Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Milton Platt]

What you are also missing which the expanding earth theory shows is that all of the tectonic plates that surround the Pacific Ocean also fit together. When Pangaea existed, there were no oceans. All continents were joined together on all sides.

The plates would obviously fit together as they are cracks in the crust. That has no bering on whether the plates gave moved in the past.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That was a scientific position , not an atheistic one specifically, although if you had confidence in the scientific method of examining reality, you would accept that view as generally correct at the time. The great thing about science is that it's theories are subject to change as more imformstion becomes available. And that is what happened in this case. Why is that a problem? Do you prefer to simply decide you have absolute truth and just dig your heels in and refuse to honestly look at evidence that may change what you think is right?

Well you'd need to argue that assertion with the atheist who coined the term 'Big Bang' to mock Lemaitre's primeval atom. Hoyle was an outspoken believer in atheism who rejected and mocked the BB explicitly because of what HE saw as the overt theistic implications of such a specific creation event.

He never changed his mind, no matter the evidence, even on his deathbed not too long ago.

Science is a great thing yes. And sure science eventually won out over atheism in this case, but not until Lemaitre was on his death bed, he never got any Nobel prize for the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

 

[syo]

" Which existed first "something" or "nothing"? "

Both.

 

[Milton Platt]

Well you'd need to argue that assertion with the atheist who coined the term 'Big Bang' to mock Lemaitre's primeval atom. Hoyle was an outspoken believer in atheism who rejected and mocked the BB explicitly because of what HE saw as the overt theistic implications of such a specific creation event.

He never changed his mind, no matter the evidence, even on his deathbed not too long ago.

Science is a great thing yes. And sure science eventually won out over atheism in this case, but not until Lemaitre was on his death bed, he never got any Nobel prize for the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

Hoyle's atheism can be called into question. In fact, theists often use quotes from him to support creationism. Quotes like this one:

"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."

But regardless, he held a number of controversial beliefs which were rejected by much of the scientific community. An again, whether he was an atheist or not is not relevant.

Not sure that one can say that Lemaitre made the greatest discovery of all time. That would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it........

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hoyle's atheism can be called into question. In fact, theists often use quotes from him to support creationism. Quotes like this one:

"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order."

But regardless, he held a number of controversial beliefs which were rejected by much of the scientific community. An again, whether he was an atheist or not is not relevant.

Not sure that one can say that Lemaitre made the greatest discovery of all time. That would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it........

Absolutely the resistance to the BB was all about atheism for atheists.

several [cosmologists] complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[46] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

(Wikipedia)

a clear case of science v atheism

Lemaitre in stark contrast went out of his way to disassociate the very theistic implications atheists found uncomfortable, even telling the Pope to quit gloating.

He separated his personal belief from his theory, that's how science should work, but how does an atheist separate a belief he doesn't even acknowledge as such?

 

[Milton Platt]

Absolutely the resistance to the BB was all about atheism for atheists.

several [cosmologists] complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[46] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

(Wikipedia)

a clear case of science v atheism

Lemaitre in stark contrast went out of his way to disassociate the very theistic implications atheists found uncomfortable, even telling the Pope to quit gloating.

He separated his personal belief from his theory, that's how science should work, but how does an atheist separate a belief he doesn't even acknowledge as such?

You are making an unwarrented blanket statement about atheists. Not all atheists agree on how the universe began. There is no requirement for this agreement in the concept of atheism. The only requisite for being an atheist is an absence of a belief in the existence of supernatural gods.

Hoyle did make conflicting statements, on the one hand asserting atheism and on the other making statements that on the face sounded like a form of intelligent design.

Furthermore, it is a reach to say that just because we could not at a point in history explain a certain process or processes, they were somehow irrational and cannot be described in scientific terms. Hoyle was simply wrong. There are millions of things we know today that once could not be described in scientific terms but now can be. That was a very unscientific statement of personal opinion.

But what does it matter that a man was simply wrong? We are all frequently wrong. He was wrong when he pointed to an intelligent agent, which he certainly did on several occasions, and he was wrong when he rejected the idea of a universe with a beginning. He seemes to have flip-flopped several times. Some ideas die hard. It's human nature. That's why we still have people who believe in all sorts of gods and supernatural goings-on.

I think he simply did not think the evidence then available supported that hypothesis. He is certainly welcome to an opinion. However, evidence continues to mount which does support a beginning.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are making an unwarrented blanket statement about atheists. Not all atheists agree on how the universe began. There is no requirement for this agreement in the concept of atheism. The only requisite for being an atheist is an absence of a belief in the existence of supernatural gods.

wikipedia's statement not mine. They are not the source of all truth- but it's hardly a controversial observation. Atheists overwhelmingly preferred theories that eliminated creation events for very obvious reasons

Hoyle did make conflicting statements, on the one hand asserting atheism and on the other making statements that on the face sounded like a form of intelligent design.

regarding abiogenesis yes, he agreed with creationists on that point- later in life. But he never accepted the BB. And the fact that his pejorative label stuck, rather than the theory's founder's far better term 'primeval atom' tells you about the atheist bias permeating academic 'cosmogony'

Furthermore, it is a reach to say that just because we could not at a point in history explain a certain process or processes, they were somehow irrational and cannot be described in scientific terms. Hoyle was simply wrong. There are millions of things we know today that once could not be described in scientific terms but now can be. That was a very unscientific statement of personal opinion.

wrong for a very particular explicit reason, personal preference for theories with atheist implications.

But what does it matter that a man was simply wrong? We are all frequently wrong. He was wrong when he pointed to an intelligent agent, which he certainly did on several occasions, and he was wrong when he rejected the idea of a universe with a beginning. He seemes to have flip-flopped several times. Some ideas die hard. It's human nature. That's why we still have people who believe in all sorts of gods and supernatural goings-on.

I think he simply did not think the evidence then available supported that hypothesis. He is certainly welcome to an opinion. However, evidence continues to mount which does support a beginning.

He played a major role in delaying scientific progress for decades, he disseminated various versions of steady state and other theories that related directly to refuting this uncomfortably 'theistic' theory- and found many followers.

The wider point: This is a glaring example of science v atheism, hampering- arguably- the greatest scientific discovery of all time, but it's not the only example.

Many favored classic physics as a comprehensive model for all physical reality, because it likewise would appear to make God redundant.

One again it took a notable skeptic of atheism, Max Planck, to move beyond this ideological barrier.


The inherent conflict between science and atheism, is that atheism inherently seeks to close the case on every major question in order to declare God redundant.

rejecting this belief system frees science to look beyond the simplest superficial 'God refuting' observations, embraces the wonderful mysterious complex, finely engineered universe we now know.

Today I would say Darwinian evolution is entirely analogous with classical physics and steady state theories, it relies far more on it's attractive 'God refuting' properties than it does any actual scientific evidence

 

[Milton Platt]

wikipedia's statement not mine. They are not the source of all truth- but it's hardly a controversial observation. Atheists overwhelmingly preferred theories that eliminated creation events for very obvious reasons



regarding abiogenesis yes, he agreed with creationists on that point- later in life. But he never accepted the BB. And the fact that his pejorative label stuck, rather than the theory's founder's far better term 'primeval atom' tells you about the atheist bias permeating academic 'cosmogony'



wrong for a very particular explicit reason, personal preference for theories with atheist implications.




He played a major role in delaying scientific progress for decades, he disseminated various versions of steady state and other theories that related directly to refuting this uncomfortably 'theistic' theory- and found many followers.

The wider point: This is a glaring example of science v atheism, hampering- arguably- the greatest scientific discovery of all time, but it's not the only example.

Many favored classic physics as a comprehensive model for all physical reality, because it likewise would appear to make God redundant.

One again it took a notable skeptic of atheism, Max Planck, to move beyond this ideological barrier.


The inherent conflict between science and atheism, is that atheism inherently seeks to close the case on every major question in order to declare God redundant.

rejecting this belief system frees science to look beyond the simplest superficial 'God refuting' observations, embraces the wonderful mysterious complex, finely engineered universe we now know.

Today I would say Darwinian evolution is entirely analogous with classical physics and steady state theories, it relies far more on it's attractive 'God refuting' properties than it does any actual scientific evidence

You must show evidence that he favored one theory over the other based upon a lack of belief in dieties rather than simply thinking the evidence was wrong, or that other conclusions could be reached from the same evidence. Your presumption of why he thought what he thought doesn't do it.

There are atheists now who believe in the big bang and those who do not. There are theists now who believe in the big bang and those who do not. This one man did not have any power to 'hold back science'. It is the norm to offer alternative theories for a set of data. They either stand or fall under the weight of evidence and peer review.

I do not care one way or the other about this particular man, but do care when people make broad or misleading statements about any person or group of people.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You must show evidence that he favored one theory over the other based upon a lack of belief in dieties rather than simply thinking the evidence was wrong, or that other conclusions could be reached from the same evidence. Your presumption of why he thought what he thought doesn't do it.

again

Wikpedia: [Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator

that's pretty cut and dry is it not? As a skeptic of atheism, I have no such idological problem with science pointing to there being a God. I am happy to follow the evidence where it leads, as was Lemaitre

There are atheists now who believe in the big bang and those who do not. There are theists now who believe in the big bang and those who do not. This one man did not have any power to 'hold back science'. It is the norm to offer alternative theories for a set of data. They either stand or fall under the weight of evidence and peer review.

I do not care one way or the other about this particular man, but do care when people make broad or misleading statements about any person or group of people.

I wish all scientists had done likewise, many followed him up his athiest tree for decades,

and still do- atheists like Hawkings favored various non-creation atheist models, e.g. Big Crunch.

Peer pressure review is precisely what held back science's greatest discoveries like the BB and quantum mechanics.

real science is not a popularity contest

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

 

[viole]

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

In the case of evolution are the opponents who die. Disappointed. More or less like the ones who were expecting to witness the second coming of Jesus.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

In the case of evolution are the opponents who die. Disappointed. More or less like the ones who were expecting to witness the second coming of Jesus.
Ciao
- viole

Second Coming of Jesus has already happened in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.
Regards

 

[viole]

Second Coming of Jesus has already happened in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.
Regards

Great, now we have Jewish waiting for the first coming, Christians waiting for the second, and Muslims claiming that we should no wait for any further coming.

What does it tell us about the reliability of your beliefs?

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

Great, now we have Jewish waiting for the first coming, Christians waiting for the second, and Muslims claiming that we should no wait for any further coming.

Actually nearly a full 100% of Muslims don't believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and the Ahmadiyya only represent less than 1% of total population of Muslims. Most Muslims don't follow Ahmadiyya at all.

So for the non-Ahamdis there were no second coming of Jesus, because most Muslims don't consider Mirza to be a messiah at all.

So paarsurrey can only speak for a fraction of a percent of Muslims; paarsurrey don't speak for the 87 to 90% of the Sunni or for the 9% or more of the Shia.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually nearly a full 100% of Muslims don't believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and the Ahmadiyya only represent less than 1% of total population of Muslims. Most Muslims don't follow Ahmadiyya at all.

So for the non-Ahamdis there were no second coming of Jesus, because most Muslims don't consider Mirza to be a messiah at all.

So paarsurrey can only speak for a fraction of a percent of Muslims; paarsurrey don't speak for the 87 to 90% of the Sunni or for the 9% or more of the Shia.

Your main point is correct....but I understand most Sunni and Shiite Muslims believe Jesus will return.....

 

[gnostic]

Your main point is correct....but I understand most Sunni and Shiite Muslims believe Jesus will return.....

My point to viole that paarsurrey don't represent the view for most Muslims regarding to Mirza Ghulam Ahmadi being the 2nd "messiah", so this second coming haven't come to pass, yet.

But then a person like paarsurrey don't view the Sunnis following the true Islam.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

My point to viole that paarsurrey don't represent the view for most Muslims regarding to Mirza Ghulam Ahmadi being the 2nd "messiah", so this second coming haven't come to pass, yet.

But then a person like paarsurrey don't view the Sunnis following the true Islam.

OK thank you for your clarification Jimmie..

 

[gnostic]

OK thank you for your clarification Jimmie..

That's ok. I am always willing to clarify, if need be.

One thing is certain, viole is right: paarsurrey is not a very reliable person to tell what others should believe in.

 

[paarsurrey]

That's ok. I am always willing to clarify, if need be.
One thing is certain, viole is right: paarsurrey is not a very reliable person to tell what others should believe in.

I just give my sound and reasonable arguments, no compulsion to believe in them. One can only not believe in my arguments with a reasonable point of view, which seldom or never happens. Right? Please
Anybody, please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

My point to viole that paarsurrey don't represent the view for most Muslims regarding to Mirza Ghulam Ahmadi being the 2nd "messiah", so this second coming haven't come to pass, yet.
But then a person like paarsurrey don't view the Sunnis following the true Islam.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has claimed and rightly claimed the he is Jesus in Second-Coming, but there is no compulsion for anybody to believe that. It is a truthful and reasonable claim, any reasonable person will believe it. Please correct me if I am wrong but with reasonable arguments. Right? Please
Anybody, please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Great, now we have Jewish waiting for the first coming, Christians waiting for the second, and Muslims claiming that we should no wait for any further coming.
What does it tell us about the reliability of your beliefs?
Ciao
- viole

It simply tells that they are wrong. Doesn't it? Please
There is absolutely no restriction on Judaism people, Christianity people or any other people on not accepting Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. If one is convinced heart and soul one could happily feel free to accept him, but if one is not convinced heart and soul with his reasonable claim then one should not, there is no compulsion in relgion. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Anybody, please
Regards