Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Monk Of Reason]

The Singularity; God; the one Supreme Being and Ruler, created our universe. Bang.

..As I said, often the only difference is method and language.

Well definition, practice, and actual definition. A singularity is not what I think you think it is.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The Singularity; God; the one Supreme Being and Ruler, created our universe. Bang.

..As I said, often the only difference is method and language.

The Singularity's about as provable as God is... Stephen Hawking is a herb. Truth is, nobody knows how the universe came into being, or if it was even created in the first place. Also, in order to call the Singularity "God", you must first prove that it's the ruler of the universe and not just the creator (which you or Stephen Hawking haven't proven either).

 

[Sleeppy]

Well definition, practice, and actual definition. A singularity is not what I think you think it is.

That's fine.. But you still haven't provided an alternative idea to my interpretation. I've been waiting a while.

 

[Sleeppy]

The Singularity's about as provable as God is... Stephen Hawking is a herb. Truth is, nobody knows how the universe came into being, or if it was even created in the first place. Also, in order to call the Singularity "God", you must first prove that it's the ruler of the universe and not just the creator (which you or Stephen Hawking haven't proven either).

The evidence points in our direction.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's fine.. But you still haven't provided an alternative idea to my interpretation. I've been waiting a while.

Wanna hear it? Alright. The unvierse is expanding. We don't know why. all we know is that it is observably expanding. If we backtrack expansion then we obviously lead up to a singularity. There is more astrophisics involved but that is the layman term that we know.

All we know is that we were once a much much much more dense and smaller in volume. It doesn't even necessarily explain how our universe came into being. It is simply the start of the universe as we know it. Nothing can be traced or truely studied at this time about anything happened piror to the big bang. It is also possible that the concept of time did not exist prior to the big bang which is an even more confusing idea.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The evidence points in our direction.

What evidence points to a black hole creating the universe? There is no evidence whatsoever for the origin of the universe.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What evidence points to a black hole creating the universe? There is no evidence whatsoever for the origin of the universe.

There's considerable evidence. The standard view, that the universe expanded from a point (and even here, there is a question of whether it expanded into an already existing infinite space, or if we can't say it expanded into anything in any meaningful way), is supported primarily by observations and known laws of physics that went into developing a model. This is true for all theories in the sciences. And once one has a model, one can run the model forwards and backwards. We can talk about when our sun will explode, when all suns will explode or otherwise cease to be the active fission systems they are, and when even blackholes will cease to exist. Likewise, we can run the clock backwards as far as known laws allow us to. Currently, that's a tiny moment after the big bang. In the moment when expansion begins, it is impossible to apply known laws of physics, and thus we cannot run our model backwards further than this. However, there are other cosmologies and other lines of evidence which actually allow us to speak in some way of "before" the big bang. The attempts at unifying relativistic physics with quantum mechanics such that gravitation as spacetime curvature in unified theories become sufficiently supported in one theory have thus far failed but have also allowed us to explore the ways in which our knowledge of the fundamental elements of the cosmos can inform us about the cosmos (understood not just as our universe, but any and all possible universes that certain theories suggest must exist).

I'm not a cosmologist, and there is another here who could probably tell you whether my feeling from reading the research is accurate, but it seems like a majority of cosmologists are not wholly satisfied with big bang cosmology and it remains the standard theory more because there's no theory sufficiently well-developed to replace it.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So there's nothing concrete and assumptions must be made to arrive at that conclusion.

 

[Sleeppy]

What evidence points to a black hole creating the universe? There is no evidence whatsoever for the origin of the universe.

Read the link I provided. Research the term Imaginary Time. Best I can do. Present your best and we'll compare.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So there's nothing concrete and assumptions must be made to arrive at that conclusion.

Yes. But that's true for all of science there is. About 100 years ago, science was just science (not the sciences, not theoretical frameworks, but only a slightly more advanced version of the version of the scientific method one learns as a child). Then two simple experiments were performed, and there was no problem with either, yet they could not both be true. And for the first time ever, scientists were confronted with something new and which left an indelible mark upon scientific research. This thing was the realization that hypotheses weren't just tested in some objective realm and formed into theories, but that a theoretical framework was required to interpret all research, all experiments, all results, all outcomes, all everything. And even worse, that all of that could be wrong. It was in this case.

Do you have any idea how many assumptions are made and relied upon to justify such well-established views as those like global warming, evolution, and even the scientific methods themselves? A great deal. But thanks to years and years of work developing logical methods of analysis, formal languages to express these in, and experimental methods and designs to test these, we can have theories which, despite their reliance on assumptions, are pretty much as established as the fact that you aren't living in the Matrix or that reality wasn't created 5 seconds ago.

That's how scientific advances are made. Building within a framework that is tested time and again to develop models. And the longer this goes on, the more certain the results. There is an enormous amount of evidence behind big bang cosmology.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Read the link I provided. Research the term Imaginary Time. Best I can do. Present your best and we'll compare.

Why exactly should I have to support a claim of skepticism? I'm not claiming the universe had any kind of beginning, or that it didn't. I'm just saying your explanation lacks concrete evidence.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Yes. But that's true for all of science there is. About 100 years ago, science was just science (not the sciences, not theoretical frameworks, but only a slightly more advanced version of the version of the scientific method one learns as a child). Then two simple experiments were performed, and there was no problem with either, yet they could not both be true. And for the first time ever, scientists were confronted with something new and which left an indelible mark upon scientific research. This thing was the realization that hypotheses weren't just tested in some objective realm and formed into theories, but that a theoretical framework was required to interpret all research, all experiments, all results, all outcomes, all everything. And even worse, that all of that could be wrong. It was in this case.

Do you have any idea how many assumptions are made and relied upon to justify such well-established views as those like global warming, evolution, and even the scientific methods themselves? A great deal. But thanks to years and years of work developing logical methods of analysis, formal languages to express these in, and experimental methods and designs to test these, we can have theories which, despite their reliance on assumptions, are pretty much as established as the fact that you aren't living in the Matrix or that reality wasn't created 5 seconds ago.

That's how scientific advances are made. Building within a framework that is tested time and again to develop models. And the longer this goes on, the more certain the results. There is an enormous amount of evidence behind big bang cosmology.

There is concrete evidence for evolution in fossils and the fact that we still witness it today. Global warming is also something we can physically observe. But the universe originating from a black hole? Not only can we not observe it (because the universe already exists), but there's nothing really solid to support that it did happen.

 

[Sleeppy]

Why exactly should I have to support a claim of skepticism? I'm not claiming the universe had any kind of beginning, or that it didn't. I'm just saying yours lacks evidence.

I presented the only evidence present. Your skepticism, so far has no basis.. So, there's no point in entertaining you. Do your research, know what your opinion is of the evidence you find, and stop being an unfounded skeptic.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I presented the only evidence present. Your skepticism, so far has no basis.. So, there's no point in entertaining you. Do your research, know what your opinion is of the evidence you find, and stop being an unfounded skeptic.

My skepticism isn't unfounded, I'm just not convinced by the evidence (or lack thereof) presented. Stephen Hawking makes a bunch of ridiculous, un-provable claims, and uses them as a basis for a theory we're all suddenly supposed to believe?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I presented the only evidence present. Your skepticism, so far has no basis.. So, there's no point in entertaining you. Do your research, know what your opinion is of the evidence you find, and stop being an unfounded skeptic.

I read the link. It doesn't support your argument. The problem is you have assumed to know what the singularity is and unfortunatly you are wrong.

 

[Sleeppy]

I read the link. It doesn't support your argument. The problem is you have assumed to know what the singularity is and unfortunatly you are wrong.

Still no alternative presented. Present something, or let the conversation end.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Still no alternative presented. Present something, or let the conversation end.

Your demanding that I bring a counter point when you haven't presented a point? Would you like me to link you to the mating habits of artic seals to prove why Atheism is more logical? You have not yet presented a case. I explained to you why it was wrong. That is the point in the debate. I don't reject any of the science you have proposed. I only reject your claim that it supports your position.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram philomath ji :namaste

As an agnostic theist I always notice other theist's attempting to prove God in one way or another. These arguments are never sufficient or conclusive enough to prove God. I recognize that my position is irrational and that there is no evidence for God. If you already have faith in God, what is the need to attempt to prove him?

the evidence of god which is recognised by a theist exists on a level of consciousness not recognised or realised by atheists or agnostics ,

therefore theists that argue to prove the existance of god do so on a theoretical level only ,

god can only be realised not proven , so there is no point in trying to prove gods existance to an atheist or an agnostic , god will reveal himself when he is ready or more to the point when we are ready :namaste

such is my humble opinion :namaste

 

[Sleeppy]

Your demanding that I bring a counter point when you haven't presented a point? Would you like me to link you to the mating habits of artic seals to prove why Atheism is more logical? You have not yet presented a case. I explained to you why it was wrong. That is the point in the debate. I don't reject any of the science you have proposed. I only reject your claim that it supports your position.

Actually, my point, is still the only supported here. You say I haven't presented a case, but then say the case I've presented is wrong. Still no reasoning. Still no alternative to the evidence. You should be honest. And you should show courage enough to present your disagreements thoroughly.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There is concrete evidence for evolution in fossils and the fact that we still witness it today.

That's true. Yet somehow there are still many disagreements about what is supposed to be a theory within the life sciences.

Global warming is also something we can physically observe

Global warming I've spent far more time on than evolution (understanding it is key to humanity in ways that understanding evolutionary processes are not. So let me tell you what we can "observe":

1) We can observe direct temperature readings that barely cover the globe now, and that since thermometers were developed have been nearly absent for most of even the last 100 years. Which means that global temperature records require advanced statistical techniques just get any global measurements at all.
2) We know, as a fact, that urbanization and various other surface processes completely unrelated to climate change are and have been a heavy influence on the temperature records. HadCRUT, NASA, and a few others who produce the global direct temperature measurements have been trying to adjust for these for years, and they are currently relying on a heavily disputed method developed in the 80s.
3) We know that the best temperature proxy we have is the one developed by two scientists who figured out how to use microwave sounding units of NASA satellites to produce temperature readings farm more accurate than weather balloons, local readings, etc. But there remains a discrepancy between these readings and those that are inferior, because the satellites no not show the tropical dynamics predicted by mainstream IPCC theory. Also, the two individuals who were awarded for their groundbreaking work in developing this temperature proxy, one of whom has not only participated in the IPCC reports but was a 2001 lead author disagree completely with the mainstream view.
4) We know that the entirety of AGW rests upon one thing most of all: a feedback parameter generated by models which are not only trying to replicate one of the most complex natural systems we know of, but are using data that is inaccurate to do so.
5) We know that robustness is a defining characteristic of complex systems like climate, and we don't understand what would constitute so great a change that a phase shift would result.
6) We know that basically every single prediction made has been wrong. The last years have been the hottest on record, but 1) that record is pathetically insignificant, 2) there is no statistically significant difference in our records between the warming that occurred and then flat lined and the warming in the 30s. So we've gone without a statistically significant recorded global warming in the same about of time as we have a statistically significant period of cooling just before.
7) The proxy records are so much of a mess it took an retired Canadian prospector to notice how a proxy reconstruction that was going to be the feature of the upcoming IPCC was in fact flawed. In the end, that controversy sparked two spate major hearings and remains unresolved.
8) CLOUD at CERN has been investigating another causal explanation for the temperature record we seem to have that involves solar magnetic flux and cloud seeding from galactic cosmic rays.
9) The INI held a conference in 2010 about the utter failure of climate models and what needed to be done. There were not climate "deniers" present, no skeptics, no politicians, just scientists talking about how the models continually fail.


I could go on and on and on, but every time I try to delve into that mess that is climate science, everything from lost records to political scandals gets in the way. But we can say one thing for sure: your "directly observable" conception of this warming is utterly wrong and reflects a completely inadequate representation of how mainstream climate scientists actually produce these records, let alone an accurate statement about the climate.

When you want to make statements about what scientists in some field have as back up, check to make sure you have any idea what you are talking about.

But the universe originating from a black hole?

I said nothing of the sort. I didn't agree with the poster who said that, nor did I include it in my response.

Not only can we not observe it (because the universe already exists),

Which one? Because a common interpretation of quantum physics, which describes all of everything happening all the time, is that it necessitates infinite universes or infinite duplicates of this one with alternate histories. And that has nothing to do with running models backwards.

but there's nothing really solid to support that it did happen.

Do you know what the evidence is?