God and amateurs interpreting science

8 views
Skip to first unread message

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 9:58:35 AM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that
seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.

This is the "layman's" interpretation of the current state of
cosmology:
- There was an event (the big bang) that caused the universe.

The theists in question here then make the (completely unfounded)
statement that god is the first cause (by no means demonstrated, and
certainly doesn't favor a personal god over a nonpersonal god).

The actual situation is a terribly difficult one, and this layman's
interpretation is a vast oversimplification.

1. Let's take the word "caused" to begin with. "Cause" implies that
there is a sequential nature to events. That is, they are time-
ordered. However, if there is no time, then there can be no causality
(this is self-evident if you think about it). Asking what came
"before" the big bang, or what "caused" the big bang, is like asking
"what is north of the north pole"? (Thanks to Hawking for this
wonderful analogy). As soon as you start going "more north" than the
north pole, you start moving south again because you're constrained to
the surface of the sphere. So the question is a nonsensical one from
the get-go.

2. A proper theory of gravity (incorporating quantum mechanics) will
necessarily be acausal below some time scale, unless general
relativity is wrong altogether (which I don't see evidence of).
Despite the protestations of certain people, this is the current
consensus (and this is also a self-evident conclusion if one takes the
merger of general relativity and quantum mechanics seriously).

3. The current models of "the big bang" actually only say that the
observable universe, at some point around 13.7 billion years ago, was
a very hot, dense entity which rapidly expanded and then cooled. It
actually says absolutely nothing about what happened "before" this
event (if such a concept is valid to begin with). There is absolutely
nothing in the observable universe that currently states that the
universe had a beginning. The current state of the art is that this
question is, at present, unknown. An eternal universe that had a
portion rapidly expand is completely adequate to explain everything we
see in nature. There are a plethora of models that do not rely upon a
"beginning" to the universe at all, ranging from cyclic universes in
string theory involving brane collisions in higher dimensions, to a
multiverse hypothesis. At present none are particularly preferred, but
there are actually experiments that can be created to test these
hypotheses (for instance, the LISA experiment will look for standing
gravity waves to probe the structure of the early universe).


Because of 1 + 2 above, philosophizing about the nature of the origins
of our universe is pretty difficult. Philosophy already assumes a
causal relation of events. As I've argued, when dealing with the early
universe, this may not be (and probably IS not) a good assumption.

Because of 3 above, in any case, even assuming a causal nature of
events in *some* sense, the beginnings of the universe are still very
much an open question with no resolution (CERTAINLY none that support
the Christian ideas of a creator deity that takes a personal interest
in day-to-day life and morality).

Subsequently, it always amuses me when theists oversimplify the
situation and select the portions of it that support their presupposed
"conclusion" (this should start ringing bells in any scientific
mind).

I hope this sets the record straight and I've convinced the amateurs
that they're really barking up the wrong tree. I have a feeling it
won't, because human beings are necessarily terrible at intuitively
grasping things outside of macroscopic physics, since they have no
direct experience with the consequences of any other type of reality.
Suffice to say that reality is a great deal more complicated than
that, and one must abandon intuition to make any headway at all. But
at least I gave it a shot.

philosophy

<smwilson@tpg.com.au>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 12:53:12 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 18, 12:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for that Rap - great post.
I tend to agree with you about theists.
I mean, why would they worry about any misinterpretation of science
on their part? They have God on their side, they think, and that
gives
them the power of justification - aberrant though it may be.
I really don't think there is any way to get through the dross of the
theist brain - not until the individual themselves chooses to question
their own belief system. Unlike you, most of them are not educated
enough or honest enough to do it. Don't get me wrong, they can
recite chapter and verse of their holy book, and twist and turn to
validate just about anything, but does that make them sane and
sensible human beings? I don't think so.
You see the same sort of thing happening in the Madrases where
so many of the terrorists are bred. Shame on religion.
I believe we would be much further ahead evolutionary-speaking,
and far better people, without it.


> What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that
> seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
> physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
> upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.
>
> This is the "layman's" interpretation of the current state of
> cosmology:
> - There was an event (the big bang) that caused the universe.
>
> The theists in question here then make the (completely unfounded)

> statement thatgodis the first cause (by no means demonstrated, and

Drafterman

<drafterman@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 1:18:37 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Thanks rapp. I try and state this whenever I can and whenever it is
relevant.

I think one problem is that, in certain cosmological timelines of the
early universe, events will be labelled as happening as X seconds
after the Big Bang, using the Big Bang as an event having occurred at
time 0, despite the fact that we cannot model the universe to that
point. While most understand it to be a hypothetical reference point
extrapolated *backwards* based on our understanding of the universe,
some take this to mean that science is stating that there was a first
moment in time, a first cause.

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 1:33:31 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 12:53 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that Rap - great post.
> I tend to agree with you about theists.

Just to be clear, I was talking specifically about theists who use
this type of argument (not all do, I wasn't trying to paint with too
broad a brush) :).

> I mean, why would they worry about any misinterpretation of science
> on their part?  They have God on their side, they think, and that
> gives
> them the power of justification - aberrant though it may be.
> I really don't think there is any way to get through the dross of the
> theist brain - not until the individual themselves chooses to question
> their own belief system.  Unlike you, most of them are not educated
> enough or honest enough to do it. Don't get me wrong, they can
> recite chapter and verse of their holy book, and twist and turn to
> validate just about anything, but does that make them sane and
> sensible human beings?  I don't think so.
> You see the same sort of thing happening in the Madrases where
> so many of the terrorists are bred.  Shame on religion.
> I believe we would be much further ahead evolutionary-speaking,
> and far better people, without it.

I certainly hope that in the future we can at least educate people to
not use this erroneous argument (and belligerently at that!)

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 1:34:32 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Hi, D-Man,

Well, the event itself can occur (the rapid inflation) without the
"beginning" happening at all. There was a specific point in time that
the inflationary period occurred. What that stated about the time
"beforehand" is... nothing. ;)

George Chalkin

<georgechalkin@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 1:56:23 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
> What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that
> seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
> physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
> upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.
>
Just to be fair here, rapp, there are two causes for this:
>
1. There are a lot of so-called experts out there in pop-science with
very good credentials and a political agenda, who would mislead the
public to further their own agenda.
>
2. Sometimes the experts collectively arrive at a "conclusion" that
seems to support an hypothesis, as the next step in a larger theory,
which may seem like "closure" to other "experts", who may be
interpreting the evidence, but which would skew their findings.
>
But I for one appreciate the reminder, thanks rapp.

Kent

<musquodster@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 4:20:23 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 6:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that
> seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
> physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
> upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.
>
> This is the "layman's" interpretation of the current state of
> cosmology:
> - There was an event (the big bang) that caused the universe.
>

Just a comment. There are a lot of papers in the technical literature
on pre-big bang cosmology. There is an amazingly long Google search
result. Pre-big bang cosmology is still quite speculative but it is
quite possible that we will learn more about what happened "before"
the big bang or what "caused" the big bang or maybe even that it was
uncaused - a quantum fluctuation. After all, at one time the
composition of the sun was considered to be forever beyond the reach
of human knowledge.

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 5:09:36 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

Of course... there are even measurements to test the various
predictions (see my comments about the LISA experiment).

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 5:24:18 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 1:56 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that
> > seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
> > physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
> > upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.
>

> Just to be fair here, rapp, there are two causes for this:
>
> 1. There are a lot of so-called experts out there in pop-science with
> very good credentials and a political agenda, who would mislead the
> public to further their own agenda.

If that's the case, they're not very good scientists. But I won't
paint with a broad brush here either.

> 2. Sometimes the experts collectively arrive at a "conclusion" that
> seems to support an hypothesis, as the next step in a larger theory,
> which may seem like "closure" to other "experts", who may be
> interpreting the evidence, but which would skew their findings.

What I think the problem is, is scientific journalism being generally
in the shitter. Most of science doesn't sell newspapers. However
there's good and bad ways to present the material such that it's
interesting. Typically journalists are out to sell papers, not
necessarily accurately represent the material.

This comic strip actually highlights the situation in a slightly (but
only very slightly) tongue in cheek way:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

Trance Gemini

<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 5:35:17 PM12/17/09
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Thanks Rapp!

Another one for the New Atheism blog with your permission? :-)

Some very important points here and clarifications of the issue which is extremely helpful for those of not so knowledgable in this scientific area.


--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.





--
-------------------------
Demagogue: "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."  -- H.L. Mencken.

Imagination: "He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet."  ~Joseph Joubert


ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 6:05:26 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Dec 17, 9:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3. The current models of "the big bang" actually only say that the
> observable universe, at some point around 13.7 billion years ago, was
> a very hot, dense entity which rapidly expanded and then cooled. It
> actually says absolutely nothing about what happened "before" this
> event (if such a concept is valid to begin with).

Stephen Hawking (if I remember correctly) said that he and some other
physicists were called on to brief the Pope about the big bang. (I'm
amazed that in his physical condition, he's able to brief anyone on
anything). The Pope said that the church had no problem with this
theory and added that the chain of events following the big bang were
intended by God before the big bang and that the time before the big
bang was therefore "God's moment" (readers may interpret that as the
moment he made his creative plans or whatever else the Pope's
statement can possibly be construed as. Hawking said that the
physicists refrained from telling the Pope that if time started with
the big bang, then there could be no moment before the big bang.

> There is absolutely
> nothing in the observable universe that currently states that the
> universe had a beginning.

Say what? This universe obviously had a beginning (which is postulated
to be the big bang). It is postulated to possibly have an end too -
called the big crunch, another possibility being that it will expand
infinitely.

> The current state of the art is that this
> question is, at present, unknown. An eternal universe that had a
> portion rapidly expand is completely adequate to explain everything we
> see in nature. There are a plethora of models that do not rely upon a
> "beginning" to the universe at all, ranging from cyclic universes in
> string theory involving brane collisions in higher dimensions, to a
> multiverse hypothesis. At present none are particularly preferred, but
> there are actually experiments that can be created to test these
> hypotheses (for instance, the LISA experiment will look for standing
> gravity waves to probe the structure of the early universe).

That wouldn't eliminate room for supposing a creator. For example, if
the universe were to be determined to be part of a multiverse, then it
would be possible to conceive a creator of the multiverse with just as
much ease as a creator of the universe has been conceived.

klytu

<jazzyjeff34@hotmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 6:47:28 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 9:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rappoccio: " What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even


those that
seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.

This is the "layman's" interpretation of the current state of
cosmology:
- There was an event (the big bang) that caused the universe."

klytu: I think poor presentation of the concepts in schools and in the
popular media is a major part of why this happens. An example from
personal experience - my high school physics course did not include
lab! I mean it's one thing to read about theory and another to be part
of the process and discover things on your own through the guidance of
a qualified teacher. That kind of foundation encourages critical
thinking and appreciation for the method and analysis applied to
arrive at immense theories like "the big bang".

Rappoccio:" I hope this sets the record straight and I've convinced


the amateurs
that they're really barking up the wrong tree. I have a feeling it
won't, because human beings are necessarily terrible at intuitively
grasping things outside of macroscopic physics, since they have no
direct experience with the consequences of any other type of reality.
Suffice to say that reality is a great deal more complicated than
that, and one must abandon intuition to make any headway at all. "

klytu: It takes a tremendous amount of education to even begin to
understand much of microscopic physics. For example, (correct me if I
am wrong about this) the mathematical background one would need to
approach quantum mechanics deeply would include (at least): geometry,
algebra (including that of matrices), calculus (including integration/
differentiation and ordinary/partial differential equations), set
theory, probability and statistics. I work in the actuarial field
which requires a decent mathematical background and I still don't have
everything on that short list covered. My point is that while you are
of course correct, before you can hope to have people abandon their
intuition, they need to understand why they should. I think they would
need to understand why your field is important. And in practical and
accessible ways, how this knowledge would "work" for them.

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 9:59:43 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 10:04:22 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 6:05 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"


<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 3. The current models of "the big bang" actually only say that the
> > observable universe, at some point around 13.7 billion years ago, was
> > a very hot, dense entity which rapidly expanded and then cooled. It
> > actually says absolutely nothing about what happened "before" this
> > event (if such a concept is valid to begin with).
>
> Stephen Hawking (if I remember correctly) said that he and some other
> physicists were called on to brief the Pope about the big bang. (I'm
> amazed that in his physical condition, he's able to brief anyone on
> anything). The Pope said that the church had no problem with this
> theory and added that the chain of events following the big bang were
> intended by God before the big bang and that the time before the big
> bang was therefore "God's moment" (readers may interpret that as the
> moment he made his creative plans or whatever else the Pope's
> statement can possibly be construed as. Hawking said that the
> physicists refrained from telling the Pope that if time started with
> the big bang, then there could be no moment before the big bang.

They should have invited me. I would have clued him in :)

>
> > There is absolutely
> > nothing in the observable universe that currently states that the
> > universe had a beginning.
>
> Say what? This universe obviously had a beginning (which is postulated
> to be the big bang).

Very clearly from my post, this is by no means "obviously" true
whatsoever.

> It is postulated to possibly have an end too -
> called the big crunch, another possibility being that it will expand
> infinitely.

In the simplest scenario there is no "big crunch" according to current
cosmological measurements. This assumes that we live in 4-dimensions,
though. There are scenarios where a "big crunch" can still come about.
However the most likely situation is an eternal, long, slow decay into
total heat death as the universe expands and cools so much that
nothing can move, nothing can burn, nothing can react, and nothing can
interact.

>
> > The current state of the art is that this
> > question is, at present, unknown. An eternal universe that had a
> > portion rapidly expand is completely adequate to explain everything we
> > see in nature. There are a plethora of models that do not rely upon a
> > "beginning" to the universe at all, ranging from cyclic universes in
> > string theory involving brane collisions in higher dimensions, to a
> > multiverse hypothesis. At present none are particularly preferred, but
> > there are actually experiments that can be created to test these
> > hypotheses (for instance, the LISA experiment will look for standing
> > gravity waves to probe the structure of the early universe).
>
> That wouldn't eliminate room for supposing a creator. For example, if
> the universe were to be determined to be part of a multiverse, then it
> would be possible to conceive a creator of the multiverse with just as
> much ease as a creator of the universe has been conceived.

I don't really recall throughout my post where supposing a creator was
discounted. I was very clear in stating that the answer to the
question of the origins of the universe is currently "That is
unknown". My issue is with those who think the answer is known, but
are mistaken.

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 10:12:28 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 6:47 pm, klytu <jazzyjef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rappoccio: " What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even
> those that
> seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
> physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
> upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.
>
> This is the "layman's" interpretation of the current state of
> cosmology:
>  - There was an event (the big bang) that caused the universe."
>
> klytu: I think poor presentation of the concepts in schools and in the
> popular media is a major part of why this happens. An example from
> personal experience - my high school physics course did not include
> lab! I mean it's one thing to read about theory and another to be part
> of the process and discover things on your own through the guidance of
> a qualified teacher. That kind of foundation encourages critical
> thinking and appreciation for the method and analysis applied to
> arrive at immense theories like "the big bang".

I indeed agree that this is a large part of the problem. The world,
while becoming more scientifically-dependent, is also becoming more
scientifically-illiterate. This is a dangerous situation!

While it is important to have a thorough mathematical background for
this study, the real issues are much more "physics-oriented" than
"mathematics-oriented". It's possible to grasp that nature is
quantized without appealing to differential equations, etc. I tend to
give more physical explanations using analogies involving things
people are familiar with... waves. For the same reasons (more or less)
that you can only have certain frequencies on a violin string, and one
minimum one, there is a limit to how closely you can examine space-
time, if quantum mechanics is true. The analogies are striking (and
obviously, this is why the theory is "string theory" that manages to
merge QM and GR :) ).

> My point is that while you are
> of course correct, before you can hope to have people abandon their
> intuition, they need to understand why they should.

That's easy, because reality doesn't care that we can't intuitively
grasp it ;). It's just the way things are!

> I think they would
> need to understand why your field is important. And in practical and
> accessible ways, how this knowledge would "work" for them.

Of course, I could point to the numerous things in our everyday lives
that require quantum mechanics (computers, lasers, telecommunications,
GPS...). However in this particular instance, the question is of
whether or not the people really just want to learn about things that
are very small, and very energetic, to understand what "beginnings"
really mean in terms of cosmology.

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 17, 2009, 10:56:53 PM12/17/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
imo, finding proof of how the physical universe was 'created' or
'anyotherwordyouwanttouse', will not bring anybody closer to an
understanding of 'god'. what difference does it make how the earth
came in to being? what will that tell anybody about 'god'? or why we
are here? or anything else?

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 1:25:01 AM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity


Observer
How pathetic , how utterly and totally demonstrative of , stupidity, a
dedication to self inflicted isolation from any meaningful education
but also to a vacuousness unbecoming any sentient creature. Who ever
contributed to the horrors through which you, as a child must have
endured , committed crimes against humanity , but as I said before,
You now have no one to blame now but your self, recover or die as a
misanthropic , dishonorable barbarian not fit for cannon fodder.

Psychonomist


Psychonomist

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 8:49:05 AM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
how about answering the question instead of just the typical spewing
forth of irrelevent hate? on second thought, dont bother, your posts
dont contain much more than a picture of your personality, or complete
lack thereof. climb back in your sewer .... please.

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 8:56:13 AM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 7:56 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, genius, billions of people claim that God caused the universe to
come into being. So if we find proof of how the universe came to be,
and it turns out that it wasn't because of God, then we will know that
the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) are wrong,
and we can drop those religious delusions forever. Darwin made a "big
difference" for millions of people by discovering evolution, there's
no reason to think that discovering that God didn't make the universe
wouldn't have the same effect.

Now continue your policy of ignorance by saying something immature and
irrelevant.

Simon Ewins

<sjewins@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 8:58:16 AM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Well phrased post.

I have never understood why theists seem to feel a need to provide
justification, evidence or proofs for their beliefs.

It is so obviously a matter of faith and faith needs no justification,
evidence or proofs. Why, I often wonder, don't they just accept it as
faith and leave it at that? Faith cannot be given to another through
argument, so they do not argue to convince another. The only reason I
can come up with is that they doubt themselves and argue to convince
themselves.

If one justifies faith then it isn't faith anymore.


On Dec 17, 9:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Trance Gemini

<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 9:11:20 AM12/18/09
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well phrased post.

I have never understood why theists seem to feel a need to provide
justification, evidence or proofs for their beliefs.

It is so obviously a matter of faith and faith needs no justification,
evidence or proofs. Why, I often wonder, don't they just accept it as
faith and leave it at that? Faith cannot be given to another through
argument, so they do not argue to convince another. The only reason I
can come up with is that they doubt themselves and argue to convince
themselves.

If one justifies faith then it isn't faith anymore.

I believe that is one component of it but a more important one can be summarized in one word: Proselytization.

In order to proselytize they have to justify their faith to others.

How they do it if often an indication of how weak their faith is.

That is, those who do it with threats and hate and the refusal to place their experiences and views up for challenge, are usually the ones with the weakest faith and I suspect their "faith" and "beliefs" are more just an outlet for their own personal hate and bitterness.

Those who do it intellectually and willingly take on the challenges of non believers in that vein are usually the ones with the strongest faith.

Just my observation for what it's worth.
 
--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.


rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 9:47:29 AM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 10:56 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> imo, finding proof of how the physical universe was 'created' or
> 'anyotherwordyouwanttouse', will not bring anybody closer to an
> understanding of 'god'.

You missed the point of my thread. I claimed nothing about
understanding anything about god. The point is that many theists claim
the opposite of what you are claiming, that the scientific
understanding of the current times gives CREDIBILITY to the idea of
god. So I certainly hope you also direct that criticism to those of
the theist ilk who use the whole "the big bang means God created the
universe, and oh by the way, sacrificed himself to himself to spare
his own creation from his own wrath".

> what difference does it make how the earth
> came in to being? what will that tell anybody about 'god'? or why we
> are here? or anything else?

My, your intellectual curiosity is so overwhelming.

For that matter, who cares why the blackbody radiation spectrum isn't
modeled well by classical mechanics? Who cares if electricity and
magnetism are really the same force?

Never mind that these two questions alone have given us computers,
radar, lasers, electronics, and GPS. What difference does it make?
What does it tell us about god? Or why we are here? Or anything else?

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 9:50:24 AM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 18, 8:58 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well phrased post.

Thanks!

>
> I have never understood why theists seem to feel a need to provide
> justification, evidence or proofs for their beliefs.
>
> It is so obviously a matter of faith and faith needs no justification,
> evidence or proofs. Why, I often wonder, don't they just accept it as
> faith and leave it at that? Faith cannot be given to another through
> argument, so they do not argue to convince another. The only reason I
> can come up with is that they doubt themselves and argue to convince
> themselves.
>
> If one justifies faith then it isn't faith anymore.

I go a bit further than that... if things are taken on "faith", then
there is absolutely no preference of one kind of "faith" over any
other kind of "faith", if reason is not used. And then, of course, as
you mention, it is no longer faith. This is a core criticism I (and
many others here) have of religious "faith". I think it is
functionally useless and is primarily taken as a "get-out-of-the-
consequences-of-my-arguments free card". If it's just faith, at any
point in the argument if there's no reasonable answer, the person gets
to declare themselves the victor by playing this card. I don't really
buy it ;).

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 11:53:16 AM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

For many people, admitting you don't know something is a sign of
weakness, and they would rather make something up, even something as
implausible as God, than show weakness. Ironically, that's exactly
what the intellectual stagnation of thinking you know something when
you don't becomes - a weakness. In general, we finally seem to be
collectively figuring this out.

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 1:17:05 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Dec 17, 10:04 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 6:05 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 9:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 3. The current models of "the big bang" actually only say that the
> > > observable universe, at some point around 13.7 billion years ago, was
> > > a very hot, dense entity which rapidly expanded and then cooled. It
> > > actually says absolutely nothing about what happened "before" this
> > > event (if such a concept is valid to begin with).
>
> > Stephen Hawking (if I remember correctly) said that he and some other
> > physicists were called on to brief the Pope about the big bang. (I'm
> > amazed that in his physical condition, he's able to brief anyone on
> > anything). The Pope said that the church had no problem with this
> > theory and added that the chain of events following the big bang were
> > intended by God before the big bang and that the time before the big
> > bang was therefore "God's moment" (readers may interpret that as the
> > moment he made his creative plans or whatever else the Pope's
> > statement can possibly be construed as. Hawking said that the
> > physicists refrained from telling the Pope that if time started with
> > the big bang, then there could be no moment before the big bang.
>
> They should have invited me. I would have clued him in :)

What light can you throw on the subject?

> > > There is absolutely
> > > nothing in the observable universe that currently states that the
> > > universe had a beginning.
>
> > Say what? This universe obviously had a beginning (which is postulated
> > to be the big bang).
>
> Very clearly from my post, this is by no means "obviously" true
> whatsoever.

What makes it possibly untrue or alternatively, what makes it
unobvious?

George Chalkin

<georgechalkin@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 1:20:27 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/space/18dark.html?_r=1
Here's a good article from the NYT on dark matter. Do you think dark
matter is one of the building blocks of the universe, and if confirmed
will validation of this existence validate a unified theory?
> > > at least I gave it a shot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 2:28:13 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
you have no idea what 'god' is, so seeing a movie of the big bang
would not reveal anything. do you somehow think there is a big white
bearded man waving a wand around creating the universe?

every time i talk to you i say something immature, its called
communicating in kind, something i have told you i do, so why not
expect it??? hahahaha ;-)

ornamentalmind

<ornamentalmind@yahoo.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 2:29:17 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
DNFTT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

> > irrelevant.- Hide quoted text -

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 2:29:28 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
they get asked for proof constantly, just in case you missed it???

On Dec 18, 8:58 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > at least I gave it a shot.- Hide quoted text -

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 2:33:45 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
physical intellect may be of extreme importance to you. it isnt to me.
your world is contained by what you can see or touch, or what someone
else has proved to you. mine is not. my curiosity is underwhelming to
you because i have little interest in the things you find
important???

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 2:46:32 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Dec 18, 11:28 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> you have no idea what 'god' is,

Sure I do:

god –noun (from dictionary.com)

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular
attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding
over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular
conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth,
Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a. the upper balcony in a
theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.

And then of course there is your own e_space super duper special
definition of 'god,' which is defined as "the delusions of a
pathological narcissist." So take your pick, I have an idea about all
of them - they ain't complicated.

> so seeing a movie of the big bang
> would not reveal anything.

We weren't talking about movies, genius. We were talking about
discovering what caused the Big Bang (if anything did), and if
something did cause the Big Bang and that thing isn't God, then the
Bible is wrong (or, wronger) and a few million more Christians would
undoubtedly deconvert, just as they did when Darwin discovered
evolution.

> do you somehow think there is a big white
> bearded man waving a wand around creating the universe?

No. I'm an atheist, genius. No one has offered sufficient evidence
that God exists. Just as you have no evidence that there is a being
who lives in your body that you call "spirit energy/god."

> every time i talk to you i say something immature, its called
> communicating in kind, something i have told you i do, so why not
> expect it???  hahahaha   ;-)

I don't expect anything else. But as I keep saying, I feel morally
obligated to point it out when the insane try to impose their insanity
onto others, even if I am preaching to the atheist choir.

> On Dec 18, 8:56 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 7:56 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > imo, finding proof of how the physical universe was 'created' or
> > > 'anyotherwordyouwanttouse', will not bring anybody closer to an
> > > understanding of 'god'. what difference does it make how the earth
> > > came in to being? what will that tell anybody about 'god'? or why we
> > > are here? or anything else?
>
> > Well, genius, billions of people claim that God caused the universe to
> > come into being. So if we find proof of how the universe came to be,
> > and it turns out that it wasn't because of God, then we will know that
> > the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) are wrong,
> > and we can drop those religious delusions forever. Darwin made a "big
> > difference" for millions of people by discovering evolution, there's
> > no reason to think that discovering that God didn't make the universe
> > wouldn't have the same effect.
>
> > Now continue your policy of ignorance by saying something immature and

> > irrelevant.- Hide quoted text -

ornamentalmind

<ornamentalmind@yahoo.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 2:55:36 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
“…I don't expect anything else. But as I keep saying, I feel morally

obligated to point it out when the insane try to impose their
insanity
onto others, even if I am preaching to the atheist choir.” – NK

"The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must
imagine Sisyphus happy." – Camus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Simon Ewins

<sjewins@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 3:15:27 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
I noticed. My post indicates that I wonder why, when asked for proof,
a theist doesn't just say, "Sorry, don't have any. I have faith and it
servers me well."

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Kent

<musquodster@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 9:45:45 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 18, 10:20 am, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/space/18dark.html?_r=1
> Here's a good article from the NYT on dark matter. Do you think dark
> matter is one of the building blocks of the universe, and if confirmed
> will validation of this existence validate a unified theory?
>

While theorist have been waiting for new experimental results they
have been inventing theories with dark matter candidates. Finding dark
matter will not separate between different models. It will take
detailed information on the properties to decide between models.

George Chalkin

<georgechalkin@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 9:55:51 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
> While theorist have been waiting for new experimental results they
> have been inventing theories with dark matter candidates. Finding dark
> matter will not separate between different models. It will take
> detailed information on the properties to decide between models.
>
Huh, then how would you explain their mood as, "seriously hysterical"?

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 11:13:46 PM12/18/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Dec 18, 11:55 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> “…I don't expect anything else. But as I keep saying, I feel morally
> obligated to point it out when the insane try to impose their
> insanity
> onto others, even if I am preaching to the atheist choir.” – NK
>
> "The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must
> imagine Sisyphus happy." – Camushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

That's weird. You quoted this to me, and I quoted it to you earlier
this evening. Is this a coincidence? Must be, you pasted this earlier
than me. Freakkkkkky...

ornamentalmind

<ornamentalmind@yahoo.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 12:10:00 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
Based on the few posts of yours I’ve seen…one would guess that this
myth and author are things you would not only know but would identify
with. And, it was in the context of your efforts and methodology…so,
in my eyes, nothing ‘freeeky’ at all….unless one doesn’t embrace
intuition either!

Cheers.

dillan

<dfernando@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 2:02:52 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 9:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that
> seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
> physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
> upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.
>
> This is the "layman's" interpretation of the current state of
> cosmology:
> - There was an event (the big bang) that caused the universe.
>
> The theists in question here then make the (completely unfounded)
> statement that god is the first cause (by no means demonstrated, and
> certainly doesn't favor a personal god over a nonpersonal god).
>
> The actual situation is a terribly difficult one, and this layman's
> interpretation is a vast oversimplification.
>
> 1. Let's take the word "caused" to begin with. "Cause" implies that
> there is a sequential nature to events. That is, they are time-
> ordered. However, if there is no time, then there can be no causality
> (this is self-evident if you think about it). Asking what came
> "before" the big bang, or what "caused" the big bang, is like asking
> "what is north of the north pole"? (Thanks to Hawking for this
> wonderful analogy). As soon as you start going "more north" than the
> north pole, you start moving south again because you're constrained to
> the surface of the sphere. So the question is a nonsensical one from
> the get-go.

I think you're making an assumption here. Causality ceases to make
sense when time arrow is not determined. If I remember correctly, the
time arrow only came into being after the so called, "rapid inflation"
and when the universe settled in a low entropy state. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but time could exist without an arrow, and thus time can
exist without causality.

I also think Hawkings meant (in his north pole analogy) in the sense
of causality and not in the sense that time itself didn't exist.

> 2. A proper theory of gravity (incorporating quantum mechanics) will
> necessarily be acausal below some time scale, unless general
> relativity is wrong altogether (which I don't see evidence of).
> Despite the protestations of certain people, this is the current
> consensus (and this is also a self-evident conclusion if one takes the
> merger of general relativity and quantum mechanics seriously).


> 3. The current models of "the big bang" actually only say that the
> observable universe, at some point around 13.7 billion years ago, was
> a very hot, dense entity which rapidly expanded and then cooled. It
> actually says absolutely nothing about what happened "before" this
> event (if such a concept is valid to begin with). There is absolutely
> nothing in the observable universe that currently states that the
> universe had a beginning. The current state of the art is that this
> question is, at present, unknown. An eternal universe that had a
> portion rapidly expand is completely adequate to explain everything we
> see in nature. There are a plethora of models that do not rely upon a
> "beginning" to the universe at all, ranging from cyclic universes in
> string theory involving brane collisions in higher dimensions, to a
> multiverse hypothesis. At present none are particularly preferred, but
> there are actually experiments that can be created to test these
> hypotheses (for instance, the LISA experiment will look for standing
> gravity waves to probe the structure of the early universe).

I think what's also amusing is the existence of the phrases like
"forever", "infinite" or "acausal" in the scientific vernacular. I
think those terms are meaningless, and are substitutes for "we have no
idea". I think we can all agree that what can only be know are the
THINGS we can see and/or measure. A universe which has existed
"forever" (in a timeless sense) can never be measured, and thus,
comprehended.

I also think that if we only allow experts to try to come up with
explanations, neither would exist.

dillan

<dfernando@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 2:09:22 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 17, 1:34 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, D-Man,
>
> Well, the event itself can occur (the rapid inflation) without the
> "beginning" happening at all. There was a specific point in time that
> the inflationary period occurred. What that stated about the time
> "beforehand" is... nothing. ;)

I'm no expert, so I don't really follow your logic here. If there was
a specific period of time, doesn't that mean it started and ended? If
what we know about it is that it has no beginning, but has an end,
then isn't it more likely that what we know is inadequate?

Could we really have something that end, but never begins?


> On Dec 17, 1:18 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks rapp. I try and state this whenever I can and whenever it is
> > relevant.
>
> > I think one problem is that, in certain cosmological timelines of the
> > early universe, events will be labelled as happening as X seconds
> > after the Big Bang, using the Big Bang as an event having occurred at
> > time 0, despite the fact that we cannot model the universe to that
> > point. While most understand it to be a hypothetical reference point
> > extrapolated *backwards* based on our understanding of the universe,
> > some take this to mean that science is stating that there was a first
> > moment in time, a first cause.


>
> > On Dec 17, 9:58 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that
> > > seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
> > > physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
> > > upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.
>
> > > This is the "layman's" interpretation of the current state of
> > > cosmology:
> > > - There was an event (the big bang) that caused the universe.
>
> > > The theists in question here then make the (completely unfounded)
> > > statement that god is the first cause (by no means demonstrated, and
> > > certainly doesn't favor a personal god over a nonpersonal god).
>
> > > The actual situation is a terribly difficult one, and this layman's
> > > interpretation is a vast oversimplification.
>
> > > 1. Let's take the word "caused" to begin with. "Cause" implies that
> > > there is a sequential nature to events. That is, they are time-
> > > ordered. However, if there is no time, then there can be no causality
> > > (this is self-evident if you think about it). Asking what came
> > > "before" the big bang, or what "caused" the big bang, is like asking
> > > "what is north of the north pole"? (Thanks to Hawking for this
> > > wonderful analogy). As soon as you start going "more north" than the
> > > north pole, you start moving south again because you're constrained to
> > > the surface of the sphere. So the question is a nonsensical one from
> > > the get-go.
>

> > > 2. A proper theory of gravity (incorporating quantum mechanics) will
> > > necessarily be acausal below some time scale, unless general
> > > relativity is wrong altogether (which I don't see evidence of).
> > > Despite the protestations of certain people, this is the current
> > > consensus (and this is also a self-evident conclusion if one takes the
> > > merger of general relativity and quantum mechanics seriously).
>
> > > 3. The current models of "the big bang" actually only say that the
> > > observable universe, at some point around 13.7 billion years ago, was
> > > a very hot, dense entity which rapidly expanded and then cooled. It
> > > actually says absolutely nothing about what happened "before" this
> > > event (if such a concept is valid to begin with). There is absolutely
> > > nothing in the observable universe that currently states that the
> > > universe had a beginning. The current state of the art is that this
> > > question is, at present, unknown. An eternal universe that had a
> > > portion rapidly expand is completely adequate to explain everything we
> > > see in nature. There are a plethora of models that do not rely upon a
> > > "beginning" to the universe at all, ranging from cyclic universes in
> > > string theory involving brane collisions in higher dimensions, to a
> > > multiverse hypothesis. At present none are particularly preferred, but
> > > there are actually experiments that can be created to test these
> > > hypotheses (for instance, the LISA experiment will look for standing
> > > gravity waves to probe the structure of the early universe).
>

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 3:33:12 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 18, 5:49 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> how about answering the question instead of just the typical spewing
> forth of irrelevent hate?

Observer
And the question was? 1) related to a closer understanding of a non
existent god thing? 2)" imo, finding proof of how the physical


universe was 'created' or 'anyotherwordyouwanttouse'", will not bring
anybody closer to an understanding of 'god'." what difference does it

make how the earth came in to being?" 3)what will that tell anybody
about 'god'? or why we are here?4) or anything else?

Your incredibly fragmented mind is betraying you once again and agan
in direct a direct relationship to your lack of education and
practiced stupidity.

I am particularly impressed by the manufactured word /phrase
"anyotherwordyouwanttouse" (to represent what? the process of
learning ?, the value of having acquired sound scientific data? of
postulating the existence of this nondescript god thing?(for which
there exists not one iota of scientifically verifiable substantiating
data proving either its existence or any act thereof), Or of simply
having no idea where of you speak nor of how to phrase a question the
answer to which would produce the simplest edification.

Damn it !, you wretched slob! educate your self or accept the fact
that you will be considered sub human trash with nothing to share , to
contribute, and certainly adjudged to be one who has not any
intelligent questions to ask.

on second thought, dont bother, your posts
> dont contain much more than a picture of your personality, or complete
> lack thereof.

Observer
It is your rebellion against the richness and beauty of the learning
experience which lies at the core of your hideous behavior and failure
to take personal responsibility for your basic needs that is the turd
in the sewer pipe.

climb back in your sewer .... please.


Observer
Your posts are embarrassing to people of the various sides of the
debates contained in this group. Have you no Idea just how inane ,
useless, and lacking in any redeeming value this drivel of yours has
become.

Ha Ha ha Ha ha Ha

Psychonomist

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:19:25 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
the very fact that you ask for proof indicates you have no idea about
'god'. youre looking for physical...aint going to happen

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:21:06 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
see.... psychoti.....errr psychic lives!!!!! ;-) better start
believing in 'god'!!! hahaha

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:21:34 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
there ya go!

Simon Ewins

<sjewins@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:26:35 AM12/19/09
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On 19/12/2009 9:19 AM, e_space wrote:
> the very fact that you ask for proof indicates you have no idea about
> 'god'. youre looking for physical...aint going to happen

a) I don't ask for proof, I view others that do and the responses
b) I addressed faith in the god named God
c) I don't assume physical
d) No matter in what form, you're right. It ain't gonna happen.

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
>


--
Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm

"The mind is everything. What you think you become.[Buddha]

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:30:52 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
regarding your last bit of drivel [cuz i didnt read much of the other
blather] ....i dont expect you or anyone to find any value in my
comments. why? cuz if you havent felt 'spirit', you have NO idea what
it is. and you havent .... thus your void being, abject skepticism,
and possible source of your hatred ...

regarding your childish embarrassment statement, take a pill and go to
bed if you are feeling queasy ... thats a good boy ... run along
now! ;-)

> > > Psychonomist- Hide quoted text -

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:31:29 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Dec 19, 6:21 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> see.... psychoti.....errr psychic lives!!!!!   ;-)  better start
> believing in 'god'!!!   hahaha

Yes. I'm a Prophet, I just proved it. Twice, even. No need to worry
your little head anymore about "spirit energy," you can speak to 'god'
through me. Now send me all your money.

Actually, there's a rational explanation. Ornamentalmind planted the
idea in my head when he talked about "rolling a stone uphill" in
another post. I have read Camus, it did trigger the memory, and Camus
was specifically what he had in mind in the first place. So, rational
explanation. But send me all your money anyway, since you are beyond
all these physical things.

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:32:30 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
trying to put words in someones mouth is rather childish simon.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

> "The mind is everything. What you think you become.[Buddha]- Hide quoted text -

e_space

<espace1984@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:34:34 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
id like to be beyond one part of my physical reality, can you guess
what? hahaha ;-)

Neil Kelsey

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:46:09 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 19, 6:34 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> id like to be beyond one part of my physical reality, can you guess
> what?   hahaha ;-)

Awww, and you keep insisting that you don't care what I think. If you
didn't care, you wouldn't wish I were dead. That means you care a lot.
I guess I've caught you lying once again. Your ongoing policy of
ignorance remains intact.

Can you explain to me what kind of morality you've learned from your
blessed "spirit energy?" Say I did become one of your disciples, what
kind of doctrine should I expect to learn? Would your 10 Commandments
involve "thou shalt wish that others were dead" and things like that?
Or "thou shalt drink Kool Aid without question"?

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>
unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 11:30:04 AM12/19/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Dec 19, 9:19 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the very fact that you ask for proof indicates you have no idea about
> 'god'. youre looking for physical...aint going to happen

What prevents it from happening? After all, didn't past people get
proof from physical or chemical changes manifested as water->wine,
blind->sighted, dead body->living body, etc.? Aren't present people
supposed to still be getting proof by mountains being moved, poison
becoming non-poisonous and such?

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 8:59:00 AM12/20/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 19, 6:30 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> regarding your last bit of drivel [cuz i didnt read much of the other
> blather] ....i dont expect you or anyone to find any value in my
> comments.

Observer
Were that true you it would be evidence that you had set reasonable
expectations .


why? cuz if you havent felt 'spirit',

Observer

Felt the spirit ?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

you have NO idea what
> it is.

Observer
I , just like you , am unable to define ,what does not exist, so that
any concept thereof serves any to promote edification of other than to
clarify that nothing is called for, nothing is being signified, and
that reference to such is meaningless.


"and you havent .... thus your void being, abject skepticism,
and possible source of your hatred ..."

Ha ha Ha ha Ha ha


Observer
It is your total fear of education, your dedication to the slobbering
ignorance ,produced of complete self isolation from any meaningful
education ,which represents the only character flaw to be detected in
this discourse.

An other e ism. "


"and you havent .... thus your void being, abject skepticism,
and possible source of your hatred ."


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Psychonomist

Observer

<mayorskid@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 6:07:02 PM12/20/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 19, 6:19 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the very fact that you ask for proof indicates you have no idea about
> 'god'. youre looking for physical...aint going to happen
>

Observer


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that
the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are
nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason
otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by
Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this
heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know.
But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Now if you could just find someone to explain who Thomas Jefferson
was , and what he meant by the above , perhaps you could start the
journey from the infinite ignorance to which you have dedicated your
slovenly life to a lessening ignorance appropriate to decent ,
people of character, found only in an educated gentry.

Psychonomist

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 10:33:57 AM12/21/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 19, 2:09 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 1:34 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi, D-Man,
>
> > Well, the event itself can occur (the rapid inflation) without the
> > "beginning" happening at all. There was a specific point in time that
> > the inflationary period occurred. What that stated about the time
> > "beforehand" is... nothing. ;)
>
> I'm no expert, so I don't really follow your logic here. If there was
> a specific period of time, doesn't that mean it started and ended? If
> what we know about it is that it has no beginning, but has an end,
> then isn't it more likely that what we know is inadequate?
>
> Could we really have something that end, but never begins?

There's two separate things:

1) The "beginning" of the universe (if such a concept exists).
2) The rapid inflationary period that we call "the big bang".

The two don't necessarily coincide. The first may not exist at all.

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 10:36:23 AM12/21/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
I can tell you that dark matter does conclusively exist (or rather,
something that is non-luminescent and interacts gravitationally
exists), from various sources (galaxial rotations, gravitational
lensing). The experiment I work on at the LHC is actively looking for
dark matter candidates, I'll let you know how we make out.

On Dec 18, 1:20 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/space/18dark.html?_r=1
> Here's a good article from the NYT on dark matter. Do you think dark
> matter is one of the building blocks of the universe, and if confirmed
> will validation of this existence validate a unified theory?
>

> On Dec 17, 2:24 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> > On Dec 17, 1:56 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that
> > > > seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of
> > > > physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded
> > > > upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.
>

> > > Just to be fair here, rapp, there are two causes for this:
>
> > > 1. There are a lot of so-called experts out there in pop-science with
> > > very good credentials and a political agenda, who would mislead the
> > > public to further their own agenda.
>
> > If that's the case, they're not very good scientists. But I won't
> > paint with a broad brush here either.
>
> > > 2. Sometimes the experts collectively arrive at a "conclusion" that
> > > seems to support an hypothesis, as the next step in a larger theory,
> > > which may seem like "closure" to other "experts", who may be
> > > interpreting the evidence, but which would skew their findings.
>
> > What I think the problem is, is scientific journalism being generally
> > in the shitter. Most of science doesn't sell newspapers. However
> > there's good and bad ways to present the material such that it's
> > interesting. Typically journalists are out to sell papers, not
> > necessarily accurately represent the material.
>
> > This comic strip actually highlights the situation in a slightly (but
> > only very slightly) tongue in cheek way:
>
> >http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
>
> > > But I for one appreciate the reminder, thanks rapp.

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 10:38:20 AM12/21/09
to Atheism vs Christianity

On Dec 18, 9:55 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > While theorist have been waiting for new experimental results they
> > have been inventing theories with dark matter candidates. Finding dark
> > matter will not separate between different models. It will take
> > detailed information on the properties to decide between models.
>
> Huh, then how would you explain their mood as, "seriously hysterical"?

When any experiment finds hints of the thing they are looking at,
there is a great deal of work to do and so the pace picks up
dramatically. Regardless of which model that predicts dark matter
candidates is true, finding positive direct evidence of dark matter in
a lab would be a really wonderful find!

George Chalkin

<georgechalkin@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 10:39:36 AM12/21/09
to Atheism vs Christianity
> I can tell you that dark matter does conclusively exist (or rather,
> something that is non-luminescent and interacts gravitationally
> exists), from various sources (galaxial rotations, gravitational
> lensing). The experiment I work on at the LHC is actively looking for
> dark matter candidates, I'll let you know how we make out.
>
So I guess these "experiments" are for the rest of us who don't know,
or are they gathering additional data for their formulations?
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

rappoccio

<rappoccio@gmail.com>
unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 10:41:01 AM12/21/09