Many theists around the world believe that the world was created when a certain entity named "God" spoke,
Or God purposely created the Adam and Eve and the apple which they were forbade to eat, but yet they ate.
Anyone who pursues science or anyone who reads popular science would know that it was all a point of nothingness ( singularity as we Physicists like to name it) led to the massive expansion of the Universe as we know it today. Further we believe in the Standard Model
I would love to hear the viewpoints on this idea from both supporters and non-supporters of the idea presented above.
Thank you.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Only happened one of 2 ways, created or by accident. there is either a point to the whole thing or no point. Being humans with a conscience we can observe and have ideas of how and why. If God exists he created- happy/love etc. If there is no God then we created happy/love etc. The question should really not be how we came to exist but why.
Without the "how" ..... the "why" can be no more than subjective imaginings and is therefore pointless.
Like life then
Not really ...
How so......
I live with a meat computer to guide me with chemical emotions, then I'll die, and it will be like I never existed.
You tell me....you made the claim..
"Like life then"
I merely disagreed...
How do you disagree ?
"and it will be like I never existed"
Possibly ..... you have a problem with that ?
Plus it seems you have no intentions to impact on the world ....?
You won't be leaving any kids?..... no ideas? ....non of your thoughts? ....you have nothing worth teaching others ?
IF that is the case then yes you will leave nothing behind ,your entire existence will have been a total waste of oxygen.
Possibly...... you think there is something else ?
"you think there is something else ?"
Certainly not .....
What I meant was that it is possible that "it will be like I never existed" ... as you said..
But whether or not it will be like that for you .... is entirely up to you ....
Will you leave a mark ?
Do you want to ?
"Anyone who pursues science or anyone who reads popular science would know that it was all a point of nothingness"
Maybe it didn't happen at all.
Who dictated that anything needs to be created anyway?
We still do not know if the universe always existed or not.
The big bang is just an explosion from 1 singularity or 1 massively big star(which has a singularity at the center).
We are still dwelling if the universe itself is not just 1 massive black hole and we just happen to be inside it.
The big bang is just an explosion and there could be more then one, these explosions could keep happening for eternity like in a loop.
You have to picture it like a huge star going supernova, possibly leaving a neutron star(tiny star) behind it.
In case of the big bang the 'tiny stay' might be the biggest star there currently is in this universe, but compared to what it was, it is considered tiny.
The idea that there must be a creation is a faith based initiative.
"Further we believe in the Standard Model"
we? who?
I think believing in any theory or idea is wrong, but understanding and rationally make probabilities for it, is the best option by far.
The entire idea was not to throw popular words like "singularity" or "the big-bang" or "Standard Model", and you've added to the list with words like "Black hole" "neutron star" "supernovae" at people who just know them from some vague reading online ( or have picked up the keywords from somewhere) but to actually question the very idea of creationism that every religious book out there claims. They give different names to the "creator" but all religions deeply seem to believe that there was some "human-like" entity with superpowers that created the universe as we know it today.
The idea was to debate the last point really.
ok, then it is best not to mention the universe since we know so little about.
Stick to what we know most.
The burden of proof relies on the one making the claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Theistic Religions so far presented nothing even close to call evidence of their god.
There is really no debate here about their claims.
The only debate is how to make them see this fact and rely on it.
Consciousness is primary. Consciousness produces matter. In a sense, consciousness is really all there is...this what the Buddhists mean when they say the material world 'is an illusion'.
Anyone interested in the subject should look up Seyyed Hossein Nasr's Harvard lecture titled "In the Beginning was Consciousness" it is on youtube.
Consciousness has always existed, in the Vulgate there is no talk of beginnings, rather it says "In Principia erat Verbum"...'In Principle was the Word,' for some reason this unfortunately became 'In the beginning was the Word' in the English translation.
Consciousness is primary. Consciousness produces matter. In a sense, consciousness is really all there is...this what the Buddhists mean when they say the material world 'is an illusion'.
I think you need to hod on a bit on unsupported claims.
"Consciousness is primary." Don't you think that you are pushing it here? where is the evidence for this?
"Consciousness produces matter."
here you are not being precise, there is some evidence that suggest that conciseness can produce matter but that does not mean that consciousness is the source for matter at all.
It just means that consciousness might be one of the factors involved.
"In a sense, consciousness is really all there is"
Not supported by evidence.
"this what the Buddhists mean when they say the material world 'is an illusion'."
'material world 'is an illusion' could mean many things like what we see as matter is actually vibrations and what we think we are touching is actually not touching at all.
"Anyone who pursues science or anyone who reads popular science would know that it was all a point of nothingness ( singularity as we Physicists like to name it) led to the massive expansion of the Universe as we know it today. Further we believe in the Standard Model"
Actually, the math tracks back to 1x10^143 Planck time. At that instance, all energy(mass is the weight of energy in a closed system according to equivalence) was contained in a universe less than an atom across(the "singularity"). This is where the standard model breaks down. While it may be believed that this is where time as we know it, three-dimensional space, and all energy in our space-time pocket we call the universe came from; it says a sum total of diddly squat about what is outside that pocket. The VAST majority of experts I have read do not believe that outside that pocket is nonexistence, they simply say there is a state of existence beyond ours that we neither understand or observe.
I think, I can agree with what you said.
"they simply say there is a state of existence beyond ours that we neither understand or observe."
GOD???
" "they simply say there is a state of existence beyond ours that we neither understand or observe."
GOD???"
...of the gaps.
How come every time someone says something is unknown people automatically insert a god in it? Is your god so petty, small, and banal that it HAS to hide in the ever-shrinking region of our scientific ignorance? Why is this god so identical to the nonexistent? Why does it seem to have no better evidence or argument than that for faeries or a Pegasus? Is there any reason to believe in any god that can't be as easily used to believe in another? Why is all the evidence and reason for god such ambiguous horseshit that it could be used to promote flying spaghetti monsters?
Seems to me you'd be better off just admitting that you don't know, instead of arguing for a non-answer that is only about as serious as pixies.
It's really hard to understand how creationism is being argued with evolution when they are very different. It's like comparing dreams and reality.
I can't speak for the other religions, but Genesis 1 in the Bible is not meant to be read as literal science, based on textual criticism and cultural research. Therefore, "and God said..." doesn't have to be how it actually happened. The Bible leaves plenty of room for scientific discovery of the causes and development of the universe (although many christians disagree with me on that one - usually because they're reading Genesis 1 as a scientific text).
If I am to dismiss part of the bible, why not just dismiss all of it as the same kind of "not meant to be read as literal"?
No it's not about dismissing it at all. It's about reading it for what it is. Genesis 1 isn't trying to communicate scientific fact. It's communicating messages completely different - like who God is, who we are, our worth and purpose, the whys not the hows... The kinds of things that religions centre around and science doesn't concern itself much with.
you mean the question we do not have an answer for?
One question, what will it take to convince you that you were wrong in believing that your god exists?
I think every sane person has something in mind that will convince him of the validity/wrongness of a claim.
But theist have this disability of not having anything that would convince them that their claim could be wrong.
The main reason of this is because their own theology makes sure that they do not posses this ability anymore by calling faith.
The concept of believing regardless of what happens is such a horrible and evil theology.
Am I wrong?
Is there anything that can show that you could be wrong about your theology?
Or there is always an excuse like the one you just pulled?(lame excuse)
"It's communicating messages completely different - like who God is, who we are, our worth and purpose, the whys not the hows"
But you have to accept that if this is just a story then anything in it can be false, who are you to cherry pick what is true and what is not?
Who are you?
In my research I have found that genesis comes from the Sumerian text, just copied from there and given a Jewish twist.
So it says nothing about god, nothing about us, it is just a copy of a nice well known story at the time.
You claims are all unfounded, based only on your bias of what the bible should be and how everything fits your already known answer.
The problem here lies that you do not truly want to find the truth since you are convinced that you already found it.
Belief in your own idea of what god should be no matter what, is your truth.
Please tell what can convince you that the theology you think is the truth(at all cost) might be false?
For us here, the cost appears to be your own critical thinking abilities.
"It's communicating messages completely different - like who God is, who we are, our worth and purpose, the whys not the hows..."
I'm not so sure... The god of Genesis comes across as a being in abject fear of humans gaining knowledge, a being who seems to set a trap for humans. For example, the story says that god commanded Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit of the magical Tree of Knowledge. However, without eating of it, Adam & Eve had no way to know that disobedience was wrong. The story says they only gained the knowledge to differentiate right from wrong AFTER eating the magic fruit. That means they had no idea that disobeying god would be wrong, yet the story says they and all of humanity (and the entire universe, for that matter) are punished because two nudists made a choice they could not possibly have known was wrong. This doesn't give a good picture of who that particular god is.
"No it's not about dismissing it at all. It's about reading it for what it is."
And we should know what it is because? We should assume that the authors didn't mean it literally because?
"Genesis 1 isn't trying to communicate scientific fact."
Funny how it took people proving that it wasn't true for people to come up with this ad hoc rationalization, isn't it? We falsify something in the bible, and then it becomes a piece of poetry/metaphor/parable, but if we fail to falsify it then it MUST BE TRUE!!! If you can't find the problem behind such reasoning, I am not sure explaining it further will help.
"It's communicating messages completely different - like who God is, who we are, our worth and purpose, the whys not the hows... The kinds of things that religions centre around and science doesn't concern itself much with."
You are right, science does not try to eliminate those assumptions of god or purpose, those are questions best left to philosophy and logic. Many of the claims of the bible, however...
I am not sure exactly why people think worth and purpose would magically mean more to us if it comes from some extra-dimensional being, and I surely don't understand why people would want anyone else determining their value or purpose, for that just seem bizarre. Value and purpose only have any meaning when we determine and accept it, no one else gets to assign them to us, we determine them for ourselves. I find it utterly telling that this god wants to determine our value and purpose, that is NOT an action of a generous parent or benefactor, but the action of a plantation owner or tyrant!
"And we should know what it is because?" I'm talking about genres and historical textual criticism. Eg Genesis 1 has a poetic form to it ("and God said... And it was evening and it was morning... And God said... And it was evening and it was morning..."). The Psalms are songs, so many things in there are poetic imagery ("God rides the clouds in his chariot..."). Jesus' parables (eg the prodigal son) are made-up stories, not retellings of historical events. Paul's letters are letters to specific groups of people. Revelation is apocalyptic literature that the Jews of Jesus' time were familiar with but that we aren't 2000 years later. For each of these we need to treat them differently. I understand your sentiment though, because christians very often ignore the genres and cultures and read everything as if it was written specifically for them.
"We falsify something in the Bible, then it becomes a piece of poetry/metaphor/parable..." I think you're giving yourself a little too much credit here. We don't often look to atheists for our exegesis, even if it seems that way from your end. What people think makes no difference at all to what type of literature something is. Also, I might be misreading this but it seems you're of the opinion that if something isn't literal fact then it is "false" and we can just ignore it. I've heard this from quite a few people on here, and it's a very narrow way of looking at the world. It doesn't allow any room for poetic expression, or telling stories to communicate truth, or any kind of art, music etc. The Bible is full of this stuff, because humans throughout history have always communicated in very creative ways. A person who only sees fact or false would be an exceptionally boring person who you'd never invite to any parties.
"I'm talking about genres and historical textual criticism."
Which by its very nature is not an exact science. A whole crop of apologists have grown around rationalizing away inconvenient bits of the bible, for example where god lays out the rules concerning slavery, or where he apparently state unbetrothed rape victims to marry their rapist.
"Eg Genesis 1 has a poetic form to it ("and God said... And it was evening and it was morning... And God said... And it was evening and it was morning..."). The Psalms are songs, so many things in there are poetic imagery ("God rides the clouds in his chariot..."). Jesus' parables (eg the prodigal son) are made-up stories, not retellings of historical events. Paul's letters are letters to specific groups of people. Revelation is apocalyptic literature that the Jews of Jesus' time were familiar with but that we aren't 2000 years later. For each of these we need to treat them differently. I understand your sentiment though, because christians very often ignore the genres and cultures and read everything as if it was written specifically for them."
I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't change the fact that the genesis account was almost universally believed by Christians until science showed it to be mistaken. It was only after the fact that people stated considering it allegory or poetry, until then it was taken as fact, whether on not either one of us believes that it should have been. How much else is being taken literally that we will find out later was allegorical? Until we can say with certainty that there isn't any, I can't hardly see at as anything other than a minefield of half-truths at best, and exaggeration or allegory at worst. It could be that the whole thing was meant to be allegorical, not literal, and that people have been clinging to nothing more substantial than a fable this whole time.
"I think you're giving yourself a little too much credit here. We don't often look to atheists for our exegesis, even if it seems that way from your end."
Not what I said, was it. I said that we provide facts and evidence that are sometimes inconvenient concerning certain passages in the bible, and that when we do, we often see apologists go through entire mental gymnastics routines to come up with ad hoc rationalizations for it.
"What people think makes no difference at all to what type of literature something is."
A great deal of people would agree with your sentence, and utterly disagree with you about what "type" of text certain passages are.
"Also, I might be misreading this but it seems you're of the opinion that if something isn't literal fact then it is "false" and we can just ignore it. I've heard this from quite a few people on here, and it's a very narrow way of looking at the world. It doesn't allow any room for poetic expression, or telling stories to communicate truth, or any kind of art, music etc. The Bible is full of this stuff, because humans throughout history have always communicated in very creative ways. A person who only sees fact or false would be an exceptionally boring person who you'd never invite to any parties."
Perhaps it isn't entirely false, but it sure isn't true either, and I see no reason why I should see any more meaning or value in it than one of Mother Goose's nursery rhymes. You have managed to show that genesis account is nearly as good as a childhood fable, well done!
Pages