Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Zazzy]

What do you think is so objectionable about this idea?

Perhaps eternity is irresistible to those who have not experienced it.

I find it irresistible. I wish an Anne Rice-style vampire would come offer me eternal life. I hate the fact that I'll die and miss out on all the books and scientific discoveries in the future. I get why people want to live forever, because I sure as hell do. What I don't get is why it's so scary that you are the author of your own purpose.

Is this the deal for Christians? You give up being the hero of your own story on Earth, and in return you can be a milquetoast puppet for all eternity? Sounds like a shitty deal. I prefer the vampire.

[Jackalope]

Sword - do you understand the difference between millions and billions?

The available evidence suggests no.

There may have been a number of successive global glaciations over a span of billions of years.

There's a huge difference between that and your claim that "[f]or billions of years it was covered in solid sheet of ice". The "snowball earth" theory posits that Earth may have been globally glaciated for a few tens of millions of years total at least 3 or 4 separate times. The evidence we have for global glaciation indicates that the glaciation evens all occurred within the last billion years. Your own source does not back your claim of billions of years of glaciation..

Way to move the goalposts.

You wonder why we don't take you seriously? You throw out unsupported shit and then move the goalposts when you're challenged. That's one reason why.

If you want to sit at the table with the adults, dig deep and find some intellectual integrity.

[Sword of Christ]

Yet other Christians might not agree.

When it comes to what we know about factually you either know the fact or you're wrong. This isn't a faith/belief thing such as the existence or non-existence of God.

It's as reasonable to say that God planted dinosaur bones and fiddled with radioactive decay rates just to fool us, as it is to say that there is a god at all.

Well no God created the universe, there is the natural order of the universe and Gods relationship with us. Science studies the natural order of the universe and goes on the evidence we can see. So the actual science is or should exactly the same and not influenced by personal belief.

When you start talking about a being that is entirely independent of the rules of life and matter and energy as we know them

He created the rules of life and matter and energy as we know them. What do you think did? But that's not a scientific issue that's a belief issue concerning something neither of us can know about. It just happens that God is the better context even though it's a faith based belief.

, anything- no matter how improbable- goes.

No there's there is just dividing line between what we know to be fact such fossils on one hand and what we can deduce to be true through reason and faith such as God hand his relationship with his creatures on the other. It's technically possible like an belief that atheists could right of course, it's just not very likely that's all.

But we certainly can use science to look at claims made by religious texts about the nature of the Earth itself, or its history.

We certainly can sure. But good luck trying to prove or disprove the resurrection of Christ. Short of building a time machine it's your word against those who believe.

The problem is that once you start interpreting the holy text more metaphorically, how can you determine if ANYTHING in it is literally true? Where does that slippery slope level out?

You could say there are different grades of truth not all of it has to be represented in literal historical event. The resurrection of Christ is the one major event to believe literally happened the rest you can be open minded about. I'm sure he had some kind paranormal healing ability perhaps some precognition and so on. We can't be sure exactly what he was or wasn't able to do or how much of the gospels is literally historical true but was certainly a real man there's no real doubt over that. His real name would have been Yeshua btw full name possibly Yeshua Ben Yosef and he may have looked something a bit like this.

But again, where is the hard line where you stop dancing with something real- like a horse, and start dancing with unicorns? My point is that there are so many gradations of belief among Christians that nearly everybody's theology is different from everyone else's.

C.S Lewis describes Christianity as one building with a hallway in the centre and in the building there many different rooms. You go into whichever room you like.

Everybody can find a way to torture religious tenets into a fit with their own understanding of the world or moral viewpoint. Literalists are on firmer theological ground, since they don't cherry-pick their god's word.

You don't have to cherry pick Christs words they speak for themselves. The Old Testament is difficult to say exactly what went on some of it will be history, some of it will be dream visions and parables and so on. What matters is that it establishes the worship of the true God and creator of the universe and it does away with the worship of idols. And of course it talks about the coming of the Messiah/Jesus into human history, that's some crucial detail there.

Happily, I agree. But how do you know that god isn't testing your faith with all the evidence for evolution?

Evolution is actually quite compatible with God because what it does is explain why you have all these unpleasant things like predators and parasites in the natural world, why would a loving God make those things? What happened is that God didn't create every species individually but the natural processes of the universe that allowed the formation of life to take hold and shape. So that works out pretty neatly. Darwin even says something to this effect in his Origin of Species book.

It sounds like something he would do. And since he can do anything, and often tests faith, why couldn't he be doing it to you?

Evolution is compatible with God anyway there isn't a problem with it.

You may be in as much trouble as I am with him if he exists and if the literalists are right.

But we know they aren't right? Not if they think the Earth is 6000 years old it demonstrably isn't.

I am open to the possibility that faith can be reasonable- I just haven't seen much of it. What is considered reasonable is open to interpretation, obviously.

It won't seem reasonable at all if you're presupposing materialism to begin with.

[Zazzy]

You throw out unsupported shit and then move the goalposts when you're challenged.

It occurs to me that the theistic tendency to do this comes from the nature of religious belief itself. Unless you are a biblical literalist, you have to twist the meaning of biblical texts to fit your modern understanding of the world. When new knowledge challenges preexisting beliefs, relatively moderate theists need to move the goalposts for themselves- that is, reinterpret biblical text to fit their new knowledge. So moving goalposts is something that is done so often within their own thinking that it becomes second nature, something they can no longer even see.

Thoughts?

[ThomM]

But it's an individual thing.

I would say it's more an objective factual thing seeing as science is the tool we use understand the nature of the universe as we can observe, detect and measure and nothing else. It has nothing to say about God as it's entirely neutral and is it's own independent subject.

But there are many, many Christians out there who don't or can't or won't reconcile their particular god with science

You can say they are "dancing with unicorns".



[/video]

and they'll openly say that they reject scientific discovery for biblical tenets. How do you know they're wrong?

They're wrong because they're opening rejecting something we actually know about as a testable fact. I'm not saying God is a testable fact but a faith. It can be reasonable faith.

Sorry - but science does not remain "neutral" about gods - the thousands so far named by humans. Science reports facts - and if those facts contract the claims of the religions of those gods- them those religions are effectively established to be wrong.

AS science has shown - for example - prayer has NO statistically significant effect beyond that of chance - there has not been ONE study published in a peer reviews scientific journal that suggests otherwise. It makes no difference which god - or what idol you pray to as well. IF any religion were true - you would expect prayer to their god to be significantly more effective - but prayer to the sun brings more warmth than to any named god.

The easiest test - pray for someone not to die. EVERYONE from 1874 back has died -and it is fair to say that there is not a single person from the time of the christ that is still alive - even though he said her would return before all of them died.

AS far as a god being a reasonable faith - WHY?

I would expect a "creator" to be a reasonable faith - but not a god.
THere is a difference - the existence of the Universe might(Although we have NO reason to even believe that) indicate a higher power was needed to start it - but does not in any way support the rest of the supernatural nonsense of religions.

There has been NO religious group whose members have been obviously favored from natural calamity. Churches of all religions have been destroyed in floods and other weather related events.

Gods are not immune to logic and reality. IF something that is claimed cannot actually be true - then that god cannot exist as claimed. For example - the Xtian god is claimed to be All knowing - and Almighty - but that cannot be. An all knowing god can only do what it already knows it will do - and it cannot change its mind and do something it did not know about. So - it cannot do EVERYTHING (Almighty) andthe definition of the XTIAN god cannot actually happen.

[Zazzy]

@ Sword-

Your entire post is an excellent example of my point. You have personally decided where the line is drawn using your intuition and modern understanding of the world as your guide. The fact that almost any other given theist is likely to disagree with you on one or another of your points- thereby shifting the line of what is reasonable to believe- seems lost on you. You seem to understand that you can't prove what you believe. Neither can any other theist. The beliefs are often going to conflict, often to the point of contradiction. If there is a god, someone's going to be right, and everyone else is going to be wrong. Given the omnipotent and mean-spirited nature of the biblical god, it's every bit as likely that the literalists are correct and you are doomed as that you are right. Or maybe you're only slightly off, but still doomed. Or maybe you're entirely right and you'll be the only guy in Heaven. You aren't doing anything the Westboro church isn't doing, except their line is seen as morally repugnant to more people.

I will say that theism isn't the only place where such personal line-drawing (where does science stop being useful, where is a moral code absolute, etc)exists. Political systems are also prone to this, and most people (atheists and theists alike) are probably guilty of this politically to some extent.

[Sword of Christ]

Sorry - but science does not remain "neutral" about gods

Gods certainly don't exist but the Bible/Torah already said they didn't. At least there would be no gods to worship even if higher beings than humans do exist I'm sure they do. Science of course demonstrates a universe that is governed by an understandable natural order. And this natural order is the purpose made creation of God. What do you think it is?

- the thousands so far named by humans.

They're just myths don't worry about them, even the Bible says this. If any of them were real they would have been demons or daemons or whatever they're called just something possible within the general supernatural context. The oracle at Delphi is said have had Apollo possess her body and speak through her though more likely it was the result of the toxic she was breathing in. But that's the Biblical position regarding the existence of "gods" which were of course idols.

Science reports facts - and if those facts contract the claims of the religions of those gods

Yes but then so did the Bible so that's fine. There isn't anything like say the gods of Olympus control the natural world there is only the natural order of the universe as it is. At least that's the part of reality our science can study.

them those religions are effectively established to be wrong.

Yes of course but it doesn't conflict with God who is the source of natural order science studies.

AS science has shown - for example - prayer has NO statistically significant effect beyond that of chance

Intercessory prayer? With that what could happen is God will always answer your prayer in some way but necessarily in the way you would hope or like. He may for instance comfort you in your loves ones death rather than revive them. I don't practice that form of prayer myself.

- there has not been ONE study published in a peer reviews scientific journal that suggests otherwise. It makes no difference which god - or what idol you pray to as well.

We never pray to gods or idols only the living God.

IF any religion were true - you would expect prayer to their god to be significantly more effective

Idol worship is not effective at all and the Bible says as much with great stress. I could post numerous passages on this.

but prayer to the sun brings more warmth than to any named god.

No the sun is part of Gods created order not a god. This guy seems to think it is though.





But either way we don't worship the creation or any part of it.

The easiest test - pray for someone not to die. EVERYONE from 1874 back has died -and it is fair to say that there is not a single person from the time of the christ that is still alive - even though he said her would return before all of them died.

We all have eternal life so they're still alive just not in the same form they were in back then.

AS far as a god being a reasonable faith - WHY?

I may as well ask why you think universe that exists for no reason and has life in it and all this complexity but no purpose or anything behind it is a reasonable thing to believe. A faith isn't an absolute certain knowledge it's a trust you invest into something an optimist hope basically.

I would expect a "creator" to be a reasonable faith - but not a god.
THere is a difference - the existence of the Universe might(Although we have NO reason to even believe that) indicate a higher power was needed to start it - but does not in any way support the rest of the supernatural nonsense of religions.

A creator who went to all the trouble of creating the universe and life and everything who doesn't care about us? It would seem like a waste of time to me. It would have to be a God we are in relationship with who we know something about I would think.

There has been NO religious group whose members have been obviously favored from natural calamity.

No I guess but it helps them pull through calamity as a people. If you read what the Old Testament has to say for instance. The Jews did good to survive as a small ethnic group of people at the mercies of vast empires for as long as they did. And for such a small people you can see the amount of influence they had upon the whole of the world.

"Blessed is the people of whom this is true; blessed is the people whose God is the LORD." Psalm 144:15

Churches of all religions have been destroyed in floods and other weather related events.

We can't control the weather it's a natural process. Apparently Jesus was able to calm a storm if what is written is accurate. If it happened that's one of the more impressive miracles but the resurrection is the all important one to bear in mind.

Gods are not immune to logic and reality. IF something that is claimed cannot actually be true - then that god cannot exist as claimed. For example - the Xtian god is claimed to be All knowing - and Almighty - but that cannot be. An all knowing god can only do what it already knows it will do - and it cannot change its mind and do something it did not know about. So - it cannot do EVERYTHING (Almighty) andthe definition of the XTIAN god cannot actually happen.

Your mistake is to think of God as existing within time with a definitive past and future, this wouldn't apply to something that is eternal who created time. He can do everything in the sense that there is nothing that exists that would exist without him and through his will our universe is sustained. Once he stops sustaining it the universe will be no more though I imagine this would happen around the time all the stars burn out and/or no life is left. The universe itself is here for a specific purpose/function. Atheist scientists say otherwise but they have their own opinion based on their own opinion, they don't know.

[MindForgedManacle]

So, there's a lot of theistic bullshit abounding, so my treatment of general claims will be terse, because I'll also be outlining a general picture of how on the worldview of a metaphysical naturalist and atheist, the origin and development of the universe can be plausibly explained.

First things first, the ancient Hebrew were originally polytheists. The god 'Yahweh' was not their principle god until nearly the time of Parmenides, that is around 600 B.C. Before that, Yahweh was merely one among the Hebrews pantheon of gods, and wasn't even the chief god, but their war god. Their chief god was 'El Elyon' their sky god (also known as El Shaddai, their mountain god) and was the husband of their fertility goddess Asherah. El Elyon would later sort of be fused with Yahweh by their descendants and become their chief god, although they didn't become monotheistic until later still. They were what you might call monolateral polytheists for some time (maybe until they had been waylayed by the Babylonians). They were very much polytheistic, and this is undisputed in the scholarship on the subject, unless such disputes come from Bible nuts.


Now, on my worldview as a metaphysical naturalist and an atheist, here is a general outline of a plausible explanation for the universe's existence and such:


Causally prior (not temporally) to 13.81 billion years ago, the universe existed in a tenseless state as a 4-dimensional (at least) 'block' of spacetime. This is what is known as the B-theory of time within the philosophy of time, which takes a static view on the nature of time and thus the past and future both exist. It has good support from the physics, specifically from quantum mechanics and Einstein's Special Relativity. Time 'began' with the inflation of the universe and this event we call the 'Big Bang. Whatever exactly it was that expanded isn't certain and may in fact be empirically unknowable due to the scale involved. I would cast my lot with the camp that views the conclusion of a singularity just being a mathematical object and actually showing flaws in the relevant theories, which we already know is the case. The problem is General Relativity breaks down at that scale, and we need a sound theory of quantum gravity to harmonize quantum mechanics with GR in order to have a shot at accurately describing whatever the heck it was.

From there on, science seems to have a rather good picture, aside from abiogenesis, though its support has been frowing well, and it has some plausible accounts of it. I myself like Dr. Szostak's (not sure about that spelling) possible account of abiogenesis.

Biological evolution is very well supported on all sorts of fronts. The theory of gradualism is very tight and well supported, and accounts for punctuated equilibrium from what I can tell, in addition to huge support from genetics and fossil evidence.


So atheists are actually very well supported I think.

[Sword of Christ]

Causally prior (not temporally) to 13.81 billion years ago, the universe existed in a tenseless state as a 4-dimensional (at least) 'block' of spacetime. This is what is known as the B-theory of time within the philosophy of time, which takes a static view on the nature of time and thus the past and future both exist. It has good support from the physics, specifically from quantum mechanics and Einstein's Special Relativity. Time 'began' with the inflation of the universe and this event we call the 'Big Bang. Whatever exactly it was that expanded isn't certain and may in fact be empirically unknowable due to the scale involved. I would cast my lot with the camp that views the conclusion of a singularity just being a mathematical object and actually showing flaws in the relevant theories, which we already know is the case. The problem is General Relativity breaks down at that scale, and we need a sound theory of quantum gravity to harmonize quantum mechanics with GR in order to have a shot at accurately describing whatever the heck it was.

So what made all these different physical dimensions and processes you're describing here and how did they form a universe precisely naturally balanced for life?

From there on, science seems to have a rather good picture, aside from abiogenesis, though its support has been frowing well, and it has some plausible accounts of it. I myself like Dr. Szostak's (not sure about that spelling) possible account of abiogenesis.

Of course life came from non-living material, even the Bible describes life as being akin to molded clay or dust from the Earth with a little of Gods spirit blown in.

Biological evolution is very well supported on all sorts of fronts. The theory of gradualism is very tight and well supported, and accounts for punctuated equilibrium from what I can tell, in addition to huge support from genetics and fossil evidence.

If it's part of the process in which life diversified and grew in increasing complexity over time, and it obviously did, then that's perfectly fine with the Biblical view of a purposefully made universe.

So atheists are actually very well supported I think.

Equally as well supported as theists if none of this would be evidence against God.

[MindForgedManacle]

So what made all these different physical dimensions and processes you're describing here and how did they form a universe precisely naturally balanced for life?

By definition, that spacetime block cannot have been 'created' because it represents a temporally pervasive (eternal, you might say) construction. To ask 'what' 'made' it is a nonsensical question because you're extrapolating your extremely narrow experience of things on Earth being created and assuming it applies to everything... except God. Your question here is as nonsensical as me asking you "Who/what made God?". To a metaphysical naturalist, all that exists is the natural world.

And the universe isn't balanced for life, the universe allows for life to BARELY exist on at least one planet, and even then on a climatological knife edge and with many natural processes (even our own Sun's radiation) that can kill it easily.

Of course life came from non-living material, even the Bible describes life as being akin to molded clay or dust from the Earth with a little of Gods spirit blown in.

Which is false. There is no moment where life springs forth from anything like dust in ANY abiogenesis model, which invalidates the Biblical account as unsupported by any evidence or theoretical model. The models I'm aware of (such as Harvard's Dr. Szozstak's account) deal with self-replicating molecules following chemical processes which eventually begins a sort of natural selection that results in complex enough chemical processes that we refer to as 'life'.

So nice try.

If it's part of the process in which life diversified and grew in increasing complexity over time, and it obviously did, then that's perfectly fine with the Biblical view of a purposefully made universe.

No it doesn't, because nothing in biological evolution is 'purpose-driven'. It's all essentially a result of natural processes and statistics. Things which are better adapted to survive in a given environment will propagate and spread their genes more efficiently. That's nothing like the Biblical account you liar.

Equally as well supported as theists if none of this would be evidence against God.

It's all evidence against God, hence why people involved in philosophy (about 73% atheist, 13% other, 13% theist) and the sciences are mostly atheists, and thus essentially take the general view of what the evidence supports that I've outlined.


Lying for Jesus isn't taken very well here SoC.