-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isn't it better to be atheists?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but you are speaking of the laws of physics known inside the universe, you, nor anyone else has any idea what physical existed before the universe, outside the universe. God created the universe, thus he was and is outside it. Oops, you need to do a bit more reading in cosmology. Especially regarding the big bang. You will learn that all physical laws break down as the bang is approached in retrograde to a measure of planck time ( I forget the number) by any scientific calculations possible. Bottom line, the laws of physics and science are worthless beyond that point, addendum to the bottom line, observed information about space and time are worthless as well. OOPs !
People are clearly searching for the perfect answer and there is a way to find it I honestly believe. I don’t think we humans have been left entirely to ourselves in these matters.
“The Perfect Intellect alone can provide true guidance and direction.” - Baha’u’llah.
The Perfect Intellect addresses all those sincerely seeking answers in these days, with these Words.
“He that hath Me not is bereft of all things. Turn ye away from all that is on earth and seek none else but Me.
I am the Sun of Wisdom and the Ocean of Knowledge. I cheer the faint and revive the dead. I am the guiding Light that illumineth the way. I am the royal Falcon on the arm of the Almighty. I unfold the drooping wings of every broken bird and start it on its flig”
Bahá’u’lláh
While our lesser intellect speculates, theorises and explores, there is truth and an exact answer to these questions from the Perfect Universal Mind.
“How often hath it been observed that certain human minds, far from being a source of guidance, have become as fetters upon the feet of the wayfarers and prevented them from treading the straight Path! The lesser intellect being thus circumscribed, one must search after Him Who is the ultimate Source of knowledge and strive to recognize Him”
Bahá’u’lláh
Where there is ignorance there is knowledge, for if there were no knowledge ignorance could not be imagined. In the same way darkness could never be imagined unless light existed for darkness is the absence of light.
And so too, imperfection could not exist or be imagined without the existence of Perfection., the Universal Mind, Perfect Intellect or Ultimate Truth.
This Perfect Intellect communicates with us by sending us Divine Educators to guide us.
“The Perfect Intellect alone can provide true guidance and direction.” - Baha’u’llah.
The Perfect Intellect addresses all those sincerely seeking answers in these days, with these Words.
“He that hath Me not is bereft of all things. Turn ye away from all that is on earth and seek none else but Me.
I am the Sun of Wisdom and the Ocean of Knowledge. I cheer the faint and revive the dead. I am the guiding Light that illumineth the way. I am the royal Falcon on the arm of the Almighty. I unfold the drooping wings of every broken bird and start it on its flig”
Bahá’u’lláh
While our lesser intellect speculates, theorises and explores, there is truth and an exact answer to these questions from the Perfect Universal Mind.
“How often hath it been observed that certain human minds, far from being a source of guidance, have become as fetters upon the feet of the wayfarers and prevented them from treading the straight Path! The lesser intellect being thus circumscribed, one must search after Him Who is the ultimate Source of knowledge and strive to recognize Him”
Bahá’u’lláh
Where there is ignorance there is knowledge, for if there were no knowledge ignorance could not be imagined. In the same way darkness could never be imagined unless light existed for darkness is the absence of light.
And so too, imperfection could not exist or be imagined without the existence of Perfection., the Universal Mind, Perfect Intellect or Ultimate Truth.
This Perfect Intellect communicates with us by sending us Divine Educators to guide us.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Quantum physics is still far from being understood, it is weird, especially in relation to Einstein, If life here was seeded from somewhere else in the universe, the question still remains, how did it begin. Actually, abiogenisis apologists and adherents are progressively having a more and more difficult time as the concept of information within DNA and its source has deeper and deeper implications. I m not a scientist, just a 25 year criminal investigator. I follow the evidence where it leads. To me, evidence is evidence, If it is evaluated as valid, I couldn´t care less about what lines or disciplines it crosses. Regardless of how you describe what is written those millenia ago, the evidence is beyond a doubt that it was more accurate than science was for millenia regarding the creation of the universe. Being just a dumb copper, distinctions and prejudices regarding evidence don´t register with me. I don´t weight it and qualifyit based on its source, be it Sir Fred Hoyle when he argued so eloquently for a steady state universe in the 50ś or that old book you seem to have disdain for that said the universe began from nothing. The evidence is clear, Hoyle and science were wrong, the old book was right. I would suggest that you look at the prophecyś in the book, and look for the evidence that proves them right, or wrong. I have.There is even evidence regarding regarding the authenticity of the dates, times and authors of the book, if you look for it. I simply am too unsophisticated to be able to comfortably allow my judgement to supplant what the evidence tells me, on a whole host of issues, scientific, and otherwise.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Thanks for caring and the kind words. I know I need to find some time for myself, I just never seem to find time.
I am close to retirement so I just keep saying I will have more time after that... I also have 11 cats and 3 houses to take care of in addition to the forums, so it is work, work, work, in addition to my full time job and riding my bike to and from work 3 hours a say. My husband helps out some, but not as much as I would like.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Careful arguing from ignorance to promote a religious agenda. Actually, the scientific knowledge of the abiogenesis hypothesis is increasing. Yes, there are unanswered, but again 'arguing from ignorance without presenting a sound argument in science to support your argument does not cut the mustard.
Despite your claims you are weighing different kinds of evidence from your religious perspective.
The evidence is clear the knowledge of science changes over time. Citing long dead scientist, and cosmological hypothesis long found false does not contribute to the discussion.
The Bible does not prove science right nor wrong. Science, fortunately has functioned independently of religious beliefs using independent scientific methods to develop an evolving body of knowledge about our physical existence..
No, there is not evidence of authorship of most of the books of the Bible in particularly the gospels, and Genesis. Most scholars acknowledge that the authorship of many of the books of the Bible are unknown, and the evidence indicates they were compiled, edited and redacted over time and there are no original manuscripts.
Mixing claims of different kinds of evidence only creates a high fog index and confusion. The objective verifiable evidence of science should no be confused with what some claim as historical evidence of religious claims.
Last edited:
Foxic
Member
People, in general, are uncomfortable with not knowing something. Rather than be intellectually honest with themselves, they create these fictional mythologies to provide a false comfort; the falsity of the comfort is evident in the fact that it derives from an unreasonable untruth.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
So, by your own words, light (energy) cannot exist prior to the big bang, or even outside of space and time?
That is what *I* said! Ooops! There goes your supreme being.... *poof* vanished in a puff of logic
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Begging the question. Life may always have been, in an infinite loop of time. Or some other infinite regress.
Especially if there are multiple universes-- life may have come from other, prior universes.
Which makes a great deal more sense, than a magical, super-being. Where did it come from? And why?
"god always was" is a logical fallacy: Special Pleading.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Really? I have only and ever seen the "more and more difficult" coming out of theistic non-argument sources.
In actual scientific biology arenas? Abiogeneis is looking more and more possible, as we uncover how DNA chemistry works....
Your "argument" becomes one of Argument From Ignorance logical fallacy.
Me? I do not know, and I find I have little worry on the subject either: life exists. How it began may never be known properly.
But I doubt it arose from the Magical Spell Casting of a Super Being, who's principle attribute is one of .... remaining hidden.....
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Damn. I hope to STARS, that you are never-EVER asked to investigate anyone I know... !!!!
It sounds like you do not use evidence-- but rather go on foregone "conclusions" based on.... your gut?
Damn..... <shudders>
shmogie
Well-Known Member
[/QUOTE]
WOW, speaking of ignorance ! You regurgitate the same false talking points that have been used for years, they are now cleche's. Quite obviously you have done little reading on the matters at hand in the last decade or so. Since your position is superior, (you think) you just trot out the triteness.Lets take your response to a statement I never made. I NEVER said that the Bible has anything to do with proving anything about science. I simply said that it was correct on the creation of the universe, and after thousands of years science proved it correct. Not the same at all. I alway love the term, "most scholars". What you really mean is most scholars who present the position I want to take. Since they do, you make no effort to actually look at the other scholars work and make a comparison of evidence, methods, and conclusions. Actually these "others" Biblical scholars make up the majority. As to the Gospels, there is a plethora of evidence that shows they were in circulation, in writing, by 125 AD. Of course, they were orally in circulation much, much earlier, 34 AD. Who wrote them? well the authors give their names, and I see no reason for them to use a nom de plume, but if you prefer Antoine over John, that's OK with me. As to Moses and the early books of the Torah, I haven';t done nearly as much research on them as I have the NT so I don't feel comfortable addressing the issue, other than to say, as I have pointed out, " most scholars" in the Biblical research is a worthless, as you use it, biased term. Now, to abiogenesis, one of my favorite fields to read, of which you call me ignorant. You say scientific knowledge is increasing, true, but what kind of knowledge ? Saying there is much to learn is like saying the space above the earth goes a long way. I won't go into detail about the theory's history, since I am sure you are very well versed in it, other than to say that when the open minded scientists who ascribed to macro evolution realized that in their open minded fashion no other other explanation for the origin of life but a naturalistc one was acceptable, abiogenesis was born, life creating itself from non living chemicals and compounds. You are aware of the failures of the Miller - Urey experiments to create life and all the subsequent ones. All in controlled non random environments, using "intelligent design ". Now, lets briefly go to the alleged primordial sea. I am sure you are aware of the massive problems of atmosphere, radiation, PH, light all the rest that COULD be hostile/favorable for life, it's all pretty much problematic speculation. Now, to the new scientific discovery's and the quandary of information. As genetic research has progressed, the idea of a "simple" living organism is being proved a fallacy, there is nothing simple about any life form. I am sure you know that for any life form to exist, the instructions for it;s every function and process it's machinery, is encoded in extremely long chains of bits of encoded information that must exist in he exact proper order. You know no doubt that these bits of information must "plug" into a "reader" in the cell, and which then reads the encoded information, recodes it and instructs proteins using essentially a chemical code to activate life processes of the cell/organism in every aspect of its functioning and survival. All of this must be perfect, little or no deviation can exist, the organism will die before it exists.This is a very simple explanation, I won't go into left handed and right handed proteins and more in depth detail, this simple outline makes the point, Where did the information come from that operated those early self created organisms ? How did the organism create a "reader" very specifically designed to read the encoded information, extremely detailed and complicated information, by itself ? How could it, since the reader would have to exist prior to the DNA , and how could it exist, without previous DNA were read to create it ? None of this appears to be possible with a self create organism. Without pre exiting information, it couldn't exist. There, in a nutshell, is the progress in abiogenesis that has been made. Don;'t tell me that I evaluated evidence based on religious bias. That again shows your ignorance and arrogance. I was a flaming atheist well versed in evolutionary theory who set out to disprove a friends faith. I believe I was objective, but if there was bias, irt was the other way. Superior thinking atheists who patronizingly lecture me really **** me off.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
WOW, speaking of ignorance ! You regurgitate the same false talking points that have been used for years, they are now cleche's. Quite obviously you have done little reading on the matters at hand in the last decade or so. Since your position is superior, (you think) you just trot out the triteness.Lets take your response to a statement I never made. I NEVER said that the Bible has anything to do with proving anything about science. I simply said that it was correct on the creation of the universe, and after thousands of years science proved it correct. Not the same at all. I alway love the term, "most scholars". What you really mean is most scholars who present the position I want to take. Since they do, you make no effort to actually look at the other scholars work and make a comparison of evidence, methods, and conclusions. Actually these "others" Biblical scholars make up the majority. As to the Gospels, there is a plethora of evidence that shows they were in circulation, in writing, by 125 AD. Of course, they were orally in circulation much, much earlier, 34 AD. Who wrote them? well the authors give their names, and I see no reason for them to use a nom de plume, but if you prefer Antoine over John, that's OK with me. As to Moses and the early books of the Torah, I haven';t done nearly as much research on them as I have the NT so I don't feel comfortable addressing the issue, other than to say, as I have pointed out, " most scholars" in the Biblical research is a worthless, as you use it, biased term. Now, to abiogenesis, one of my favorite fields to read, of which you call me ignorant. You say scientific knowledge is increasing, true, but what kind of knowledge ? Saying there is much to learn is like saying the space above the earth goes a long way. I won't go into detail about the theory's history, since I am sure you are very well versed in it, other than to say that when the open minded scientists who ascribed to macro evolution realized that in their open minded fashion no other other explanation for the origin of life but a naturalistc one was acceptable, abiogenesis was born, life creating itself from non living chemicals and compounds. You are aware of the failures of the Miller - Urey experiments to create life and all the subsequent ones. All in controlled non random environments, using "intelligent design ". Now, lets briefly go to the alleged primordial sea. I am sure you are aware of the massive problems of atmosphere, radiation, PH, light all the rest that COULD be hostile/favorable for life, it's all pretty much problematic speculation. Now, to the new scientific discovery's and the quandary of information. As genetic research has progressed, the idea of a "simple" living organism is being proved a fallacy, there is nothing simple about any life form. I am sure you know that for any life form to exist, the instructions for it;s every function and process it's machinery, is encoded in extremely long chains of bits of encoded information that must exist in he exact proper order. You know no doubt that these bits of information must "plug" into a "reader" in the cell, and which then reads the encoded information, recodes it and instructs proteins using essentially a chemical code to activate life processes of the cell/organism in every aspect of its functioning and survival. All of this must be perfect, little or no deviation can exist, the organism will die before it exists.This is a very simple explanation, I won't go into left handed and right handed proteins and more in depth detail, this simple outline makes the point, Where did the information come from that operated those early self created organisms ? How did the organism create a "reader" very specifically designed to read the encoded information, extremely detailed and complicated information, by itself ? How could it, since the reader would have to exist prior to the DNA , and how could it exist, without previous DNA were read to create it ? None of this appears to be possible with a self create organism. Without pre exiting information, it couldn't exist. There, in a nutshell, is the progress in abiogenesis that has been made. Don;'t tell me that I evaluated evidence based on religious bias. That again shows your ignorance and arrogance. I was a flaming atheist well versed in evolutionary theory who set out to disprove a friends faith. I believe I was objective, but if there was bias, irt was the other way. Superior thinking atheists who patronizingly lecture me really **** me off.[/QUOTE]
You and your ilk, atheists trolling theological discussions to try and debase the beliefs of others by always attempting to steer the discussions to this subject are why I am away from here for months at a time. Your boorishness bores me. Always masters of ad hominems and childish sarcasms, tools you use to mask your own slavish beliefs and dogmatism. I am interested in the theological discussions, not the never ending fights over whether God exists picked by atheists. This must be the sixth or seventh intrusion by an atheist into a theological discussion I am involved in,within the last year, with the same old tired bait, smart mouth, and I'll show you attitude. You show me nothing that isn';t refutable. Over and over again, nothing new. Go fish somewhere else, your game is just a waste of my time
shmogie
Well-Known Member
WOW, speaking of ignorance ! You regurgitate the same false talking points that have been used for years, they are now cleche's. Quite obviously you have done little reading on the matters at hand in the last decade or so. Since your position is superior, (you think) you just trot out the triteness.Lets take your response to a statement I never made. I NEVER said that the Bible has anything to do with proving anything about science. I simply said that it was correct on the creation of the universe, and after thousands of years science proved it correct. Not the same at all. I alway love the term, "most scholars". What you really mean is most scholars who present the position I want to take. Since they do, you make no effort to actually look at the other scholars work and make a comparison of evidence, methods, and conclusions. Actually these "others" Biblical scholars make up the majority. As to the Gospels, there is a plethora of evidence that shows they were in circulation, in writing, by 125 AD. Of course, they were orally in circulation much, much earlier, 34 AD. Who wrote them? well the authors give their names, and I see no reason for them to use a nom de plume, but if you prefer Antoine over John, that's OK with me. As to Moses and the early books of the Torah, I haven';t done nearly as much research on them as I have the NT so I don't feel comfortable addressing the issue, other than to say, as I have pointed out, " most scholars" in the Biblical research is a worthless, as you use it, biased term. Now, to abiogenesis, one of my favorite fields to read, of which you call me ignorant. You say scientific knowledge is increasing, true, but what kind of knowledge ? Saying there is much to learn is like saying the space above the earth goes a long way. I won't go into detail about the theory's history, since I am sure you are very well versed in it, other than to say that when the open minded scientists who ascribed to macro evolution realized that in their open minded fashion no other other explanation for the origin of life but a naturalistc one was acceptable, abiogenesis was born, life creating itself from non living chemicals and compounds. You are aware of the failures of the Miller - Urey experiments to create life and all the subsequent ones. All in controlled non random environments, using "intelligent design ". Now, lets briefly go to the alleged primordial sea. I am sure you are aware of the massive problems of atmosphere, radiation, PH, light all the rest that COULD be hostile/favorable for life, it's all pretty much problematic speculation. Now, to the new scientific discovery's and the quandary of information. As genetic research has progressed, the idea of a "simple" living organism is being proved a fallacy, there is nothing simple about any life form. I am sure you know that for any life form to exist, the instructions for it;s every function and process it's machinery, is encoded in extremely long chains of bits of encoded information that must exist in he exact proper order. You know no doubt that these bits of information must "plug" into a "reader" in the cell, and which then reads the encoded information, recodes it and instructs proteins using essentially a chemical code to activate life processes of the cell/organism in every aspect of its functioning and survival. All of this must be perfect, little or no deviation can exist, the organism will die before it exists.This is a very simple explanation, I won't go into left handed and right handed proteins and more in depth detail, this simple outline makes the point, Where did the information come from that operated those early self created organisms ? How did the organism create a "reader" very specifically designed to read the encoded information, extremely detailed and complicated information, by itself ? How could it, since the reader would have to exist prior to the DNA , and how could it exist, without previous DNA were read to create it ? None of this appears to be possible with a self create organism. Without pre exiting information, it couldn't exist. There, in a nutshell, is the progress in abiogenesis that has been made. Don;'t tell me that I evaluated evidence based on religious bias. That again shows your ignorance and arrogance. I was a flaming atheist well versed in evolutionary theory who set out to disprove a friends faith. I believe I was objective, but if there was bias, irt was the other way. Superior thinking atheists who patronizingly lecture me really **** me off.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about the about the above running together, really bad form. Being old school, I sometimes forget to space paragraphs, an indent them. The computer swallows up the indentations and runs it all together.
Sorry about the about the above running together, really bad form. Being old school, I sometimes forget to space paragraphs, an indent them. The computer swallows up the indentations and runs it all together.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
no smart ***, That's not what I said. Are you comprehension challenged ? Light, and energy were created WITHIN the universe by the BB. Outside the universe E= MC squared may likely have absolutely no meaning and what you ignorantly postulate has no merit. Poof another whining atheist bites the dust.
We have a obligation to ourselves first and others second to be as correct as possible.
More and more, I'm avoiding the use of the word truth, especially when attended by qualifiers such as objective, absolute, and ultimate. If I can use an idea to accurately predict and at times control outcomes, I add that to my collection of what I call knowledge. Ideas that cannot do that are discarded.
For me, truth is the quality that facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences) that accurately map a piece of reality.
If the linguistic string is "I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier," I will call that a fact if it corresponds to my home's location relative to the pier.
If that idea consistently allows to predict that going north or east will not get me to the pier until I circumnavigate the earth, or that going only two blocks south will not get me there either, but that if I go five blocks south and three west from my door, that I will be at the pier, and that gets me there, then that qualifies as a fact and a true statement for me. I am uninterested in whether that is an ultimate truth, an absolute truth
Some of us define atheist as unbeliever - everybody that answers no to the question "Do you believe in a god or gods?" If 113 people go from yes to know in that department, the world just lost 113 theists and gained 113 atheists.
Atheism can't be false, even if gods exist. I have no reason to believe that they do, therefore don't, and therefore am an atheist by virtue of giving that no answer to the question about a god belief..
By the definition many if not most atheists use by now, you are an atheist if you are not a theist just as a geometric object is either symmetric or asymmetric. All objects (and abstractions, such as the division of assets after a divorce) to which the terms can be meaningfully applied are one or the other, and nothing is both in the same sense at the same time, a relationship sometimes called MECE, or mutually exclusive / collectively exhaustive.
There are other formulations that allow one to be neither an atheist or a theist, but they have to define theist and atheist as those that explicitly claims to know that gods do or don't exist. Some make neither claim, but still have no god belief. You might not call that an atheist, but I do.
What does adding a god to that description add in terms of explanatory power? It's more or less what the naturalistic hypothesis of abiogenesis postulates, but without any gods throwing dice or doing anything else.
Nobody can tell us with authority whether life arose by a spontaneous, undirected, naturalistic process or by intelligent design (creation). Nor do I say that there are no gods or that life arose spontaneously.
What I do say is that we presently have no need for a god in that hypothesis, and therefore should not inject one into it until we run into an observation that can be best explained by intelligent design. I agree with the ID people that that would be irreducible or specified complexity (a message written in an abstract language that has to be learned to be used)
What DNA contains should be called form, not information. Information is what sentient minds perceive. The words form and inform suggest this relationship. It's form out there. When it gets in here and is apprehended, then we have been in-formed.
The human genome became information when DNA was discovered, its structure determined, and the sequence of bases determined. Until then, DNA was merely a large biomolecule with a form doing its thing out of view according to that form and physical law. Thymine has the right structure and charge distribution to attract adenine nucelotides, but not thymine or cytosine. No information is needed.
Calling what is out there information if it is not apprehended is a semantic slight of hand that tries to inject intelligence into DNA through the back door. It's the same tactic tried with the use of the words design and creation, which could just as easily be called pattern and generation, but the latter words lack the baggage of the former - intention.
You are tacitly saying that science, not scripture, is the arbiter of truth. You found an area of overlap, but are crediting science with confirming scripture without any mention of the rest of the creation story that contradicts science. Where the two disagree, which is about everywhere they speak to the same subject, it's understood that science is correct.
The Genesis creation story missed symmetry breaking, inflation, primordial nucleosynthesis, the decoupling of the cosmic microwave background with the universe going dark followed eventually by first starlight and the formation of galaxies and stars, earth and sun following the inception of the universe by some 9 billion years, man appearing hundreds of millions of years after the first terrestrial animal life, etc..
Had the Bible included anything that could be interpreted as anticipating those ideas, creationists would be proud that their scriptures got that right, too - another tacit nod to science as authoritative.
Hoyle was wrong if he claimed that the steady state was a fact rather than a hypothesis. If he called it only a competing hypothesis, then he was correct when he said it, but no longer.
But notice that we consult neither Hoyle's preferences nor the old book for answers. We go to nature. If the old book gets things right, we don't know that because it's in the book. We know that because we find confirming physical evidence. Whatever is known to be true is known to be true by examining physical evidence, at which point it would be known because of that evidence. The book doesn't need to be read at all. What we know about physical reality is not known because it was in the book.
How much did the Qur'an get right? Yeah - I know. It doesn't matter. We got no answers from that old book, either.
Phffffffft!!! Splat!!!! Dribble . . . Dribble . . .