• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Shock and Awe: A Former Christian Ponders the Cosmos

All I was trying to do was teach you a little about science but you seem to have no inclination to learn. I tried but as many inner-city teachers have discovered, You can't teach an unwilling student. :shrug:
 
MoSurveyor said:
All I was trying to do was teach you a little about science but you seem to have no inclination to learn. I tried but as many inner-city teachers have discovered, You can't teach an unwilling student. :shrug:
Click to expand...
:lamo See...thats what I mean...the comical snotty little line like you think you have something to 'teach' me. Dont worry there, chief...I read books too. I went to college too. I can listen to other peoples work and regurgitate their work and 'knowledge' with the best of them. At the end of the day you do nothing more than swallow other peoples intellectual output pretending your catalog of ever changing 'theories' makes you 'learned.'
 
VanceMack said:
You just used a LOT of words to say...we dont know how it came into existence...but it wasnt 'nothing!' OK...Im hip...Im on board
Click to expand...

Good.

VanceMack said:
...all that dense energy and matter...came from...
Click to expand...

Ugh. It didn’t COME from anything as energy cannot be created nor destroyed. We can argue over in what form, but it was always there. I realize that is difficult to get one’s mind around that as it goes against common sense. But common sense developed to help us navigate everyday life. It is completely useless at the edges of physics. Things like the conservation of energy, quantum mechanics, relativity, all throw common sense for a loop. And yet they are demonstrable. If you, or anyone else, can demonstrate that something can come from nothing, well, riches and fame await you.
 
Except I didn't cite any theories or put forth anything advancing science at all. I simply related what I considered something of value that, from your previous posts, you seems to have overlooked or mis-understood. If you think I was trying to be petty or condescending I suggest you check your attitudes and why you posses them instead of attacking me.
 
Ah yes...we have the OP and the steady parade of...well...you know...right? We could play this scene out another few hundred times. Wait...did I say 'could'? No worries. We will.

 

Vance, we all have different levels of knowledge and understanding in different subjects so we all have something to teach and we all have something to learn. It is evident from your responses here that this is a subject where, while you may have studied the subject in college, you still don’t understand it. There is no shame in that. There are plenty of areas in which I have an inadequate grasp of the subject. Perhaps in a thread about macroeconomics you’ll be showing me the error of my ways.
 
VanceMack said:
Ah yes...we have the OP and the steady parade of...well...you know...right? We could play this scene out another few hundred times. Wait...did I say 'could'? No worries. We will.

Good Will Hunting bar scene - YouTube
Click to expand...
LOL! There certainly were situations in the movie that brought back memories of my year spent in Preppy Hell. After that college was strictly a part-time affair for me.
 
VanceMack said:
You must INTENTIONALLY be refusing to 'see' the NUMEROUS times I have stated I fully UNDERSTAND and respect those who choose a faith and a belief in scientific theories as opposed to a God.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you if you understand and respect people you believe have taken to having faith in scientific theories as opposed to god. Not interested in knowing whether you do or not. No one probably is.

I asked you how you go about deciding which things are true. I gave you several sample criteria which might be used to make a judgement, so as to make it clear what I was asking about:


Could you kindly answer that question? That is: "How do you go about deciding which things are true?"
 
Well now that all depends, doesnt it? 'True' isnt a relative quest. There are known and proven 'truths' and there are philosophies, scientific theories, ideas. True? It is 'true' that there are a whole lot of people just like that cardigan wearing puke spewing other peoples research and work. Thats 'true'. There are ideas that have been formulated into theories and then 'proven' as true. So...you are going to have to be a little less unscientific in your question.
 

Gladly But, I think we'll need a dash of philosophy, too.

When you hear someone make a statement which is capable of having a truth value, how do you decide whether to accept the concept represented by the statement, and to what degree? How do you make a determination as to the degree of acceptance you give to it? If you evaluate your level of acceptance for statements like "There are a whole lot of people just like that cardigan wearing puke spewing other peoples research and work" by a different standard from statements like "Mankind is an organism which evolved from other biological organisms", I am interested to know this.

Let me be clear, I am not putting forth the notion of acceptance as a binary proposition, as in "Either you accept something or you don't". I am conceiving of it as something which can have degrees on a continuous spectrum, from total withholding of acceptance to total acceptance. However, if you hold that it is a binary proposition, please say so, and expand on how this relates to your process of acceptance.

Nevertheless, I think much of that was implied fairly clearly from my previous statements and queries.
 
I accept there are a whole lot of theories and ideas as to the origins of species. I fully accept the position of micro-evolution. I'm less accepting of the macro-evolutionary ideals. Im comfortable enough to read, ponder, and at end of the day say quite directly...I dont PRETEND to 'know' nor proclaim unproven theories and ideas as 'true'. Im quite comfortable with the theory that the sun was formed by a large gas cloud collapsing under its own mass. It doesnt explain the EXISTENCE of the gaseous nebula...but...still. Im pretty comfortable with most theories...even the commonly accepted (but ever evolving) 'big bang'...as a theory. Does that satisfy your question?
 
No comment about believers and non believers.......but I will say that was an awesomely put together vid!!!!
 
VanceMack said:
Aww...look how cute you faith based guys are...

PLEASE tell me you KNOW the catalyst and content of the big bang, and the sudden magical existence of all known matter.

Nah...never mind. Its OK...really. I respect your faith.
Click to expand...
The angle that you were trying to elude to there is an strawman argument and has nothing to do with anything that I have said to you. I really do not care that much about the Big Bang in context of my beliefs about reality that is. I do find the Big Bang fascinating but the Big Bang is by no means a god to me.

This persistence of you trying to tell me that I have your belief system based on faith is just plain silly of you. My point has been that I do not believe in your god. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang or anything else. I even explained to you why exactly I do not believe in your god. And all you can do is try to tell me that my beliefs mirrors yours just in a different direction. How long are going to keep this nonsense going? Your assertion is completely an strawman argument which makes your assertions false and pointless since the only person that they connect with is you.

The fact is that you have faith and I am faithless. No matter how many times your try to convince me otherwise until you are no longer able to type I will not be manipulated by you. DO you understand that?

BTW the fact that you completely ignored every point that I made says everything about your argument. It means that you do not have one.
 

Electrons and quarks appear to come into existence without a known cause or from nothing. And there is no known cause of the Big Bang, which appears to come from nothing? To say it was always there and suddenly expanded from no known cause is unknown and purely hypothetical. So if you're going to throw around speculation you'd have to begin with certain aspects of scientific reason. A supreme being could be perfectly logical and scientifically explainable by an equal of intelligence, which we may not be even close. This being could be made of a form of primal energy that is yet to be discovered but the underlying source (cause) of the Big Bang. This energy like the theoretical Higgs field could be an other dimensional energy that gives all matter it's mass and effect? That sort of reasoning has as much basis in reality as any other, when supported by rational hypothesis based on empirical scientific deduction and observation. To dismiss the possibility out of hand without proof otherwise is unreasonable.
 
I love it when you insist that I dont see your point, cant see your point, or miss your point. I GET that you dont believe in a God. I dont CARE. Im not creating thread after thread trying to convince you that you should or what morons you are for not. Im merely pointing out the fact that while you dont believe in God, you DO base your beliefs on faith. You base your beliefs on constantly evolving theory which cant be proven...on ideas...and most tellingly...OTHER PEOPLES ideas.
 

Ok. I am not really asking what you accept. I am asking something about the process you go by to determine whether you accept or withhold acceptance. Not just of scientific theories, which is but one type of "claim". There are claims as to historical events, such as "The Holocaust was a time when millions of Jews were slaughtered" or "Jesus was born, grew up and died on Earth". There are day to day claims about events, such as "George Bush said ______________________". There are claims about supernatural events, such as "Jesus was resurrected bodily back to life three days after he was put to death".

I am not asking you whether you accept any of these or other statements. I am asking how you determine whether you do. And asking whether you give things a degree of acceptance.
 

If I may jump in here: Suppose you convinced FreedomFromAll that he was engaging in faith. Do you imagine that this would compel him to go softer on religion? Because it wouldn't. There would be no reason for him to.

He would have two options, instead of one. He could go softer on religion, or he could go harder on whatever beliefs he "has faith in". He would probably choose to simply go harder on those beliefs.

My point is that pointing out to someone that "they also engage in faith" is not a winning argument, and does not support your own engagement in faith. Not one tiny bit.
 
Look...if you are going to set your trap to obtain an intended response you have to at least do it so that it can get the intended results...k?
People...intelligent, reasoned and rational people (you know...like that guy you voted for for president) can understand science, have a great appreciation for science, PROMOTE scientific exploration and still have a faith...a belief (driven by something that I would never attempt to explain to you) in a God...a higher power. The reasoning and motivation is I would bet different for all of us. Its pretty pathetic that so many people...people such as yourself, dedicate so much time in attempting to ridicule or deride people of faith. That speaks volumes as to your own levels of insecurity. The funny part is that you and others ARE just like the smarmy little cardigan wearing schmuck in the bar trying to impress people by regurgitating other peoples work, ideas, and theories.
 
To even to assume that a super being/god exists is confirmation bias. The only reason that anyone ever thinks that a super being/god could explain anything is because of peoples beliefs not based on any evidence. For the idea of god to go any further than an pipe dream it requires an hypothesis of some sort based in reality. In other words is it possible that such a being could exist? But first we would need to establish that there is a place that it could exist. What elements or situational observations support the existence of a god? What evidence has survived scrutiny if any exists? Does the concept of god happen anywhere other than the minds of mankind? This simply has never been done.
 
I dont care what he does. Hell he can become an unhinged religion hater like so many on this board for all I care. I personally am FINE with his belief system and faith and would never attempt to try to change his mind. You say it isnt a 'winning' argument, but first you would have to ascertain the goal. Am I attempting to 'win' byu converting him? LORD no. Never. Not my place, nature, or way. Im fine with a common understanding that people that seek to ridicule others based on 'faith' should at least be aware of which room in the glass house they are standing.
 

My main point was that it isn't the glass house you think it is.
 

It is cute how you accuse me of insecurity, when it is you that have just flown off the handle and into left field. I was sincerely trying to understand, but in order for me to do so, I would need the answers to very specific questions. I wasn't trying to lay a trap. I was perfectly willing for there to be a rational answer to my questions, and was not pre-judging your answers.

It is especially endearing that you think you have an image of me... one that is so very far from the truth.

But you have led us off track, and I have followed. So, when you are ready to answer the questions, I am willing to hear it. But, it sounds like you'd rather launch into a thinly veiled insult session with implications about our smarminess or some such. LOL. I'd rather not, but thanks.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Extremely well done.
He answers the question, "why do nonbelievers take a much more awe and interest in the universe, than believers?", pretty well.
Click to expand...
Believers do not think with awe at the universe?no interest?funny.obviously u do not know people with a relationship to the creator.believers.not pretenders.
 

To utterly and abjectly dismiss a remote possibility is absurd and emotionally biased. There are ALL kinds of things we don't know about the existence of yet based solely on historical evidence.

Does anything at all, ever truly exist anywhere but the minds of mankind? The human mind is but a mere imperfect reflection of reality, not the intertwined source or foundation or is it?
 
grip said:
Electrons and quarks appear to come into existence without a known cause or from nothing.
Click to expand...

But once again, there is no such thing as nothing. Even in the emptiest vacuum of space there is a lot going on at the quantum level, yes, including quarks popping into and out of existence. But even when that happens the Law of Conservation and the Uncertainty Principle remain intact. The net energy in the universe is not changing when it happens.

And there is no known cause of the Big Bang
Click to expand...

Correct. We don't know the cause.

, which appears to come from nothing?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There is no evidence that there was never something. At the point of the Big Bang all matter and energy in the universe was condensed into a singularity. That is most definitely not "nothing".

To say it was always there and suddenly expanded from no known cause is unknown and purely hypothetical.
Click to expand...
The expansion is most definitely not purely hypothetical. It is demonstrable. Of course anything we posit prior to the Big Big is going to be hypothetical as we currently have no way to test it, unlike the Big Bang itself. But whatever hypothesis we come up with still has to obey the laws of physics, assuming we want to maintain a scientific standard. So to posit a hypothesis that involves something coming from nothing means overturning the Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically the Law of Conservation. And to do that you will need a LOT of evidence.


So if you're going to throw around speculation you'd have to begin with certain aspects of scientific reason.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


There is a principle called Occam's Razor that states when selecting from multiple hypotheses it is genrally best to go with the one that makes the fewest assumptions. Based on the Law of Conservation it is reasonable to assume that the energy that makes up our universe has always existed. But the assumption you are introducing isn't just that energy existed, but that the energy was in the form of some super intelligent being. Such an assumption is introducing a level of complexity that is completely unnecessary to explain the universe.

You are introducing an extra step that solves nothing. I say the energy that makes up the universe has always existed. You say, no, energy in the form of a supreme and powerful intelligence is responsible. What will you say when I ask where that supreme intelligence came from? I am going to guess you might say something along the lines of "well it has always existed". So instead of just saying energy has always existed you add an additional unneeded element to the mix. Take Occam's Razor and hack that off.

The only time you should add extra layers of complexity is when there is evidence to support adding those layers. If you have some evidence that the scientific community isn't privy to I am more than willing to listen.

By the way, I'm not new to the line of reasoning you put forth. i used to be a deist who believed something similar to what you wrote. But eventually I realized there was no scientific need for this God of the Gaps, only an emotional need. I'm not saying that is the case with you.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…