How the Universe was created

ShoutGrace,

Relativity does indeed say that time varies - but only when travelling at speeds close to the speed of light - other than that, the differences are negligible.

Like every one of these so-called 'scientific' refutations of evolution / big bang / common sense, this is based on the fact that those with a religious axe to grind and that have heard something that they themselves don't understand completely (and which they think might back up their arguments) are quite happy to spout it forth into the world, confident that the overwhelming majority have no more understanding than they do.

This is deliberate obfuscation. Do these people (supposedly deeply religious) actually believe that they are justified in distorting facts in support of God? If they are true believers, they ought to believe that (a) God doesn't need this kind of support - being all-powerful - and (b) that the commandment about bearing false witness should apply.

Stick to repeating that 'it says so in the book, so it's true' and I have no argument with you - but keep your dogmatic, blinkered, lying nose out of scientific arguments that you don't understand.

Quote:

---

Relativity does indeed say that time varies - but only when travelling at speeds close to the speed of light - other than that, the differences are negligible.

---

I certainly didn't mean to misidentify relativity here. I didn't claim to have a mastery of either physics or theoretical physics, nor did I intend to misrepresent a scientific truth. You must know more about this than I do. Hopefully I can do more specific research and make sure that in any future posts I clarify exactly what I need to say.

Quote:

---

Like every one of these so-called 'scientific' refutations of evolution / big bang / common sense, this is based on the fact that those with a religious axe to grind and that have heard something that they themselves don't understand completely (and which they think might back up their arguments) are quite happy to spout it forth into the world, confident that the overwhelming majority have no more understanding than they do.

---

I haven't heard of a scientific refutation of either evolution or the Big Bang theory. I use common sense myself, however. I'm sure that if God's existence could be either proven or disproven it would have been done already. I don't believe that I have spouted here, nor do I believe I have spouted with the confidence that I had a better understanding than others. Far from it! I think we can all admit, and I would be the first, that we don't have a thorough understanding of any number of things concerning this Earth and this planet. If I disparaged others thoughts or theories, I apologize.

Quote:

---

This is deliberate obfuscation. Do these people (supposedly deeply religious) actually believe that they are justified in distorting facts in support of God? If they are true believers, they ought to believe that (a) God doesn't need this kind of support - being all-powerful - and (b) that the commandment about bearing false witness should apply.

---

I take offense at the idea that I deliberately obfuscated anything! I wouldn't and if it came across that way then I apologize. I think you are correct in implying that God wouldn't need any kind of distortion to make him more obvious. I certainly have not lied or bluffed!

Quote:

---

Stick to repeating that 'it says so in the book, so it's true' and I have no argument with you - but keep your dogmatic, blinkered, lying nose out of scientific arguments that you don't understand.

---

I have no problem with saying that I trust the written words of the Bible entirely, or that my understanding of them fully produce my worldview. But I also believe that they don't contradict any true knowledge or aspect of the Universe, or human existence.

I don't believe that I have lied, XC, and I can't help but feel taken aback here. If anyone needs me to I will get more specific information relating to the point I am trying to make, then I will. I understood this thread to be about ideas and perhaps I myself took it to far. Maybe we can start a thread about ID/Naturalism. I haven't purposefuly or (I believe) in any other way lied! I will have to try to figure out what blinkered means. I certainly am dogmatic, though.

Others indentified and I agreed wholeheartedly with the notion that we don't fully understand these things. I am also sure of the fact that no-one else does, either. I hope that in this statement you didn't imply that you did understand this scientific argument!

I wish I hadn't offended you and hope this post will clear things up a little more . . .

"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity describes the motion of particles moving at close to the speed of light. In fact, it gives the correct laws of motion for any particle. This doesn't mean Newton was wrong, his equations are contained within the relativistic equations. Newton's "laws" provide a very good approximate form, valid when v is much less than c. For particles moving at slow speeds (very much less than the speed of light), the differences between Einstein's laws of motion and those derived by Newton are tiny. That's why relativity doesn't play a large role in everyday life. Einstein's theory supercedes Newton's, but Newton's theory provides a very good approximation for objects moving at everyday speeds."

"Given these two statements, Einstein showed how definitions of momentum and energy must be refined and how quantities such as length and time must change from one observer to another in order to get consistent results for physical quantities, such as particle half-life."

I may have misinterpreted the above. The idea that I am talking about has to do with certain matter changing in differentiating proportion to other certain matter - in any situation, at the same time. I'm not saying that is how I believe God did it, but I think that things of this nature get me closer to what was going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

I have no problem with saying that I trust the written words of the Bible entirely, or that my understanding of them fully produce my worldview. But I also believe that they don't contradict any true knowledge or aspect of the Universe, or human existence.

---

And this is your opinion. But the Bible can't confirm in any way the purpose of human existence. I have a problem when you start taking quotes from the Bible, paste it into reality, and insert value to it as if its a part of reality.

Shout grace,

I'm sorry for getting too personal there. But I do get annoyed with half-baked, misunderstood, 'scientific' arguments being presented in an attempt to 'prove' religion. Religion cannot be proved scientifically; neither can it be disproved by that method. By all means, you are welcome to your beliefs provided they do not interfere with my right not to agree with them; but please admit that the only evidence that you have for your beliefs is your faith.

The web is full of spurious arguments very similar to the one you presented above; ranging from genuine misunderstandings, through deliberate misrepresentations of the facts, to downright lies. It is the people that spout this crap that I am really getting at - I believed you to be repeating it - sorry again if you were not.

I have studied relativity (albeit at pre-degree level, but enough to recognise the complete nonsense presented in your argument) and I suggest that before presenting any similar points of view, you at least try to understand the underlying principles sufficiently to be sure that they really do back up your arguments.

There are scores of subjects about which I know little or nothing, and I would not dream of trying to introduce them into any discussion as confirmation of my position without, at the very least, extensive research; and probably not even then.

I believe that there is no scientific evidence that dissproves God but there is evidence that proves God. This is my opinion and I cannot give sources at this time but seeing as how sources arent needed unless you are trying to prove God ill have to find some.

And im sorry if im annoyed as well. But I get frustrated with the perseption that Christians are merely idiotic, easily swayed individuals that have no sense whatsoever because they believe in God. I mean athiests are like hey look at Isaiah 40:22...hmm it says the world is a circle and that proves that God doesnt exist becuase the world is a sphere! Well, lets hold on a second, there is no word in hebrew for sphere!!! So how can we explain something as a sphere if theres no word for it! And yet, Christians are the ones who are uneducated and grasp at the slightest evidence to prove something?

rufioag,

You have just proven my point about spurious arguments quite wonderfully - thank you. You claim that there is evidence which proves the existence of god, yet you can't put your finger on it just now.

Are you sure that the evidence exists? Can you prove it exists? Or do you just believe in this evidence based on faith alone?

Nobody is saying that christians are stupid; or the followers of any religion for that matter. Einstein was religious, as was Newton, as was Pascal, the list is endless.

All I am saying is that attempting to use science or logic to prove god's existence is fruitless. It has been attempted many times over the years by minds far greater than any I have come across in this forum - Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Blaise Pascal, Emmanuel Kant and René Descartes all had a crack at it and all of their arguments were shown to be full of holes.

If you believe, then believe, but it will only ever be a belief and not a provable fact; not until you turn up outside of the pearly gates with your entry ticket and can wave at all of us poor sinners down in the pit below (or not), will you ever know for sure. Feel free to cling to your faith, that is your right, just don't claim that it is more than faith.

One question:

How can God not have been the cause...therefore God.

Athiest Question:

How can god be the cause ...therefore no God.


Its pretty simple that a supreme entity had to have started it all, I mean, everything comes from something, and if the entity did create itself, then, ****, we all don't exist and like budhism lets find emptines.

Stan,

All I (and many other atheists - I make no claim to speak for all) am claiming is that no-one knows what started 'it all'. I find all of the claims made in so-called holy books to be ridiculously unbelievable. I can't bring myself to accept anything that any religion has ever offered in the way of explanation of the world's creation (or anything else for that matter). While I concede that the existence of God is unprovable in either direction, I feel confident in averring that any god that does, or did, exist has never bothered to make contact with humanity. All of the texts which the faithful have put so much store in are written by human beings.