The Problem with Christians

[pocaracas]

Science tell us that the universe is expanding.
From there, working backwards, it was hypothesized that the universe was once all bundled in a small space... And then *big bang* and start spreading.
That's it.
Science does not tell you that the universe didn't exist.

Fair enough, although it is popular with some physicists to theorize that our universe didn't exist at some point, and was created from a parallel universe or some other dimension.

"some".... yes.... it is also true that some physicists are christian.... and some are muslim.... and some are hindi...
Many theories exist as to the nature of pre-big-bang conditions... but none has been confirmed, for that information is impossible to come by, due to the nature of the big-bang.
From quantum fluctuations, to multiple universes, to higher dimensional universes, to.... whatever man can dream of... one super-powerful being that created this universe, to a college student being that created this universe as a low grade science project, to a multitude of such beings in a lab.
Many hypotheses exist, none is confirmed. Should we pretend that one of them is correct and all others wrong? Is that the most intellectually honest approach?

[Pat Mustard]

Unless you can point to thousands of predicted events recorded before the fact your conclusion is simply invalid, ridiculously stupid and laughably useless.

You are trying to make the supernatural fit into a scientific model. It just won't work because supernatural events by definition violate the laws of nature and defy modelling.

And you're trying to fit bullshit into reality. That's never going to work, because your bullshit is the psychopathic ramblings of deranged goat fuckers who couldn't accept that they were a small and powerless tribe, so invented a fake mythology for themselves (most of which was stolen from older mythologies). You don't have to like this, youjust have to realise its the truth.

[abaris]

And you're trying to fit bullshit into reality.

Bullshit has one over the supernatural, since it physically exists. It can be proven and analyzed by scientific means. If you're inclined to do so, you can even touch it.

[robvalue]

You can't define things into existence. That's why this kind of nonsense achieves absolutely nothing in the real world, while actual science goes on to achieve more and more.

If everyone had just given up and believed stories about Jewish zombies instead of following the scientific method, we wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet. This kind of argument from ignorance is absolutely pointless.

"Oh but [egg head #298] was a christian..."

Yes, a christian willing to put his beliefs aside to do some actual science.

[Rhondazvous]

Fair enough, although it is popular with some physicists to theorize that our universe didn't exist at some point, and was created from a parallel universe or some other dimension.

"some".... yes.... it is also true that some physicists are christian.... and some are muslim.... and some are hindi...
Many theories exist as to the nature of pre-big-bang conditions... but none has been confirmed, for that information is impossible to come by, due to the nature of the big-bang.
From quantum fluctuations, to multiple universes, to higher dimensional universes, to.... whatever man can dream of... one super-powerful being that created this universe, to a college student being that created this universe as a low grade science project, to a multitude of such beings in a lab.
Many hypotheses exist, none is confirmed. Should we pretend that one of them is correct and all others wrong? Is that the most intellectually honest approach?

This idea that god created the universe is very recent. Neither Allah, Yahweh or Elohim are given credit in their respective holy books for creating the universe. The writers of these books describe the earth and sky as it appears to the naked eye. They did not even know there was such a thing as a universe.
I'd like to study the etymology of the word "universe" and see when humans first started referring to the cosmos as such. My guess is it's only been less than 1000 years.


Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto god the things that are god's

[Rhondazvous]

You can't define things into existence. That's why this kind of nonsense achieves absolutely nothing in the real world, while actual science goes on to achieve more and more.

If everyone had just given up and believed stories about Jewish zombies instead of following the scientific method, we wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet. This kind of argument from ignorance is absolutely pointless.

"Oh but [egg head #298] was a christian..."

Yes, a christian willing to put his beliefs aside to do some actual science.

isn't it odd how the use the "not a real Scotsman" argument when their members do bad things, but are ready to embrace a scientists who renders god obsolete if he will only call himself a Christian.

[Silver]

If God can create something from nothing then I doubt he would be prohibited from interfering  with his creation in whatever way he felt like.

IF

Surely, even you are capable of realizing the importance of the word you just used.

If does not equate to a certainty. The usage of the word leaves room for doubt.

[Cyberman]

Exactly. Apologists wave this word around like it's a lightsabre or something. "If [this] then God. QED!"

If not - what then? Do the work properly; follow it through.

[Angrboda]

There is no such natural law.  Now you're just making up question begging material.

Definition of natural law;

"an observable law relating to natural phenomena."

"All life comes from life" qualifies as natural law because this is the only way life occurs, unless you can give an example of non-life producing life.

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.

Wikipedia | Scientific law

You are confusing a constant conjunction for a principle that denotes a causal relationship.  If there is some reason life comes only from life, you might have a candidate for a natural law, but as yet you have nothing but their constant conjunction.  If life did arise from non-life, then the conjunction isn't even constant.  But you are declaring that the conjunction is constant, so you are declaring that life never came from non-life, and that is begging the question.  Whether life ever arises from non-life is an empirical question which we simply have not answered yet.  An indeterminate correlation is not a law.

"unless you can give an example of non-life producing life."
Whether I can give such an example is a moot point, as what is necessary to disprove the principle is not that any one person can give a counter-example, but that one is in principle possible. You keep stumbling over this point, which leads me to believe you don't understand the philosophy behind science much at all, or, that you are being purposely thick.

[IATIA]

What makes you think that god can create something from nothing?

Science tells us that 14 billion years ago the universe did not exist. So if there was nothing, then something, we assume God created it from scratch.

More technically though, He created it by the power of his word as he spoke it into being. So I guess he created the universe from something - his word.

More importantly, if you could create a universe by commanding it to exist, tinkering with it would be a cinch, don't you think?

The universe as we know it, stars, planets, etc..  There was not 'nothing' before the big bang or there would have been nothing to bang.

And for sake of argument, let us say your god did exist.  Then again, there was not 'nothing'.