Big Bang Evidence for God

[Mazulu]

Based on this article, http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqu...tephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe

we should use words like "scenario" instead of "theory". There is no God, -- that's a scenario. God created the universe -- is another scenario. The big bang was an explosion in hyperspace -- is another scenario.

Let's look at the "God created the universe" scenario. God would have to create the space-time itself, then assign or program into this space-time its physics constants: c, h, G, etc... If anyone knows why the physics constants are what they are, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Next, where did the energy of the big bang come from? A truly wise Deity wouldn't use his own energy, He would borrow the energy. Borrow it from where? He borrowed it from space-time itself. Using some very secret and mysterious methodology, God borrowed the energy from the curvature of space-time itself. Since all energy creates a gravitational sillouette, and gravity is a "minus" potential energy, then the energy came from the curvature of space-time. God, a very powerful entity, borrowed a humoungous amount of energy, and created an extremely high energy density singularity. It exploded, and the universe was born.

The question is this: what methodology did God use to borrow energy from space-time curvature? If we knew that, we would enter the Star Trek era.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

As an aside, it is interesting that the current crop of 'lab monkey' such as AN, who believes he is much superior because of a very narrow field of expertise, has such a negative attitude to those who paved the way or otherwise worked in many other areas other than his immediate field.

I'm not a lab monkey Walter. You got employed as one by actual physicists, where your job was to look at a screen to find signatures of particle events others had modelled and predicted. You didn't do the physics, you did the manual labour. I work in scientific research doing the creating of models and the prediction of results. As for my 'very narrow area of expertise' you'd be surprised the breath of things I've worked on since finishing my PhD. I would say my breath of experience has increase several fold, in all cases doing research in real world problems for significant internation companys/agencies.

Don't get me wrong, the 'lab monkeys' are an essential piece of the scientific machine but they aren't the drivers. When you talk about your previous employments you like to present yourself as doing the physics, as familiar with 'nuclear physics', as being involved in some way with monopole theories but that isn't really true, it's a misrepresentation. Working a radiation meter doesn't require you to know how it works (just like most modern technology). Pointing a radiation meter at ceramic tiles looking for radiation from Uranium doesn't mean you can simulate neutron diffusion through a fission reactor. In a metaphorical way you do the former, I do the latter.

But nice try at misrepresenting me, implying I think you're a hack because you're not in my 'immediate field'. Hardly! I think you've a hack because your scientific work has been a mixture of unimpressive, scaremongering, laughable and in some places down right dishonest. Yes, you've done jobs where it is essential someone does it but being a radiation tech in a hospital doesn't make you a CERN physicist. You like to present yourself as closer to the latter because it might give your doom saying (be it about the LHC or ceramic tiles) more gravitas. But the reality is you cannot do any quantum mechanics or quantum field theory or general relativity, despite how you present yourself and despite how much whining you have done over the LHC.

Religion wouldn't be fullfilling its purpose if it didn't offer hope and some sense of certainty in a universe that is very uncertain.

Personally I don't think lying to people to deceive them into believing false things for the purposes of pacifying them is a very good thing. People would deal with life better and more rationally if they used facts and reasoning, not superstition and delusion.

It would completely defeat the purpose of religion to sit around and wait for thousands of years until verfiable facts were available.

It is more honest to say "We don't know but we'll try to find out" to a question than to not admit you don't know and then make something up. Religious proclamations of that sort have and continue to hold back many societies, as well as cause strife within and between them.

For example, all of the time and effort spent on dealing with the 'Intelligent Design' community could be put to good use. But instead the Bible makes up some stuff, people interpret it in a particular way and declare it truth not only without evidence but in spite of it.

we should use words like "scenario" instead of "theory". There is no God, -- that's a scenario. God created the universe -- is another scenario. The big bang was an explosion in hyperspace -- is another scenario.

The big bang has evidence, models based on it made testable, verified predictions. Everything else you say, about god, are unscientific as they don't provide those things. You wish to present the big bang model as just as baseless as your religious beliefs so that you can somewhat elevate your religious beliefs but the fact is you don't have any sound evidence for your beliefs, unlike the big bang model in science.

If anyone knows why the physics constants are what they are, I'd be happy to hear about it.

As I just said, religion simply making up an answer when the answer isn't known doesn't make religion better, it makes it worse.

Next, where did the energy of the big bang come from? A truly wise Deity wouldn't use his own energy, He would borrow the energy.

You sure do know a lot about how this entity works. Shame you haven't got any evidence.

This is precisely the sort of thing I am talking about. You don't know such things so you make them up. You then delude yourself into thinking it is true and you live your life believing (and thus acting, since beliefs inform actions) false and/or baseless things. If you're willing to believe things and act according to them without evidence or reason then it says bad things about you.

Borrow it from where? He borrowed it from space-time itself. Using some very secret and mysterious methodology, God borrowed the energy from the curvature of space-time itself. Since all energy creates a gravitational sillouette, and gravity is a "minus" potential energy, then the energy came from the curvature of space-time. God, a very powerful entity, borrowed a humoungous amount of energy, and created an extremely high energy density singularity. It exploded, and the universe was born.

The question is this: what methodology did God use to borrow energy from space-time curvature? If we knew that, we would enter the Star Trek era.

No, the question is how can you know any of this, why would a god 'borrow' things when, according to you, he can create anything (including that energy anyway!) in any form however he wishes. You've piled assumption on guess on story on myth on supposition on ignorance. If you really believe such things, without evidence or reason, then I pity you. How sad it is you cannot deal with reality on reality's terms that you must delude yourself in this way.

 

[Aqueous Id]

This appears to be not well-written, and confusing. The Earth and the Sun have very similar chemical compositions with the exception for the excessive abundance of H/He on the Sun. Remove that, and they have similar relative abundances of the elements (chemical composition).

Perhaps you could explain that since it makes no sense. You seem to be saying that my statement is false if you remove 99% of the data. I considered that, just to see if I could make sense of how the remaining 1% compares. I get O (55%), C (30%), N (6%), Si (3%), Mg (2%), Ne (2%) and so on. Compared to the Earth: Fe (32%), O (30%), Si (15%), Mg (14%), S (3%) , Ni (2%), Ca (1.5%) and so on. I see no way to make the relative abundances look the same.

Likewise, the cosmic rays show a similar relative abundance to the relative abundance of elements on Earth.

Here you seem to be saying that my statement is false if you remove 99.9999% of the data. That gets me nowhere either, since I find O, C, Ne, Fe, N, Si, Mg, S and so on in the remainder of cosmic spectra, which doesn't jibe with the Eath data above, either.

The implication of your sentence is that the 'sun formed out of the remnants of the Big Bang' while the Earth did not. Not true.

The 99.9999% H/He above is considered to be the remnant of the Big Bang, with the remaining 0.0001% evidently being the remnants of supernovae.

As mentioned in my earlier post, the Earth and Sun are both derived from the exact same proto-solar-system cloud

Which I also said elsewhere. Maybe you misunderstood me. The primal solar nebula formed out of two remnants: the Big Bang H/He, and the remnants of one or more supernovae, which supplied the other elements.

which was heterogeneously mixed over the course of a billion years or thereabouts BEFORE the Sun and it planets derived (formed) from that cloud,

No one has any idea what the primal solar nebula looked like in terms of spatial distribution. At best you would need to look at known nebulae to even begin to hypothesize about this. I'm not sure there is a meaningful way to mark the beginnings of the primal solar nebula, or of the mass that formed the sun, or the planets. We would just need to pick some arbitrary starting point.

with all of the supernovae ejecta that shot the heavy elements into the cold H/He cloud thoroughly mixed, giving rise to the heavy elements on Earth, the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, asteroids, etc.

That comports with my statement that the Earth formed out of remnants of supernovae. So I would tend to agree.

While the relative abundances (of the elements) are not now exactly the same, that is attributable to secondary accretion mechanisms; for example the Earth having a greater relative abundance of Iron than its Moon. Those secondary accretion mechanisms, however, do not impact the relative abundance of the isotopes of each element (because they are chemically the same, and in most cases very similar in atomic mass except for the very lightest elements).

If you are saying heavy elements came from remnants of supernovae, then I agree.

To persons interested in more about solar system planet formation, I posted an extensive thread on that several years ago, and you can search my thread postings for that. I have also commented repeatedly in similar or related threads along the same lines. There is also an abundance of literature regarding proto-planetary disks (other than our own, which is now history) in the vicinity of our solar system (they are not presently discernible in other galaxies), and this is a current topic of much interest.

And I posted a chart earlier comparing the relative abundances of several nebulae. They are different, which simply says that the potential for "special creation" of Earth has a purely natural explanation.

As an aside, it is interesting that the current crop of 'lab monkey' such as AN, who believes he is much superior because of a very narrow field of expertise, has such a negative attitude to those who paved the way or otherwise worked in many other areas other than his immediate field.

Garnering the PhD in Physics is an enormous accomplishment. He's a great asset to the site. Obviously you've crossed paths before.

 

[Mazulu]

Personally I don't think lying to people to deceive them into believing false things for the purposes of pacifying them is a very good thing. People would deal with life better and more rationally if they used facts and reasoning, not superstition and delusion.

I find there are many good and true religious beliefs and practices that bring out the very best in us, e.g. marriage, prayer, meditation, charity, belief in an afterlife. Anything that inspires the masses (regardless of whether it's real or not) is positive, meaningful and helpful to humanity. People's lives are given meaning and purpose because they believe in these things. It makes them strong and gives them hope. You are blind and apathetic to the joyfulness of spiritual and religious practices. It is a shame. Large numbers of people experience Near Death Experiences. Many of them have their lives changed for the better. They are filled with hope, joy and pleasure. It is like falling in love, only it is stronger and can last a life time. But someone like you would do enormous harm to these people by telling them that they didn't get physical evidence from angels and saints that they saw, therefore, they are deluded and stupid. You would peddle this miserable ideology that if it's not physically provable, it's not valuable.

It is more honest to say "We don't know but we'll try to find out" to a question than to not admit you don't know and then make something up. Religious proclamations of that sort have and continue to hold back many societies, as well as cause strife within and between them.

Anything in excess can be harmful and do damage.

For example, all of the time and effort spent on dealing with the 'Intelligent Design' community could be put to good use. But instead the Bible makes up some stuff, people interpret it in a particular way and declare it truth not only without evidence but in spite of it.

What's wrong with the "Intelligent Design" scenario? Many people find it fascinating and even comforting to contemplate. The only down side is that all that time and effort failed to prove it. All we really know is that "something" existed before the big bang and made it possible; we just don't know what it was.

The big bang has evidence, models based on it made testable, verified predictions. Everything else you say, about god, are unscientific as they don't provide those things. You wish to present the big bang model as just as baseless as your religious beliefs so that you can somewhat elevate your religious beliefs but the fact is you don't have any sound evidence for your beliefs, unlike the big bang model in science.

You are mis-characterizing my position. I do believe that the big-bang occurred. I just find it neat that Genesis articulated the big bang in such an elegant and beautiful way: Let there be light! It is memorable and poetic imagery. Can you imagine trying to explain your mathematical model to someone from the Bronze age? They would think you were mad and possibly dangerous. All the scientific accuracy in the world is irrelevant if you're being chased by an angry mob of villagers intent on killing you.

As I just said, religion simply making up an answer when the answer isn't known doesn't make religion better, it makes it worse.

How?

You sure do know a lot about how this entity works. Shame you haven't got any evidence.

Then where did the energy from the big bang come from?

No, the question is how can you know any of this, why would a god 'borrow' things when, according to you, he can create anything (including that energy anyway!) in any form however he wishes.

The scenario is a metaphor. If God borrowed the energy from the curvature of space-time, then He used a technique to do it. He used a technique to get around conservation of energy. I'm talking about the Zero Energy universe hypothesis. There might be a way to induce a controlled low energy creation event that produces a limited quantity of energy and the gravity associated with it. It would be a significant technological breakthrough if we could do it.

 

[Mazulu]

No, the question is how can you know any of this, why would a god 'borrow' things when, according to you, he can create anything (including that energy anyway!) in any form however he wishes. You've piled assumption on guess on story on myth on supposition on ignorance. If you really believe such things, without evidence or reason, then I pity you. How sad it is you cannot deal with reality on reality's terms that you must delude yourself in this way.

I admit that I wish we could have Star Trek technology. I admit that I'm disappointed that the physics community can't overcome the technical challenges of building a warp drive. It is a disappointment that we won't get to race across the galaxy at superluminal speeds. :bawl:

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Which I also said elsewhere. Maybe you misunderstood me. The primal solar nebula formed out of two remnants: the Big Bang H/He, and the remnants of one or more supernovae, which supplied the other elements.

Yes, that is a better statement. It wasn't that I misunderstood, it was that I thought your statement wasn't clear and others would misunderstand. I suspected the above statement is what you'd meant to say.

Incidentally, my assertion is that the abundances of the heavier elements is 'similar', not the same, in solar bodies. That is, there is a peak of abundance at iron, which is what we would expect from rapid-neutron capture and fusion during supernovae, with a sharp decrease in abundance as Z goes to 94 or thereabouts. Because the isotopic abundance for each element is the same from the various solar bodies, we can conclude that the cloud was thoroughly mixed (which thorough mixing might only have taken a few million years). I once did a calculation on the time of the supernova, based on certain crude assumptions such that U-235 yield and U-238 yield during rapid-neutron-capture would be the same, and that there was only one supernova. That gives and ability to date the supernova based on the current relative abundances, and it worked out to be about 2 billion years before the Earth's formation. (Your graphs of nearby supernovae showing the absorption spectra for key elements were quite interesting, and showed similar results as well as for our solar system relative abundances).

And yes, AN has had a running 'animosity' towards me ever since he started posting here (after I invited him over here from a physics forum). He constantly mischaracterizes my knowledge, and the work I've done in physics (most all of which was done before he was born). For example, he asserts that one doesn't need to know how a GM meter works in order to operate one properly. While true, one can turn such a device on or off without much knowledge, not knowing how it works would lead to great problems, and I've seen many persons (physicists, technicians, and laymen) who've misused that and other similar monitoring equipment. Indeed, it could get you killed. He refers to my work at UC Berkeley physics department as being 'lab monkey' work, when in fact after two years of extensive hands-on experience in space-sciences I was 'rewarded' with designing my own experiment analysis (simply because no one else around would have been able to do it in the time alloted -- 2 months) of a balloon flight. Of course, he wasn't there to see what I was doing because he was either in diapers, or not yet born (1975, and I believe he was not yet born). But he is correct, my actual major was Biology, and I am a biologist by training in addition to my work in physics.

 

[pywakit]

I find there are many good and true religious beliefs and practices ...

Maz, I hate to point out the obvious, but this sentence is absurd. Clearly, "good" is relative. For people (like me) who are sick of living among ignorant, superstitious people who are incapable of rational thought processes, there is nothing "good" about religion. It suppresses reason, objectivity, critical thinking and much more. I can't speak for your particular society, but here in the US, Christians have a great deal of power, creating laws, rules, and regulations ... often based upon their religious beliefs ... which I have little choice but to abide by. Just because YOU think it's good doesn't mean it is.

Second, it is an oxymoron to say there are "many true religious beliefs". At best, only one could be true, and again, logically, since there remains zero evidence to support any of them, a rational person would conclude there is little likelihood any of them are true.

Maz, are you familiar with the term "indoctrination"? I must assume you are. How do you suppose you came to believe in the existence of gods (or "God") in the first place?

You know, I have talked with many Christians over the years. Certainly hundreds. Oddly, not one of them admitted to being indoctrinated. Kind of strains credulity, doesn't it?

Have you ever looked at the Catholic school curriculum (preschool through grade 12)? It's quite fascinating. They start teaching the children about God/Jesus at ages 4, 3 ... even 2. By the time the child is old enough to start thinking critically, it's too late. The existence of God for most is ... to all intents and purposes ... a 'given'. Rarely can a child resist the conditioning.

... that bring out the very best in us, e.g. marriage, prayer, meditation, charity, belief in an afterlife.

Here again, you display the arrogance of believers. The very best in us? Really? That may be your opinion, but it certainly isn't mine. Ok, I'll grant you charity is usually a good thing. But not always, as Bill and Melinda Gates have discovered. Talking to an imaginary being (prayer) only reinforces the delusion. This is a good thing? And you know, people can live together for their entire lives, completely committed to each other ... and never get married. Of course, in your beliefs, this is a sin, right? Your god doesn't like this.

Let me ask you another question: Have you ever considered what it would be like to live for eternity? FOREVER? I doubt it. You don't think you might get a little sick of worshiping your god after a few TRILLION years? No? Ok. How about 10^500 years? Not even then? Wow! Well, how about 10^500,000,000,000 years? Don't you think it might get a bit old by then?

And you still would not have even scratched the surface of ETERNITY.

This of course begs the question: What kind of being would require non-stop eternal praise and worship and devotion from billions upon billions of humans? A constant cacophony of voices repeating endlessly how great and powerful he is? Don't you find this a bit disturbing? Ever occurred to you that this might suggest some deep psychosis? Ever occur to you that failing to recognize this obvious reality is in itself suggestive of a 'deep' psychosis?

Not possible, is it? God is Perfect.

And you know this because it says so in a book and you believed it.

Anything that inspires the masses (regardless of whether it's real or not) is positive, meaningful and helpful to humanity.

No, it isn't. That's your arrogant, self-righteous opinion.

People's lives are given meaning and purpose because they believe in these things.

So it doesn't matter if it's just a fairytale?

It makes them strong and gives them hope.

Based on the actual totality of evidence, it is false hope. This is good? I don't think so.

You are blind and apathetic to the joyfulness of spiritual and religious practices.

Shooting heroin can also give you "joy". So? Just because religious practices can effect an emotional response does not in any way validate the belief.

It is a shame. Large numbers of people experience Near Death Experiences.

Ever occur to you these NDEs might have a physical cause? Like a brain that is being deprived of sufficient oxygen?

Many of them have their lives changed for the better.

This validates the experience? What about the ones whose lives were NOT changed for the better?

They are filled with hope, joy and pleasure.

Again, this does not validate the experience.

It is like falling in love, only it is stronger and can last a life time. But someone like you would do enormous harm to these people by telling them that they didn't get physical evidence from angels and saints that they saw, therefore, they are deluded and stupid.

Why? Their faith that weak? That fragile? A few words is enough to make them crumble? What exactly do you mean by "enormous harm"?

You would peddle this miserable ideology that if it's not physically provable, it's not valuable.

Reality is not an ideology. Although I don't claim to speak for Alpha, and we clearly are at odds, in this instance I find myself in agreement with his comments. Religion is not completely without value. But an objective analysis would strongly suggest it has suppressed the advancement of the species, and caused more harm than good. I often wonder where we would be today were it not for the time wasted worshiping imaginary beings.

Anything in excess can be harmful and do damage.

That include religion?

What's wrong with the "Intelligent Design" scenario? Many people find it fascinating and even comforting to contemplate.

Because it was a deliberate fraud? Because it was a scheme cooked up by religious conservatives to get Creation (aka God) back into the public schools?

Because it was scientifically inaccurate? Do you know what the crux of the 'Intelligent Design' argument was? Does "irreducible complexity" ring a bell?

The only down side is that all that time and effort failed to prove it.

You mean, all the conspirators failed to get it past the courts. Amusing that it was a religious conservative jurist that pulled the plug on the Discovery Institute and the school board members. All that planning. All that effort. All that money. All that CONSPIRING. And they got busted. The only "downside" is that the conspirators didn't spend a little time in prison.

All we really know is that "something" existed before the big bang and made it possible; we just don't know what it was.

That's about the only reasonable thing you have said. Yes, it is very probable something existed before the big bang. You would say it was God. Why? Because you were indoctrinated from childhood to believe in such things? No. You were never indoctrinated. Sorry.

You are mis-characterizing my position. I do believe that the big-bang occurred. I just find it neat that Genesis articulated the big bang in such an elegant and beautiful way: Let there be light! It is memorable and poetic imagery.

Written by men, ignorant of the universe in which they lived. Ever read the OT? Is earth correctly described as a sphere? No. Does God mention that all those little 'fixed' lights are just like our sun, just a lot farther away? No. Too difficult a concept for them? Absurd. God could have shown them what the earth looked like from space. He could have simply put the images in their minds, and made them understand. He could have shown them how the earth travels around the sun. He could have shown the other planets. The authors could then have written this stuff down, with diagrams and everything. Imagery. Again, amusing.

Can you imagine trying to explain your mathematical model to someone from the Bronze age?

Yes, gods are a bit simpler, aren't they?

They would think you were mad and possibly dangerous. All the scientific accuracy in the world is irrelevant if you're being chased by an angry mob of villagers intent on killing you.

But telling the angry villagers that there is an omnipotent god (just one, all the rest they have believed in are false) who is going to torture you for all eternity if you don't accept him is not "dangerous"?

How?


Then where did the energy from the big bang come from?


The scenario is a metaphor. If God borrowed the energy from the curvature of space-time, then He used a technique to do it. He used a technique to get around conservation of energy. I'm talking about the Zero Energy universe hypothesis. There might be a way to induce a controlled low energy creation event that produces a limited quantity of energy and the gravity associated with it. It would be a significant technological breakthrough if we could do it.

I guess I should apologize for going somewhat afield of the OP. However, it seems that is a trend on this thread, and, in fairness, I think if someone makes claims (in this case, the existence of gods/supernatural phenomena) those claims are open to challenge.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I find there are many good and true religious beliefs and practices that bring out the very best in us, e.g. marriage, prayer, meditation, charity, belief in an afterlife. Anything that inspires the masses (regardless of whether it's real or not) is positive, meaningful and helpful to humanity.

I wouldn't make such a carte blanche statement. If people believe things for bad reasons then they may make bad conclusions and do bad actions. If you allow in fantasy and delusion then you don't know if the outcome will be the best way to deal with real problems. Christianity or Islam might make some people behave in good ways but precisely the same things make others act in bad ways. One person might find the idea of a god a comfort, something to help them sleep at night. Another might view it as necessary to violently convert everyone to 'the truth'. If there was reason and evidence for the belief they could be presented to convert people, rather than lies and violence, as is all too often the case.

People's lives are given meaning and purpose because they believe in these things.

You may think that, you may wish to believe it, but that isn't necessarily so.

It makes them strong and gives them hope.

It cheats many people out of desired to improve themselves or the world around them. There are politicians saying "Don't worry about global warming, God said to Noah he'd not screw us over again!". That is a baseless believe which could harm everyone on the planet if made into US governmental policy. Rather than look at the reality, an excuse is found in some book to mortgage the future of our children.

You're looking only at the positives and ignoring the negatives. Some people get hope and strength from religion. Others get mental anguish, terrified of hell and how their own thoughts might betray them. It is not unknown for people leaving religions to suffer some form of PTSD, as the fear of hell has been so ingrained in them from a young age they cannot get it out of their subconscious.

Don't get me wrong, religion has done some good in the world. Has it made up for the bad it has done? In my view, no.

You are blind and apathetic to the joyfulness of spiritual and religious practices.

I'm not blind to saying there might be more than we can ever know and perhaps a god or gods does exist. But without evidence there is no reason for belief and you trying to make excuses for lying, just flat out lying, to people is disgusting.

Large numbers of people experience Near Death Experiences. Many of them have their lives changed for the better. They are filled with hope, joy and pleasure. It is like falling in love, only it is stronger and can last a life time.

You only list the good things, why don't you mention the bad? Fear of hell giving people nightmares. Families being murdered because they believe differently from their neighbours. Daughters being married into practical slavery. Mutilations of babies in the name of a religious practice. The mistreatment of women by banning them from education. The rejection of demonstrable facts about reality because they disagree with a book written by iron age thugs who advocate raping and murdering in the name of their invisible friend.

You cannot list the good and ignore the bad. Belief in god may give Person A an excuse to be happy but it can give Person B an excuse to murder or oppress.

But someone like you would do enormous harm to these people by telling them that they didn't get physical evidence from angels and saints that they saw, therefore, they are deluded and stupid. You would peddle this miserable ideology that if it's not physically provable, it's not valuable.

Its amazing you try such a line of argument. Religion lied to them, saying "That's an angel!" rather than "You had a psychotic break, you need to see a doctor" and then religion blames someone like me for being honest with them? Religion poisoned their mind in the first place! If they hadn't been told it was an angel or a visit from a dead ancestor in the form of a ghost they wouldn't have that false belief in the first place!

I didn't say that something not physically provable is not valuable. Plenty of works of fiction are not about real places but hearing them and thinking about them can give people peace and happiness. It's why a lot of fiction is written! And it can do it without pretending to be true. The Green Mile is a film with a religious twist and is quite good at tugging at peoples' heart strings, even atheistic people like myself. It doesn't have to claim to be truth to do that. There are plenty of ways of giving people hope and comfort without lying to them and you avoid much of the issues about people then making up their own interpretation, saying "You cannot prove me wrong!" and then acting on them, often to bad effect.

I know you cannot grasp that its possible to have positive feelings about things like the future or death without your religious crutch but some of us manage it.

Anything in excess can be harmful and do damage.

And religion completely consumes hundreds of millions, even billions, of peoples' lives.

What's wrong with the "Intelligent Design" scenario?

The fact it is utterly without evidence and even countered by evidence?

Many people find it fascinating and even comforting to contemplate.

You keep coming back to this "People find it comforting" line of reasoning. Many schizophrenic people find comfort in their delusions, should we leave them alone? Heroin addicts and alcoholics find comfort in a needle or a bottle, should we leave them to it? If someone finds comfort in harming others should we allow them to do so? If punching someone in the face makes me feel better should I be allowed to do it?

Of course not, there are limits to what people are allowed to indulge in when it comes to providing themselves comfort.

The only down side is that all that time and effort failed to prove it.

No, the other downsides are how it wasted the time and money of actual scientists and warped children's' learning when it tried to claim there's discord in the scientific community over evolution. In some cases the advocated, like William Demski, were shown to be down right liars.

All we really know is that "something" existed before the big bang and made it possible; we just don't know what it was.

No, we don't know that. And even if we did it is still a long long way from showing it is an intelligent agent with infinite power and knowledge and then still a long long way from showing it is the one in the Bible and who gives a shit about humans.

You are mis-characterizing my position. I do believe that the big-bang occurred. I just find it neat that Genesis articulated the big bang in such an elegant and beautiful way:

Genesis is not consistent with observed facts about the early universe.

Let there be light! It is memorable and poetic imagery.

Except in the very very earliest fraction of a second after the big bang there was no light. Only once symmetry breaking occurred did light come into existence, rather than being part of an electroweak/strong 'super force'. And then for the next 300,000 years there was no way for light to move around because all matter was ionised and thus the free electrons prevented light moving more than a subatomic distance. Only after 300,000 years of expanding and cooling did 'recombination' occur and light be able to move freely.

Can you imagine trying to explain your mathematical model to someone from the Bronze age? They would think you were mad and possibly dangerous. All the scientific accuracy in the world is irrelevant if you're being chased by an angry mob of villagers intent on killing you.

No matter how you spin it Genesis is not consistent, even poetically, with the big bang model. It gets the order of 'creation' wrong, saying plants came before the Sun. It says the Earth came before the Sun. If God is all knowing etc then he'd find a way to communicate an accurate poetic version of events, not get things like the order in which various things formed/developed wrong on numerous levels. There is no way to take Genesis anywhere close to literal and be consistent with reality.

How?

The wasted time and effort putting down intelligent design, creationism in a lab coat. The way in which religions have lead to wars over what various holy books proclaim about the nature of existence and the wants and desires of an invisible entity in the sky.

Do you seriously not see an inherent danger in making up lies and convincing people of them? You obviously don't believe all world religions, some of them you think are wrong. Look at the strife which has arisen between those religions. Look at how different sects of Islam bomb one another in Iraq. Look at the divisions between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Look at religious mass suicides. Look at ethnic cleansing down religious lines in places like The Balkans.

The history of Man is littered with different religious groups killing one another for all sorts of reasons without evidence.

Then where did the energy from the big bang come from?

I don't know but then neither do you.

The scenario is a metaphor. If God borrowed the energy from the curvature of space-time, then He used a technique to do it. He used a technique to get around conservation of energy. I'm talking about the Zero Energy universe hypothesis. There might be a way to induce a controlled low energy creation event that produces a limited quantity of energy and the gravity associated with it. It would be a significant technological breakthrough if we could do it.

You have absolutely no reason to think any of that is true. This is an example of a harm your faith is doing to you. Rather than going out and exploring how the universe works by doing experiments, testing how things work, you simply make up something, decide it is good enough and you don't bother to broaden your mind by exploring, so you believe, God's Creation. If your god made all of this for Man it seems a shame you don't bother to look at it but rather just make up lies to tell yourself. If I believed in him/her/it/them and that he/she/it/they made the universe for Man I'd think people like you dishonest him/her/it/them by not exploring the universe and all its intricate structures as much as you possibly can. You believe your god gave you a mind and yet you do not use it to its full capacity. So regardless of whether or not I believe in the god you do you're quite pitiful.

 

[Rhaedas]

Don't get me wrong, religion has done some good in the world. Has it made up for the bad it has done? In my view, no.

Minor nitpick. I would agree that religious people have historically done good, as well as bad thing. Some of those things may have been done due to religious influences. But I think those same people without religion would have done similar things. I don't think organized religion itself has ever done anything good outside what goodness was already in those people doing that good. But this is probably too far off topic. I just don't want religion to get credit for things that individuals have done, regardless of their motivation.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Minor nitpick. I would agree that religious people have historically done good, as well as bad thing. Some of those things may have been done due to religious influences. But I think those same people without religion would have done similar things. I don't think organized religion itself has ever done anything good outside what goodness was already in those people doing that good. But this is probably too far off topic. I just don't want religion to get credit for things that individuals have done, regardless of their motivation.

I agree. I don't need the threat of hell to be nice to people, I empathise with others and thus prefer to help rather than hinder.

Christopher Hitchens used to ask religious people to name one thing good religion has done which couldn't be done by purely secular means. Never got a valid response.

 

[arauca]

Minor nitpick. I would agree that religious people have historically done good, as well as bad thing. Some of those things may have been done due to religious influences. But I think those same people without religion would have done similar things. I don't think organized religion itself has ever done anything good outside what goodness was already in those people doing that good. But this is probably too far off topic. I just don't want religion to get credit for things that individuals have done, regardless of their motivation.

What would motivate a secular person to do good thing for an other person . (Please don't think with your comfortable belly in our present century)

 

[AlexG]

What would motivate a secular person to do good thing for an other person .

Socialization as a child.

Your position seems to be that without the threat of punishment from a powerful parental figure, people are naturally selfish and nasty.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

What would motivate a secular person to do good thing for an other person . (Please don't think with your comfortable belly in our present century)

The facts that I care about other people and that I live in a society. If you want to view it on a purely selfish level then by making the society a nicer place I'm more likely to improve my life within that society. I am happy to pay towards a national health service, even though I rarely use it and others who don't pay may use it a lot because I realise it makes society better and thus my life better, as well as the lives of people I care about. Plus I might not be as fortunate in the future as I am and that safety net is a comforting thought.

Plus I don't like to see others in pain. I always find it funny how Bible thumping conservatives in the US hate the notion of socialised health care, as if helping the poor and needy isn't something they want to do. Didn't Jesus say to do such things? It would seem my secular ideals are superior to theirs in that regard. I find the fact the US, the largest economic force in the history of the planet, will spend more time and money on arms than it will on the health of its own citizens. Bush Senior once said "If you want to know about socialised health care ask a Canadian!". Ask a Canadian and they'll say they are damn proud of their health care system, as is every other industrialised 1st world country, except the US.

Unlike the religious I don't need a threat of hell to be nice to people. Being nice because you're being threatened doesn't make you moral, if anything it robs you of your morality and instead uses the principle of "Do as I say because I am stronger than you". If god says to kill someone then you should (ala Isaac in the Bible). If Isaac had actual morals and not just a blind faith in some other entity he'd have said "No, it is wrong. Simply because you're more powerful than me doesn't make you right nor does it mean I should obey you because you created me". If my father told me to kill my sister I'd refuse, just because I'm the product of my parents doesn't mean I should blindly follow them. Likewise with a god. If the Christian god exists and he gave us minds 'in his image' then we should be able to make autonomous decisions, not be robots for his whims.

You aren't moral if you just obey someone who is more powerful than you. Actions are not moral just because the strongest person says so, be they man or deity. Unfortunately too many religious people have been robbed of their ability to reason for themselves, instead told that something is right if their deity (or deities) deem it. The god of the old testament is a jealous, bigoted, angry, sadistic, genocidal tyrant and even if it exists it shouldn't be worshipped, just like you don't have to worship your parents for creating you. The commandments like "Thou shall not kill" are not moral because your god says so, they are moral because without them civilisation is made worse. That's why the few commandments worth following (from the big 10 and 613 smaller ones) are followed even by secular people, not because some book says so but because it benefits society and unless you're a sociopath you empathise with other humans. The rest serve to illustrate the paranoid jealous attention seeking behaviour of the Abrahamic god (no other gods before me etc) and the attempt of religion to control peoples lives, even their very thoughts., For example; "if you look on another man's wife with lust then you have committed adultery in your heart" amounts to trying to control people's thoughts in an Orwellian 'thoughtcrime' fashion.

If you cannot motivate yourself to be nice to people without your religious belief then you have no moral code, you are simply obeying your god because he's stronger than you. When a religious person asks "Why don't you go around raping and murdering, using drugs and fornicating! That's what I'd do if I didn't have god's commands" then it illustrates how religion strips people of their basic humanity and reasoning abilities, removing their empathy for other humans and replacing it with a form of "might makes right". The fact you asked Rhaedas the question you did shows you've been affected in this manner.

 

[Rhaedas]

Exactly. I'll reverse the question and ask you, without your religion, would you still be nice and sociable to people, doing good things for your fellow neighbor?

If so, then you've answered your own question to me.

If not, I'm glad you believe in whatever deity you do to keep you guided on your moral path.

 

[pywakit]

What would motivate a secular person to do good thing for an other person . (Please don't think with your comfortable belly in our present century)

Empathy for one. Of course, there are just as many reasons why humans don't assist each other as they do. We are both simple and extremely complex beings. Unfortunately, Christians have been conditioned to believe morality is unique to those who accept God and God's teachings. Secularists by definition (according to Christian beliefs) have no morals/are immoral.

Well, arauca, would you not agree that indoctrination is immoral? Then why do Christians engage in such pervasive and deliberately immoral acts?

Babies have no concept of gods or other alleged supernatural phenomena. They are, by birth, realists. Over the first couple years of life, they become increasingly aware of, and learn to interact with the real world around them.

Not only do they have to be taught there are such things (beings) as God/Jesus, but they have to be taught that these things are just as real as the physical world.

I find this especially repugnant. Here is what they do to 3 and 4 year olds:

http://schools.archchicago.org/Academics/Curriculum/Religion/pdf/02. RE Curriculum PK Final 08.pdf

 

[pywakit]

And this is what they do to 5 year olds:

http://schools.archchicago.org/Academics/Curriculum/Religion/pdf/03. RE Curriculum K Final 08.pdf

6 year olds:

http://schools.archchicago.org/Acad...pdf/04. RE Curriculum Grade One Final 08.pdf

7 year olds:

http://schools.archchicago.org/Acad...pdf/05. RE Curriculum Grade Two Final 08.pdf

Do I need to go on?

How did YOU come to believe in the existence of God, arauca?

 

[Rhaedas]

Pywakit, interesting read. I noticed that a lot of the sections dealing with things like relationships, dealing with others, that whole thing...if you take any mention of God out of it, it still applies. In fact, most don't mention God at all.

PK.03.01
Show a sense of being loved by parents/guardians,
siblings and other family members.
PK.03.02
Build capacity to share unselfishly with others.
PK.03.03
Distinguish between unselfish and selfish acts.
PK.03.04
Exhibit awareness that I interact with my teachers,
classmates and friends.
PK.03.05
Exhibit awareness that rules teach me how to act.
PK.03.05
Identify how we are to love God and others.
PK.03.07
Show awareness that I take care of the
environment.

And interestingly,
PK.03.06
State awareness that God forgives us when we say
that we are sorry.
talks more about the meaning of sorry and compassion for others, not the idea of forgiveness washing away the sins of the acts you've done. So a lot of those can be treated very secularly. It's the Biblical stuff that's forced at the child at the unquestionable facts that must be accepted.

 

[pywakit]

The facts that I care about other people and that I live in a society. If you want to view it on a purely selfish level then by making the society a nicer place I'm more likely to improve my life within that society. I am happy to pay towards a national health service, even though I rarely use it and others who don't pay may use it a lot because I realise it makes society better and thus my life better, as well as the lives of people I care about. Plus I might not be as fortunate in the future as I am and that safety net is a comforting thought.

Plus I don't like to see others in pain. I always find it funny how Bible thumping conservatives in the US hate the notion of socialised health care, as if helping the poor and needy isn't something they want to do. Didn't Jesus say to do such things? It would seem my secular ideals are superior to theirs in that regard. I find the fact the US, the largest economic force in the history of the planet, will spend more time and money on arms than it will on the health of its own citizens. Bush Senior once said "If you want to know about socialised health care ask a Canadian!". Ask a Canadian and they'll say they are damn proud of their health care system, as is every other industrialised 1st world country, except the US.

Unlike the religious I don't need a threat of hell to be nice to people. Being nice because you're being threatened doesn't make you moral, if anything it robs you of your morality and instead uses the principle of "Do as I say because I am stronger than you". If god says to kill someone then you should (ala Isaac in the Bible). If Isaac had actual morals and not just a blind faith in some other entity he'd have said "No, it is wrong. Simply because you're more powerful than me doesn't make you right nor does it mean I should obey you because you created me". If my father told me to kill my sister I'd refuse, just because I'm the product of my parents doesn't mean I should blindly follow them. Likewise with a god. If the Christian god exists and he gave us minds 'in his image' then we should be able to make autonomous decisions, not be robots for his whims.

You aren't moral if you just obey someone who is more powerful than you. Actions are not moral just because the strongest person says so, be they man or deity. Unfortunately too many religious people have been robbed of their ability to reason for themselves, instead told that something is right if their deity (or deities) deem it. The god of the old testament is a jealous, bigoted, angry, sadistic, genocidal tyrant and even if it exists it shouldn't be worshipped, just like you don't have to worship your parents for creating you. The commandments like "Thou shall not kill" are not moral because your god says so, they are moral because without them civilisation is made worse. That's why the few commandments worth following (from the big 10 and 613 smaller ones) are followed even by secular people, not because some book says so but because it benefits society and unless you're a sociopath you empathise with other humans. The rest serve to illustrate the paranoid jealous attention seeking behaviour of the Abrahamic god (no other gods before me etc) and the attempt of religion to control peoples lives, even their very thoughts., For example; "if you look on another man's wife with lust then you have committed adultery in your heart" amounts to trying to control people's thoughts in an Orwellian 'thoughtcrime' fashion.

If you cannot motivate yourself to be nice to people without your religious belief then you have no moral code, you are simply obeying your god because he's stronger than you. When a religious person asks "Why don't you go around raping and murdering, using drugs and fornicating! That's what I'd do if I didn't have god's commands" then it illustrates how religion strips people of their basic humanity and reasoning abilities, removing their empathy for other humans and replacing it with a form of "might makes right". The fact you asked Rhaedas the question you did shows you've been affected in this manner.

Well said ... for a scientist.

 

[pywakit]

One particularly insidious aspect to the indoctrination of children is the introduction of the term "belief". This word is gradually incorporated into the indoctrination process. At first, the emphasis is on 'statements of fact'. Jesus loves you, for example. God created you. You belong to (are the property of) God.

Almost immediately the word 'belief' is slipped into the lessons, stated as synonymous with 'fact'. I would commend the Christians on their cleverness, were it not for the fact that they have had about 2,000 years to hone their indoctrination skills.

 

[Mazulu]

Alphanumeric, everyone,
Humans have been killing, raping and abusing each other historically for many reasons, not just religion. Religion is precious to those who embrace theirs; anything precious is worth defending. But people kill each other over money, land, resources, jealousy, sex, love, hate, and just because they can. You can't justify the position that religion is the only reason why people kill (harm) each other.

As for Christianity's teachings about Hell, I agree with you. The idea of hell can be used to create fear and inflict psychological torment. It works powerfully as a way to compel a belief in the afterlife, a fear of God and control over people's minds, simultaneously. I have used it to inflict psychological harm against some in this forum. But intellectuals have their own weapons of psychological torment. Anyone who is smart is afraid to look stupid. If someone wants to inflict psychological harm against an intelligent person, they use words like "stupid" or "idiot". The way you inflict psychological harm on creative free thinkers is you call them "insane" or "crackpot". My point is that religion is an innocent bystander in the ongoing violence of man against man.

As for the big bang and the birth of the universe, science simply doesn't know what happened. Maybe it was a quantum fluctuation. But then you still need something "quantum" to exist prior to the big bang. Science should stick to "we don't know" and let everyone else draw their own conclusions: Quantum flucuation, hyperspace explosion, flying spaghetti monster flatulence, God, whatever...

From the point of view of those who wrote Genesis, "Let there be light" is a perfectly good representation of "big bang". The details of the big bang are irrelevant because Genesis wasn't written for cosmologists and physicists. Genesis was written for laypersons, those who want religion and those who are searching for truth down through the ages. Know your audience.

Except in the very very earliest fraction of a second after the big bang there was no light.

So you want to tell people that the universe was born in darkness? I suggest that you ask the Satanists to add that to their Satanic Bible. It has a perfectly evil poetic ring to it.