The Big Bang and Evolution

[Ben Avraham]

So you've just proved, in your rhetoric, that my and your parents are the primal cause. If it weren't for them, we would not be here today verbal juggling with each other.Again, make your question pertinent by first defending your assumptions that because something 'is only obvious; to you, that it is logical to conclude such. Last time I checked...well...you know what *** umptions do to your credibility.

You are forcing me, so-to-speak, to say that you are lying. I did not say that our parents are the primal cause. I said that they are an evidence of the Primal Cause through the concept of genetic Causality. They simply carry the concept of cause & effect back to the Primal Cause. You are not a good sample to represent Atheism! It is better for you to say "I don't know" than to slander as a method of discussion.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I don't have a god. The Primal Cause aka the Creator Who caused the Universe to exist is not a god but the reason why the Universe exists. If you don't believe, it is okay not to, as long as you share with us the opposite of what we are talking about. When one fights against the views of another without what to say is called vandalism.

What is the point of such a vague concept? Basically your saying there must be some variable, X, such that it existed before anything else, and caused everything else. We call that X, creator.

I mean really, that's the extent of it? You don't know what X is, therefore

See now, what you are doing? There is no way to get an answer from an atheist. I knew that from a long time ago. They don't know! As you said, "I'll take the challenge!" That was only to impress other readers. But you don't have what it takes to discuss the existence of HaShem with a Jewish Theist. Why don't you admit up-front to make things easier for us not to waste our time with each other? Pity!

First, please answer my question. What is the point of some vague concept? You put a label (gawd) on what you can't explain, and then claim to have the answer. Very intellectually dishonest with yourself, pretending to understand and have the answer merely because you label an unknown variable.

Second, you say you can't get an answer from me??? Please, there are no correct answers to incorrect questions. If your question is based (such as yours) on invalid assumptions, then you must tackle the errors in your assumptions, not ignore the fact that you are on an invalid path and continue on as if you're in la-la-land thinking everything is roses.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You are forcing me, so-to-speak, to say that you are lying. I did not say that our parents are the primal cause. I said that they are an evidence of the Primal Cause through the concept of genetic Causality. They simply carry the concept of cause & effect back to the Primal Cause. You are not a good sample to represent Atheism! It is better for you to say "I don't know" than to slander as a method of discussion.

I'm not forcing you to call me a lier. I'm asking you to think about what you're saying. You say that we have a conversation, therefore primal cause exists. I say we have a conversation, therefore we must both exist and interact.

Think of the infinite regression of a painter painting a painting of the painter painting a painting...On back infinitely. To me, it sounds like at some point, you decided to just get lazy and stop thinking about the next regression and somewhere, arbitrarily, you label one of the regressions and call it gawd. Which one of the regressions do you stop at? You have chosen to stop at 'universe' whatever that means. How do you know there aren't billions of universes with perfectly natural origins?

And if there are, i'll bet you'll say then gawd must just be another regression back...But that actually proves my point. There is no logical reason, to assume, any primal cause. The painter goes on, forward, and back, infinitely. You arbitrarily say one of these MUST be gawd.

MUST be, is not an argument. Obviously, is not an argument. How do you explain then, is not an argument

 

[Ben Avraham]

I'm not forcing you to call me a lier. I'm asking you to think about what you're saying. You say that we have a conversation, therefore primal cause exists. I say we have a conversation, therefore we must both exist and interact.

Think of the infinite regression of a painter painting a painting of the painter painting a painting...On back infinitely. To me, it sounds like at some point, you decided to just get lazy and stop thinking about the next regression and somewhere, arbitrarily, you label one of the regressions and call it gawd. Which one of the regressions do you stop at? You have chosen to stop at 'universe' whatever that means. How do you know there aren't billions of universes with perfectly natural origins?

And if there are, i'll bet you'll say then gawd must just be another regression back...But that actually proves my point. There is no logical reason, to assume, any primal cause. The painter goes on, forward, and back, infinitely. You arbitrarily say one of these MUST be gawd.

MUST be, is not an argument. Obviously, is not an argument. How do you explain then, is not an argument

Just answer my question. If you don't know, just say, I don't know the answer.

 

[Ben Avraham]

What is the point of such a vague concept? Basically your saying there must be some variable, X, such that it existed before anything else, and caused everything else. We call that X, creator.

I mean really, that's the extent of it? You don't know what X is, therefore

First, please answer my question. What is the point of some vague concept? You put a label (gawd) on what you can't explain, and then claim to have the answer. Very intellectually dishonest with yourself, pretending to understand and have the answer merely because you label an unknown variable.

Second, you say you can't get an answer from me??? Please, there are no correct answers to incorrect questions. If your question is based (such as yours) on invalid assumptions, then you must tackle the errors in your assumptions, not ignore the fact that you are on an invalid path and continue on as if you're in la-la-land thinking everything is roses.

Just answer the question I made to you.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Just answer the question I made to you.

There are no correct answers to incorrect questions!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Just answer the question I made to you.

Really, not answering my question, but sounding like a broken record on no answer to your incorrect question. As I said, I"ve explained fairly well that there is no point in addressing a question based on pure assumption until the assumption is addressed. let's address the assumption that there is any logical need for a primal cause. Until then any discussion on the nature of a possible primal cause is entirely unproductive.

 

[omega2xx]

No. A way of telling how boring your point is! Really? When did they tell you?Again, it's not a worthy challenge to debate a talking wall. Something makes 'sense' to you, therefore you 'conclude' and no logic or argument penetrates your confirmation bias.

I get that a lot feom those who do not understand science and think opinions are evidence.


Something makes sense to you, therefore you conclude and with no logic or evidence or argument penetrates your confirmation bias.

If all you are going to do is pontificate, go back to the playground.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Really, not answering my question, but sounding like a broken record on no answer to your incorrect question. As I said, I"ve explained fairly well that there is no point in addressing a question based on pure assumption until the assumption is addressed. let's address the assumption that there is any logical need for a primal cause. Until then any discussion on the nature of a possible primal cause is entirely unproductive.

If to you, the Primal Cause is unproductive, what or who caused the beginning of the Universe? Now, what is your question? As you see, I don't ask for an answer because I know you don't have them. At least, I stopped sounding like a broken record to you. Can you do the same?

 

[metis]

Infinity?

 

[Valjean]

If to you, the Primal Cause is unproductive, what or who caused the beginning of the Universe? Now, what is your question? As you see, I don't ask for an answer because I know you don't have them. At least, I stopped sounding like a broken record to you. Can you do the same?

You presuppose a Primal Cause -- illogical.
You ask the wrong question. Who or what tells us nothing useful. You should be asking How.
Knowing the agent does not explain the mechanism.

 

[Ben Avraham]

You presuppose a Primal Cause -- illogical.
You ask the wrong question. Who or what tells us nothing useful. You should be asking How.
Knowing the agent does not explain the mechanism.

 

[Ben Avraham]

You presuppose a Primal Cause -- illogical. You ask the wrong question. Who or what tells us nothing useful. You should be asking How. Knowing the agent does not explain the mechanism.

Okay, I'll try to go your way to prove that either way, you don't know what you are talking about. Go right ahead and
give me your answer of HOW the Universe was caused to exist. Not the "Who" or the "what" but the "mechanism" now! We are all ears! Do not disappoint us!

 

[metis]

A widely recognized scientist in France who converted into Buddhism, Matthieu Ricard, brings up a few interesting questions.

One is that if God is supposedly unchanging, then how could God create? IOW, some actions of some type had to happen, therefore God had to change at least a bit. For example, a painter would have to decide what and when to paint, gather materials, and then actually paint.

OK, but if God is changing even a little, what is causing God to change? IOW, there must be something else involved in this process that encouraged Him to change, thus imply some sort of influence that would seemingly be external. If it's internal and God is unchanging, then nothing would result.

But then he goes a step further, namely how is it that we supposedly know of these natures of God? How did the authors of the scriptures supposedly know? How do we know that God inspired any scriptures?

And how do we supposedly know that there's only one God? Couldn't there possibly be more? How could we know if God(s) can die or are immortal?

To me, interesting questions that he asks. What do you think?

 

[Etritonakin]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

Heb_1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Heb_11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God is capable of setting element-based evolution in motion, as well as the direct creation described in the renewal of earth after it had become waste and ruin in Genesis.

It is believed evolution is contrary to God because it suggests that life existed before the events described in Genesis were to have taken place -and because it suggests that life developed rather than being directly created -and did not require a creator.

However, Genesis does not actually say all things were created about 6,000 years ago -not the earth -certainly not the universe -and not even life.

A God capable of direct creation would certainly also be capable of indirect creation.

Still, though the formation of the universe -and so the elements which are the basis for the evolution of physical life forms -actually do indicate forethought and design (feel free to disagree), evolution is no less real. Element-based evolution could be described as an autonomous adaptation and design program. Element-based evolution -overall -is an intelligent designer, but one which is not aware of itself.

Ironically, evolution in its purest sense would apply more to God himself -as no other would have considered God's existence or activities beforehand. Though eternal, he is the sum of all things and self-develops.
I use the term "element-based evolution" because evolution -in its broadest sense -includes every change which has ever happened.
Even the bible indicates that God develops.
Furthermore, though it is written that God is eternal -is essentially all things -"I AM" would always refer back to his eternal existence -but would also mean something different with each change and development.

For example... there was apparently a time before God considered reproducing himself in the "children of God" -before creating the universe and all therein OF part of all that is himself. So, "God" then would describe the previous state and thoughts, and "God" now would describe the present state and thoughts.

 

[JustWondering]

I feel a God with supreme intelligence would judge a man by his individual actions and not his Religious affiliation.

If not he would be a bit foolish to take a less moral person over a moral one based on their beliefs.

Even a moral Athiest should enter heaven

Why do you assume a creator being would have any interest in judging anyone? If this creator being exists and is prone to passing judgments I imagine it would also make judgements on every other living thing. Certainly it wouldn't just fixate on humanity. It's natural to think we're important but to a creator being we're just one of trillions of species it created.

 

[JustWondering]

I was walking through the desert in Arizona and I found a watch. I thought to myself, "Gee, it's amazing how this watch just randomly happened!"

DNA, RNA and the simplest life forms are far more complex than a watch. Just telling me it happened without being specific is similar to expecting people to believe the watch just randomly assembled itself.

And I think we can all agree that is absurd. At least I hope so.

Gee whiz, your god must be even more complex than humans, I wonder what assembled your god? Was it super god? What assembled super god, ultra mega god perhaps? Then what assembled ultra mega god....

 

[JustWondering]

First provide the evidence that God caused anyone to be infertile. That was the first statement and it had no evidence.

First provide evidence for your god.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I don't have a god. The Primal Cause aka the Creator Who caused the Universe to exist is not a god but the reason why the Universe exists. If you don't believe, it is okay not to, as long as you share with us the opposite of what we are talking about. When one fights against the views of another without what to say is called vandalism.

Just answer my question. If you don't know, just say, I don't know the answer.

I'm still not sure what your question is?

You make a statement, that the primal cause, the creator who caused the universe, is not a god, but the reason why the universe exists.

Is this a person? (You say "who caused") Is this a physical mechanism? (You state 'the reason why").

Then you say it's ok if I don't believe, but share with you the opposite. That's hard to do knot knowing what you'r talking about. Of course there is a reason the universe exists. That does not imply a person, a god, or a primal cause.

Your next statement about vandalism completely eludes me.

Before I say "I don't know the answer." I would need you to ask an actual question, and the question would have to be be founded fact, not conjecture or assumption. As I've told you several times, there are no correct answers to incorrect questions; and there certainly aren't correct answers to non-questions.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I was walking through the desert in Arizona and I found a watch. I thought to myself, "Gee, it's amazing how this watch just randomly happened!"

DNA, RNA and the simplest life forms are far more complex than a watch. Just telling me it happened without being specific is similar to expecting people to believe the watch just randomly assembled itself.

And I think we can all agree that is absurd. At least I hope so.

Nope! Not agreed in the least! If I go to the river and find a rounded stone, am I to believe that there must have been some grand design? Hardly, there are ample lines of evidence with demonstrate a sequence of natural phenomena which produce rounded stones. Note that there are random components of the evolution of life, but it is natural selection, which is anything but random, that sculpts life forms.

I find it amazing that most evolutionary biologist have at least read the bible and tried to understand, while so few religious types have obviously NOT taken the time for a rudimentary and introductory reading of evolution.