Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[WD-40]

Wow! 47 pages and going strong! I'm seriously not reading a damn thing u guys are writing on this thread, but between the knuckleheads that quote half a page of comments and other personal 'fresh' non-copied' comments, you should hit 50 real soon!

Ohh... Buuuuuuuuirrrrrrppppppppppp!

I hope that helps! Sorry, it's been a rough day!

[IJO sha-quan-jone]

man I guess its time to chip back in. you guys keep saying about how we cannot prove that God exists, but you cannot PROVE that he doesn't, you just believe that he doesn't, just as some of us believe that he does. you also can not PROVE the big bang theory and since that is the case it makes since to believe that a God made everything. I personally think it is funny how scientist make a "leap" to the big bang theory simply because they refuse to believe that they were created and are basically sinful creatures.
all that being said I think that "Big Bang Theory" is a great show.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

What more proof that things exist do you want than "I can observe it, interact with it, and predict how it will act in the future"?

A belief is simply something that you think is true. All beliefs are based on the evidence you've gathered about the world. The problem is that humans are typically bad at sorting out which things constitute useful evidence, so we form wrong beliefs easily. Science helps us form beliefs that conform to reality (or, if you're still not sure it exists, form beliefs that let you predict what your hallucinations will do), and discard those which contradict it. I agree that, say, the Scientific Method is a tool, and shouldn't be worshiped. That doesn't stop it from being far more useful and beneficial to our lives than any deity I've heard of.

I don't see any useful comparisons between the various creation stories and reality, beyond "there was either nothing or something different, then it stopped being nothing", which is pretty much the definition of the creation story. In Genesis, in particular, apparently the Sun, other stars, and moon didn't exist until after Earth was populated by plants.

I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of dismissing beliefs. Remember, something is only impossible until it isn't.

[Darth Crater]

Please don't mix up the Big Bang theory (the actual theory, not the show) with anti-religious aspects. It's simply the best way we've found to explain what we see when we look at the universe and study its history. The cosmic microwave background exists (just point the right kind of detector anywhere into space), and that theory accounts for it. The makeup of elements in interstellar dust (which we can observe) is predicted by the same theory. Cosmological redshift indicates that the universe is expanding. All of this can be observed using the right tools; it's not just made up from nothing.

The Big Bang theory doesn't make any sort of claims about what, if anything, existed beforehand. It doesn't make any claims about what, if anything, caused the Big Bang. It certainly has nothing to do with sin of any sort (I could rant about that, but I'm trying to stick to facts and not my own opinions here). What it does do is explain the data we've gathered about the universe, and just as importantly, lets us extrapolate more data.

As far as "proof" goes - scientific proof isn't as simple as logical or mathematical proofs. For example, we haven't "proved" Newton's laws of gravitation in a mathematical sense. Certainly it seems to hold true everywhere we've observed (in traditional physics; I'm ignoring relativity in hopes of keeping this focused). In the end, though, it's just a set of equations designed to explain those same observations. We can't say with certainty that things won't behave differently tomorrow, and if they do, we'll need to revise our theories or create new ones to account for the new data. Since we have no reason or evidence to suggest the laws are inaccurate, though, they're our preferred theory for predicting what will happen. While gravity is a somewhat extreme example, the Big Bang theory is the same way - it's the best explanation we know of for the data that we have. Until we learn something that disproves it or heavily favors another theory, or a theory is developed that explains the existing data even better, it makes sense to believe the Big Bang theory.

you also can not PROVE the big bang theory and since that is the case it makes since to believe that a God made everything.

Not only is the conclusion unrelated to the premise, but you're effectively stating that lack of proof for a claim implies it is worthless. Note that that's exactly the opposite of what you said in your first paragraph.

[THEWULFMAN]

These are not arguments..these are my BELIEVES.

...these are my BELIEVES.

BELIEVES

These are not arguments..these are my BELIEFS.

Fixed that for you...

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

you also can not PROVE the big bang theory and since that is the case it makes since to believe that a God made everything.

Not only is the conclusion unrelated to the premise, but you're effectively stating that lack of proof for a claim implies it is worthless. Note that that's exactly the opposite of what you said in your first paragraph.

Actually, he is saying that Scientists (spelled with a capital to denote those who worship science) hold religious ideas to a higher standard of proof than their own theories. They advocate their ideas at the expense of another's and derisively dismiss competing claims in a hypocritical fashion.

[Darth Crater]

I disagree; it appears to me that he is stating that since we can't prove the Big Bang theory, we should throw it out completely (despite it being the best theory we have for our observations). His conclusion is also about the presence or absence of a creator deity, which isn't really related to a theory about the physical process of the universe's formation. Hopefully he'll be able to explain this himself.

Could you clarify what, exactly, you find hypocritical? Theories are developed and improved by people arguing for the ideas that they believe; assuming one idea is demonstrably superior, it will be the one that gets adopted. There's nothing wrong with arguing against something you believe to be false, as long as you are willing to let your own ideas be falsified. Yes, there are people who don't really understand that last part, but that doesn't affect the underlying process.

(As a side note, if scientists held religion to a higher standard than their own theories, or even to an equal standard as, say, the existence of the Higgs Boson, I believe that no scientist anywhere in the world would believe in any form of deity. Jesus could return on wings of fire and make everyone immortal, and it would still only be regarded as "strong evidence for" rather than proof.)

[Commander Sparrow]

Wow! 47 pages and going strong! I'm seriously not reading a damn thing u guys are writing on this thread, but between the knuckleheads that quote half a page of comments and other personal 'fresh' non-copied' comments, you should hit 50 real soon!

Ohh... Buuuuuuuuirrrrrrppppppppppp!

I hope that helps! Sorry, it's been a rough day!

And I thought I was the only one.


The worst that can come out of this thread is religious cyber-warfare.

But I don't see that happening anytime soon!

[Yanoda]

Concerning Hobo's reply.
Yes, I shortened the Enuma Elish to the specific points similar to Genesis. There was more to the story, just like the Bible (which I shortened as well).

Almost every creation story will have some sort of empty void in the beginning. I wouldn't consider this as strong evidence that the bible and Enuma Elish are similar.

Then if every creation story states a void existed in the beginning, then why is the Bible considered one of a kind and specifically 'proves' the science behind it? Shouldn't the other creation stories receive the same acknowledgement, since they often predate the Bible?

In the Enuma Elish, Marduk slices Tiamat into two, Heaven and Earth, NOT sky(also could be Heaven) and ocean.

Enuma Elish, end of fourth tablet states:
He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven.
He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions thereof,
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.
'Heaven' is mentioned and 'deep' can be considered the ocean. (I'm using your same interpretation to my argument).

Yes, but in the Enuma Elish, it doesn't say Kishar was separated from water,(Tiamat and/or Apsu).

Whether water recedes to bring forth land or saying earth was created can be interpret as the same. Land was brought forth (created) in the Bible and Kishar was created (earth God).

Ea was the god of wisdom, the tablets only show that he made the human race. The first man that was made in the story was Lullu.

Enuma Elish beginning of Sixth Tablet states:
When Marduk heard the word of the gods,
His heart prompted him and he devised a cunning plan.
He opened his mouth and unto Ea he spake
That which he had conceived in his heart he imparted unto him:
"My blood will I take and bone will I fashion
I will make man, that man may
I will create man who shall inhabit the earth,
Again, Marduk created the humans like I stated before.

Ea made men. Well, then I suppose you could switch No.5 with No.6 around. But in every single creation story, men are created eventually, so this instance can't count, also because they are in different order.

Read above comment about who created man. Again, you state every creation story men were created... Why is the Bible the only one to get special treatment?

These are fragments, that do not correlate in the same order and certainly do not mean that they are the same. There are a few validated statements above, but its not enough for the two books(The book and the Tablets) to be considered the same. An example of what I mean(a little exaggerated) is that if you had a book, which has words in it, then you had another book, you can't take several sentences from one and correlate them with the other, and then claim copyright claims on the other for infringement claiming one derived from the other.

Quite the contrary, the events took part in a similar order. Though the Enuma Elish add more story to the creation than Genesis. If you change a few words/sentences in a book, it is still considered plagiarism. Do that many times over many years and eventually it seems it is a totally different book. Like my previous statement, the Bible has been modified several times over the millennia. Several passages were removed as well, several state the passages did not meet the requirement to stay/put in the Bible...

The Enuma Elish is a story that describes the creation of the world, but just because it predates the bible doesn't necessarily mean its true.

Again... why does the Bible get a free pass and the Enuma Elish not? Why is the Bible considered truth but other historic texts (which the Bible originates) not?

Heres the first few main points in the first chapter of Genesis:(I parenthesized how I think it could correlate to the scientific version)
1. Formless void of nothingness, only God exists. (perhaps God is the "single point of energy")
2. God creates light. (Big Bang, I would assume makes a LOT of light)
3. God separates light from dark. (I thought about this, how could you separate light from dark if light automatically gives a shadow? I think it comes from the theory of luminous fog, eventually turning into clear space.)
4. God creates celestial bodies. (Stars, planets, etc..)
5. God imparts movements to celestial bodies. (Moves celestial bodies around, forming new ones and destroying others)

In the scientific explanation, the single point was not nothingness, it had mass and temperature, very different from a void.
If God is the single point, then how can God be Omnipotent at the same time?
Light is a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, light we know and define is what we can see (Red to Violet) wavelengths. Do not forget radio waves, X-rays, gamma rays etc. It is likely that light wasn't formed in the beginning of the Big Bang, but higher waves such as Gamma Rays. Eventually the energy reduced and the wave lengths were set to visible light.
Light and dark cannot be separated, since darkness is in essence the absence of light (photons) that we register.
I haven't seen any evidence God actually interact with 'celestial bodies' or 'impart' them. Are you implying that God is the force of Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force and Weak Nuclear Force? These have been tested and do not follow the laws (or concept of God(s)).

Enuma Elish full text: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

Thank You Crater for addressing Dread's post (saved me some time)

man I guess its time to chip back in. you guys keep saying about how we cannot prove that God exists, but you cannot PROVE that he doesn't, you just believe that he doesn't, just as some of us believe that he does. you also can not PROVE the big bang theory and since that is the case it makes since to believe that a God made everything. I personally think it is funny how scientist make a "leap" to the big bang theory simply because they refuse to believe that they were created and are basically sinful creatures.
all that being said I think that "Big Bang Theory" is a great show.

The infamous ad ignorantiam fallacy again. I have a feeling many don't even read half the posts... and just state their argument without background. The ad ignorantiam fallacy seems to be a favorite, it is no basis for argument, since it is the individual's job/duty, that claims that something exists, to be able prove it. If it cannot be proved, then there is no reason to believe it exists. Science considers something valid when it can be researched, tested and observed. That is the difference between religion and science, also the reason why they can not be compatible.
We see evidence of the concept of the Big Bang, that is why it is considered the best explanation so far, better than just claiming God(s) created it (which we have no direct evidence/observance yet).

Cheers

Yanoda

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

I disagree; it appears to me that he is stating that since we can't prove the Big Bang theory, we should throw it out completely (despite it being the best theory we have for our observations). His conclusion is also about the presence or absence of a creator deity, which isn't really related to a theory about the physical process of the universe's formation. Hopefully he'll be able to explain this himself.

Could you clarify what, exactly, you find hypocritical? Theories are developed and improved by people arguing for the ideas that they believe; assuming one idea is demonstrably superior, it will be the one that gets adopted. There's nothing wrong with arguing against something you believe to be false, as long as you are willing to let your own ideas be falsified. Yes, there are people who don't really understand that last part, but that doesn't affect the underlying process.

(As a side note, if scientists held religion to a higher standard than their own theories, or even to an equal standard as, say, the existence of the Higgs Boson, I believe that no scientist anywhere in the world would believe in any form of deity. Jesus could return on wings of fire and make everyone immortal, and it would still only be regarded as "strong evidence for" rather than proof.)

Perhaps you are correct on his opinion of the the "Big Bang Theory", but you are wrong about the relevance of a creator deity to the physical process of the universe's formation. In his mind it is paramount. If the directed will of a creator is NOT involved in the explanation of our universe's formation, the entire explanation is askew.

Have you ever read Heinlien's "Stranger in a Strange Land"? The notion of spirituality and science coexistence in that book is pretty evocative. I don't think it is precisely right, as it is a work of fiction, but the notions of the character Jubal Harshaw are an excellent example of how man should regard his understanding of the world and it's functioning. He is a learned crank who detests technology, has a cynical sense of appreciation for the foibles of himself and his fellow man and an incredibly enlightened view of religion. In the book he is described as: "Jubal E. Harshaw, LL.B., M.D., Sc.D., bon vivant, gourmet, sybarite, popular author extraordinary, neo-pessimist philosopher, devout agnostic, professional clown, amateur subversive, and parasite by choice."

Anyway, give that book a read just for fun.

Too often the ideas espoused as Fact and Law are based on faulty observations or data collection (sometimes just bad math!) and are just as bad as religious dogma. Start with the idea, "I don't know, but this is what I've seen/experienced." That would be an HONEST way to communicate. Then continue with "This is what I've been told someone else experienced," or "Based on an idea someone else came up with..." That would be so complicated that we omit those caveats to our conveyance of ideas and somehow we forget how fallible our premise foundations are. Told in an honest fashion, every law, fact or theory seems as laughable as the notion that creation is only 6000 years old.

The infamous ad ignorantiam fallacy again. I have a feeling many don't even read half the posts... and just state their argument without background. The ad ignorantiam fallacy seems to be a favorite, it is no basis for argument, since it is the individual's job/duty, that claims that something exists, to be able prove it. If it cannot be proved, then there is no reason to believe it exists. Science considers something valid when it can be researched, tested and observed. That is the difference between religion and science, also the reason why they can not be compatible.
We see evidence of the concept of the Big Bang, that is why it is considered the best explanation so far, better than just claiming God(s) created it (which we have no direct evidence/observance yet).

Your statement is contradictory. You say that science requires something to be proved to be true, yet the "Big Bang Theory" has not yet been proved. By your logic and the dictum of Prima facie the previously accepted explanation "God did it" would hold sway or else you would have to say "I don't know." Science only considers something valid when a majority in power give it its blessing (peer review), though i would agree that the primary requirement of observation is generally necessary for peer acceptance. Wait. I take that back. Too much accepted science is not observable to make that statement true. Anyway, your last statement is a PERFECT summary for this entire thread. "Better than just claiming God(s) created it" reveals the true nature of the conflict and reduces it down to a difference of opinion.