Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are you an atheist?

Options
1…1718192123

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I think if you take the time to read a large amount of the posts around here before you post the above you will find that the position of many people here is not that there is no such being but that there is no reason to think there is one.

    The idea there is a god is entirely unsubstantiated and devoid of all arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lend it even a modicum of credence.

    As such why treat the idea there is a god in any way different to any other notion that simply pops into your head right now without any basis or substantiation?

    When you say " Neither party can prove it either way" you do little more than miss the fact that both parties do not have to. Only the party postulating the existence of this entity has to substantiate their position. Until then the rest of us can just point out they are engaged in baseless speculation and fantasy.

    Nothing wrong with baseless speculation and fantasy. Without it we would not be the species we are. But the issue starts when people forget that that is all they are engaged in and actually start thinking these fantasies to be true.

    If you think that there is no logical reason to believe in a god, it is reasonable to ascertain that you either have an alternative theory (eg big bang) or you havent a clue how the universe came to be. Either way, how is that view anyless fantasy? These views are based purely on either ridiculously limited human knowledge (how much space have we physically explored? Sure we havent even fully explored our own planet!) or just not having any opinion at all (in which case, you are dismissing something you already admitted you cant offer an alternative explanation).

    I dont really see how thinking the universe came from nothing is anymore a fantasy then believing that we came from something that designed us. It seems to be that because the concept of god (concept invented by man) was not necessarily founded on science or factual information, it is disregarded or ridiculed ("based on fantasy") by those who have either no opinion on how we came to be or believe in something no less outlandish in idea(we came from nothing!).


  • Options
    #603
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Drumpot wrote: »
    If you think that there is no logical reason to believe in a god, it is reasonable to ascertain that you either have an alternative theory (eg big bang) or you havent a clue how the universe came to be. Either way, how is that view anyless fantasy?

    This is a typical theist canard that we see around here more often than you have had dinners I reckon. Yes there are open questions to which many of us, or even ANY of us, have no answers. I would be the first to admit that. If this were not true we would not be doing science. We would stop. It would be done.

    The issue is that just because I can not answer certain questions... that in no way lends credence or evidence to any old answer you simply make up. "Do you know how the universe came to be?" "No." "Well therefore god" is a conversation thread we see here often but no matter how many times it is repeated it does not become less nonsense.

    We have open questions like "Where did the universe come from" yes. We also have many working hypotheses for those questions... one of which is god. It is no more or less valid a hypothesis as any other.

    But some of those hypotheses are substantiated with argument, evidence, data and reasoning. Like Big Bang Theory. Some of them, like god, however are not substantiated in any way.

    Does that mean there is no god and that the Big Bang Theory is 100% true? Not at all. But in a world with substantiated and unsubstantiated hypotheses prudence would suggest one stick with the former until the latter ups its game.

    Alas 18+ years of asking for substantiation of the god hypotheses has yielded nothing except "Well we do not understand everything so maybe there is one".

    Yes, maybe there is, but I see no reason to think so. Do you?


  • Options
    #604
    joolsveer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭joolsveer


    Why would anyone believe in an imaginary being?

    I am surprised that it took me so long to come to this conclusion.


  • Options
    #605
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    This is a typical theist canard that we see around here more often than you have had dinners I reckon. Yes there are open questions to which many of us, or even ANY of us, have no answers. I would be the first to admit that. If this were not true we would not be doing science. We would stop. It would be done.

    The issue is that just because I can not answer certain questions... that in no way lends credence or evidence to any old answer you simply make up. "Do you know how the universe came to be?" "No." "Well therefore god" is a conversation thread we see here often but no matter how many times it is repeated it does not become less nonsense.

    We have open questions like "Where did the universe come from" yes. We also have many working hypotheses for those questions... one of which is god. It is no more or less valid a hypothesis as any other.

    But some of those hypotheses are substantiated with argument, evidence, data and reasoning. Like Big Bang Theory. Some of them, like god, however are not substantiated in any way.

    Does that mean there is no god and that the Big Bang Theory is 100% true? Not at all. But in a world with substantiated and unsubstantiated hypotheses prudence would suggest one stick with the former until the latter ups its game.

    Alas 18+ years of asking for substantiation of the god hypotheses has yielded nothing except "Well we do not understand everything so maybe there is one".

    Yes, maybe there is, but I see no reason to think so. Do you?

    I never said that because nobody can say how the universe came to be that it means that god exists.

    The big bang theory is no less credible then the belief that the earth is square. In terms of universal knowledge even those in the science community will accept that we havent even scratched the surface of exploring the universe. Why did people think the earth was square ? Because it hadnt been explored and they didnt know any better, surely making a hypothesis on how the universe begun is even more ridiculous with even less exploration of space !

    If you think you can only believe in something you can understand, then it makes sense that you will never have any reason to believe or comprehend something that you cant explain.

    It is widely accepted that there is no cure for alcoholism and the most successful treatment involves giving yourself over to a higher power. It may not be factual evidence of a higher power and it may very well be similar to the placebo concept. But its a real modern day example of how the mere concept of a higher being can help people overcome something that science has yet to cure. This in itself explains why believing in something you dont understand (like a god) and that is why I think its as good a reason as any to believe that there maybe a higher power that science has yet to properly explain. .


  • Options
    #606
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I figure that even if the Christian version of events turned out to be true, I have nothing to loose anyway. The prospects of spending eternity in a pit of fire, and spending it surrounded by those who are religious enough to gain entrance to 'heaven', are equally undesirable outcomes to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Drumpot wrote: »
    The big bang theory is no less credible then the belief that the earth is square.

    Why would it be less credible? Are you trying to make sense now? The Big Bang Theory is substantiated. The claim the earth is square (or that there is a god) is not. The difference is not subtle. Or complex.

    A hypothesis is either support, or it is not. It can not be both. The god hypothesis is not. To my knowledge anyway. Much less by yourself.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    It is widely accepted that there is no cure for alcoholism and the most successful treatment involves giving yourself over to a higher power.

    Tosh. That is just the packaging used to sell the product. The product is a mutual support group, understanding of others in a similar predicament, and a community to be part of. However this is ENTIRELY off topic as even if belief in god has 1 or even 1 million beneficial consequences... that does not substantiate the belief in even the smallest way... which is what this thread is about.

    That self delusion can have its benefits is not the topic here. Nor would I contest it. I would entirely agree.


  • Options
    #608
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,866 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    I figure that even if the Christian version of events turned out to be true, I have nothing to loose anyway. The prospects of spending eternity in a pit of fire, and spending it surrounded by those who are religious enough to gain entrance to 'heaven', are equally undesirable outcomes to me.

    Personally, if there was an afterlife, I'd prefer it if reincarnation was true rather than an eternity in paradise. Besides, heaven would suck if you were famous, you'd just get bothered all the time by fans and haters.


  • Options
    #609
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Personally, if there was an afterlife, I'd prefer it if reincarnation was true rather than an eternity in paradise. Besides, heaven would suck if you were famous, you'd just get bothered all the time by fans and haters.

    Do you mean fans and heaters ?

    Sounds more like hell to me :)


  • Options
    #610
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Drumpot wrote: »
    it is reasonable to ascertain that you either have an alternative theory (eg big bang) or you havent a clue how the universe came to be.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    The big bang theory is no less credible then the belief that the earth is square.
    The big bang theory only covers events shortly after the universe began, 10e-37 seconds to be precise. It isn't a theory of how the universe came to exist. The big bang theory is both well tested and widely accepted in the scientific community, unlike your square earth theory.

    There are theories that postulate how the universe came to exist but they are theoretical and mutually exclusive so right now it is more accurate to say that we simply don't know.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    These views are based purely on either ridiculously limited human knowledge.
    As apposed to what? Religion and science are both based on ridiculously limited human knowledge, the difference between them is that religion places special deference on knowledge gained before humanity had the ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy, whereas science is a systematic method of testing and refining knowledge to do exactly that.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    just not having any opinion at all (in which case, you are dismissing something you already admitted you cant offer an alternative explanation).
    You say that like it is a bad thing. The whole point of science is doubt, admitting that you don't know something and figuring out ways of fixing that ignorance. Sacrificing that doubt means sacrificing your ability to actually understand anything. I'm open to believing in a god or gods, and if I'm ever presented with the evidence that leads me to that belief I will follow it. But you do not believe on evidence, the definition of faith is a belief without evidence.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    It is widely used accepted that there is no cure for alcoholism and the most successful treatment involves giving yourself over to a higher power.
    AA is a widely treatment all right, but they have never shown any interest in proving they what they do is even slightly effective. Studies conducted by other organisations have found very little proof of any effectiveness, they have an absolutely enormous drop out rate (over 90% if I remember) and the group they start with is generally self selected, as in people who want to give up. The reason they are so widely accepted is because they are faith based, not evidence based, so unlike actual medical interventions, which hold themselves to a standard of requiring proof before claiming to be able to help people, AA simply believed they helped people, claimed as much and as medicine couldn't offer a cure, their approach held a virtual monopoly.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    That we are represent the peak of evolution in the entire universe.
    Evolution doesn't have a peak. At most it has two categories, the more than 98% of species that have died out and the remainder that haven't ... yet. Personally I'm find the latter category to be preferable. But for almost any metric for evolutionary success, humanity doesn't come first, the only one we are doing well in is "understanding evolution" and even then that's only about 80% of our species. When it comes to metrics like numbers, length of time without going extinct, adaptability, habitat size and so on, we aren't on top in this planet, let alone the universe.


  • Options
    #611
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Why would it be less credible? Are you trying to make sense now? The Big Bang Theory is substantiated. The claim the earth is square (or that there is a god) is not. The difference is not subtle. Or complex.
    A hypothesis is either support, or it is not. It can not be both. The god hypothesis is not. To my knowledge anyway. Much less by yourself.
    Tosh. That is just the packaging used to sell the product. The product is a mutual support group, understanding of others in a similar predicament, and a community to be part of. However this is ENTIRELY off topic as even if belief in god has 1 or even 1 million beneficial consequences... that does not substantiate the belief in even the smallest way... which is what this thread is about.
    That self delusion can have its benefits is not the topic here. Nor would I contest it. I would entirely agree.

    Why do you feel the need to start insulting ? Im not sure what I have said to offend anybody, if its simple science, then you shouldn’t feel the need to make things personal.

    The big bang theory is substantiated how so ? By travelling around the universe collecting snippets of data or by standing in one planet, sending out a telescope and making a best guess based on a miniscule fraction of information? its hilarious, and at the same time ironic the confidence of people to put so much faith in science and then scoff at religion that they cant explain (or understand based on the replies thus far).

    In short, if you put your entire faith in Science, you are putting your faith in a mad made system that you yourself admitted is constantly correcting itself. Even if the concept of “god” was made up, it doesn’t make it any less plausible because in the science community they have one tiny, wincy , pincy shred of evidence of how the universe started which means its credible.
    In relation to the alcoholism point, your response shows your lack of insight and your completely missing the point. The only evidence you (and people who simply don’t want to believe) will accept is something that science will confirm. If that’s your only way of accepting god, then you have put your faith in an fallible religion (science) whether you realise it or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    AA is a widely treatment all right, but they have never shown any interest in proving they what they do is even slightly effective. Studies conducted by other organisations have found very little proof of any effectiveness, they have an absolutely enormous drop out rate (over 90% if I remember) and the group they start with is generally self selected, as in people who want to give up. The reason they are so widely accepted is because they are faith based, not evidence based, so unlike actual medical interventions, which hold themselves to a standard of requiring proof before claiming to be able to help people, AA simply believed they helped people, claimed as much and as medicine couldn't offer a cure, their approach held a virtual monopoly.

    The question I was asked is "Do you have any reason to believe there is a god?". I wasnt asked to prove it . .I was giving an example of why people would. Science has no answer to the riddle of alcoholism. You cant take a pill and there is no proven psychological alternative to AA (that I know of) that helps alcoholics recover.

    An imperitive part of the AA programme is believing in a higher power (because the person is unable to manage their own lives). . The medical profession has been unable to find a cure to date, so in the absence of an actual physical scientific programme to get better, a belief in a higher power is recognised as their best chance of recovery. You fill the void of pain/suffering with something you dont understand and it works on many.

    The dropout rate in the AA is not important because its still got a higher percentage of sober alcoholics then any other man made treatment/explanation. that aside, the person with terminal illlness or suffering from chronic depression who feels isolated and alone, who finds solice in god. Why is this not real just because science cant fully explain it ?


  • Options
    #613
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Drumpot wrote: »
    Why do you feel the need to start insulting?

    I am aware of having done no such thing. Please lets not go down the road of making things up, thanks.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    Im not sure what I have said to offend anybody

    I am not aware of anyone being offended. Much less myself. Perhaps you are falsely conflating disagreement with offence? Perhaps that is why you imagine insult where none exists above.

    This is a discussion and debate forum. People here discuss and debate. If they disagree with you while doing so then this does not indicate offense. The two are not the same. The only person "making things personal" here is you.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    The big bang theory is substantiated how so ?

    The same way as everything in science is. By collecting the data and checking it fits the theory. By engaging in prediction and calculation. By constant experiment and verification.

    Perhaps your failing is in not registering the difference between substantiation and 100% proof. I am not saying the theory is 100% proven. No theory in science is. There is no point in time where "Atomic Theory" will be renamed "Atomic Fact".

    But there is a difference between a theory being substantiated and not being substantiated _at all_. The god hypotheses is the latter. There is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer here to substantiate it at all.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    The only evidence you (and people who simply don’t want to believe) will accept is something that science will confirm.

    Did I say that? No. You are now making things up about me and you know nothing about me. If you actually read what I wrote I said I have seen "no argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god". At no point in that did I limit things to science. I have not been given ANY arguments, data, evidence or reasoning on the subject.

    You are playing a record and assuming the record fits me without even reading what I write.


  • Options
    #614
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Drumpot wrote: »
    An imperitive part of the AA programme is believing in a higher power (because the person is unable to manage their own lives)

    But how relevant or useful is that imperative? I would not assume it to be either just because you say so. What tests have verified this? What controls have you used? How were people in the group and after leaving the group followed up?

    A good experiment would be to get 2000 alcoholics. Randomly assign half to each of two groups and make both groups exactly the same in every way except one is based around the "imperitive" you describe.

    Then compare and contrast the results between them, caring to make sure that your measurement methods and follow up methods are identical for both.

    You however are doing none of this. You are just pumping in assertion and assumption in order to get the result you want.... which is the claim that belief in god is what helped them and not simply the things that such a group actually does provide.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    its still got a higher percentage of sober alcoholics then any other man made treatment/explanation.

    Got any statistical evidence for this claim? How have you compared this self help group statistically with other non faith based self help groups for example? How have you normalised for any differences between them? What actually ARE the %s in each case? If you can confidently declare one is higher than the other than you must have access to actual figures... or are simply making them up?


  • Options
    #615
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Drumpot wrote: »
    the science community they have one tiny, wincy , pincy shred of evidence of how the universe started which means its credible.
    I think if you examined the evidence, you'd find that there are multiple strands of evidence across multiple scientific disciplines embedded within a cohesive, rational, mathematical framework. Or if you prefer, there's wots and wots and wots of weasons :)
    Drumpot wrote: »
    In short, if you put your entire faith in Science, you are putting your faith in a mad made system
    Still it's better than a man-made-up system, eh?


  • Options
    #616
    Sierra 117
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Sierra 117


    I prefer a Mad Max system myself.


  • Options
    #617
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am aware of having done no such thing. Please lets not go down the road of making things up, thanks.



    I am not aware of anyone being offended. Much less myself. Perhaps you are falsely conflating disagreement with offence? Perhaps that is why you imagine insult where none exists above.

    This is a discussion and debate forum. People here discuss and debate. If they disagree with you while doing so then this does not indicate offense. The two are not the same. The only person "making things personal" here is you..

    Quote from you: This is a typical theist canard that wesee around here more often than you have had dinners I reckon.

    Why would it be less credible? Are youtrying to make sense now?[/COLOR]
    Not really the kind of science specific language I would expect from somebody who just wants to discuss the "facts".
    The same way as everything in science is. By collecting the data and checking it fits the theory. By engaging in prediction and calculation. By constant experiment and verification.

    Perhaps your failing is in not registering     the difference between substantiation and 100% proof. I am not saying the theory
    is 100% proven. No theory in science is. There is no point in time where"Atomic Theory" will be renamed "Atomic Fact".

    But there is a difference between a theory being substantiated and not being substantiated _at all_. The god hypotheses is the latter. There is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer here to substantiate it at all.

    There is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning if you think the scientific ways of understanding something are the only way. It presumes that if you cannot add up the sums its not reasonable to assume one thing or another. You only understand this concept of how to understand anything (if science is everything) therefore by the very fact we are talking about a "higher being" how could science ever understand something that is so much more then science could make sense of ?
    You asked me what reason has anybody to believe in a god other then the fact that its something somebody made up and I gave you a good reason why people would believe. It gives them peace. Because this doesnt fit into science "reasoning" which is limited in itself in that it always has to correct itself, it just ignores this FACT out of convenience.

    The truth is that you cant explain it, you have no evidence and you simply cant comprehend anything outside of what the limited tools the science community uses to prove or disprove its theories. You know that the big bang theory could be a big pile of Sh*t yet you choose to say "its better then god" cause its based on limited tools and limited understanding.

    I still find it hilarious that people can scoff at religion and say that "the big bang theory" is a more credible explanation when we havent even explored the earth simply because its workings/calculations are based on what very limited things we know about the universe. The point being that the only thing the science community can do to make these predictions/projections is by using the knowledge/tools that it has to date. The odds on the Big bang theory being correct, based on the limited knowledge we have of the universe are remote at best. I dont have to understand this theory to know its based only on what we know now and that isnt very much.

    Perhaps you have had this argument with religious people coming her to convert, but I wouldnt class myself as particularly religious. I just dont put all my faith in science. If you think science cannot prove something, therefore it has no reasonable credibility, then you are putting your faith in the tools science uses to come to its conclusions/hypothesis and you will be limited in your undertstanding of anything outside of the confined paramaters of this subject.

    In terms of the god topic I have no more answers then you do, but I think there are plenty of reasons why humans believe in god. Not everybody has the kind of faith in science as you do, I dont see why there is anything wrong with that. If you know science isnt perfect and it gets things wrong, then you must be open to the concept that it simply hasnt found the right evidence to prove/disprove god. In the absence of factual information you choose not to believe, which is fine. Stating that people are delusional because they choose to believe in faith is just as delusional as following a science to the letter because you dont know any better. Science is not fact, its only information we know today. The big theory is not fact, its only a best guess. Maybe its a guess based on information we know today, but it doesnt change the fact that its a guess. .

    You dont like the way others have decided to believe in god. But you will follow a community that has been making predictions about things that happened billions of years ago and are happening billions of miles away based on their best guess estimates because they make sense to YOU and the people who have faith in this system?


  • Options
    #618
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Drumpot wrote: »
    Quote from you: This is a typical theist canard that wesee around here more often than you have had dinners I reckon.

    I see no insult in those quotes you provided. If you do then perhaps you are just more sensitive than I am. Or you are taking general quotes I am making about things we see here and choosing to take them personally.

    Either way I would prefer to stick to the discussion. If you choose to get offended by things that are not offensive then that is your freedom of choice and not at all my issue to deal with, or pander to.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    There is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning if you think the scientific ways of understanding something are the only way.

    You appear to have stopped reading my post half way through. I already pointed out that at no point while saying "Argument, evidence, data and reasoning" was I limiting myself to science or the scientific method.

    The problem however is that if I am being presented with no evidence, argument, data or reasoning of any kind at all, then the distinction between different types is immaterial. If I gave you an empty bag you would not sort the contents into apples and oranges.

    So really the entire 5 paragraphs you just typed in dodgy font could have been saved had you actually read that point in my previous post. You just wrote line after line of "science" this and "science" that when at no point has my position on the thread been limited to that perspective.

    I am willing to consider ALL (scientific or otherwise) arguments, evidence, data or reasoning for the actual existence of a god entity that you wish to put forward. Issue is you seem more interested in talking ABOUT such things rather than presenting any of them.

    When people talk and talk about evidence without actually getting around to giving me any I can be forgiven for starting to suspect it is hot air and bluster and they do not actually have any. Much like after months on the school yard hearing about some kids new girlfriend that some how he always manages to avoid letting you meet... you begin to suspect there is no such girlfriend.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    because its workings/calculations are based on what very limited things we know about the universe.

    My point exactly. The point being it IS based on something. Yes our data set is limited and we work every day to increase it but the theory fits the data set and continues to fit new data found and scientific predictions bourne out. So while you personally might not subscribe to the theory... you can not claim the theory is without any substantiation at all.

    Contrast this to the god hypotheses and I have seen as much substantiation for that in 18 years of asking as I have from your posts on this thread. That is to say: None. Nichts. Zilch. Nadda. Nothing. Feck all. Squat.


  • Options
    #619
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Drumpot wrote: »
    The big bang theory is no less credible then the belief that the earth is square. In terms of universal knowledge even those in the science community will accept that we havent even scratched the surface of exploring the universe. Why did people think the earth was square ? Because it hadnt been explored and they didnt know any better, surely making a hypothesis on how the universe begun is even more ridiculous with even less exploration of space !

    OK, first of all, people used to think that the earth was flat, not square, and covered by a crystal dome. Besides that, a belief in a flat earth is demonstrably false and we didn't need to explore space to find that out. The evidence of a round earth can be gathered by anyone with the most basic measurements.

    Now, as for the Big Bang theory, it is one of the most well-supported and well-substantiated theories in science. However, you don't seem to have actually bothered to found out what the theory actually says before making such inane comments about it. Now, a quick lesson about what the theory actually says and how we came to verify it.

    The Big Bang theory states that our universe experienced a "change of state" approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago. This change of state was a rapid inflationary period whereby the matter in our universe was formed. Our universe is still expanding today and the rate of expansion is actually increasing. The furthest back that we can look into the past is Planck time (10^-43 seconds) after the big bang when gravity becomes distinct from the other fundamental forces. The Big Bang describes the development of the universe from the earliest point which science allows us to examine. It has nothing to do with and makes no comment on the origin of the universe. It certainly doesn't claim that the universe came from nothing.

    The Big Bang relates to cosmology, the science of the development of the universe. What you are referring to is cosmogony, the study of the origins of the universe. We do have several solid models to explain the origin of the universe such as bubble universe collision or conformal cyclic cosmology but as yet we have no means to verify any of these hypotheses.

    Now, as for the evidence for the big bang theory. Well the basic evidence is really rather simple. Even with optical telescopes we can observe that distant galaxies are moving away from us and that the further away they are, the faster they are moving away. Logically, therefore, they must have been closer together in the past. Thus, at some point, all the galaxies must have occupied the same point in space at a finite time in the past, which we now know to be 13.7 billion years.

    Anyway, that's the short version. The longer version goes like this.

    The first movement towards an expanding universe theory was in 1887 with an experiment by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. Back in the 1800s there was a pervasive belief that the universe was filled with a substance called the luminiferous aether through which light waves propagated in the same way that sound waves do through air. However a series of precise measurements by Michelson and Morley showed that the speed of light remained constant regardless of the direction through the supposed aether. In 1905, this led Albert Einstein to develop the theory of special relativity. Later in 1915, Einstein published the theory of general relativity to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework. These advances sparked somewhat of a revolution in physics and many scientists began to explore Einstein's work. One of these was a Russian physicist named Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann attempted to simplify the mathematics by formulating a model based on two assumptions: that the universe looks identical in every direction and from every observation point. Friedmann later published his equations in 1924 in the paper: "Über die Möglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Krümmung des Raumes" ("On the possibility of a world with constant negative curvature of space"). This provided for the possibility of an expanding universe. The same theory was also arrived at independently by a Belgian priest (who usually gets the credit ahead of Friedmann) named Georges Lemaitre. However it wasn't until 1929 when Edwin Hubble published his paper "A Relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae" that the first confirmation of an expanding universe was achieved. However, it would not be until 1964 and the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that the Big Bang theory was finally confirmed and the Steady State theory abandoned.

    Each stage in the process of the development of the big bang theory has been experimentally verified again and again. It's not a guess or a fantasy but a simple robust mathematical framework to describe the development of our universe from its earliest point. It is about as far from a religious idea as it's possible to be.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    The question I was asked is "Do you have any reason to believe there is a god?". I wasnt asked to prove it . .I was giving an example of why people would. Science has no answer to the riddle of alcoholism. You cant take a pill and there is no proven psychological alternative to AA (that I know of) that helps alcoholics recover.

    An imperitive part of the AA programme is believing in a higher power (because the person is unable to manage their own lives). . The medical profession has been unable to find a cure to date, so in the absence of an actual physical scientific programme to get better, a belief in a higher power is recognised as their best chance of recovery. You fill the void of pain/suffering with something you dont understand and it works on many.

    The dropout rate in the AA is not important because its still got a higher percentage of sober alcoholics then any other man made treatment/explanation. that aside, the person with terminal illlness or suffering from chronic depression who feels isolated and alone, who finds solice in god. Why is this not real just because science cant fully explain it ?

    Again, you're wrong.

    And here's why.

    Firstly, there are pharmaceutical treatments for alcoholism, naltrexone being the most efficient one.

    Secondly, the use of naltrexone in combination with standard psychological counselling has marked benefits over standard behavioural intervention techniques such as 12-step including higher percentage of abstinence.

    Combined Pharmacotherapies and Behavioral Interventions for Alcohol Dependence

    Also, you're making an appeal to consequences of a belief, which is a logical fallacy. Just because someone believes there is a higher power doesn't mean that there is one. You fell into the same trap in a previous post when you stated that believing in a higher power gives you a sense of peace. A sense of peace doesn't tell us whether a god exists or not.


    Finally, just as with the big bang you should find out what people actually claim before making comments about what you think they do. Just two examples of this.
    Firstly, if you read any or all of the threads about people's position regarding atheism you'll find that the predominant view is one of agnostic atheism. In fact, there are very view people who hold to the view that there definitely is no god.
    Secondly, neither the theory of evolution nor the people who understand it make any claim regarding humans being some evolutionary pinnacle. There is no upward direction in evolution. It's not a ladder. It's more, if anything, like a treadmill. Evolution simply favours those organisms which are well-adapted to their environment.


  • Options
    #620
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Drumpot wrote: »
    The question I was asked is "Do you have any reason to believe there is a god?". I wasnt asked to prove it . .I was giving an example of why people would. Science has no answer to the riddle of alcoholism. You cant take a pill and there is no proven psychological alternative to AA (that I know of) that helps alcoholics recover.

    An imperitive part of the AA programme is believing in a higher power (because the person is unable to manage their own lives). . The medical profession has been unable to find a cure to date, so in the absence of an actual physical scientific programme to get better, a belief in a higher power is recognised as their best chance of recovery. You fill the void of pain/suffering with something you dont understand and it works on many.

    The dropout rate in the AA is not important because its still got a higher percentage of sober alcoholics then any other man made treatment/explanation.
    The point is that AA doesn't have a higher percentage of sober alcoholics. There are no studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of AA treatments and there have been studies which show that the most successful psychological treatments are non-confrontational approaches that allow self-propelled change, i.e. the exact opposite of the AA approach.

    The issue with AA is that it really doesn't care to check if what it does is effective or not before making claims that it can help people. It is undoubtedly a form of faith healing, its only virtue is that the thing it claims to heal isn't directly life threatening.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    that aside, the person with terminal illlness or suffering from chronic depression who feels isolated and alone, who finds solice in god. Why is this not real just because science cant fully explain it ?
    Psychology can fully explain why people find solace in god. I would have thought it rather obvious too, hardly surprising that somebody in pain might find solace in the belief that their pain is going to end soon and that they will then travel to a "better place". It is also pretty much the same reason doctors give lollipops to children after using needles on them.


  • Options
    #621
    Drumpot
    Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    The big bang theory is a best guess by the science community based on the tools they have to today to come to a conclusion/theory of something they are not definitively able to qualify. Its like a movie based "loosly on facts". It’s at its basic level an educated best guess. You can use the fancy words and website links (I have a basic grasp, but thanks for the info), but when it boils down to it, while it might be based on real things we can see or make sense of today, it is still only a best guess based on our limited understanding of the universe.

    Incidentally I never said that because somebody believes in a higher power, that there is one. . I said the mere fact that the concept exists suggests that there maybe something to it, just because it doesnt fit into the parameters that science uses to deduce its conclusions, does not make it any less plausible then things science is yet to comprehensively explain. In short, if science is your yardstick for all reasoning, then you will struggle to fathom anything outside of its set boundries.

    I dont really see the difference between the people who believe in god without question as those who are happy to base all reasoning and all understanding of life on science/maths. Both are man made ideas by design/thought.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You didn't bother reading any of oldrnwisr's post or links, did you?


  • Options
    #623
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,365 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Drumpot wrote: »
    The big bang theory is a best guess by the science community based on the tools they have to today to come to a conclusion/theory of something they are not definitively able to qualify. Its like a movie based "loosly on facts". It’s at its basic level an educated best guess. You can use the fancy words and website links (I have a basic grasp, but thanks for the info), but when it boils down to it, while it might be based on real things we can see or make sense of today, it is still only a best guess based on our limited understanding of the universe.

    You're right.
    Scientific theories are best guesses based upon observable evidence
    Religious origin theories are guesses based upon absolutely no evidence at all.

    Continue to find fault with currently accepted science (it's what scientists do, after all) but if you don't base your claims on evidence you can't be taken seriously.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #624
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Drumpot wrote: »
    I said the mere fact that the concept exists suggests that there maybe something to it
    So basically what you're saying is that because somebody can come up with a concept, that lends credibility to the concept? That a concept can only be conceived of if it's to some degree plausible?

    Therefore it's equally likely that the universe was created five seconds ago and all of our experiences to date have been implanted in our conscious minds?


  • Options
    #625
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    seamus wrote: »
    So basically what you're saying is that because somebody can come up with a concept, that lends credibility to the concept? That a concept can only be conceived of if it's to some degree plausible?

    Therefore it's equally likely that the universe was created five seconds ago and all of our experiences to date have been implanted in our conscious minds?

    This is all actually a dream I am having caused by a combination of low sugar levels, back pain meds and a cheese and ham toasty made in one of those machines where one has to butter the outside of the bread.

    As dreams go it's not the best I've had.


  • Options
    #626
    Geomy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Drumpot wrote: »
    The big bang theory is a best guess by the science community based on the tools they have to today to come to a conclusion/theory of something they are not definitively able to qualify. Its like a movie based "loosly on facts". It’s at its basic level an educated best guess. You can use the fancy words and website links (I have a basic grasp, but thanks for the info), but when it boils down to it, while it might be based on real things we can see or make sense of today, it is still only a best guess based on our limited understanding of the universe.

    Incidentally I never said that because somebody believes in a higher power, that there is one. . I said the mere fact that the concept exists suggests that there maybe something to it, just because it doesnt fit into the parameters that science uses to deduce its conclusions, does not make it any less plausible then things science is yet to comprehensively explain. In short, if science is your yardstick for all reasoning, then you will struggle to fathom anything outside of its set boundries.

    I dont really see the difference between the people who believe in god without question as those who are happy to base all reasoning and all understanding of life on science/maths. Both are man made ideas by design/thought.

    Drumpot I wouldn't even bother debating in here about higherpowers,God or Spirituality etc

    They will not buy into any of it because according to some here its all a load of waffle and ****e etc

    Just sit back and read some of the replies same old responses to the same old debate...

    I just accept they don't believe and that's it...

    Acceptance is the answer ;)


  • Options
    #627
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Drumpot wrote: »
    The big bang theory is a best guess by the science community based on the tools they have to today to come to a conclusion/theory of something they are not definitively able to qualify. Its like a movie based "loosly on facts". It’s at its basic level an educated best guess. You can use the fancy words and website links (I have a basic grasp, but thanks for the info), but when it boils down to it, while it might be based on real things we can see or make sense of today, it is still only a best guess based on our limited understanding of the universe.

    It is a "best guess" in the same way that absolute zero is a best guess. No one has ever recorded absolute zero on the temperature scale, and in fact based on some other theories of physics it is probably not possible to do so.

    Scientists worked out absolute zero on the temperature scale based on the downward trend of temperature and pressure. We know that temperature increases in a certain linear fashion. And when you trace this linear graph back down you eventually reach a point where nothing can get colder according to this graph.

    Equally we know the universe is expanding. Not just that the matter in the universe is moving apart, but space itself is expanding.

    And if you look at this expansion in reverse you can trace it back to a point where all space and all matter converges.

    The "Big Bang" is really a place holder term. We know all space and time expanded from this point, but we don't really understand how or in fact we don't really understand what this "point" actually was.

    But it makes as much sense to accept the Big Bang as it does to accept absolute zero on the temperature scale (0 kelvin). To not accept either of those things raises more questions than it answers. For example given the linear scale of temperature how can something exist as a temperature cooler than absolute zero. (there is a thing called negative temperature, but that is not cooler than zero, it is something more to do with infinite temperatures)
    Drumpot wrote: »
    Incidentally I never said that because somebody believes in a higher power, that there is one. . I said the mere fact that the concept exists suggests that there maybe something to it, just because it doesnt fit into the parameters that science uses to deduce its conclusions, does not make it any less plausible then things science is yet to comprehensively explain.

    Why would that suggest that there is something to it? The world is full of humans imagining things that have nothing to do with reality. Often we know these things are not real (Star Wars), but all it takes is someone to get confused about something that someone made up for them to believe it is real. And that mere fact of believing it is real when it isn't says nothing as to the truth of the idea.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    In short, if science is your yardstick for all reasoning, then you will struggle to fathom anything outside of its set boundries.

    That is the point of science. We do struggle to understand anything outside of its boundaries. We struggle to understand things inside of its boundaries.

    But we haven't come up with better systems of understanding. And in fact if we did they would simply become what science is, since science is a methodology for discovery and as such it will use any methodologies it can that provide accurate information about new discoveries.

    There is no reason for science not to incorporate methods of learning and discovery into itself if these methods actually work.

    The reason it doesn't incorporate things like theology into science is because they don't work (there are thousands of different religions and none of them can actually how that they are the correct one)


  • Options
    #628
    II 2FAST2C II
    Site Banned Posts: 104 ✭✭II 2FAST2C II


    God is real.


  • Options
    #629
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    II 2FAST2C II wrote: »
    God is real.

    You're an atheist because God is real?:confused:


  • Options
    #630
    II 2FAST2C II
    Site Banned Posts: 104 ✭✭II 2FAST2C II


    Jernal wrote: »
    You're an atheist because God is real?:confused:

    Sorry, lol forgot to read the full thread


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    II 2FAST2C II wrote: »
    Sorry, lol forgot to read the full thread

    Or even the title?


Advertisement