Christ's birthday

[rjh4 is back]

If you don't mind, I'll just tackle the whole, "where did all the energy and matter come from" question.

Obviously it all came about as a result of the big bang. However, this poses a further question which is what was before the big bang? There are two answers to this that I can see. The first is of course that all the energy of the Universe was wrapped up with the singularity that subsequently went 'bang' (technically it didn't actually go bang but I won't quibble about that now).

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the singularity was just energy? What about matter? Did that exist in the singularity?

Now, there is no reason to presume that this singularity didn't always exist. There are two reasons to suppose this, firstly it may well be that there was never a time, now matter how far back you travel, that either the singularity or universe or something else didn't exist, the universe that we currently inhabit simply being the form it happens to take today.

This seems to be true only if the universe or singularity constitutes some sort of perpetual motion machine, which would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise, if the universe existed in eternity past, the energy would no longer be useable energy. So are you suggesting that the singularity (whatever that is) or the universe or the combination constitutes some sort of perpetual motion machine (for a lack of me thinking of a better description)?

Secondly, if, as some suspect, time itself came into existence along with everything else at the point of the big bang then the whole question of what was before and where did it all come from become meaningless questions.

This, you must realize, is merely coming up with a scenario such that you don't have to answer the question. Isn't this what Christians get accused of all the time here?

Personally I favour the string theory argument from which M theory is derived whereby the big bang that brought about our universe was as a result of two colliding membranes floating around in the multiverse. If this is true, and it seems pretty plausible and is certainly supported by the maths then there would have been multiple big bangs not only on the membrane that this universe exists but also on our partner membrane. The multiverse of course may have always existed.

How does this help? Now I need to know what a multiverse is, what it consists of, what these membranes are, what they are floating in, how they collide, etc. Can you explain those things for me?

Any of these answers seem far more probable than simply saying "God did it."

What brings you to that conclusion?

---

So far the existance or non-existance of a creator has not been proven. Therefore I will call myself an agnostic atheist. I believed that civilisations have tried to use various religions to try and explain the unknown. Many people, especially philosophers, have tried, speculated and used various philosophies to try and explain where it (us/universe/life/etc) all came from but have failed. All we can do is guess and wonder... I will however not settle for religion to try and explain the unknown, especially the Christian God. My believe is that Christianity is yet another man-made religion and it gets used to control the masses and to fill the coffers of the rulers. Our fear of our mortallity and the unknown keeps us from asking too many questions which obviously helps to upkeep the Christian followers

I am open to believe but havn't had any plausible evidence to support a believe in the Christian God as the creator. I hope this answer your question

It really does not explain what your presuppositions actually are. It does, however, indicate that your presuppositions are such that you will never accept Christianity. This is clear where you say:

I will however not settle for religion to try and explain the unknown, especially the Christian God.

This seems to me to be totally contradictory to where you say:

I am open to believe but havn't had any plausible evidence to support a believe in the Christian God as the creator.

If you would like to elaborate, that would be great but if not, I will not press things.

I do thank you for continuing discussing things with me. I do appreciate your time (and I am not being sarcastic here ).

[Craveman]

It really does not explain what your presuppositions actually are.

What do you actually mean then? I thought my previous answer was clear on my thoughts of first priciple...

It does, however, indicate that your presuppositions are such that you will never accept Christianity. This is clear where you say:I will however not settle for religion to try and explain the unknown, especially the Christian God.

Wrong rjh4, I used to be a Christian so I have accepted Christianity in the past but all of that changed. I am a sceptic and I ask questions. The explanations regarding Christianity didn't add up therefore I don't believe in the Christian God anymore. Maybe that might shed some more light on my other quote:

I am open to believe but havn't had any plausible evidence to support a believe in the Christian God as the creator.

If you would like to elaborate, that would be great but if not, I will not press things.

Are you referring to my views on Christianity or the philosophies regarding the creation?

I do thank you for continuing discussing things with me. I do appreciate your time (and I am not being sarcastic here ).

No probs! This is what this site is all about

[chatpilot]

solarwave and rjh4 it seems to me based on some of your previous posts that you and your fellow theist have a problem with the unknown or the not knowing. You are asking where did the energy come from to set off the big bang or how did life itself come to exist. I like to say that when it comes to science regarding these matters that it is a work in progress. We don't have all the answers but we openly admit when we simply don't know. But not knowing does not mean that we do not continue to search for answers. Christians and other theists of other brands all are content with god did it. They give up right there and accept that since we don't know and maybe can't know then god is the obvious answer and conclusion. All of this is based on faith a faulty way of determining anything that one cannot comprehend.

[rjh4 is back]

All of this is based on faith a faulty way of determining anything that one cannot comprehend.

And how do you know it is faulty in this case? Is faith always faulty?

In any event, it seems you did not get my point. It was pointed out to me by EvF that postulating God does not help as it just required something else, God, to be explained. My point was that even with a naturalistic version of how things came to be, one continues to require postulating something that also needs to be explained. So I guess I just don't see how a naturalistic explanation like I've heard so far gets anyone to a better point (except, however, if you do not want to acknowledge God...I admit that it does achieve that point for the time being). Why is a naturalistic explanation always better? I do not think even all scientists think a naturalistic explanation of something is always better, otherwise those scientists who are looking for alien signals would not be doing so. If it is not always better, why is it so necessary for the explanation of our existence (unless you already have a presupposition against God)?

---

I am open to believe but havn't had any plausible evidence to support a believe in the Christian God as the creator.

Maybe it would help me if you could explain what evidence you would accept to believe in the Christian God as creator, if you can think of something that you would accept. I would also still like to know how, from your point of view, energy and matter come together to produce logic, which is not matter or energy. Is logic merely manmade also?

[chatpilot]

rjh4 I guess after having been a Christian that you might be able to come to that conclusion. Yes, I do admit that I have a presupposition against any god especially the Christian god. I have been there and done that so to speak. And after becoming a free thinker I find that I don't need god to explain anything. If I can't figure it out for myself then I just keep looking although I know that I may never figure it out. I am comfortable with that. Saying god did it is just too simplistic and as EVF has argued many times just creates a whole new problem. Who is this god? Where did he come from? What existed before god came along? How is his existence provable beyond submitting to faith and unprovable assumptions. Etc etc etc ad infinitum..........................................

[Minimalist]

You are asking where did the energy come from to set off the big bang or how did life itself come to exist.

I wonder if he also thinks that the energy to fire a diesel engine comes from "god" too. No sparkplug???

Must be a MIRACLE!

[rjh4 is back]

You are asking where did the energy come from to set off the big bang or how did life itself come to exist.

I wonder if he also thinks that the energy to fire a diesel engine comes from "god" too. No sparkplug???

Must be a MIRACLE!

Who were you quoting?

---

rjh4 I guess after having been a Christian that you might be able to come to that conclusion. Yes, I do admit that I have a presupposition against any god especially the Christian god. I have been there and done that so to speak. And after becoming a free thinker I find that I don't need god to explain anything. If I can't figure it out for myself then I just keep looking although I know that I may never figure it out. I am comfortable with that. Saying god did it is just too simplistic and as EVF has argued many times just creates a whole new problem. Who is this god? Where did he come from? What existed before god came along? How is his existence provable beyond submitting to faith and unprovable assumptions. Etc etc etc ad infinitum..........................................

I understand. My question is why you think things are any better with your current world view? Do you think that your current world view doesn't include unprovable assumptions? Do you think your current world view correlates better with reality? If so, why? I still am very interested in my previous question regarding the origin of logic, if you have any views on this. It seems to me like you just traded one set of questions for another. (As I said in other places, these questions may come across as being aggressive in type but I do not intent them that way. I really want to know what you think in this regard.)

[Craveman]

Maybe it would help me if you could explain what evidence you would accept to believe in the Christian God as creator, if you can think of something that you would accept.

First of all I would like a personal visit from Mr. Elusive himself It is my argument that God appeared to the people in the OT before, so therefore I can't see any reason why he can't do it again...If there really is an all-powerfull God it would not be a problem for him. Please don't use the "free will" argument because that is lame. If that was the case none of the miracles would ever have happened and God would never have showed himself to people from the OT or Jesus to his deciples after his death.

I would like to see prayers answered. No more starving people (Christians) in the world. God says that he would give if we ask but it doesn't happen. I would like to see people with cancer getting healed when they pray to god to heal them.

I would also like to see Christian followers getting blessed by God as promised. That way it would show that the Christianity god is the right god to follow.

I would like to see some original documents and recordings regarding Jesus' life and crusifixion.

I would like to have a book/guide that is true, simple to understand and to the point. One that isn't riddled with contradictions and inconsistancies and that has to be "excused" with apologetics.

Maybe if I can see a miracle happen it might also help...

I would like logic and plausible answers against the arguments in these websites: http://www.yourgodisimaginary.com/ and http://www.infidels.org/library/historic..._live.html

These are the sort of things that I would be searching for to believe in the Christian God as The Creator.

I would also still like to know how, from your point of view, energy and matter come together to produce logic, which is not matter or energy. Is logic merely manmade also?

Good question...I would say that logic is a combination of both. Man-made but also based on proven scientific experiments i.e. "E=mc2". Even though this is a man made formula it works and is logic. The Bible on the other hand is also man-made but isn't logic and has been proven flawed many times.

[solarwave]

solarwave and rjh4 it seems to me based on some of your previous posts that you and your fellow theist have a problem with the unknown or the not knowing. You are asking where did the energy come from to set off the big bang or how did life itself come to exist. I like to say that when it comes to science regarding these matters that it is a work in progress. We don't have all the answers but we openly admit when we simply don't know. But not knowing does not mean that we do not continue to search for answers. Christians and other theists of other brands all are content with god did it. They give up right there and accept that since we don't know and maybe can't know then god is the obvious answer and conclusion. All of this is based on faith a faulty way of determining anything that one cannot comprehend.

I don't that is quite right. The verson of the cosmological arguement isn't as simple as what I said in my last post. My last post was just some simple thoughts on what EVF said, not an arguement for God. I don't know how life started but I think it happened naturally.

[chatpilot]

rjh4 thanks for your reply to my last post and I will try to reply to the questions you asked me. Namely: "My question is why you think things are any better with your current world view? Do you think that your current world view doesn't include unprovable assumptions? Do you think your current world view correlates better with reality? If so, why?"

The answer to your first question is yes. Alot of people on these forums have a hard time understanding my viewpoint on this matter, even atheists. But I will try to simplify it to the best of my ability. I am of the opinion that religion in all its forms are derived from ancient mythology, remember that what we now call myths were once believed wholeheartedly as fact by its adherents. Myths in my opinion are nothing more than mans futile attempts at trying to explain firstly his origins, the world, and the many mysteries during a pre-scientific age. This correlation between myths and religions has led me to conclude that god and all the religions based on god or gods are the fabrications of mans fertile imagination therefore god does not exist.

Of course there are some unproven assumptions in my worldview but the difference maker is that we don't claim absolute knowledge. We continue to work towards finding the answers to those assumptions. And finally I think that this worldview does correlate better with reality simply because I believe that religious thinking is primitive thinking. We no longer need to look to the heavens to explain how rain is produced, what causes lightning, how babies are made etc. As I stated in an earlier post, I am not concerned with not ever finding out some of life's mysteries, I am comfortable with not knowing. As I always say when it comes to science: "It is a work in progress".