a term used to describe certain human characteristics. U don't need to see it, all u need is to see someone who acts in a particular way and u will understand what consciousness is.

Believing in God is just a waste of time. It changes nothing and makes no difference that we cannot achieve without the believe. But u can decide to believe if it makes u feel good, but understand that u are as good or as bad as someone who believes in Superman.

Like I said before, its okay to assume there might be a creator, but its very bad to assume u know a creator that has never been proven.

I am not sure u picked up my points to critically dissect them.
I think I did..But it's possible I missed something...

God is not real... U and I know it. If God is real prove him to me.
Like I wrote in my last post, I don't have the skill set to give u irrefutable proof of God and quite honestly I'm not trying to... If I believe in a God big enough to create the universe, then I believe he's big enough to proof himself.

But If you would indulge me, I have two questions for you.

You: Consciousness is a term used to describe certain human characteristics. U don't need to see it, all u need is to see someone who acts in a particular way and u will understand what consciousness is.
Can you kindly describe the characteristics of a conscious creature and how do we know if another creature is actually conscious?
You:
Like I said before, its okay to assume there might be a creator, but its very bad to assume u know a creator that has never been proven
Do you believe in cosmic inflation? and why do you believe it?

Shepherd00:

Resurrection! Resurrection!! Resurrection!!! KingEbukasblog is back. Wow.

Lol... I let's hope he dines for a while before another escape.

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism is defined by atheists as the lack of belief in God/gods. This definition is wrong, but let's assume that its correct for the sake of the message I want to pass in this writeup. So, atheists explain that lack of belief in deities is attributed to a supposed lack of evidence for the existence of deities. And they are rational human beings for not believing in deities yadi yadi yada.

Do you realize that atheists have beliefs in things that have no evidence or subscribe to positions that have no evidence that proves they are true. Positions like materialism (nothing exists except matter), naturalism (everything that exists arises from natural properties and causes *this position is self refuting*), positivism (another self-refuting position lol), skepticism (yet another position that is self refuting... Oh dear... This is getting embarrassing ) the list is endless.


Some believe that aliens exist (without any evidence), other minds apart from theirs exist (without a sound philosophical argument to support this notion). Some subscribe to nihilism (without evidence to prove that life is meaningless, that there is no transcendent reality and death is the ultimate end) etc


This is juicy part, pay close attention. If they can subscribe to belief systems or take philosophical positions that are self refuting, not proven to be true, and are comfortable doing so, why don't they extend this to God Why do they lose their minds when it comes to believing in God? Why are they so uncomfortable with the belief in God but not with naturalism which logically refutes itself or with materialism which is ancient and ridiculous? Stephen Hawkins, an atheist and like some other atheists believe aliens exist, and would even subjugate mankind and destroy our civilisation if they ever find us. But there isnt evidence that such intelligent extraterrestrial living beings exist. And he claimed he had good reasons to believe they exist. Oh wait, don't theists have and have presented good reasons why God exists? What are we missing here? You are smart and super smart for lacking belief in God but obdurately take positions that are self-refuting, irrational and unproven. Take your time, if you have to, to cachinnate at the glaring contradiction.

Good to have the King back. Seems to be another short visit though.
How have you been sir??

omokoladejames:

[b]
I think I did..But it's possible I missed something...

Well...

Like I wrote in my last post, I don't have the skill set to give u irrefutable proof of God and quite honestly I'm not trying to... If I believe in a God big enough to create the universe, then I believe he's big enough to proof himself.

U can believe anything u want to, but that's just what it is... Your believe. It ends there.
U believe God can prove himself...this is just another believe which just ends there because he is yet to prove himself since the world began.

But If you would indulge me, I have two questions for you.

Can you kindly describe the characteristics of a conscious creature and how do we know if another creature is actually conscious?

Consciousness is a term used to describe awareness. What is difficult to understand about this? When someone is fainted and he wakes up he is conscious. Consciousness is an activity, it is not a thing. It's like smiling... Smiling is a facial expression, when we see it we recognize it.
Consciousness is being aware of our environment, when we are aware, we say the person is conscious.

Do you believe in cosmic inflation? and why do you believe it?

I don't even know what cosmic inflation is... I will have to research in that when I have time.

frank317:

Consciousness is a term used to describe awareness. What is difficult to understand about this? When someone is fainted and he wakes up he is conscious. Consciousness is an activity, it is not a thing. It's like smiling... Smiling is a facial expression, when we see it we recognize it.
Consciousness is being aware of our environment, when we are aware, we say the person is conscious.


I don't even know what cosmic inflation is... I will have to research in that when I have time.

Okay... Let me know when u have an opinion on it. And also,if u can,lookup on consciousness. You'll find it's much more complex than u think.

omokoladejames:


Do you believe in cosmic inflation? and why do you believe it?

Cosmic inflation is a conclusion based on observed facts of the universe, it doesn't require a belief like a believer would say of a god.

LordReed:


Cosmic inflation is a conclusion based on observed facts of the universe, it doesn't require a belief like a believer would say of a god.

Heyy hi there... Just so I'm sure we have the same understanding of what it means...would u be so kind to answer a couple of questions?

What is ur understanding of cosmic inflation and why we need it?
What experimental evidence do we have to proof it?
And finally, what it means in relation to the big bang theory?

If u can ,I'd appreciate it if u leave out geek speak as much as possible. Explanations that anybody can understand would be great.

omokoladejames:

Heyy hi there... Just so I'm sure we have the same understanding of what it means...would u be so kind to answer a couple of questions?

What is ur understanding of cosmic inflation and why we need it?

Cosmic inflation is the conclusion that was arrived at when several observations about the universe were made. It explained why such observations could be, given our knowledge of the universe.

What experimental evidence do we have to proof it?

We do not have experimental evidence, we have observational evidence. These observations are basically facts about the universe that make sense when considered within the cosmic inflation model.

And finally, what it means in relation to the big bang theory?

The big bang theory was basically incomplete without the cosmic inflation model because aforementioned observations could not be explained by BBT only.

If u can ,I'd appreciate it if u leave out geek speak as much as possible. Explanations that anybody can understand would be great.

I have left out most of the technical jargon but if you want to catch up on those here seems to be a good start point.

LordReed:

Aiit... let me try putting some things into perspective a bit, for clearer understanding

Cosmic inflation is the conclusion that was arrived at when several observations about the universe were made. It explained why such observations could be, given our knowledge of the universe.

Basically cosmic inflation is an idea that, at it's beginning,the universe rapidly expanded by a factor atleast 10^26 in less than 10^−32 secs( thats way faster than the speed of light in a very short time).
Why do we need it? If we are to accept big bang as the origin of the universe as we know it and assume regular gravity was always the only force at work, we run into two major problems(there are a couple of other ones but these are the major ones):
a) Flatness: to keep it simple. We know(atleast to best of our understanding) our observable universe is flat(the density of matter in the universe appears "fine-tuned" to be very close to the critical value at which space is perfectly flat rather than a hyperbolic or spherical). But that's kinda of a problem because our knowledge of physics tells us that an expanding universe should not be flat, especially if it had started out even by the tiniest degree not flat.

b)Horizon Problem: Basically, completely opposite sides of the universe that shouldn't have had time to be interact are at completely the same temperature. Think of when you mix cold water into hot tea, it would take time to mix together(some parts of the tea would be hot and some parts cold for a while). Given the size of the universe,all these opposite sides shouldn't have had enough time(speed of light limitation) to interact and have the same temperature.

The Inflation idea solves both problems by giving us a force(or whatever we want to call it) that could expand the universe at speeds way faster than the speed of light in a very very short time. What this force,stuff,anti-gravity or anything we want to call it is, we just don't know. And we have no proof for it with our current scientific methods because 10^-32 sec into the beginning of the universe is as far as our theories can go and anything beyond 10^-42,everything we know about fundamental physics is thrown out the window. Most scientist just believe inflation must have happened even though we have absolutely no idea what the stuff is, what started it and why it stopped.

We do not have experimental evidence, we have observational evidence. These observations are basically facts about the universe that make sense when considered within the cosmic inflation model.

Actually,lets make the statement clearer. Its because of what we observe in the universe that makes the big bang not a theory of the origins of the universe but more accurately an explanation describing a series of events that happened to the universe following its existence.Basically the big bang started after inflation. Most scientist just accept inflation as what happened before the big bang even though we don't have proof or evidence for it.

So i brought this up with our friend earlier because, the notion that just because there's no evidence for God from a "proof it to me by science(because apparently cause and effects are no longer good enough)" worldview, is simply not be consistent position to hold.
I also brought up consciousness with him to make the same point. Trying to proof or test for it has been one of the most complex problem in science and philosophy till date; mainly because there's seems to be no material component to it as far as we know. But consciousness is one of the few things we are sure exist because it is part of us. If it was outside of us, there would be no way of proving it from a naturalistic point of view.

U and I can both agree that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for life to such degrees that are unimaginable. For example: if the gravitational constant alone varies by just 1/10^60, the universe would have either collapsed on itself or expanded too rapidly for any stars to have been formed. And we have many other extremely precise values from the universe at large down to most minute living organism, all of which have been independently balanced on the tip of a blade.

Of course you can chose to believe it all just randomly happened, or believe super advanced aliens from another universe sowed the seed and they might be extinct by now for all we know or that we are living in a simulation, that's all fine; but saying the believe in a Creator is irrational is not an honest opinion to me sha.
You can rightly reject the notion of God for many other personal reasons(which is understandable) but hiding behind rationality and science is not just one of them. They are both answering fundamentally different questions and not at odds with one another.

Nope. You have it backwards. It actually takes more courage to be an atheist than a theist. If you are an atheist and you are wrong, you go to hell when rapture comes. However, if you are a theist if rapture comes and you are wrong you will be fine. I know lots of ivy league peeps that know that religion doesn't make a lot of sense but the fear of hell (brainwashed) prevents them from totally refuting religion.

KingEbukasBlog:


True. They understand the implications of denying God's existence and they are afraid of that reality. To deal with the fear and soothe themselves and express their intellectual superiority , they take positions to fill the gap left by their lack of belief that are self-refuting and irrational. Brilliant move!