America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Only holds for classical physics. Different for quantum physics. Mass-energy conversion.

Why did matter have to exist before the Big Bang? Couldn't God have created the Big Bang?

If there was another universe, prior to ours, that compressed and then became the Big Bang, then why does there need to be a God? Could it not be that the universe itself is eternal, undergoing endless cycles of compression and expansion? 

Mass to energy? Isn't that going the wrong direction?

Yes God can create anything. Scientists do not want God to be the answer though. It is obvious they want an explanation in science devoid of interaction by God.  That is crystal clear.

There are a lot of ifs and could if you postulate endless compression and expansion of universes. It makes no sense and has no meaning. Believers in God (not A God; there have been thousands of those) have our answer to the meaning of life. Without God, life is meaningless.

[arein0 958]

5 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Without God, life is meaningless.

As a Christian, I believe this statement is not relevant to everyone. This might be true for you, but it is certainly not true for me.

With or without God, I will still love and value my family and friends, try to make the world a better place for the next generations, etc.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

As a Christian, I believe this statement is not relevant to everyone. This might be true for you, but it is certainly not true for me.

With or without God, I will still love and value my family and friends, try to make the world a better place for the next generations, etc.

True, people have different views on it. I would suggest your motivation for your philosophy was influenced by your trusting Jesus as your Savior. That said, there are many totally solid friendly respectful and respected successful people who agree with all you said, but are not Christians. I know many in my little world, but I would say in times of difficulty, the meaning of life will cross their minds. If you have Jesus, and God, you have spiritual strength to persevere. If not, it may be overwhelming. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

50 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Christians aren't the only people who have suffered or died for their deeply held religious beliefs though? Back in early history, sightings of Gods, miracles, and monsters were common place and could spread easily. People were highly superstitious and had little knowledge about the world and believed that Gods and miracles were all around them. The fact that the story of Christianity emerged from this time period is not surprising.  

 Later in the middle ages onward, European Christians would regularly torture, kill, and genocide other native populations around the world for refusing to convert away from their native religions to Christianity. I don't see how the early apostles being willing to die for their beliefs is any kind of proof that their beliefs must have been more true or legitimate. 

You need to read what I said before the comment you're responding to. My point is not that reason and intellect must be disregarded where matters of religion are concerned. Precisely not. A faith that has no rational basis is a false faith--so, for example, that is why I am not a Branch Davidian. Martyrdom is wholly peripheral to whether a faith rests on a rational basis. 

50 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Yes, when some people claims that someone they know raised up from the dead and then flew up into the clouds, standard practice is to be doubtful of the account unless other evidence surfaces. 

Large numbers of people believing in the written accounts of the resurrection isn't proof or evidence that it actually happened. 

Accepting multiple eyewitness accounts by people who have nothing to gain by dissembling is rational, and hyperbolic rhetoric to the contrary makes it no less so. To write off such accounts in conclusory fashion with no investigation is, on the other hand, irrational. You simply prove the point that the wise just will not have anything to do with miracles. That is what all of this boils down to.  

Edited October 12, 2023 by NolaAuTiger

[Leftfield 2,601]

19 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Mass to energy? Isn't that going the wrong direction?

I said mass-energy, not mass-to-energy. Can go both ways.

20 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Scientists do not want God to be the answer though. It is obvious they want an explanation in science devoid of interaction by God.  That is crystal clear.

Projection on your part. You have no idea what every scientist wants. Plenty have faith. Just because you believe your faith to be the absolute truth and do not accept some scientific findings, do not cop out by painting every person seeking truth with a broad brush.

22 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

It makes no sense and has no meaning. 

Perhaps, but the lack of obvious meaning is why many seek evidence to begin with. Some find it through faith. Some find it through scientific investigation. Congratulations on finding your peace through God. It's too bad you can't accept the way others try to find it without assuming they're the enemy of your faith.

 

[arein0 958]

11 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

True, people have different views on it. I would suggest your motivation for your philosophy was influenced by your trusting Jesus as your Savior. That said, there are many totally solid friendly respectful and respected successful people who agree with all you said, but are not Christians. I know many in my little world, but I would say in times of difficulty, the meaning of life will cross their minds. If you have Jesus, and God, you have spiritual strength to persevere. If not, it may be overwhelming. 

I don't see how trusting Jesus as the Savior and what I said are mutually exclusive like you are implying. 

[auburnatl1 4,935]

Based on reading these posts it’s like atheists see religion like tooth fairy and Santa clause, and the religious see atheism as soulless and fixated on reason without meaning in their lives.

Stereotype. Many many people have found ways to embrace religion AND science.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

5 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I don't see how trusting Jesus as the Savior and what I said are mutually exclusive like you are implying. 

I didn't imply that they are mutually exclusive as my next statement clearly states. If it had no influence on your world view then that is fine. Enjoy.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Based on reading these posts it’s like atheists see religion like tooth fairy and Santa clause, and the religious see atheism as soulless and fixated on reason without meaning in their lives.

Stereotype. Many many people have found ways to embrace religion AND science.

1. Yes. Sans the rude comment about Santa.

2. Yes. Atheism is soulless. Obviously since there is no deity as Spock would say. The last part is a phrase in search of its' own meaning. God gives us a greater meaning to our lives than just our TOE. God wants us to spend eternity in His presence also. The true meaning is the relationship that allows that to happen.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

25 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I said mass-energy, not mass-to-energy. Can go both ways.

Projection on your part. You have no idea what every scientist wants. Plenty have faith. Just because you believe your faith to be the absolute truth and do not accept some scientific findings, do not cop out by painting every person seeking truth with a broad brush.

Perhaps, but the lack of obvious meaning is why many seek evidence to begin with. Some find it through faith. Some find it through scientific investigation. Congratulations on finding your peace through God. It's too bad you can't accept the way others try to find it without assuming they're the enemy of your faith.

 

Ah I see. So the bang was an explosion that created all the matter in the universe by absorbing, destroying, diminishing energy in order to do so? By your explanation energy was not released in the bang, along with the creation of matter?  Isn't the theory that the bang released a bunch of energy and matter at the same time? Actually creating both from nothing?

True, I don't know what every scientists wants. I would guess the majority believe that creation occurred without the assistance of God, or an intellectual designer. Probably difficult for Christians in the science world, I certainly don't read or see public or published comments relating to God and His hand in creation. For the most part, probably not ALL, the search for the origins of life is occurring because the searchers do not believe God created it as He said He did.  

[auburnatl1 4,935]

28 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Ah I see. So the bang was an explosion that created all the matter in the universe by absorbing, destroying, diminishing energy in order to do so? By your explanation energy was not released in the bang, along with the creation of matter?  Isn't the theory that the bang released a bunch of energy and matter at the same time? Actually creating both from nothing?

True, I don't know what every scientists wants. I would guess the majority believe that creation occurred without the assistance of God, or an intellectual designer. Probably difficult for Christians in the science world, I certainly don't read or see public or published comments relating to God and His hand in creation. For the most part, probably not ALL, the search for the origins of life is occurring because the searchers do not believe God created it as He said He did.  

Actually the current theory is that the bang only created energy (too hot for matter) and then as it quickly expanded/cooled much of the energy transformed into simple matter that became hydrogen.  How the other elements were created is star fusion stuff.   Btw The thing science hasn’t resolved is all laws of (quantum) physics state an equal amount of anti matter (reverse charge for protons and electrons) should have been also created. Meaning  the universe should have have instantly annihilated itself.  It shouldn’t have survived.

Some scientists have begun introducing concepts resembling God to explain it.

Edited October 12, 2023 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,379]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Is proving it to be a myth important?

Some things in the bible are self-evidently myth and don't require "proof".

 

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Some things in the bible are self-evidently myth and don't require "proof".

 

Maybe to you.

[Leftfield 2,601]

32 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Ah I see. So the bang was an explosion that created all the matter in the universe by absorbing, destroying, diminishing energy in order to do so? By your explanation energy was not released in the bang, along with the creation of matter?  Isn't the theory that the bang released a bunch of energy and matter at the same time? Actually creating both from nothing?

I have no idea where you got that from what I said, though most of what you wrote doesn't make any sense. Did you bother reading the link? My guess is no.

This is the danger of faith - you have closed yourself off to any possibility other that what you believe to be true, which is that the Bible is literal. Your mind simply cannot accept it. Even if a person who believes in God tried to explain the evidence of an alternative theory of creation to you, you wouldn't look at it because you'd dismiss it out of hand. Do you not see the danger of that type of thinking? Do you not see the irresolvable conflicts that can arise because of it? That this is what has caused so much death and destruction throughout history in the name of religion?

 

40 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Probably difficult for Christians in the science world, I certainly don't read or see public or published comments relating to God and His hand in creation.

There are plenty of books to be found on the subject. My Mom has a number of them, as she has long since incorporated her faith and scientific discovery. I've read a couple of them, though it's been a good while and I can't remember their titles. If I can, would you read them?

 

43 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

For the most part, probably not ALL, the search for the origins of life is occurring because the searchers do not believe God created it as He said He did.  

Very likely, but you seem to imply that's because they don't believe in God, or want to disprove His existence. Do you accept that they may simply want to reconcile the difference between what was written and what they observe on their own?

[homersapien 11,379]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Mass to energy? Isn't that going the wrong direction?

Yes God can create anything. Scientists do not want God to be the answer though. It is obvious they want an explanation in science devoid of interaction by God.  That is crystal clear.

There are a lot of ifs and could if you postulate endless compression and expansion of universes. It makes no sense and has no meaning. Believers in God (not A God; there have been thousands of those) have our answer to the meaning of life. Without God, life is meaningless.

Science is "devoid of interaction by God" by definition. 

Now is it possible that science could ultimately prove "interaction by God"?  I suppose so, at least theoretically. 

But at that point, science ceases to exist. Or to be more precise, science becomes religion. 

(Assuming of source that no one asks what preceded God? )

[homersapien 11,379]

1 hour ago, arein0 said:

As a Christian, I believe this statement is not relevant to everyone. This might be true for you, but it is certainly not true fowthr me.

With or without God, I will still love and value my family and friends, try to make the world a better place for the next generations, etc.

Can't argue with "old time religion".

[homersapien 11,379]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I said mass-energy, not mass-to-energy. Can go both ways.

Projection on your part. You have no idea what every scientist wants. Plenty have faith. Just because you believe your faith to be the absolute truth and do not accept some scientific findings, do not cop out by painting every person seeking truth with a broad brush.

Perhaps, but the lack of obvious meaning is why many seek evidence to begin with. Some find it through faith. Some find it through scientific investigation. Congratulations on finding your peace through God. It's too bad you can't accept the way others try to find it without assuming they're the enemy of your faith.

 

The shear arrogance of some "true believers" is really off-putting. 

No doubt they would describe it as compassion for the "unsaved" but that not only proves the point, it exposes a very narrow intellectual perspective.

(Oh, I forgot.  "Intellectual" is now a pejorative term. )

Edited October 12, 2023 by homersapien

[arein0 958]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Can't argue with "old time religion".

I've never understood that statement. 

[Leftfield 2,601]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

The shear arrogance of some "true believers" is really off-putting. 

No doubt they would describe is as compassion for the "unsaved" but that not only proves the point, it exposes a very narrow intellectual perspective.

(Oh, I forgot.  "Intellectual" is now a pejorative term. )

In fairness, there are certainly some scientists who hold contempt for those of faith, even for those of faith who also believe in science. Quite a myopic view, in my opinion, because while I don't personally believe in God (at least as He's been described), I can't deny that He may exist.

[homersapien 11,379]

6 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I've never understood that statement. 

Well, to me, it connotes a "literalist" regarding Bible interpretation.

[arein0 958]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, to me, it connotes a "literalist" regarding Bible interpretation.

Sorry for the confusion, not "old time religion", what I was referencing is "without God, life is meaningless"

[homersapien 11,379]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

In fairness, there are certainly some scientists who hold contempt for those of faith, even for those of faith who also believe in science. Quite a myopic view, in my opinion, because while I don't personally believe in God (at least as He's been described), I can't deny that He may exist.

Perhaps those scientists are a little arrogant also.

Anyway, the "need" for faith is apparently "built in" for some.  The so called "God gene".

[homersapien 11,379]

1 minute ago, arein0 said:

Sorry for the confusion, not "old time religion", what I was referencing is "without God, life is meaningless"

Those would be the ones with the God gene.

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Some things in the bible are self-evidently myth and don't require "proof".

 

Can you give an example?

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

5 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Based on reading these posts it’s like atheists see religion like tooth fairy and Santa clause, and the religious see atheism as soulless and fixated on reason without meaning in their lives.

Stereotype. Many many people have found ways to embrace religion AND science.

“Embracing science and religion” is true. God could do what he wanted. 
 

The attempt and effort from atheists in a discussion like this is amazing. Only one poster I noted calling them or indicating “soulless”.