If I didn't see them being used interchangeably (happens a lot with mind and consciousness too) I wouldn't point it out. How about the rest?
-
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!
Space, Time and God
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
Lucian Hodoboc
Member
Where exactly did you see them being used interchangeably in my post?
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Other than that all bets are off. Subjective, objective - arbitrary, circumspect - relative, analogous, there are as many atheist viewpoints as there are atheists so attempting to pigeonhole a disparate section of the population is like saying all Christians believe the same as all Muslims
Pleade provide citation showing that the universe defies the law of gravity.
A large enough clump of matter will collapse to form a black hole, but ONLY if it is surrounded by (relatively) empty space. During the Big Bang, there WAS NO empty space: ALL of space was filled more or less uniformly with matter and energy; there was no "center of attraction" around which matter could coalesce. Under these circumstances, a cosmic-scale black hole will not form..
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#e3
Because you don't understand the mechanisms involved in the first fraction of second after the bb does not mean such an event did not happen, it just means you don't understand
Lucian Hodoboc
Member
Wrong. Subjectivity, arbitrariness and relativity are direct consequences of the lack of existence of any gods. You can have many agnostic viewpoints, but there is only one atheist viewpoint: God/gods doesn't exist. If God/gods doesn't exist, all the answers related to our existence become subjective, arbitrary and relative.
Bull
Subjectivity : based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Sounds more religious,having no evidence for a gods existence and still holding the blind opinion that they or it exits.
Arbitrary : based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Oh look, same no evidence, no reason, so belief in gods can only be personal whim
Relativity : the dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, especially regarding the nature and behaviour of light, space, time, and gravity.
Ok, you got me, one out of three. But not all atheist would agree with me
You are wrong, generalising based on your limited personal opinion of atheism which is tainted by dislike or perhaps even hate. You confuse personal (lack of) understanding of the human race with your lack of understanding of science.
Science is systematic and objective study through observation and experiment. Which kind of blows your subjective and arbitrary claims out of the water
Lucian Hodoboc
Member
Most major religions on earth impose pretty much the same prohibitions that go against human tastes, feelings and desires (abstinence outside of marriage, avoidance of worldly pleasures etc.). These prohibitions go against what science defines as our "primitive instincts". Considering the fact that these restrictions were imposed by self-defined "prophets" who claimed that God informed them about these things and that they (the prophets themselves) obeyed the prohibitions, we could only conclude that either all the prophets of the world were masochistic masterminds who had the intellectual ability to manipulate entire nations (millions of people)... or that these prohibitions actually came from God. Now, what are the chances that all the prophets of the world (who lived centuries apart from each other) were masochistic masterminds who adhered to the same type of restrictions and who had the ability to convince millions of people to go against what science calls their "human nature" (to give up their interest in sex when procreation is in our primitive nature, to give up their lives when the instinct of survival is in our primitive nature, to fast for weeks when the need to eat is in our primitive nature)?
No evidence? So, what do religious apologists use in debates then?
Science is in no way contradicting God. Science is a way to explore God's creation. Science can answer the questions of why and how something functions, but it can never answer the question of purpose. When Newton discovered the laws he wrote about he didn't say, "well, there is no God". He just admired God more for having created such a complex world. And so did other scientists (Galileo, Kepler, Babbage etc.). And then comes Hawkings nowadays and says that we have the law of gravity and therefore the universe can and will create itself from nothing. That's a paradox and a self-contradiction: we have a law, but there was once nothing. How did we come to have that law so that we can use it as an argument that the universe followed that law to create itself if there was nothing at one point and that nothing did not include that law?
Perhaps I don't understand science too well, as you say, but maybe Professor John Lennox, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford understands it better than me, and he's a Christian apologist.
gnostic
The Lost One
For Super Universe to treat singularities of stellar black holes with the hypothetical singularity prior to Big Bang, just show how little he understand astronomy and the Big Bang cosmology.
The two different types of singularities are not the same things.
SU also thought that the black hole is a exploding star. Clearly he is confusing blackholes with supernovas.
And he clearly doesn't understand General Relativity or even gravity.
I don't know why anyone would make positive claims about blackholes or the Big Bang, like rejecting them, if the person don't understand the basics of astrophysics.
If anyone reject something or anything, then he (or she) should at least know what he or she is rejecting.
Super Universe is rejecting the Big Bang out of ignorance than out of understanding what the Big Bang is.
gnostic
The Lost One
Religious apologists make unsubstantiated excuses (eg god of the gaps), wishful thinking, and a whole barrage of logical fallacies (eg circular reasoning, argument from ignorance (this often result in the shifting the burden of proof), false dichotomy, no true Scotsman, etc).
All apologists, it doesn't matter if their subjects are religious, political, social or philosophical, they tends to be biased and irrational in their arguments.
It doesn't matter if their statements or claims are true or not, they don't care, as long as they defend or win their arguments at all costs, and that would lying to the people they are addressing to, or taking other people's words out of context to suit their agenda.
Last edited:
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
The universe had a beginning, but that of which it is composed did not (arguably) have a beginning. Whether considering God or an absence of God, at some point, something simply "was" -as something cannot come from absolute nothing.
I think that absolute proof of God -short of "meeting" God -would not come by considering something as complex as the universe, but by understanding the most basic components which are now arranged as the universe and all else -and the most basic forces which caused them to be or become arranged.
Some things are possible before the existence of a creative intelligence, and some things are only possible after the existence of a creative intelligence.
All should agree that (at least the development of) self-awareness, intelligence and creativity are "natural" and inherent in "nature".
Therefore, the idea of an overall intelligence necessarily preceding certain arrangements-such as our universe -should not be seen as ridiculous.
We do not truly know what portion of "everything" our universe represents. Some have assumed it is everything -but as it once did not exist, it was certainly preceded by something -and may not represent the sum total of that something.
Time is thought by some to have begun with the Big Bang, but that would only be true if all interaction began with the Big Bang. "Universe time" began with the universe, but as time is essentially a measure of interaction and interrelationship, the universe may not have been the beginning of time itself.
Similarly, space is thought to be a product of the expansion of the singularity -but the singularity in its most compressed state may have represented a compressed state within a larger expanse.
Some believe the physical universe to have a sort of "foundation".
The singularity may also have been as a seed planted in that foundation -transforming simple pre-universe stuff into the physical universe based on its specific characteristics.
Last edited:
Irrelevant strawman
Usually bull, lies, make believe, nonsense, imagination and more bull. But certainly no evidence. But the gullible usually remain gullible and so the religious apologist still makes his wage... Please send donations to.....
Science gave up the god quest when alchemy was debunked as a waste of time. By the time of the Renaissance, thousands of years of science had failed in every way to reconcile a god with nature, and improved techniques since have also failed. The biggest stumbling block was the total lack of evidence for gods existence.
Nope, a universe from nothing is only a contradiction if you don't understand quantum mechanics and vacuum bubbles. Note the only reason you claim contradiction is the law of casualty which did not exist until after the bb event. Actually citing that law prior to that law existing is the contradiction here.
I'm pretty sure there are some religious faithful among scientists, the American Academy of Science puts that number around 3%.
SU is typical for one of his belief system, does not understand much outside his faith but knows the bb goes against his faith. H
e is unwilling to educate himself because in his eyes his faith overrides all and so defends it by spraying gibberish in the hope that some of it sticks somewhere.
It's a sad state that there are so many deliberately ignorant people.
Lucian Hodoboc
Member
Nope. A universe from nothing is a contradiction as long as you don't redefine the meaning of the word "nothing" to include something in it, whether that something be laws of physics, vacuum, ideas, concepts etc.
Nothing means exactly that: the lack of existence of everything, and everything includes your vacuum bubbles and your quantum mechanics too. You can't have those things and nothing at the same time.
I don't think you know what a straw man fallacy is. I was addressing your claims that religion is subjective which was exactly what was being previously debated. According to science, we are biologically programmed to pursue happiness. Subjectivity, according to the dictionary definition, involves: "placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric." A subjective creature who is biologically programmed to seek happiness is rationally expected to create behaviors, laws etc. to suit its pursuit of happiness. Most major religions go against the hedonistic lifestyle that we are biologically programmed to desire, and discourage the innate pursuit of worldly happiness that biology tells us evolution encoded in our DNA. What is the scientific explanation for the existence of religions that limit the development of hedonistic societies when we know that the very things religions prohibit constitute something written in our genes by evolution? If religion is a means created by religious leaders to control the masses, then why do those leaders enforce upon themselves even stricter rules than the ones they have imposed upon the masses (e.g.: prophets had to fast longer than regular people, to spend their free time in prayer while the regular people were enjoying themselves with fun hobbies, to give up on their wealth and be wandering preachers; nowadays, priests, bishops etc. have to be celibate, to fast, to follow all sort of strict guidelines, monks and nuns have to live in isolation etc., basically things that reason tells us that an intelligent species biologically evolved to seek happiness would not willingly choose to do without any factual, material, provable compensation)?
Wrong, it is not a contradiction in two ways, a/ quantum physics allows it and b/ i repeat, the laws of causality did not exist so it's a contradiction to say they had an effect on previous events.
Metaphysics is not science
I am not an atheist but it does not follow from "there is no God", that everything is "subjective, arbitrary and relative". Time we have discussions truthfully rather than taking a side/position.
gnostic
The Lost One
Do not confuse apologetic rationality with evidences.
A person's rationality can be logic or it can illogic, depending on if that will accept evidences or ignore them.
But apologists' rationality often have agenda, which is to defend their agenda, no matter what, and that would mean ignoring evidences that are contrary to their personal belief or even lying to people.
That make apologists "biased", because they do have agenda, and it doesn't matter if that agenda is religious, political, social or philosophical.
Being an apologist don't mean that person being honest, objective or unbiased.
Being apologists don't mean they would objectively considered empirical evidences, especially when those evidences go against his politics, religions or philosophies.
You are Christian, Lucian. Would you accept the views of Jewish or Muslim apologists that doesn't agree with your belief or the Christian teachings?
I don't you would. So you can have different apologists who won't agree with others. But if you look at it, you will see Catholic and Protestant apologists will not agree in certain matters or in certain teachings.
You really have no idea what it is to be apologist. You don't understand that apologists used their own biased rationality to win or defend their argument, and don't rely on evidences for their cause, especially should it clash with causes.
Lucian Hodoboc
Member
Of course I would accept them if they were based on indisputable arguments and backed up by solid proof.
This made me laugh, not exactly why.
Perhaps hypocrisy?
I think it's literally saying that HIS view has indisputable arguments, and is backed up by solid proof. The others views don't. Classy.