Atheists hope (don't pray) to bring ads to Toronto (G&M)

[Prometheus The Supremo]

If you're going to make claims, back it up with proof.

(or else it would be intellectually dishonest and lazy)

heed your own advice. please.

 

[urbanboom]

heed your own advice. please.

In what respects? You give me advice, but no context. Tell me where I was intellectually dishonest and lazy. Until then it's just a "claim", remember?

 

[urbanboom]

How does the Big Bang prove the existence of god? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

As for unexplained forces, why not just call them unexplained forces? If they are "unexplained" then they can't be god. That "unexplained" status suggests nothing in particular, so why pretend to have knowledge of what fills that unexplained space? These forces are, by your own admission, unexplained.

As for this "higher power," it is just a gift wrapping to cover up a lack of knowledge. What is the nature of this power? What do you mean by "higher" power? How high? Where? None of this is remotely measurable or accessible. You want to call it god, others might want to call it pixie dust.

I was just looking at the Big Bang Theory in a Religious point of view. Many claim the science disproves God because it "has all the answers". My point is that it doesn't have all the answers! It explains much of the "what", but not the "how". From what we know in scientific knowledge, God cannot be disproved. Of couse, this may one day change, but for today, it cannot.

 

[urbanboom]

The part that's been quoted.

Willful ignorance.

Buddy, take a breather!

This has been our conversation so far:

A lot of people do. If they don't understand it...it must be 'god'.
They thought the earth was flat at one time as well....

So you think that the people who thought the earth was flat, thought that the flat earth was because of 'god'? That's what you seem to imply.
If you can give me a better explanation as to why matter appeared out of nowhere, or why the laws of physics are in place, I would love to hear it.

No, that's just you twisting my words. Poor reading comprehension I guess.

You anger quickly....typical of the religious, you get offended if someone doesn't "toe your line".


The reason I say that is because you made a statement that people who didn't understand how it worked, it must've been God. You then pointed out that people used to think that the world was flat, thus implying that they (the people) thought that the flat earth was because of God. I wasn't "twisting" your words in any way.

I'm not sure where you found anger in my statement. In your last post you called my reading comprehension 'poor', called me 'angry' and used a stereotype. If I were to name the angry one, I think it would be you.

By the way, you still haven't answered by original question. If you want to bash my theory, fine, just give us an alternative.

faith is the only thing YOU have....don't try to speak for anyone else...you sound just like an evangelist.

There is no scientific evidence proving it either.

How was I speaking on behalf of some else?

this is ridiculous, doesn't make any sense, is intellectually dishonest, and lazy.


If you're going to make claims, back it up with proof.
(or else it would be intellectually dishonest and lazy)

I quoted the proof for you. You're being willfully ignorant.

Where?

The part that has been quoted. Willful ignorance

*********************
Perhaps me and my "poor reading comprehension" can shed some light.

I asked you to give me a better explaination as to why the universe itself exists, and why the laws of physics exist, and you did not. You instead called me a "typical angry religious person".

In the next post you said "I sounded like an evangelist" and told me "not to speak for anyone else." When I asked how I was speaking for other people you went on a rampage on how I was "willfully ignorant".

Neither of my two questions have been answered. Contrary to what you've said you haven't quoted them for me. Perhaps in your head, but not on this forum.

No, I am not being "willfully ignorant", I've made points and cited my proof, and you have yet to answer a question.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Originally Posted by urbanboom as a response to digi:
If you're going to make claims, back it up with proof.

(or else it would be intellectually dishonest and lazy)

heed your own advice. please.

In what respects? You give me advice, but no context. Tell me where I was intellectually dishonest and lazy. Until then it's just a "claim", remember?

here's some examples:

There is only one explanation to why something matter appeared where there was no matter before: there is a higher power.

you are saying there is a higher power (god).


heed your own advice: "If you're going to make claims, back it up with proof."

If you can give me a better explanation as to why matter appeared out of nowhere, or why the laws of physics are in place, I would love to hear it.

"If you can give me a better explanation' which means you think your explanation is better, you assume & imply that your god put the laws of physics in place. you are also saying that matter appeared out of nowhere and imply that your god made this happen.


heed your own advice: "If you're going to make claims, back it up with proof."

 

[Hydrogen]

A theory is not science. Science is not a theory.
Those are two different things that you are confusing I think.

Science is factual. It does not lie. Science can prove things. However we are limited with what we have, so science can not prove or disprove how everything started. Therefore someone made a theory of how they think it all started and called it Big Bang. Big Bang is not science, just someone's theory. It just so happens to be a widely believed theory, based on scientific knowledge.

A big problem here concerns how the word "theory" is being used. Within the sciences, the word suggests a means for testing and for deriving more information. To be very general in describing it, theory defines and describes; it also offers up new avenues for potential research.

As for lying, scientists - being people - can lie. Everyone can lie. The point is that, as a scientist, you must offer up evidence as to how you arrived at some particular conclusions so that others can then replicate your process to examine the accuracy of your conclusions. In other instances, the usefulness of an entire methodology or theory can then be questioned if better results are arrived at by other research methods or an alternate theory.

The "Big Bang" is a name for the theoretical structure concerning the evolution of the universe from an initial starting point and its subsequent expansion. The theory is founded on direct astronomical observational evidence and physical theory such as General Relativity and particle physics. The theory does not speak about what happened before that beginning, so any such musings appear to be hypothetical in nature. For a number of decades, the Big Bang theory was in a kind of competition with another cosmological theory called Steady State - which posited no beginning for the universe. Support for the Big Bang grew as the evidence accumulated. But look closely and you will see that there are still a number of questions concerning the theory.

By the way, the name "Big Bang" came from Fred Hoyle - a major proponent of the Steady State theory - who invoked the term as a means of derision concerning the idea of the universe having some initial starting point.

 

[digi]

No, I am not being "willfully ignorant", I've made points and cited my proof, and you have yet to answer a question.

I have answered you, I've provided proof. You have not provided anything but speculation, not based in reality.
You haven't answered anythin gasked of you, you simply deflect and post nonsense.
you are willfully ignorant, and intellectually dishonest. you are a typical fundie.

 

[Hydrogen]

I was just looking at the Big Bang Theory in a Religious point of view. Many claim the science disproves God because it "has all the answers". My point is that it doesn't have all the answers! It explains much of the "what", but not the "how". From what we know in scientific knowledge, God cannot be disproved. Of couse, this may one day change, but for today, it cannot.

God cannot be disproved because god is not a scientific proposition. And stating a belief in god still does not provide any answers or evidence about "how" or even "why" (it's been noted that you have offered up no answers at all about "how's" or "why's"). In the end, all that you have is a personal belief and not anything resembling an explanation - even in the metaphysical sense. In essence, there is a kind of overwhelming absence of evidence here, and if you want to invoke god as an answer you will need evidence in order to argue existence (plenty of it, too, if you want to pursue both "how" and "why").

To start with, what means of testing would you use in order to go looking for god or to prove the existence of god? Where would god be located? If god is located somewhere else, then this suggests that god is not part of the universe and that god is not infinite or eternal. A statement like this suggests a whole range of metaphysical problems, but it still isn't scientific or necessarily even rational. If you really want to go looking for god to serve as an explanation (what, how, why), you have to ask what tangible, measurable and verifiable evidence you would be looking for, and by what means the evidence of those qualities could be replicated by others to see whether there is agreement. You're going to need a lot of "what" before you can even approach "how" and "why."

To put it another way, you need something tangible to start with - something beyond just your imagination. And if you want to pursue explaining how with respect to god, you still need a what. In order to have that what you need evidence for existence that can be tested and measured by everyone else. Without that, there is nothing to stop others from invoking any one (or more) of the vast panoply of ancient gods from the past, along with every creation myth imagined by people from around the world. There simply would be no way to ascertain which was better at explaining the universe. Imagination and subjective personal belief would be as good as it gets - as no god or gods are presently forthcoming to offer up accurate, clear or corrective information otherwise.

As for science not having all the answers, that is true. But invoking god to fill the blank spots is not an answer either - particularly when that supposed answer offers nothing whatsoever to measure or test with.

Sometimes its just better to be honest and say "I don't know."

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just my opinion, but this is an endless debate. Those that believe in God do not need to prove it, nor do they need to back up their belief, as it's called Faith. Those that choose not to believe in God do so freely as well. Surely, as Rodney King said, we can all get along.

 

[urbanboom]

Just my opinion, but this is an endless debate. Those that believe in God do not need to prove it, nor do they need to back up their belief, as it's called Faith. Those that choose not to believe in God do so freely as well. Surely, as Rodney King said, we can all get along.

I think you're right.

"When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object..."

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=2JOXFPVZcMU&feature=related

 

[afransen]

What about those who think it's stupid to pretend we know either way?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Just my opinion, but this is an endless debate. Those that believe in God do not need to prove it, nor do they need to back up their belief, as it's called Faith. Those that choose not to believe in God do so freely as well. Surely, as Rodney King said, we can all get along.

of course. anyone can believe what they want. as for the getting along part. it would be nice but if you read some religious texts, they tell you that you shouldn't get along. some people take that very seriously.


in fact, i even posted a link in this thread to an article from the official jehovah's witness website that instructs children to not be close friends with non believers. they tell lies and try to protect themselves under the mask of faith, like most religious institutions.

you can believe that being friends with a non believer is bad if you want but when you teach this as a truth to young kids - you are telling a lie. it doesn't matter if you have faith that it is true.

 

[CDL.TO]

What about those who think it's stupid to pretend we know either way?

Or those who think the question of existence of god is irrelevant and don't really care either way? Like debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

 

[MisterF]

Just my opinion, but this is an endless debate. Those that believe in God do not need to prove it, nor do they need to back up their belief, as it's called Faith. Those that choose not to believe in God do so freely as well. Surely, as Rodney King said, we can all get along.

There's no need to prove belief, but in debates like this that's exactly what happens. Nothing wrong with that, this has been an interesting thread. The key difference between the two positions is that when something has no evidence, let alone proof, non-belief is the logical position to take. The burden of proof is on the believer.

 

[Hydrogen]

No, but there is no scientific evidence disproving my theory. As of now, the possibilities are endless. Until Science says otherwise, I am neither wrong, nor right. Just as you are neither wrong nor right in saying that my theory is wrong...

You don't have a theory of any sort. You have a personal belief. You claim to believe in god, but what you think god is might differ quite significantly from the next believer.