Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[ecco]

...so atheism is more a philosophical stance, not a scientific stance.

That you think scientific evidence are needed to support atheism, when they are completely unrelated to each other, so it is you, who are being unreasonable.

You are welcome to your opinion.

However, there is substantial evidence to support the concept that god/gods/God/Gods are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[ecco]

So then you admit to having no idea of reality.

I admit nothing of the sort.

Likewise, I do not need you to admit that you try to have discussions by ignoring what is actually written and inject your own strawman version. That is obvious to any and all from your own posts.

I guess that's your way of avoiding actually addressing what others have posted.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I never even used the "four corners" argument. The fact is that the Earth is only referred to as being flat in word and deed in the Bible. But then, literalists have about the worst understanding of the Bible of any Christians.

Does the word ' circle ' have to mean flat__________ Balls are circular - Isaiah 40:22 <- from the Hebrew word HHUG / CHUG.
Earth hangs upon nothing says Job 26:7.
That was written long before the use of modern technology when non-Israelites did Not know that scientific fact, but God's people did.
So, it was Not the Bible, but the un-faithful church that said the Earth was flat.
Ferdinand Magellan (C-1500 AD/CE) knew the Earth was round because he said he saw the shadow of the moon and he had more faith in that shadow than in the church.
Interesting too that God 'stretches out' the heavens (expands) - Isaiah 40:22 B; Jeremiah 10:12

 

[ecco]

Must be awfully soul numbing to think you are merely an accident.

You avoided addressing my post number 54 where I showed that YOU were the result of repeated 1 in 100,000,000 chance outcomes.

YOU are YOU. YOU are unique. YOU are the product of one sperm in 100,000,000 from YOUr father impregnating your mother. If any other sperm had gotten there first, YOU wouldn't be YOU. You could be someone very similar to you or you could be a female version of you. But, YOU wouldn't be YOU.

YOUr father is the result 1 sperm in 100,000,000 sperm from YOUr grandfather impregnating YOUr grandmother. If any other sperm impregnated her, he would not be he and YOU would never have become YOU.

At this point YOU are the result of a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000.

I'll let you do the math. How many zeros just back to Christ's time? How many to Noah?

Unless you choose to believe that your god selected the one sperm that impregnated your mother's egg (and her mother's and her mother's) you have to admit that you also are "merely an accident".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..............
Whoever wrote Job, was utter idiot, and if you think God actually said all those ridiculous things in Job 38 to 41, then God is the idiot. But no, God didn’t write this book, so the idiocy come from the author.
Scriptures are static. If there are no improvement and advances in knowledge, scriptures will become stagnant and outdated.
Imagine you trying to teach Job 38 to 41 in some science lectures at Oxford or Harvard. You would be laughed off the lecture halls for trying to convince students that OT superstitions are science.

Rather, I find it is Not the Bible but un-faithful religions that are stagnant and outdated.
Moses is credited with writing the Book of Job.

Job chapter 38 is about a lesson in man's littleness:
Where were you at Earth's creation____________- verses 4-6
Questions about natural phenomena - verses 8-32
and Laws governing the heavens - verse 33

Job chapter 39 is what we can learn from animal creation - verses 1- 30
Goats / deer - verses 1-4
donkey - verses 5-8
bull - verses 9-12
ostrich - verses 13-18
horse - verses 19-25
Eagle/falcon - verses 26-30

Job chapter 40 we find God asking more questions - verses 1-24
Job does admit he has nothing more to say at verses 3-5.
God describes Hippo's / Behemoth's strength at verses 15-24

Job chapter 41 describes the amazing Crocodile / Leviathan - verses 1-34

 

[shunyadragon]

Do proofs support Atheism or scientific evidences support Atheism? I understand, neither of them supports it, as Atheism is unreasonable, please?
Right, please?

Regards

Actually proofs, evidence, nor scientific knowledge, prove nor support and religious nor nonreligious beliefs like atheism. They are all too anecdotal and subjective to meaning anything in science. Science is neutral.

On the other hand Atheism believes in harmony with science. Not all theists will accept this.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you don't see a human cell or the vastness or the universe as indicating ID, then there is no such thing as inelegance at all.

'No inelegance at all?' That is a possibility that it is, but thankfully there is such a thing as intelligence in science. Though the cell and the vastness of the universe is well described and explained by the cause being Natural Laws and natural processes, and not in the Bible from the perspective of ancient cultures.

Must be awfully soul numbing to think you are merely an accident.

Natural and natural processes are not accidental, the death rate of humans due to accidents is increasing.

 

[shunyadragon]

Rather, I find it is Not the Bible but un-faithful religions that are stagnant and outdated.
Moses is credited with writing the Book of Job.

Job chapter 38 is about a lesson in man's littleness:
Where were you at Earth's creation____________- verses 4-6
Questions about natural phenomena - verses 8-32
and Laws governing the heavens - verse 33

Job chapter 39 is what we can learn from animal creation - verses 1- 30
Goats / deer - verses 1-4
donkey - verses 5-8
bull - verses 9-12
ostrich - verses 13-18
horse - verses 19-25
Eagle/falcon - verses 26-30

Job chapter 40 we find God asking more questions - verses 1-24
Job does admit he has nothing more to say at verses 3-5.
God describes Hippo's / Behemoth's strength at verses 15-24

Job chapter 41 describes the amazing Crocodile / Leviathan - verses 1-34

The problem is there is absolutely no evidence that Moses wrote anything. The elephant in the room for the Bible to be remotely understood in any literal way is the predominate belief in geocentrism by those that compiled, edited and wrote the Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would sure agree that our perception of reality changes. As such, science has little knowledge of reality. The more they perceive the more they learn. It would be foolish to think science has a corner on cosmology.

Not it would be foolish to believe in ancient cosmologies that propose a geoentric universe.

Science is good for catching buses and airplanes, but it's useless in formulating a truth.

Fortunately science does not try to claim nor formulate 'truth,' because science falsifies hypothesis and theories, and the evolving body of knowledge that increases with time. Reality does not change, but the human knowledge of reality changes over time due to science, not ancient cultural views thousands of years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does the word ' circle ' have to mean flat__________ Balls are circular - Isaiah 40:22 <- from the Hebrew word HHUG / CHUG.
Earth hangs upon nothing says Job 26:7.
That was written long before the use of modern technology when non-Israelites did Not know that scientific fact, but God's people did.
So, it was Not the Bible, but the un-faithful church that said the Earth was flat.
Ferdinand Magellan (C-1500 AD/CE) knew the Earth was round because he said he saw the shadow of the moon and he had more faith in that shadow than in the church.
Interesting too that God 'stretches out' the heavens (expands) - Isaiah 40:22 B; Jeremiah 10:12

Oh my, fatal flaw. I am sorry but "CHUG" is not the Hebrew word for ball. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is the word for an inscribed circle, as with a compass. And circles are flat. The word for ball is more like DUHR. And yes, round can mean a circle or a sphere. It is the context used time and time again that tells us they were referring to a Flat Earth For example climbing a tall tree to see the entire world. Or Satan doing the same by taking Jesus to the top of a high mountain. Now it is claimed that those are visions, but even as visions they only make sense on a Flat Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rather, I find it is Not the Bible but un-faithful religions that are stagnant and outdated.
Moses is credited with writing the Book of Job.

Job chapter 38 is about a lesson in man's littleness:
Where were you at Earth's creation____________- verses 4-6
Questions about natural phenomena - verses 8-32
and Laws governing the heavens - verse 33

Job chapter 39 is what we can learn from animal creation - verses 1- 30
Goats / deer - verses 1-4
donkey - verses 5-8
bull - verses 9-12
ostrich - verses 13-18
horse - verses 19-25
Eagle/falcon - verses 26-30

Job chapter 40 we find God asking more questions - verses 1-24
Job does admit he has nothing more to say at verses 3-5.
God describes Hippo's / Behemoth's strength at verses 15-24

Job chapter 41 describes the amazing Crocodile / Leviathan - verses 1-34

Moses is not credited with writing Job by modern scholars since they have realized that he was a fictional character of the Bible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but the people from the Discovery Institute - Chapman, Gilder, Johnson, Meyers, Behe, Kenyon, Davis, are all senior members and bunch of dishonest idiots.
I don’t know which organizations is worse in term of dishonest tactics and general stupidity: ..

Gnostic, who created these idiots like Chapman, Gilder, Johnson, Meyers, Behe, Kenyon, Davis (as you say, I know about none of them)? If a God / Allah created them, then that God / Allah is an idiot. Or perhaps Satan created them to espouse untruth.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not sure what you are referring to. To the fact that people use the term "Chance" to explain the universe, or my statement that they do so.

If the first, of course. If the second. No. You are wrong. I've been in long conversations with many people who blindly believe in evolution. And you will realize that's what it is, a blind belief because when you start pointing out scientific facts to them, over and over and over again I have had many people excuse it all away to chance.

For example the chance of one human protein folding onto itself correctly is 1 in a billion billion billion (10^27). And there are around 50,000 human proteins. The chances of just one folding onto itself correctly by chance, you would need not an primordial soup the size of the earth, but the size of the universe, and then you would still need billions times billions of years. The young age of our universe, only 13.8 billion years old would not nearly give us enough time for one single human protein to fold onto itself correctly by chance. But we are told it would happen over and over dozens of thousands of times, along with so many other things. Such as the formation at the exact instant of time of DNA and RNA and all the proteins needed. For if you don't have any one of the components the human cell does not exist and does not reproduce. This is called irreducible complexity. Where you need several complex components all happening at the exact same instant, all with their mind-boggling complex components in order for it to have existed and continued.

Yeah, but you don't' understand that is chance. It is all chance. Chance, blind chance. I've heard it over and over and over. It all boils down to blind chance, a chance far far far more fantastical and fairy-like than the proof and observable evidence of an intelligence behind the written code in life. DNA is an alphabet in digital code that, for example, in the human cell, written out would fill encyclopedias the size of the Grand Canyon. The code does not code itself or attribute to itself meaning. The coder has to. But it all happened by blind chance.

Engineers continue to make significant progress toward developing self-assembly processes for manufacturing purposes. It very well could be that in the future a number of machines and devices will be designed to self-assemble. Based on the researchers’ work, it becomes evident that part of the strategy for designing machines that self-assemble centers on creating components that not only contribute to the machine’s function, but also precisely interact with the other components so that the machine assembles on its own.

The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.

With predictable and consistent Natural Laws and natural processes no need to assemble anything.

This requirement holds true for biochemical machines, too. The protein subunits that interact to form the biomolecular machines appear to be designed for self-assembly. Protein-protein binding sites on the surface of the subunits mediate this self-assembly process. These binding sites require high-precision interactions to ensure that the binding between subunits takes place with a high degree of accuracy—in the same way that the MIT engineers designed the cell phone pieces to precisely combine through lock-in-key interactions.

Evolution and life is not like MIT engineering.

People who accept an absurd natural interpretation of evolution talk about things like environmental pressures. Environmental pressures don't create the parts that just happen to work together. Environmental pressures and natural selection are things that happen AFTER THE FACT. They happen after the designed parts reach the environment.

It has been determined that Environmental pressures and natural selection are before, during and after THE FACT of evolution. It is a continuous process.

Why would something random, natural and purposeless evolve any parts that work together?

Natural processes and Natural Laws are not random, and they consistent and predictable concerning their description of our physical existence.

The reason these absurdities are accepted is because of blind belief. A natural interpretation of evolution supports their atheism or scientific materialism and if there's an intelligent design it shatters their whole worldview and way of life and they have to ask: is the intelligent designer God? So they will blindly accept the absurd in order to maintain their belief.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So idiots like you are accidental?

Don't know who is an idiot - one who believes in evidence or one who believes in a 3rd Century old book of conflicting stories.

Natural processes and Natural Laws are not random, and they consistent and predictable concerning their description of our physical existence.

Many a times I want to give you a winner's reputation, but then I see that you are a Bahai and not a humanist. So, Allah gave a message to Bahaollah but not to countless others who too espouse brotherhood and universal peace. Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Dalai Lama, for example. A few things are difficult to understand.

 

[Straw Dog]

No. I always had a reason, even if the reason later may have been proved wrong.

Or if the reason was unconscious only to later become conscious. Hindsight and what-not.

 

[Straw Dog]

I suppose it is possible that science will figure it all out without having to accept ID. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Never hold your breath if you don’t have to.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or if the reason was unconscious only to later become conscious. Hindsight and what-not.

Yeah, agree with you. Sometimes we are not aware of the reasons but act according to them.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yeah, agree with you. Sometimes we are not aware of the reasons but act according to them.

Then how can we say or know it is ‘consciousness’ as a foundation? Rather than just another line or limitation?

Why not say that unconsciousness is foundational?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why not say that unconsciousness is foundational?

What do you mean by that? Many things are just reflex actions. In sleep we have limited consciousness. Many other things are not done with full consciousness. That is how we spill tea or coffee in kitchen. Even a fetus is conscious and squirms when uncomfortable for any reason.

 

[Straw Dog]

What do you mean by that? Many things are just reflex actions. In sleep we have limited consciousness. Many other things are not done with full consciousness. That is how we spill tea or coffee in kitchen. Even a fetus is conscious and squirms when uncomfortable for any reason.

Just that conscious organisms (including us) are mostly unaware of the vast majority of causes directing or influencing lives. I’m overlapping with a different discussion. I reject the notion that ‘consciousness’ is the foundation of existence.