Everyone has a religion

[LuisDantas]

Incorrect, we are talking about the natural world.
Either God created it (sounds implausible to the scientific mind) or it created itself
(it actually is implausible to the scientific mind.)

Better yet, don't obsess about an arbitrary dichotomy of beliefs in creation.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The problem is that there was no space, nor time.
BEFORE the universe means just that - before everything, even mathematics and the laws of physics, let alone time or space or energy.

What you're not grasping is that there was probably never a "non-Universe". One universe simply transitioned to another or something. There would be no beginning and no end objectively, only to the subjective experience of those living in the current universe.

Interestingly, in the bible it speaks of a 'time' when there would be 'time no more.'

The bible wasn't written by smart people. If I were sick, I'd rather go to Egypt, China, Greece, or Rome because despite the outdated nature of the science, at least I'd have a better shot at survival.

I've heard that heaven is timeless, but that can't be true if anyone, including God, can do anything, because there was the moment before, during, and after.

But to my mind the pre-existence of at least mass-energy seems overwhelming likely, since the contents of the Big Bang appear to have been mass-energy, giving rise to a universe that may well be made from forms of mass-energy and properties of mass-energy.

Only in miracles do things pop out of
nothing.

Don't you find it curious that nearly all the medical miracles in the bible are for vague and convenient problems? Certain biblical characters can resurrect people, but John the Baptist or Saul or anyone with a pretty *cough* "cut and dry" *cough* cause of death can't be resurrected? So much for miracles! They only seem to exist when the plot holes allow. Modern science and technology do more for people today than anyone in the bible ever did. Lose an arm? We'll build ya one and are on the track for growing you one. Beat THAT, Jesus.

Doesn't answer the question - where did the first universe come from?

"Endless loop" is too complicated for you? Do you believe God is eternal?

Not if mass-energy is eternal.

If matter can't be created or destroyed, it means God can't create it nor destroy it either. It's eternal.

We can posit God as the eternal from which the universe sprang.

In many myths, the universe IS at least one deity whose body parts make up the celestial bodies and stuff.

Many ancient cultures all over the globe had some sort of astronomical setup going on, even something as simple as a few pillars that tracked the sun or whatever. I'm unfamiliar with anything similar in ancient Jewish culture. Burying one's nose in the scriptures was the "height" of knowledge, the one thing that couldn't tell them squat about how the world worked. Looking it up on wiki, apparently I'd have to go to the Talmud and even then, most data is late in Jewish BCE history, like the last century before the switch to CE. For all the importance given to the dating of rituals and such, you'd think they'd have at least a Stonehenge-like setup. Nothing. It's weird.

The first phenomena had no cause - by definition it's a miracle.

You have no evidence of a First Cause. Aristotle was overrated.

First, it must be acknowledged that the statement in pink is hardly representative of religions as a whole.

Yeah, it's not even 100% accurate of the bible. Only light is spoken into existence. God merely tweaks pre-existing material the rest of the time.

If the 'creation' without God isn't a miracle, then what is it?

There ... might ... be ... no ... "creation". There ... might ... only ... be ... matter ... reorganization.

How can something 'will' itself into existence, with nothing and for no reason?

Heat and light don't will themselves into existence from the sun. They are byproducts of the sun's chemical reactions.

Yes, a miracle, BY DEFINITION, is something "not explicable by natural or scientific laws"

And if you don't study and determine laws, everything becomes a miracle.

To my Labrador Retrievers, opening a door is a miracle because they can't (yet) do it.

This business of 'who made God' isn't valid because the subject is the natural world, not something we know utterly nothing about.

Christians love to brag that the Word of God, for some the only way we can know God at all, is the best selling book of all time. Do you feel the Word of God lets us know about about God?

Either God created it (sounds implausible to the scientific mind) or it created itself
(it actually is implausible to the scientific mind.)

But we witness things being "created" via previously existing material. Have you ever taken sex ed? That's how you got here. We don't see people coming from dirt. We don't see (yet) ribs making human beings. We can do lots of things now even the God of the Bible couldn't accomplish, even getting closer to putting a new head on a body.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The hot soup is something
ie energy and matter within a fabric of space and time and
acted upon by laws of physics and maths.

"The hot soup is something..."
You are absolutely correct - Please note that this is not a claim of something coming from nothing, but of something coming from something.

There's six things, right off the bat, that I can think of.

Cool. I'm glad you recognize that we're talking about something coming from something.

A Judaeo Christian theist posits that God lies outside of the physical world
and has created these things

What does "outside the physical world" mean?
Where did it come from?
What is it?
Where is it?
How did God get there?

You're establishing your position as something coming from nothing... If you confront that, and choose to posit that God has always existed, then it's well within your realm of understanding to accept that the Universe has always existed, right?

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

(Genesis gives a symbolic but fairly accurate description of the sequence)

I'm glad you recognize it as symbolic, but without Scientific understanding, how could you possibly make the second claim in that sentence?

As I see it an 'atheist' is one who does not believe in God.

Not just your god, but any god.
Atheists don't believe in god(s), literally by definition.

Therefore all we know had to have sprung into being without God, or laws, or matter, or energy....

That's a false dichotomy. It's equally just a plausible that some iteration of the Universe has simply always been...

And worst case scenario, the position that you're attempting to disparage is the very same explanation you are giving as to where God is, and where he came from... You should really think about that.

How can something 'will' itself into existence, with nothing and for no reason?

You mean.... like God?

You either have to accept that it's possible for things to have always existed. Or you have to change your concept of where God comes from. In a logical argument, one doesn't get to have it both ways out of convenience.

 

[PruePhillip]

The bible wasn't written by smart people. If I were sick, I'd rather go to Egypt, China, Greece, or Rome because despite the outdated nature of the science, at least I'd have a better shot at survival.

Genesis. First the heavens
then the earth.

But what was the earth like, back then?
There are cloud planets, water planets, rocky planets, ice planets, gas planets etc..

from the perspective of an observer upon that earth would have seen a cloud planet and an oceanic planet - later a rocky or hybrid planet.

the earth was oceanic - first demonstrated about 15 years ago.
the continents emerged - understood with continental crust subduction.
life began on the land - finally settled in 2018, in aquatic environment
and then life began in the sea - even birds ultimately came out of the sea.
and finally, man.
And written in theological language that people could understand. Seven days, with seven being the symbol of completeness.

Forget what the bible says about the world today, just this alone shows someone very smart was writing this. Or it could just have been a one in a trillion fluke.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

the earth was oceanic - first demonstrated about 15 years ago.
the continents emerged - understood with continental crust subduction.
life began on the land - finally settled in 2018, in aquatic environment
and then life began in the sea - even birds ultimately came out of the sea.
and finally, man.
And written in theological language that people could understand. Seven days, with seven being the symbol of completeness.

Forget what the bible says about the world today, just this alone shows someone very smart was writing this. Or it could just have been a one in a trillion fluke.

Except that the Bible says that the first forms of life were flora and fauna on the land, despite the fact that we know unicellular life vastly predates them and came from the sea. It also says the sun (the "greater light to rule the day") was formed after the earth, sea and plant life, which is wrong. It also says that birds were created before land animals, which is also completely wrong.

It's no fluke; it's random, illustrative guesswork. And almost certainly not divinely inspired.

 

[Sunstone]

"Everyone has a religion". Thank god and Darwin I was gone a few days when this thread came out.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except that the Bible says that the first forms of life were flora and fauna on the land, despite the fact that we know unicellular life vastly predates them and came from the sea. It also says the sun (the "greater light to rule the day") was formed after the earth, sea and plant life, which is wrong. It also says that birds were created before land animals, which is also completely wrong.

It's no fluke; it's random, illustrative guesswork. And almost certainly not divinely inspired.

The early earth was a cloud planet. NASA calls Titan an "earth precursor" because it resembles our planet from an earlier time. Titan is shrouded in dense clouds and is quite dark. This was our early earth. Remember, Genesis is about an EARTH OBSERVER.
Cellular life is not the issue - it's life and it began on land. Until this year there was a strong argument that life began first in the oceans.
And birds come from dinosaurs, who come from reptiles, who come from amphibians who come fish (put crudely) Generations of skeptics ridiculed the idea that birds could come from the ocean. But the bible gets it broadly right.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If so then don't ridicule the beliefs of the theist.

I just try to ignore them mostly but it is rather difficult.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The early earth was a cloud planet. NASA calls Titan an "earth precursor" because it resembles our planet from an earlier time. Titan is shrouded in dense clouds and is quite dark. This was our early earth. Remember, Genesis is about an EARTH OBSERVER.
Cellular life is not the issue - it's life and it began on land. Until this year there was a strong argument that life began first in the oceans.

Where are your sources that say life started on land? I can't find anything.

And birds come from dinosaurs, who come from reptiles, who come from amphibians who come fish (put crudely) Generations of skeptics ridiculed the idea that birds could come from the ocean. But the bible gets it broadly right.

Once again: The Bible says that birds pre-date land animals. This is patently not true and even you admit it here. To say that the Bible "gets it broadly right" is just a very sneaky way of avoiding admitting the Bible is wrong.

The Bible posits a very specific order of events. That order is wrong on at least three counts. How can that be "broadly right"?

 

[PruePhillip]

Where are your sources that say life started on land? I can't find anything.


Once again: The Bible says that birds pre-date land animals. This is patently not true and even you admit it here. To say that the Bible "gets it broadly right" is just a very sneaky way of avoiding admitting the Bible is wrong.

The Bible posits a very specific order of events. That order is wrong on at least three counts. How can that be "broadly right"?

The Earth "creates" life. Of itself. It is was believed that life appeared in the oceans first. But new lines of evidence converged in 2017 to suggest that it was the land and not the deep ocean trenches which set in motion the creation of life (University of California - Santa Cruz. 2017)

Got this slightly wrong - it was 2017, not this year. But here is one link
https://news.ucsc.edu/2017/07/origin-life.html

re birds before animals.
this is semantics mostly. Life came out of the sea, and colonized the land. Though life began on the "land" (or fresh water) What comes out of that ocean process LATER, or in the process of time, is not the point.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As a last statement here, just think about your above statement in this light - when "everything is a god"... I feel it makes the idea of "god" less meaningful and renders it unimportant.

Likewise with religion. If every worldview is a religion, the word is unnecessary.

We can posit God as the eternal from which the universe sprang. We can posit mass-energy as the eternal from which the universe sprang. The benefit of the latter is that we know mass-energy is real.

Another benefit is that consistent with Occam's Razor, we have a much more parsimonious hypothesis, one that doesn't require a conscious, volitional, intelligent agent. The eternal multiverse hypothesis answers any question that the god hypothesis does.

The first phenomena had no cause - by definition it's a miracle.
Saying it's all somehow "eternal" is disingenuous - it doesn't answer the question.

It answers the question by challenging its assumption that there was a first phenomenon. Even if there was a first phenomenon in our universe, it may well be the result of an eternal entity like a multiverse, by which I mean any unconscious source of universes.

The atheist posn is that something came from nothing.

Not this atheist. See above.

Incorrect, we are talking about the natural world.
Either God created it (sounds implausible to the scientific mind) or it created itself
(it actually is implausible to the scientific mind.)

Your list of possibilities is too short: Here's my list of candidate hypotheses for the origin of our universe. It seems to me that one of these must be the case.:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.​

But the bible gets it broadly right.

Are you aware that you are tacitly indicating that science is the arbiter of truth in these matters and not scripture? If it were the other way around, you'd be saying that science got it right broadly, implying that where discrepancies occur, the Bible is right and science wrong.

Your argument defending the biblical creation story using science's findings is an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, defined as "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred." The differences between the biblical and scientific accounts are being ignored. We could do that using any other creation myth and create the same argument that the writers of those myths broadly got it right if we ignore all of the features that appear in only the scientific or only the mythical account.

 

[Jumi]

Incorrect, we are talking about the natural world.
Either God created it (sounds implausible to the scientific mind) or it created itself
(it actually is implausible to the scientific mind.)

Those are not the only options, really.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Earth "creates" life. Of itself. It is was believed that life appeared in the oceans first. But new lines of evidence converged in 2017 to suggest that it was the land and not the deep ocean trenches which set in motion the creation of life (University of California - Santa Cruz. 2017)

Got this slightly wrong - it was 2017, not this year. But here is one link
https://news.ucsc.edu/2017/07/origin-life.html

You do realize that this is a hypothesis, right?

re birds before animals.
this is semantics mostly.

It really isn't. The Bible explicitly says that birds pre-date land animals. They do not.

Life came out of the sea, and colonized the land. Though life began on the "land" (or fresh water) What comes out of that ocean process LATER, or in the process of time, is not the point.

It's entirely the point. You're acting like the Bible got so much right that it can't be coincidence, and I'm pointing out that the Bible gets a lot of things wrong - and the only responses you can muster are re-interpreting the Bible or obfuscating.

The Bible gets almost everything wrong in the order of creation. Are you going to admit this or not?

 

[JesusMyFriend]

Is there really such a thing as atheism?
Everyone has a religion of some sort.
We all come up with some idea of how it all started
and how it will all end.
We all seek a purpose and meaning for our lives.

And at the beginning there was a Miracle. Either the miracle is God's
or we think the universe created itself out of nothing and for no reason
whatsoever. The latter is the real miracle - a creation without space,
or time, or matter or energy, or physical laws or even mathematics,
bursting forth in the ultimate act of pointlessness.

I think I agree with you... Because after all, as humans it is in nature to ask questions, to wonder, to search, to look for a meaning behind everything, to understand, etc. And I think this is how religions originated long ago, and many people even nowadays continue to begin this journey of constant search. I think atheists share this. Literally "atheism" means not believing in God.. but first of all, we should ask ourselves what is God? What does God mean to us? And then from all my discussions with my atheists friends, they do end up believing in something, having their own "gods".. so as humans it's something we can't get away from..

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But what was the earth like, back then?

We can dig and find the answers. Nobody responsible for writing the creation tales were there.

and finally, man.

We are not the end all be all of creation. "Creation" is still going on. Dinosaurs lasted for hundreds of millions of years. I'll be shocked if our species lasts up to 500k. We are definitely not God's gift to Planet Earth, or we'd be better at dealing with it.

Scavengers and decomposers do a better job than we do and many are unicellular organisms.

And written in theological language that people could understand.

You know whose fault it is for dumbing something down to the extent that it's just plain wrong? God.

How can I seriously take the idea that Hebrews were given a pass because all of humanity was dumb when there are clearly other civilizations running circles around them before and during their "peak"? You don't say Your kids can't understand sex and that's why You taught them about storks and cabbage patches. I used to have posters like this on my bedroom wall as a kid. I would correct them if I thought they left stuff out or got it wrong some other way. An entire NATION can't be held to such a standard?

Isn't this insulting to an entire NATION?

Jeffrey (of DarkMatter2525 fame): Sorry, guys, but God decided even the geniuses have to sit on the short bus today. God doesn't think anyone's ready for the long buses, even though we're using fleets of them for your neighbors.

(this isn't a quote so much as something I could imagine him saying)

Forget what the bible says about the world today, just this alone shows someone very smart was writing this.

You realize that the creation account is a Fox News version of other already established accounts, right? They took the "research" of other nations, slapped on a few personalized details, and called it "truth".

Remember, Genesis is about an EARTH OBSERVER.

And nobody was there to observe. Even if you take the creation account literally, no one was alive, not even bacteria, on the first "day".

 

[PruePhillip]

You do realize that this is a hypothesis, right?


It really isn't. The Bible explicitly says that birds pre-date land animals. They do not.


It's entirely the point. You're acting like the Bible got so much right that it can't be coincidence, and I'm pointing out that the Bible gets a lot of things wrong - and the only responses you can muster are re-interpreting the Bible or obfuscating.

The Bible gets almost everything wrong in the order of creation. Are you going to admit this or not?

No, it doesn't necessarily say that birds predate animals.
It says that life came out of the sea, and from the sea came fish, whales and birds.
And it says that life emerged on the land, and then details that, too.
It's ambiguous.
But... first life emerged on the land - most likely in cellular form, or even basic DNA or RNA, then colonized the sea. Then it became apparent on land in more advanced plant and animal form. And man was last.
This isn't some myth about rainbow serpents or Zeus on Mount Olympus. It makes the claim, like the rest of the bible, to history.

 

[PruePhillip]

We can dig and find the answers. Nobody responsible for writing the creation tales were there..

And nobody was there to observe. Even if you take the creation account literally, no one was alive, not even bacteria, on the first "day".

So how did "they" know the earth was cold, dark and oceanic? Something not appreciated until about fifteen years ago? Science thought the early earth was molten lava when I was born.

I didn't say there were observers, nor did the bible. You are misconstruing me. I said that IF you could observe the early earth, this is what you would see.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it doesn't necessarily say that birds predate animals.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

It says that life came out of the sea, and from the sea came fish, whales and birds.

It says that life in the sea and life in the air came to be on the fourth day, and the creatures on the land came about on the fifth day.

And it says that life emerged on the land, and then details that, too.
It's ambiguous.

Only if you twist it to be. It quite clearly says that one happened before the other.

Also, YOU are the one claiming that the genesis account is so accurate that it was a "one in a trillion fluke", and now you are saying it's "ambiguous". If it's ambiguous, then how can you even remotely consider it accurate.

But... first life emerged on the land

You have yet to sufficiently demonstrate that. You have presented ONE page that presents a HYPOTHESIS that life may have started on land - that is it.

- most likely in cellular form, or even basic DNA or RNA, then colonized the sea. Then it became apparent on land in more advanced plant and animal form. And man was last.

The point being that birds came AFTER land animals, which directly contradicts what the Bible states.

This isn't some myth about rainbow serpents or Zeus on Mount Olympus. It makes the claim, like the rest of the bible, to history.

And it's a claim you have tauted as accurate enough to be either divinely inspired or a "one in a trillion fluke", despite the fact that all it posits is a specific order of creation - and it gets the order wrong in three different instances.

It doesn't take a fluke to be woefully inaccurate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So how did "they" know the earth was cold, dark and oceanic?

For starters, the earth wasn't initially cold. It was, in fact, a giant ball of molten rock.

Second, it's not hard to presume the earth is going to be "cold and dark" if you're already assuming that there isn't yet a sun. It doesn't take divine inspiration to know that not having one of those might leave things a little dim and chilly.

Something not appreciated until about fifteen years ago? Science thought the early earth was molten lava when I was born.

The earth was molten lava:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean

I didn't say there were observers, nor did the bible. You are misconstruing me. I said that IF you could observe the early earth, this is what you would see.

No, it isn't. You're twisting reality to fit the Bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

For starters, the earth wasn't initially cold. It was, in fact, a giant ball of molten rock.

Second, it's not hard to presume the earth is going to be "cold and dark" if you're already assuming that there isn't yet a sun. It doesn't take divine inspiration to know that not having one of those might leave things a little dim and chilly.


The earth was molten lava:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean


No, it isn't. You're twisting reality to fit the Bible.

So you are explaining what the early earth was like.
As Einstein put it, all things are relative, no observer is privileged over another.
Where should the observer be 'standing' in regards this narrative?
Please don't say 'in orbit' because people had no concept of orbit.
They are an observer standing upon the earth. No sun was visible, no continents existed. That's science, pure science. That's Genesis.
The earth was lava for a very brief time - most of the early period it was oceanic.
That the bible said it was cold, dark and oceanic when scientists THOUGHT UNTIL RECENTLY that it was molten and transparent is remarkable.
Until the discovery of the oldest zircon crystals in Australia I thought there's no way to accommodate Genesis with geology.

Ancient zircon crystals discovered in Western Australia have been positively dated to 4.374 billion years … the journal Nature Geoscience, means Earth began forming a crust far sooner than previously thought, following the giant impact event which created the Earth-Moon system 4.5 billion years ago… believes the findings indicate Earth's water didn't need to come from asteroids, during a period known as the late heavy bombardment 3.9 billion years ago. Instead, it suggests water was present in the liquid magma ocean that formed the zircon crystals. "We'll never know how much water there really was, but the simplest interpretation of those zircons coming from granitic rocks, is that we had a hydrous planet right from the very beginning," says Bowring.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/24/3950076.htm