Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 9, 2024, 2:49 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole
RE: Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole
(January 7, 2012 at 11:22 pm)chipan Wrote: yes, many theories based on the fact that the universe is how it always was. what if light was once faster than it was now? what if it's speed is slowing down? if any of these arguements are true then those arguements don't hold water

Then everything we know about physics is wrong. Given that our modern age and the atomic bomb, the process of nuclear fusion, and just everything we know and use in a practical manner about E=MC^2 would be wrong, I find this highly improbable.

I'll explain. E=MC^2 is the foundation of modern physics because coming with that equation is the basic understanding that energy and mass are equivelent - the atoms that make up your body is all energy bound up into atoms and all energy in the universe can and are converted to matter on a regular basis.

The "C" part of that equation is the speed of light.
The speed of light is C. If C were to be variable (over time or otherwise) then this equation would be meaningless and would have two notable effects on us.

One such noticable effect would be that given that our understanding of matter and energy would be quite wrong.
Please note that the discovery of E=MC^2 led to the atomic bomb and is the foundation of our understanding of nuclear fusion as well (which leds into our understanding of stars and therefore practically all of astrophysics and quantum physics.)

So, since our understanding of how the universe came to be and our models of the big bang, star, gravity (gravity travels at the speed of light), and galaxy formation are all dependant upon C = C as a part of E=MC^2, then the universe shouldn't have formed in such a way as to our assumption of C = C shouldn't have formed models of hte universe to become as it does.

Keep in mind that the universe as it is is because of nuclear fusion within stars as well as initial starting conditions at the moment of the big bang depending on certain ratios of matter and energy that would be thrown off if C did not = C.
Instead, all of our calcuations and estimations about the universe leading up to and beyond the modern age all conform precisely as to the way we understand it based upon the speed of light at its core.
You can't just change C and expect the same result because the age of the universe depends on a lot more than simply the oldest photons that actually reach the earth.

Also keep in mind that we regularly accelerate and precisely measure the speed of light and things approaching the speed of light (like atoms in particle accelerators) and indeed the modern take on gravity are all linked to the speed of light, so if it's wrong and the speed of light is variable over time, not only would the entire universe be different than our current understanding of it (as in, the universe not look as it does at all) and we could measure the changes in the speed of light very, very precisely.

So not only is it easily evidenced that C is equal to C, but it's always been C throughout history.

(January 7, 2012 at 11:30 pm)organiccornflake Wrote: Once again DarkestOfAngels i would like to thank you showing a willingness to discuss...

Although Chipon has a good point with the speed of light theory; there are others out there.

here is an Alternate Interpretation of the creation story.

This interpretation allows room for evolution, and the "gap theory."
The bible doesnt seem to contradict science here. You can believe both the bible AND that the earth formed 4.54 billion years ago.

I myself am a believer in the possibility of theistic evolution, and a 99% believer in the big bang theory.

All that does is stretch the interpreation of genesis so thin that its meaning is essentially useless.
It inserts assumptions that arent' expressly stated and even contradictory to the biblical interpretation.
For example, no matter how you interpret it, god still makes light and day and night before the earth or the sun.

It makes perfect sense if you believe the earth is this:

[Image: hebrew-bible-earth.jpg]

This view is heavily supported by the bible.

I'm glad you accept (don't "believe" in science - you either accept it or you don't - it's not a belief if you can prove it) the scientific explaination of the earth, evolution, and the universe. There are religious scientists and indeed most scientificallyh literate people take that position, but don't kid yourself in thinking that it's biblically supported.

Most theists take and leave things from the bible anyway - so don't feel that you need to have your more scientifically linclined views to have biblical support.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole - by TheDarkestOfAngels - January 8, 2012 at 12:58 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  10 Syllogistic arguments for Gods existence Otangelo 84 11594 January 14, 2020 at 5:59 pm
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Easy comebacks ? Macoleco 50 6277 November 22, 2019 at 6:54 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Why garden and not whole world? Fake Messiah 14 2610 March 21, 2019 at 12:02 pm
Last Post: Drich
  Satanic Bible vs Christian Bible ƵenKlassen 31 7813 November 27, 2017 at 10:38 am
Last Post: drfuzzy
  How do religious people react to their own arguments? Vast Vision 60 16848 July 9, 2017 at 2:16 am
Last Post: Astonished
  Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens against Catholicism Edwardo Piet 2 1162 May 14, 2017 at 9:02 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of? SuperSentient 169 23465 April 1, 2017 at 9:43 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Why most arguments for God prove God. Mystic 67 8994 March 25, 2017 at 12:57 pm
Last Post: Fred Hampton
  Strong and Weak Arguments Neo-Scholastic 99 17399 January 11, 2017 at 12:41 am
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  The Best Evidence For God and Against God The Joker 49 9941 November 22, 2016 at 2:28 pm
Last Post: Asmodee



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)