Peaceful Pete, Interesting response. But I must correct you on one thing. My thoughts went more how something came from nothing, and not just what happened in the first 1/1000000 second. Do you think that science will be able to tell us how something came from nothing regardless of how it started?
Response to RWC's Atheist Questions
by Liberty 38 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
rem
RWC,
How do you know there was ever 'nothing'?
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
-
Liberty
Hi RWC,
First off, I wanted to clarify that I am not a working scientist but rather just an ameteur. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I too was a scientist but in the sentence when I wrote, "other scientists" I was refering to other scientists along with the authors of the research I've read and not that I was a scientist as well. I don't want to use an "appeal to authority" as an arguing point because this would be a logical falacy. My understood status as a professional scientist could be used in this manner so I wanted to clear that up.
Ameteur "scientists" are still welcome to present evidence and anyone who subjects their findings to the scientific method can be taken seriously by the scientific community. Anyone can be a scientist in this sense if we make observations from the natural world and apply scientific methods to these observations. All that is required of us is our natural curiousity and a devotion to evidence. The ethic of science is to expand human understanding so we have an obligation to present evidence which could be used for this purpose.
Now on to your points. My understanding of current Physics explains that matter and energy have always existed and cannot be destroyed but can only change state (the conservation of energy law). Your understanding is similar except that you add God as an extra first step. You ask where did matter and energy first come from and I could answer it has always been. I could ask you the same question about your first step, God, and your answer would be the same. My point being that adding God as a first step really doesn't improve our understanding of the "how did it get here?" question. The God explaination just confuses the issue. If I replaced God with Pooh Bear as the origin of matter and energy for example, it doesn't change the fact that matter and energy have always existed since Pooh Bear is either matter or energy himself and eternal. God comes from no where as does my non-God Universe so how is your explaination better? Your watch maker analogy is equally flawed for the same reason. How did God come together without an inteligent designer? God is even more complex than plants or animals so how could He just appear from no where? The origin of God is thus equally unbelievable at best. In fact, since we cannot see or feel God (He is unobservable) His origins are even more questionable than that of the observable Universe which we at least know now exists. Neither of us knows the answers to these first origins questions so they become unintentional "Red Herring" arguments throwing us off the trail of real importance, that which we can know and observe. I can argue all day that I have invisible silent friends that I believe are real but since you or no one else can see or hear them you could not argue for their reality even if you believed in them too except to say, "I have faith that they are real" What you or I believe is not important in a scientific sense except as it relates to observable reality. Creation Science is not a science because it has faith in unobservable and nonphysical "evidence" which is required to build the rest of its physical arguments upon.
The Bible does however, address observable events in the Earth's History which are possible to see, touch, and document to test if they match reality. The Bible does not explain God's origin so there is nothing to compare the evidence to. The Bible does say that there was a flood which wiped all of humanity and the animals from the earth and then explains how Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark survived. After observing all the evidence this explaination can clearly be proven false.
The Bible also provides its own internal chronology which can be compared with extrabiblical chronologies including Geologic time. The time frames mapped out in the Bible do not coincide with what Geology, Biology, and Anthropology prove. Humans have existed for much more than the last 6000 years the Bible claims since Adam's creation. Adam and Eve could not have been the first human couple since they are predated by tens of thousands of years by many other humans. The Tower of Babel story is clearly false as well considering that the compression strength of mud brick is very low disallowing a tower of any size that could possibly cause God to fear it or be threatened by it. This story is especially silly considering that even medium sized mountains, which are easily climbed and much higher than any mud brick structure could ever be, are all over the Earth. Why did God allow mountains if he didn't want us to get into the sky? Or rockets and steel skyscrapers for that matter?
The earliest stories in the Bible are the most inaccurate which is exactly what one would predict in a human produced myth but not in the inspired word of an infallable God. As the stories progress into later ages the place names and dates become more accurate. Not all of the Bible is false. I would agree that the location of cities or a king may be correct but then again so are the Pagan's histories which are myths sprinkled with fact but that does not make their gods or far-fetched stories true. If the Bible is inspired by God then it should all be true and not just parts of it. If I can disprove just one event then the whole book is in question if I am to believe that it is really God's word and not just the work of imperfect men.
-
peacefulpete
Rem and liberty I like your thinking and enjoyed your comments.RWC can you not see that you can not make an arguement from ignorance. Yes we can not yet present a varifiable postulate as to ~how~ the Big Bang occurred or what the exact state of matter and energy was like,but this does not change the fact it happened.Or prove God did it.I recently heard a lecture that discussed subatomc fluctuations that appear to provide new insight on how a once static system of particles in fact may spontaneosly and with out external catalyst change it's nature.Quantum physics is wild stuff and presently fuel for much speculation.Superstring theory,bubble universe,and others, each provide a mathematical possibility that boggles the mind. Whether in time we realise that these theories are all or mostly wrong doesn't change a thing.They are offering present science with models to test and compare to findings in other fields of science, broadening our understanding in the end. THIS is what I meant by patiance being a hallmark of thinking person. All the answers can not be provided yet and reasonably as some are answered more will arise that require yet more research.The arguement that if there are still some things science can't explain so there must be a God, is therefore unfalsifiable and not science or logic.Only a mind game.Learning can not end.(unless your a creationst who simply says the answers are beyond our puny minds and God is the answer to all.)Without the recognition that there exists a physical reason all nature does what it does,human understaning and progress are doomed.
"to every complicated question there exists a simple and obvious incorrect answer."
-
Liberty
Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this subject!
RWC asked some specific questions that I haven't had time to address so I'll try now. Yes, actually I do think God should appear in the sky for all to see and announce loudly, "I am God and I am ready to answer your questions now." If belief in Him is vital to our eternal salvation then this is the least He could do. He should also be patient with the skeptics who'll want to test and prove He really is God since He hasn't visited in several thousand years and such an event would be unusual and foster skepticism to say the least. If the Devil was real, it would only be fair to have him show up as well and they could have a public debate so we could make up our own minds about who is right. Such an appearance makes much more sense to me than requiring faith in a mysterious ancient book to reveal Him while He remains invisible and silent letting the Pope or Governing Body interpret what they think it all means.
If I had vital information about saving someone's life would I hide it in an old comic book written in an obscure language hoping they'd find the message among all the hundreds of other old comic books and then be able to tell which Superman story is the true one and then dicypher the symbolism or listen to others who think they've figured it all out? This method is especially ineffecient since there are so many "experts" to choose from who think they have not only the right book but also the right answer.
Why would any intellegent person, let alone a Super Being God, choose such a silly, haphazard, and culturally unfair method of conveying vital information? It makes no sense and if it were not so deeply imbedded in our culture the whole plot seems quite insane.
-
RWC
Liberty, first let me address your points. As for the origin of the universe, I would agree with you that the Bible tells us that God is eternal, that he has always been. Based upon a belief in the Bible therefore he had no beginning. I don't expect you to agree with that, but that is a Christian perspective. From a scientific perspective to stay within the realm of our understanding, the materials to create the Big Bang must have come from somewhere, because science tells us that something cannot come from nothing. We don't know the answer to that question scientifically yet, so to reject God based upon science, you are placing your belief in an unknown.
Your thoughts on the flood as being a reason to reject the entire bible are interesting. The creation and the flood account comprise the first nine chpaters of the first book of the Bible. Whether they are to be taken literally or not is really a matter of our understanding. Suppose God never meant the accounts to be taken literally and that as Abbaddon puts it, he made it simple so Bronze Age Goatherders could understand it. Does the fact that these stories should not be taken literally mean that the events never happened, or is that really a problem of our lack of understanding? And is this lack of understanding a reason to reject the entire Bible and all that it teaches?
As for the tower of Babel, the problem there was not really the heighth of the tower and I am not sure that the tower is ever described as to a particular height. Nor does the Bible say that God was scared of the tower or of man. It was really a question of man's pride and lack of trust in God that was the issue.
The chronolgy you mention can really only go back so far. The first "seven days" are unkown as to how long they really were. Again that is a question of literal or not literal interpretation.
As for your comments that God should call down from the heavens and tell everyone that he is here, that would destroy the need for faith. And even if he did, those who did not hear it would question whether it happened. I contend that God has made his presence known through out the ages and the message of salvation is known. You clearly know it, but have chosen not to beleive it. So it is not a matter of lack of knowledge.
-
Liberty
Hello again RWC,
I am glad to see that you do not insist that the Bible stories should all be taken literally. The Bible is not historic or scientific but rather it is but one of many ancient religious texts. As to faith, my belief, or faith, in God is irrelevant in a scientific sense because we cannot present evidence of His existance. My belief in spirits or mysterious beings of any kind cannot be supported by evidence so they remain unreal to the scientific community much like ghosts, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster.
Bigfoot may very well exist but until conclusive evidence is presented I cannot say that this beast is real. God now inhabits the same realms of imagination as ghosts, Nessie, and Bigfoot... perhaps even less so, since Bigfoot has left us footprints, sound recordings, pictures, hair, and a few movies, though these are still vague enough to have been faked. The difference is that Bigfoot could someday be captured, examined, and eventually be proven real.
In contrast, those who are believers in God have created a Being which by His very definition cannot be proven by evidence. They say God is silent, invisible, and knowable only through our faith in an old book which even you yourself concede has parts which are symbolic and are not to be taken literally. One ancient ethnocentric culture's book of myths and symbols is not enough evidence for me to build belief upon.
You say I know of God's existance but refuse to acknowledge it. In reality, I know nothing of God except that which my culture's propaganda has indocternated me with. Had I been born in Saudi Arabia my god would be Allah and I would believe in Islam and the Koran as my truth. You would say that the Muslim's religion is false based mostly on the fact that their culture is different from your own so why should I believe any religion to be superior if it is mostly determined by the random distribution of cultures? Does God really leave our ability to find and know Him all to the random patterns of luck?
-
ShaunaC
Just wanted you all to know that I am deeply enjoying this conversation.
-
julien
because science tells us that something cannot come from nothing.
This is no longer considered true. Quantum theory allows for virtual particles to appear spontaneously from nothing at all. This is allowed because the virtual partical appears witha n anti- version of itself and the two quickly rejoin and annihilate each other.
However certain special cases allow the particle to continue to exist. This is how energy is believed to bleed off of a black hole (which nothing can escape from).. At the edge of the black hole's event horizon a virtual particle pair forms and goes in opposite directions. One particle enters the black hole, the other escapes.. They cannot rejoin, but energy must be conserved; so it is taken from the black hole.
Sorry if this explanation is murky but I am just a science buff layperson and typing fast. The point is that quantum physics is weird wild stuff where things don't work the way we expect. Within this framework the universe can in fact spring from nothing, you and I may exist in an infinite number of alternate universes, and the contents of your house may not really exist until you actually look at them.
-
JosephAlward
RWC believes,
From a scientific perspective to stay within the realm of our understanding, the materials to create the Big Bang must have come from somewhere, because science tells us that something cannot come from nothing.
That's not what scientists believe at all, RWC.There's no need to imagine the universe "came" from something. Why could it not always have been? Betrand Russell explained it well:
"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." --Bertrand Russell
An article in Scientific American describes the theory of recycling universes, and makes clear that the universe could always have existed.http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2002/021102cyclic/
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"