Help Me Out Please

[surenderer]

Peace to you guys,
I have listened (read) about the ongoing debates between the "Atheists" and the "Theists" about the begining of life etc......but as a believer of a Creator I have some questions that I would like for you guys to answer for me......if life did occur from a "Big Bang" then what exploded? I have heard that Matter is the cause but how did Matter get there? It couldnt have always been there could it? I have heard Atheists say that their arguments are logical and religious peoples arguments are illogical yet I wonder because as anyone knows we need a Creator to have a creation so to say that matter has always been there without a Creator is also illogical....Right now I have a book in front of me but the tree from which it came didnt explode to create my book. I also have a car but I dont need to go to the factory and see them make it to know that it was created there do I? Or how about the Mona Lisa picture.......do you have to see the artist with canvas and paints in hand to know that he painted it? By Atheists standards you should believe that the paint exploded onto the canvas the way it appeared and it happened to make a picture of the Mona Lisa......These arguments seem strange to me because 100 years ago people thought they had the answers to life and that the people 100 years before them were "primitive" for having the thoughts they did at that time (about science etc...) as I'm sure the people 100 years go thought about their ancestors etc etc etc.......so I guess what I'm saying is logically speaking 100 years from now someone will be saying the same thing about you wont they? So doesnt that mean that chances are that what you think now to be the truth is in fact wrong? Why are "Believers any more illogical"?.....<shrug>.....I will say that most of the Atheists on these boards (path and Bells come immdeiatly to mind but not just them) are respectful and I dont post to "flame" or to make anyone mad but these questions bother me.....I hope to bridge an understanding between Believers and Non-Believers with this question.......peace to you :m:

 

[marv]

surrenderer,

My theistic experience has only been with monotheism, i.e., Christianity. Although, as a Lutheran, I had suspicions for many years prior, I finally concluded at seventeen that not only are there no gods, but that there is no need of them. In these subsequent 49 years, I've heard no argument and seen no reason to change.

I'm also an atheist who doesn't accept the theory of a Big Bang creation of the universe. Cosmology is really a non-deistic theology complete with everything else a religion would want. It claims a "creation" in the Big Bang. It has it's mysteries of "time-dilation", etc., that are pronounced as truth not to be questioned, by its "saints" and "prophets" like Einstein and Hawking.

Religious texts such as the Torah, Bible and Qur'an pile myth upon myth to "prove" truth. And Cosmologists pile theory upon theory to prove their "truths". Theists and Cosmologists certainly have one thing in common: there are no common agreed upon theologies or theories. Each religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, come in many, many different flavors. The same is true in Cosmology. Actually the number of choices is staggering.

When you stop and think about it, if so many claim to have the only and final unique "truth", it's most likely that none of them do.

What concluded it for me was A. E. Haydon's book"The Biography of the Gods", where he said in the last paragraph of the last chapter, "For too long, man has put off unto the gods those things that he should be doing for himself."

For me the practice of any religion, like any human mutual endeavor, requires constraints. There's an old saying, "Your freedom to do as you please ends where my nose begins." The Golden Rule says the obverse in a more pleasant way.

One hundred years from now? Human nature will probably be pretty much the same as it is now. The frontiers of science will be so much further than now as to be unrecognizable.

 

[Raithere]

if life did occur from a "Big Bang" then what exploded? I have heard that Matter is the cause but how did Matter get there? It couldnt have always been there could it?

First off, life didn’t begin at the “Big Bang”, the observable universe did. Life developed within the universe quite some time later.

There are a variety of theories and hypotheses as to the origin of matter but when it comes down to it we simply do not know at this point. We can conclude that the Universe was once very hot and dense by the observations we can make but beyond certain point we cannot observe.

I have heard Atheists say that their arguments are logical and religious peoples arguments are illogical yet I wonder because as anyone knows we need a Creator to have a creation so to say that matter has always been there without a Creator is also illogical....

No more so than asserting that a creator has always been there without being able to explain the creator’s origins. The primary difference is that I’ve seen matter first hand whereas the creator has yet to make an appearance.

Right now I have a book in front of me but the tree from which it came didnt explode to create my book. I also have a car but I dont need to go to the factory and see them make it to know that it was created there do I? Or how about the Mona Lisa picture.......do you have to see the artist with canvas and paints in hand to know that he painted it?

Even though you may not have observed the book, car, or painting being created you do have a lifetime of experience that demonstrates that books, cars, and paintings do not assemble naturally. However, upon examining the constituent components of life, how life is ‘assembled’, and our exploration into the history of life we find nothing unnatural. In fact we find the constituent components necessary for life all over the Universe.

The analogy would be to find that the universe was filled with car parts that formed naturally according to the basic laws of the universe. And upon examination finding that these parts had a natural tendency to assemble themselves into more and more complex structures. In such a universe it is quietly likely that cars would not be ‘created’ but instead a natural occurrence within the laws of the universe.

By Atheists standards you should believe that the paint exploded onto the canvas the way it appeared and it happened to make a picture of the Mona Lisa..

No. By these standards, whatever pattern landed on the canvas would be the pattern that landed on the canvas. You’re selecting for a specific result but if the process is random you cannot do that. (BTW the process is not truly random anyway).

These arguments seem strange to me because 100 years ago people thought they had the answers to life and that the people 100 years before them were "primitive" for having the thoughts they did at that time (about science etc...) as I'm sure the people 100 years go thought about their ancestors etc etc etc.......so I guess what I'm saying is logically speaking 100 years from now someone will be saying the same thing about you wont they?

It is quite likely that people in the future will think many of the things that we believe now are silly. Hindsight is 20/20. However much of what we know is based upon empirical observation and experiment and this isn’t likely to be changed although it may be amended.

Why are "Believers any more illogical"?

Belief without evidence or strong logical argument is illogical regardless if that belief is about god, the origin of the universe, or the health benefits of aromatherapy. Those who think critically will withhold belief unless there is a strong argument and evidence one way or the other.

Most atheists prefer the logically weak argument, which states that there is no reason to believe there is a god, rather than the strong assertion that there is no god.

~Raithere

 

[spidergoat]

Well, scientists and atheist don't necessarily "believe" in the Big Bang Theory, the way creationists believe in God, but the observed expanding universe seems to imply it. Short answer is, no one knows for sure about the beginnings of the universe, or even if there was a beginning, or if the Big Bang was the only such event that occured, or if everything is a circular or linear process. Science is not dependent on being absolutely sure, new evidence may always change your initial presumptions. Life as we know it is an emergent property of water. When you get water together at the right temperature with the right chemicals, funny self-replicating reactions start to happen. So why don't we worship water?

Human intelligence (the most advanced we know about) has never created anything nearly as remarkable as the lowliest fruitfly or virus, so why postulate that intelligence is the cause of life? The processes that led to life are completely stupid and unintelligent like a computer, or a sand dune. A computer may produce simulations of amazing complexity, but they are the result of simple logic. In the same way, simple chemistry can add up to something greater than the parts. Even computer scientists are learning now that when they let programs evolve, surprising and simple solutions occur that no one could have predicted. All that you need is a force for selection, like a task, and a program that can mutate.


It's true that in 100 years, some things we think now will have been proven wrong, but science embraces that, unlike creationists, who firmly believe what they do no matter what new information is revealed. New ideas and technology build upon past ideas, so what we have learned so far, even if wrong or incomplete are still useful.

 

[cole grey]

Belief without evidence or strong logical argument is illogical regardless if that belief is about god, the origin of the universe, or the health benefits of aromatherapy. Those who think critically will withhold belief unless there is a strong argument and evidence one way or the other.
~Raithere

Raithere,
I think many of your points are valid, but this is an unfair assertion. Many scientific experiments are undertaken by critical thinkers, based on a theory that may or may not have "strong argument or evidence." Could you even say, "the best scientists work without pre-suppositions, witholding beliefs until they prove them," if another more biased one gathered more information based on their hopeful theories?
I am not saying the theories of God's existence are most useful to study, just that a"critical" thinker can also withhold disbelief unless there is a strong argument one way or the other

 

[fadeaway humper]

Seeing as I'm drunk right now, all i got to say is, peace and love, man.

Yeah, yhat's prettty muc it.

 

[marv]

I am not saying the theories of God's existence are most useful to study, just that a"critical" thinker can also withhold disbelief unless there is a strong argument one way or the other...

A "strong argument" can't be made until either way until the subject's presence can be identified, or the effect of it's presence identified. By definition, the conventional "god(s)" cannot be identified. That leaves only an operational identification by effect.

One example is that the Earths orbit is such as to support life. Any closer to the sun, and we fry. Any further, and we freeze. Therefore, Earths orbit is the work of a god.

I say, "Not so!" If we were any closer or any further, we would not be here discussing this matter!

 

[surenderer]

Religious texts such as the Torah, Bible and Qur'an pile myth upon myth to "prove" truth. And Cosmologists pile theory upon theory to prove their "truths". Theists and Cosmologists certainly have one thing in common: there are no common agreed upon theologies or theories. Each religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, come in many, many different flavors. The same is true in Cosmology. Actually the number of choices is staggerin

Why is it that the Bible etc.....pile upon myth? Religious folks say I'm here....I'm breathing I have been created so I must have a Creator

When you stop and think about it, if so many claim to have the only and final unique "truth", it's most likely that none of them do.

Or maybe there could be some truth in all of them (Islam teaches that they all came from the same Origin)

What concluded it for me was A. E. Haydon's book"The Biography of the Gods", where he said in the last paragraph of the last chapter, "For too long, man has put off unto the gods those things that he should be doing for himself."

I actually agree with that......for example blaming God for all the hungry people in the world but not doing anything to help them ourselves

One hundred years from now? Human nature will probably be pretty much the same as it is now. The frontiers of science will be so much further than now as to be unrecognizable.

[/QUOTE]


How about 200 years from now? all you have to do is look back 200 hundred years ago to see the momentus differences between then and now......I actually think science will merge with God not seperate....<shrug> but thats just me :m:

 

[marv]

Religious folks say I'm here....I'm breathing I have been created so I must have a Creator...

Not quite so. You've been taught, and you believe, that you have a creator. That does not make it so; that does not make it truth.

Or maybe there could be some truth in all of them...

Using only logic, if all of them have "some" truth, then perhaps none of them have all of the truth.

(Islam teaches that they all came from the same Origin)

So what about Buddists, Hindus, Shintos, Janists, etc.? There are thousands of religions and spiritual beliefs around the world to choose from.

Some are benign, some not. Some are very sophisticated and complex, others straightforward and simple. It was the sheer population that first caused me to question my early religious beliefs - which were simply passed on by my parents.

A word - I do not preach atheism, nor do I seek to convert anyone. If a person is comfortable in their theistic choice, they should stay with it.

 

[surenderer]

There are a variety of theories and hypotheses as to the origin of matter but when it comes down to it we simply do not know at this point. We can conclude that the Universe was once very hot and dense by the observations we can make but beyond certain point we cannot observe.

If you dont know then how can you say whats right and whats wrong? How was the universe hot? How? what heat source? why?

No more so than asserting that a creator has always been there without being able to explain the creator’s origins. The primary difference is that I’ve seen matter first hand whereas the creator has yet to make an appearance

But of course the Creator has no body or form so he aint no "little old man with a beard"

However, upon examining the constituent components of life, how life is ‘assembled’, and our exploration into the history of life we find nothing unnatural. In fact we find the constituent components necessary for life all over the Universe.

Huh?? you yourself said you dont know how Matter became so that in itself seems unnatural to me<shrug>.......if nothing is unnatural also please show me a "missing link" (I.E. a half man-half ape)or are you dismissing evolution also?

No. By these standards, whatever pattern landed on the canvas would be the pattern that landed on the canvas. You’re selecting for a specific result but if the process is random you cannot do that. (BTW the process is not truly random anyway).

So you are saying that if thrown enough times it would duplicate the Mona Lisa?....Wait it isnt random? You mean there is an order to it? who would do such a thing?

It is quite likely that people in the future will think many of the things that we believe now are silly. Hindsight is 20/20. However much of what we know is based upon empirical observation and experiment and this isn’t likely to be changed although it may be amended.

But you yourself admit that it's probably incorrect right? Wasnt people's thought patterns 500 years ago also based uponobervation and experiment?


you say:

Belief without evidence or strong logical argument is illogical regardless if that belief is about god, the origin of the universe, or the health benefits of aromatherapy.

but earlier you said:

There are a variety of theories and hypotheses as to the origin of matter but when it comes down to it we simply do not know at this point.

so what do you believe? It obviously happened because we are here today right? There is no scientific "evidence" to the creation of the universe is there? everything is just hypothisis...I perfer to think of a Creator "getting the ball rollin" as every bit as logical as any other solution put forth....peace to you :m:

 

[surenderer]

Not quite so. You've been taught, and you believe, that you have a creator. That does not make it so; that does not make it truth.Using only logic, if all of them have "some" truth, then perhaps none of them have all of the truth.So what about Buddists, Hindus, Shintos, Janists, etc.? There are thousands of religions and spiritual beliefs around the world to choose from.

Some are benign, some not. Some are very sophisticated and complex, others straightforward and simple. It was the sheer population that first caused me to question my early religious beliefs - which were simply passed on by my parents.

A word - I do not preach atheism, nor do I seek to convert anyone. If a person is comfortable in their theistic choice, they should stay with it.

I think me and you have talked enough to know that I dont preach either You have also been taught the same (since you became an atheist) I dont disrespect any religion......not my place..... on a personal note my ex-wife was a Buddist ....anyways I do believe still that they all came from the same source originally but time culture etc has changed them into what we see today :m:

 

[Q25]

..if life did occur from a "Big Bang" then what exploded?

no one really knows for sure...yet,(anti matter perhaps,)
do a search for some real scientific cosmology sites to see the latest theories...and make sure not to get sidetracked by those ID creationists idiocy ...anyhow life didnt start at BB but much later,

I have heard that Matter is the cause but how did Matter get there? It couldnt have always been there could it?

why not?
theists say God always existed,so why couldnt matter,which can't be destroyed or created only changed.so its more likely that matter/universe always existed in some kind of form/shape

and we can see matter, but gods are nowhere to be seen!

I have heard Atheists say that their arguments are logical and religious peoples arguments are illogical yet I wonder because as anyone knows we need a Creator to have a creation

and it looks like the universe is our creator

Or how about the Mona Lisa picture.......do you have to see the artist with canvas and paints in hand to know that he painted it?

theres a big difference here,
we know how picture is done,
but we have absolutely no clue how BB happened,except for plenty of scientific theories which are the results of a cosmological studies,kinda like an investigators searching for clues to solve a crime,the scientists search for clues and information within our universe and from its behavior deduce whats a most likely scenario of its origins
saying God did it is just an argument from ignorance which gets us nowhere

So doesnt that mean that chances are that what you think now to be the truth is in fact wrong?

sure anythings posible,though we know that evolution is a fact,and biblical creation is a fictional story

Why are "Believers any more illogical"?.....<shrug>.

b/c they believe in something as fact(god exists etc) when you have no logical reason to do so

 

[marv]

surrenderer, if "original source" refers to a seed for religions and/or spiritualism in humans, I would point to a sudden, brief, and very severe volcanic winter resulting from the super-eruption of Toba in Sumatra which occurred about 70,000 years ago. Paleoanthropologists call it "The Bottleneck".

It was after that event that human culture blossomed and such artifacts as cave paintings occurred. It also marked the beginning of human burial with tools, flowers, and such, suggesting the beginning of a belief in an after-life. I'm not entirely convinced that it was a belief in an after-life, but more of a questioning of "who are we" and "where did we come from" and "why are we here". Given a few tens of thousands of years, it's not difficult to interpolate the beginnings of organized religion. And given the dispersion of Homo sapien sapien, the diversion of religious practices.

Has anyone ever noticed that the different religious practices parallel the local cultural and environmental characteristics of human habitation?

 

[Ophiolite]

"original source" for religions ........ a sudden, brief, and very severe volcanic winter resulting from the super-eruption of Toba in Sumatra which occurred about 70,000 years ago. Paleoanthropologists call it "The Bottleneck".

And its called that because we almost died out as a species. Which is an interesting speculation: today, in times of trouble we often turn to religion. Did we learn that under ash-laden skys seventy millenia ago?

 

[Raithere]

I think many of your points are valid, but this is an unfair assertion. Many scientific experiments are undertaken by critical thinkers, based on a theory that may or may not have "strong argument or evidence." Could you even say, "the best scientists work without pre-suppositions, witholding beliefs until they prove them," if another more biased one gathered more information based on their hopeful theories?
I am not saying the theories of God's existence are most useful to study, just that a"critical" thinker can also withhold disbelief unless there is a strong argument one way or the other

I think there are several ways to approach this, primarily because the term 'belief' is somewhat nebulous. Still, I would assert that to believe something is true without proper evidence or strong argument is illogical.

Don't mistake me; we all operate under certain logically unfounded presumptions. The world simply does not seem to resolve itself so easily that we can build an entirely logical belief structure. We could easily slip into a tertiary argument here on whether logic is the ultimate tool for determining truth or if existence/reality itself is ambiguous but I'll stay on topic (or close to it).

The primary error I see is in not understanding or refusing to admit that certain founding premises are actually suppositions. The problem being that unless one admits this and is willing to challenge those suppositions there is no possibility of correcting any errors that might exist there.

The Big Bang, for instance, is strongly supported by empirical evidence. We can look back into the past and see the time when the Universe was very small and dense. But beyond a certain point we cannot see and the logical progression from a strongly supported theory moves into the realm of weak theory and hypothesis.

First cause and design arguments for a deity likewise fall into the realm of hypothesis (if that, typically they are untestable and therefore not even hypotheses). The primary difference being that the scientists, working on a first cause hypothesis, use it as a working premise not a conclusion. And I think that if you press the best scientists (whomever they are) they would have to admit that they operate at some level under unsupported suppositions.

Withholding disbelief is another matter. Personally, I can only justify it in order to test the hypothesis. For it seems to me that if one applied this suspension of disbelief equally across all possible hypotheses one would become stuck in a never ending morass of possibilities. This is a simplification and probably due further consideration. A hypothesis should be given more or less consideration based upon how well it fits into a larger, founded, logical structure.(as for instance even the wilder scientific cosmological hypotheses)... but I'll leave it here for now.

~Raithere

 

[cole grey]

Don't mistake me; we all operate under certain logically unfounded presumptions. The world simply does not seem to resolve itself so easily that we can build an entirely logical belief structure. We could easily slip into a tertiary argument here on whether logic is the ultimate tool for determining truth or if existence/reality itself is ambiguous but I'll stay on topic (or close to it).

~Raithere

I actually think when the athiest, or believer, works with untestable evidence, the question of logic's role is actually very important. If you believe that human beings are inherently logically functional and are able to come up with good answers based on the tiny amount of knowledge they have about the universe, you will be more likely to trust your own logic when it reaches a point where two apparently contradictory conclusions meet.
As an example, if we were alive in the seventeenth century and you told someone you needed them to be both in Rome on monday, and in South africa on wednesday, they would say you have given them an impossible contradiction. Today they would say, where's my plane ticket? If somebody during that period were to start thinking about trying to reconcile that contradiction, they might have been laughed at, but history would just prove they had foresight.

Someday concrete evidence may be available that will show that my concept of God probably doesn't exist. If I am still alive, I will have good reason to drop the concept.
Maybe this is unfair to humanity, but for now I will keep a limitation on the amount of faith I put in the 10%, or so, of the brain we use for logical thinking.

 

[one_raven]

If somebody during that period were to start thinking about trying to reconcile that contradiction, they might have been laughed at, but history would just prove they had foresight.

I could be misreading this, but you seem to be confusing logic with reason.
The two are very different things and the distinction (perhaps especially in matters of philosophy) is very important.

 

[cole grey]

RAVEN,

I was trying to say :

1. human reasoning is often faulty, as is evidenced constantly, sometimes on the posts on this forum.

2. human logic often breaks down when some aspect of a situation is unknown.
An example would be the statement: "if one great basketball player can put a basketball through a hoop twelve times per minute, twenty great basketball players will put 240 basketballs through the hoop in a minute."
It might be "logical" if the hoop were ten feet wide, but if 3 basketballs have to go through the 18" hoop every second we start to run into problems, which can be evidenced by simple physical experimentation.

3. Since my, and other people's, logic and reasoning can result in conclusions that are incorrect, I will not trust 100% in my own reasoning, or logic, to always be correct.

Hopefully this is worded cohesively enough.

 

[mustafhakofi]

no bad example,:
twenty great basketball players through twenty hoops,could be possible.
but not through the same hoop, not possible, so not logical.

you have to agree, that your reasoning is better, than for example a five year old or someone with that mental age, it only when you come up against someone, who's logic seems flawless that you doubt yourself.
and in these situations you sit back and listen and learn, unless you a brick wall, and dont want to know the truth.

 

[cole grey]

Cole Grey says,
2. human logic often breaks down when some aspect of a situation is unknown.
An example would be the statement: "if one great basketball player can put a basketball through a hoop twelve times per minute, twenty great basketball players will put 240 basketballs through THE hoop in a minute."
it might be "logical" if THE hoop were ten feet wide, but if 3 basketballs have to go through the 18" hoop every second we start to run into problems, which can be evidenced by simple physical experimentation.

MUSTAPHAKOFI,
If there were twenty hoops the statement would also be logical, yes.
My point was that a statement which "seems" logical to someone who doesn't know what THE size of THE basketball hoop is which ALL the players must use breaks down after they find out the hoop is only 18" wide.
That which "appears" logical to the person who is not well informed, is often actually not logical at all. And humanity is not well-informed enough about the universe for me to be a slave to human logic.