Are you an atheist?

[Pauldohert]

Well he had to conclude that the Big Bang was created by god, he was Catholic..............

Similar may expalin Alisas blinkered view of science too ?

 

[Rabbie]

I say: Do you believe unicorns exist?
You say: Yes
I say: I don't think unicorns don't exist because noone has ever seen one.

Have I insulted you? No. Now replace "unicorns" with "god".
Now have I insulted you? Yes. Why is that?

You have to remember that people's religious beliefs can very fundamental to them and go deep into their psyche. C S Lewis, a well-known Christian, said in one of his books that it was very difficult for a non Catholic Christian to discuss the role of the Virgin Mary with a Catholic without causing offence for these sorts of reasons.

As a non believer it is not easy always to understand how deep these things can go so it can be very easy to cause unintentional offence to people when discussing these issues.

 

[Alisa]

I'm not saying you're being insulting. Please read my post again.



You said that at least you can measure 'ghosts' implying that things that cannot be measured are in some way of no value, like unicorns. You are the one making the analogies, take responsibility for them.

I wasn't saying that you said that I was insulting you. I was just trying to clarify my original point about the different status of various beliefs.

I didn't say you could measure ghosts, simply that people's observations and the corresponding electromagnetic measurements indicate that there is something going on that we will eventually develop a scientific explanation for.

Compare that with god. Nobody observes anything. Nobody measures anything. As far as we know, there is just nothing going on at all. What is there to investigate?

It is not about "value". Of course unicorns have value - my daughter's favorite stuffed animal is a cute little white sparkly unicorn. The concept of god has value too - just ask anyone who believes. This is about reality, not the value of an idea.

 

[Rich]

You have to remember that people's religious beliefs can very fundamental to them and go deep into their psyche. C S Lewis, a well-known Christian, said in one of his books that it was very difficult for a non Catholic Christian to discuss the role of the Virgin Mary with a Catholic without causing offence for these sorts of reasons.

Fascinating that the Romans discovered the art of test tube babies and then it was "lost" to man for 2,000 years, and there's only one who benefited from it at the time

 

[Alisa]

You have to remember that people's religious beliefs can very fundamental to them and go deep into their psyche. C S Lewis, a well-known Christian, said in one of his books that it was very difficult for a non Catholic Christian to discuss the role of the Virgin Mary with a Catholic without causing offence for these sorts of reasons.

As a non believer it is not easy always to understand how deep these things can go so it can be very easy to cause unintentional offence to people when discussing these issues.

I agree, and knowing some currently religious and some formerly religious folks, I think I do understand how deep and fundamental these beliefs are. While I am not setting out to offend people, I think people need to evaluate why they are so offended. For instance, Copernicus offended a lot of people. Was their sense of personal injury justified?

 

[Alc]

According to Einstein's well known equation E=MC2 (that should be C squared) but you know what I mean) Energy can be converted into mass or vice versa

Good one.

Where did the energy come from, though?
We're starting from nothing at all, remember.
God has created laws of nature. Fine, for argument's sake, let's say he has. That's all he has created, at this point in the discussion. Laws, rules, call them what you will.

Whether he then goes on to create mass from energy or vice-versa, within the framework of these laws, something has to come from nothing in order to kick start the whole thing. Unless Einstein had another, lesser-known, equation along the lines of Mass = (laws)/(nothing).

 

[Pauldohert]

Nobody observes anything. Nobody measures anything. As far as we know, there is just nothing going on at all. QUOTE]

Speak for yourself!

 

[Alisa]

I agree. I think we can do without the character assassination...

How is what I said character assasination???

Similar may expalin Alisas blinkered view of science too ?

This looks more like character assasination to me, given that you didn't bother to make an actual point, but just made a general claim about my views. Blinkered? What am I, a horse?

 

[Alisa]

Nobody observes anything. Nobody measures anything. As far as we know, there is just nothing going on at all.

Speak for yourself!

I would eagerly review any measurements of god or of god's effect on the world that anyone has collected.

 

[Pauldohert]

For instance, Copernicus offended a lot of people. Was their sense of personal injury justified?

A lot of people offended Copernicus was his personal injury justified?

 

[Pauldohert]

How is what I said character assasination???




This looks more like character assasination to me, given that you didn't bother to make an actual point, but just made a general claim about my views. Blinkered? What am I, a horse?

Its far more objective than most of your posts? Are you a horse?

 

[dan-cat]

I'll admit to not having heard that term before, so I looked it up (never let it be said I'm unwilling to learn ).

From what I could see in my, admittedly brief, search the idea of an unmoved mover has been refuted by a lot of recent scientists, incl. Michio Kaku.

Yep it comes from Aristotle who based it on movement. Modern science has come up with theories that movement does not require a cause. I was simply using it to offer the concept of a creator who has not been defined.

Also, if the ultimate idea is that God created himself, why doesn't that make a mockery of the idea of 'natural' laws?

Well my concept is that God did not have a point of origin.

This person/being/force can break all natural laws at will, so how can any science be relied upon?

It is the fact that the phenomena that science explains can be relied on that suggests to me an 'ordering' of the universe. We're back to the glass half full/empty scenario again...

 

[Rich]

Well my concept is that God did not have a point of origin.

Infinity?

 

[dan-cat]

This is about reality, not the value of an idea.

If you think the two are mutually exclusive then there really is little more I can say...

 

[Alisa]

If you think the two are mutually exclusive then there really is little more I can say...

I am not sure what you are getting at. Ideas, beliefs, myths, legends, fairytales, concepts, etc., all have value. What does that have to do with whether a "thing" exists or not?

 

[dan-cat]

For instance, Copernicus offended a lot of people. Was their sense of personal injury justified?

Oh dear, now we're comparing ourselves to Copernicus. You're not proving anything scientifically, you're simply trying to deconstruct the reason for a belief, nothing more.

 

[Rabbie]

Good one.

Where did the energy come from, though?
We're starting from nothing at all, remember.
God has created laws of nature. Fine, for argument's sake, let's say he has. That's all he has created, at this point in the discussion. Laws, rules, call them what you will.

Whether he then goes on to create mass from energy or vice-versa, within the framework of these laws, something has to come from nothing in order to kick start the whole thing. Unless Einstein had another, lesser-known, equation along the lines of Mass = (laws)/(nothing).

The Big Bang Theory say there was a singularity with an incredible amount of Mass and Energy which then starting expanding forming the universe as we know it today. What happened before is unknowable as has been stated in some of the earlier posts in this thread. This does not mean it could not have happened.

I have never claimed to have all the answers (or even a fraction of them) but for me God is not the answer. Too much of religion seems to me to be a comfort blanket (Much like Alisa's daughter's unicorn). I understand other people feel differently and indeed I sometimes envy them their faith. It would be nice to have the absolute certainty of some religious people.

 

[Alc]

Well my concept is that God did not have a point of origin.

If he doesn't need a point of origin, who's to say anything does?
(Bear with me here, 'cos I'm trying to think on the fly)

God exists because he always has and that's that.
He then made everything.

Remove God from the equation.
Everything - laws, mass, energy - appeared, from nowhere.
Why is a sentient being/force/whatever necessary?
We don't know why everything exists. This, some argue, is because we don't know how He thinks, but who's to say there is a reason?

 

[Pauldohert]

I am guessing Alisas point about those who disagreed with Copernicus's having no need to be offended was because Coppers was right. Similarly, No one who disagrees with Alisa need be offended, cos she is right?

Is that the Argument Alisa - you didn't answer before?

 

[dan-cat]

How is what I said character assasination???

You're trying to impose the quality of condescension on to Shaneman by saying he would 'snicker' at someone whilst their back was turned. It's highly plausible that he would do no such thing...