Why do people still believe in Jesus and Christianity?

[Dutch Uncle]

Actually the Big Bang idea is accepted science. It's impossible to grok unless you have command of extremely complex mathematics, the Stephen Hawking kind. The mathematics describe the conditions at and following the Big Bang, and predicted that the remnants of the event are still echoing throughout the universe. So we invented instruments capable of detecting this background radiation and lo! The equations and their theory were verified.


I absolutely agree. Also too, it's part of (to me anyways) what makes life so magical, sometimes mysterious, always providing something new to learn. You might appreciate the spirituality of the ancestral people who lived here (and still do). Although in English, the being is usually referred to as the "Creator," in Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe) the term is "Kichi-manidoo." Literally that is translated as "great spirit." But what it really means is "the great mystery" and is considered to be real and present, yet unknowable by us in the form we are in as humans. It's more akin to the last drawing in your graphic you posted earlier, panentheism I think it was called. God/universe within and part of each other. This "great mystery" is present in all things, human, animals, rock, tree, water, air, cloud.

Sorry for being unclear: the Big Bang happened. What caused it? What was the origin of the Primordial Atom? Hawking and others can show what happened since, but not what happened "before"....even though there was no "before" the origin of Space-Time about 13.77 billion years ago. What is the word for "before" Space-Time?

Thanks for the description of "Kichi-manidoo". Regardless of the peculiarities and differences of all religions or spiritual beliefs, there are some fundamentals that connect all of them such as you pointed out in connectedness.

Even the Bible has several verses mentioning becoming one with God despite others claiming separateness. Obviously connectedness is very big in Buddhism, although there are variances in the different forms of Buddhism.

1 Corinthians 6:17
But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

John 14:20
In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?

1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,

 

[Dutch Uncle]

He said Newton never described the motion of planets. He's an idiot. A bloviator. A buffoon.

or insane.

 

[Cypress]

Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is not possible to prove a theory True. False authority fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

You keep running in circles with this.

I am familiar with Karl Popper's philosophy of science and the criteria of falsifiability. and the physicists at Fermi Lab undoubtedly are too.

We know exactly what they mean concerning confirmation of quantuum foam. I am not going to nit pick it. . They are writing informally on a webpage. I personally think a better convention to use is whether a hypothesis is supported or refuted. Because confirmation sounds like a yes, whereas supported sounds like a maybe.

But this is a ridiculous amount of nitpicking on an obscure message board concerning scientists who are writing colloquially and informally on a webpage

 

[Into the Night]

It's a simple thing........if the BS hypothesis concerning (wink, wink) Quantum Mechanics is a FACT OF SCIENCE......

Science is not a fact. There is no such thing as a 'fact of science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Quantum mechanics (not a proper noun, it is not capitalized), is a branch of physics and it contains many theories. All of them are falsifiable. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less.

.just demonstrate this fact through the accepted method of SCIENCE.

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Show us the experiment that used the Scientific Method to demonstrate that Matter can be produced from nothing......

Science is not experiments. It is not a method or a procedure. There is no theory of science that states matter can be produced from nothing, not even in quantum mechanics.

this is what REAL SCIENCE requires,

True Scotsman fallacy.

Empirical evidence that is Observable, Reproducible with consistency upon each application.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not part of science. No theory, scientific or otherwise, is ever proven True. A theory of science can be proven False. A nonscientific theory cannot be proven True or False.

Just produce Matter from nothing.........or not, as there is nothing FACTUAL about a hypothesis that dreams of producing matter from nothing.

There is no theory about it either. A hypothesis comes from a theory, not the reverse. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

Clearly the seculars are propagating a false premise.....that false premise, "The First Law of Thermodynamics" does not exist.

Here you are correct. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both theories must be falsified. This is known as the external consistency check.

Thus, the false premise that Matter can pre-exist the ENERGY required to cause the effect of Matter.

Energy does not cause mass. Mass does not cause energy. They are however, convertible from one to the other.

Even with the supposed theory of the BIG BANG..........

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is a religion. It is based on faith, and faith alone. The theory is not falsifiable.

Energy existed (from where did such energy come?).

The Theory of the Big Bang does not describe where the energy for it came from, similar to the way Newton did not define what gravity actually was, only how it behaved.

You can't answer that, thus the BS statement that Quantum Mechanics proves that matter can come from NOTHING.

Science has no proofs. There is no theory in quantum mechanics that describes matter coming from nothing.

Yet....such as never been OBSERVED, Reproduced or consistency applied to demonstrate that knowledge as being FACTUAL.

Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. They are evidence only. They are not part of science. 'Fact' does not mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'. A fact is simply an assumed predicate. We use them to shorten our speech, sort of like pronouns.

In other words you are demonstrating FAITH....blind faith.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is a religion. The Theory of Abiogenesis is not a theory of science. It is a religion. The Theory of Creation is not a theory of science. It is a religion. The Theory of The Continuum is not a theory of science. It is a religion.

It takes faith to believe that everything COULD HAVE came from nothing (BIG BANG) void of proof.

It takes faith to believe that the Universe has always existed, and always will as well. Science does not use supporting evidence. No theory is ever proven True.

It takes faith to believe that life came from non-living matter void of proof.

Correct, except the 'void of proof' portion. It is not possible to prove any theory (scientific or otherwise) True. This is called the Theory of Abiogenesis. It is a religion. It is not falsifiable. It is not a theory of science.

It takes faith to believe that non-living matter can be created from NOTHING

No. It takes denying science. Such a belief can only be called fundamentalism, since it is denying science to try to prove a circular argument.

It takes faith to believe that life and everything you see in this reality came from 2 simple elements....hydrogen and helium void of observed proof.

Observations are not a proof. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only. This particular theory is not falsifiable. It is not a theory of science.

Why FAITH? Because these things sure as hell can't be OBSEVERED, Reproduced, or consistency APPLIED as being objectively TRUE.

Science has no proofs. It is not possible to prove any theory True, not even a theory of science. Observation is not a proof. Application is not a proof.

There have been countless attempts to reproduce LIFE from non-living matter

The first problem these guys run into is defining 'life'.

using the scientific method....

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

all failures, as every experiment simply confirms the scientific fact pointed out by Pasteur,

Science is not a fact nor an experiment. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not possible to prove any theory True.

life can only be reproduced through the reproduction of pre-existing life of the same species.

This itself is not even a theory, scientific or otherwise. You must first define 'life'. This statement (not a theory) fails the internal consistency check. No theory can be based on a fallacy. An argument (a theory is an explanatory argument) based on a buzzword as its primary object is a void argument fallacy.

Now demonstrate the scientific experiment that proves the creation model revealed in scriptures is debunked.

Science is not an experiment. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no theory of science that debunks Christianity nor any scripture in the Bible.

The scriptures are clear as to where Human Life came from

True, they are. Scriptures in the Bible conform to the Theory of Creation, itself a religion, and placing God in the role of 'the intelligence'.

and its consistent with the Scientific Method.

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Life was first created and then reproduced, each after its own kind.

Irrelevant, and itself a circular argument. We do not know what happened. Science has no theories about a past unobserved event. The theory that life can only be propagated from life (as in self reproduction) is itself a theory, and happens to be a falsifiable one. It is a theory of science, once 'life' can be defined.

...deleted scripture quotes....

Scriptures are not a proof. They are evidence only.

Most importantly and observed on a daily basis in the real world.......God made things to reproduce after their own kind (just as proven via Pasteur) Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25.

Not a proof. Supporting evidence. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

Simply present the scientific experiment that proves these things to be FALSE.

Not possible until 'life' itself is defined. Falsifiable means that the test for the null hypothesis is available, practical to conduct, is specific, and produces a specific result. It is this test that makes a theory a theory of science. As long as a theory of science can withstand such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. Once falsified (a test is found that confirms the null hypothesis of the theory), the theory is utterly destroyed.

Now comes the expected replay: Where did GOD COME FROM? Nowhere.......God is ETERNAL unlike the ever expanding universe. (disprove that statement). This statement is presented in the text of the holy scriptures...God is an eternally existing spirit. Deut. 33:27, Genesis 21:33.

This conforms with the Theory of the Continuum (which states that the Universe has always existed, and always will). It is also a religion. It is not a theory of science.


Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less. There is no 'method' of science. There is no 'data' of science. There is no 'observation' of science. There are no proofs in science. Even the falsification of a theory is taken on conflicting evidence only much of the time. A theory can also be falsified through mathematics or logic, both closed functional systems, where the power of the formal proof (and the power of prediction with it) lies. Science is an open functional system. It has no proofs. It has no power of prediction. It must turn to mathematics (or more rarely, logic) to gain that power. That is called 'formalizing' a theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. If a theory of science is falsified, it's 'law' goes with it.

 

[Into the Night]

Fermi Lab - America's premier particle physics lab - states that matter-antimatter particles are constantly popping into and out of existence, in a quantuum foam state, and this has been confirmed scientifically:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Jesus-and-Christianity&p=3979451#post3979451

Fermi Lab is an authoritative source, unlike anonymous mesaage board poster "Ralph"

False authority fallacy. Fermi Lab is not an authoritative source of science or physics. It defines neither. No theory can ever be proven True. Science is not a proof. Science is not Fermi Lab. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

The relevance, the power, of Christianity is rapidly dying in America.

Argument from randU fallacy. You don't know this. You are making shit up.

You are operating at the wrong intellectual resolution here.

Resolution has no intellect. Resolution is a concept in the Full Discrete Math Domain. It's value is usually denoted by a capital 'N'. It replaces the word 'infinity' in that Domain. Note: The Full Discrete Math Domain is not the Real Math Domain, which is what is taught to you in grade school after about the 2nd or 3rd grade onward, sometimes as early as the 1st grade.

 

[Into the Night]

like a sock or clone??

Not all physical objects are like a sock or a clone.

 

[Arks&sparka]

You are right. Neither seem to know anything about science. I have met some atheist scientists in my travels, but they are rather rare. I have also met scientists from the Church of No God. They are more common, but they also tend to make lousy scientists, since they are so caught up in their fundamentalism.

Church of no God... Like unitarianism?

 

[Into the Night]

-U-R- attempting to present the false premise of using Speculation (language you have already used), Subjectivity, Conjecture laced hypothesis and theory as facts of science. A theory is called a theory for a reason, its an IDEA that does not possess the required evidences to be called a FACT OF SCIENCE. If such evidence was produced you would no longer have a theory but rather a LAW of NATURE/PHYSICS. All these IDEAS are based upon FAITH if they are to be believed as truth. You attempt to chastise others for following blind faith when its you that demonstrate that trait more than any religion on earth.

There is no such thing as a 'fact of science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A 'law' of science is a theory formalized into (usually) mathematical form. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. If a theory of science is falsified, it is utterly destroyed, and it's 'law' goes with it.

And this does away with the necessity of CAUSALITY?

Science is not causality. It is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument, usually explaining causality of a phenomenon. Example: the Sun rising into the sky is caused by a god, named Apollo, who rides his chariot (the Sun) across the sky each day to light and warm the world. This is a theory. It explains why the Sun rises each day. It explains it as a causality. It is not possible to prove whether Apollo exists or not. We know the Sun is not a chariot in the usual sense, but who is to say it's not an unusual chariot for Apollo?

I bring up Apollo to demonstrate a point. This theory is not falsifiable. It is just a theory, and remains a circular argument. Other arguments extend from this theory, such as the offspring of Apollo, his heritage, etc. A circular argument with arguments extending from it is the very definition of a religion. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'. This in and of itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to prove a circular argument either True or False results in the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

How? As I have stated previously.......its always the fault of the STUPID (like the anonymous message board poster RALPH) and his/her inability to comprehend what is being taught as truth. Simply reproduce any matter from NOTHING through experimentation. Because someone states they "OBSERVE" something void of having the ability to reproduce that observation does not constitute a FACT of science. Why is this anti-matter non-reproducible void of cause? By self confession the supposed (wink, wink) anti-matter is not a STABLE entity....its an effect caused.

Antimatter (a negatively charged proton, for example) does exist. It can be created in a particle accelerator. That is a cause. It is reproducible. It is not science. It is an observation. Such particles are stable until they meet up with a 'normal' proton, at which point they annihilate each other. The result is no longer detectable as a particle of any kind that we can identify as a result of this 'annihilation'.

You might call using a "particle accelerator" to create what is called Anti-Matter particles .....or watching these particles being CAUSED by NATURAL processes such as cosmic ray collisions or radioactive decay.........POPPING into existence......as coming from nothing, even anti-matter particles must have a natural CAUSE.

Everything that happens in a particle accelerator happens because of the laws of nature. It is a natural cause.

Thus......Truth is not established, Prima Facie wise or otherwise as demonstrated there is more than enough established REASON TO DOUBT that MATTER can be created from nothing, especially when even this effect called anti-matter has an observed demonstrable CAUSE and EFFECT. Simply because observable matter can be shattered or demonstrate radio active decay and called ANTI-MATTER simply proves the point....nothing measurable or quantifiable can come from NOTHING.

Here you are correct. There is no theory of science that says otherwise, not even in quantum mechanics.

Now.....use science to refute the scriptures provided concerning creation and reproduction.....you cannot because you cannot produce Observable, Reproducible, and consistent facts to debunk the scriptures statement concerning CREATION.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalistm). Argument of ignorance fallacy. It is not possible to prove the scriptures True or False, just as it is not possible to prove whether God exists as True or False.
You cannot use a lack of evidence as a proof.

The scriptures and what they say MUST be taken on faith, and faith alone.
The existence of God MUST be taken on faith, and faith alone.
The existence of Jesus Christ MUST be taken on faith, and faith alone.

 

[Into the Night]

dude, I am through reading your posts.......you contradict yourself more than the people arguing with you do.....

Void argument fallacy. Specify.

 

[Into the Night]

Quantuum mechanics renders old fashioned Newtonian cause and effect paradigm moot, at least at quantuum scales.

Quantum mechanics does not falsify Newtons' Law of Motion nor the Law of Gravitational Attraction. Both theories are still not yet falsified. They are both still science. All theories describe cause and effect, whether they are theories of science or not. A theory is an explanatory argument.

Many extremely smart scientists consider quantuum fluctuations a possible explanation for the origin of the universe. That sounds at least as plausible to me, as a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

There is no such thing a 'quantum fluctuations'. Buzzword fallacy.

Wrapping up: as a matter of faith, there is nothing which says quantuum mechanics, Planck's constant, and an intelligent/purposeful design of the universe have to be incompatible.

Correct. Nothing is incompatible here.

 

[Into the Night]

Plausible? Nothing subjective about this term whatsoever, its real scientific. You mean.......you have FAITH that what you believe is based upon truth in spite of the FACT that a simple lay person such as myself presented evidence that gives anyone with the least bit of intellect in regard to reason logic REASON TO DOUBT "your faith" based upon Conjecture, Speculation and theorized ideology? And you are effecting my faith based upon the scriptures.........how, I must ask again? You can believe that everything came from nothing if you wish, as for me I believe this plane of reality had a CAUSE and that cause is superior to nature.

You have done nothing except argue with circular reasoning while not presenting one FACT of SCIENCE to validate your faith in conjecture.

Reality is not a plane or any other geometric figure. 'Reality' is defined by philosophy.

 

[Into the Night]

That's weird. You recently complained and argued to me that quantum mechanics was not science.

Never did.

Into the Night: "When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is NOT science!! It is math."

It looks like you are taking notes and learning from me

I never said quantum physics is not science.

 

[Into the Night]

Read all that. I went to college.

Obviously, you haven't liar. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking the question.

 

[Into the Night]

I know all that. I am much better educated than you.

Obviously, you are not. Else you wouldn't be asking the question.

 

[Into the Night]

It does not bother me if you want to believe in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

I look to physics and cosmology for plausible speculations about the origins of the universe. But there is nothing about quantum gravity, dark energy, the cosmological constant which necessarily rule out the possibility of a purposeful design of the universe, perhaps involving a divinity or a higher truth of some sort. That is why I never join teams when the Bible Thumpers engage the Militant Atheists in their perpetual phony pissing contest on this terrain.

Science has no theory about the origin of the Universe. Science has no theory about any past unobserved event. They are not falsifiable.

 

[Into the Night]

You're commenting on this thread do you not believe science and knowledge can replace religion?

Science is not knowledge. It a set of falsifiable theories. It does not replace any religion.

 

[Into the Night]

No. But I really don't give a shit about religion.

Lie. You are a member of the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of Karl Marx, and Church of No God.

 

[Into the Night]

The point is nobody knows once you cross that barrier you don't come back so you don't live to tell your tale.

How do you know it is not possible to come back? Jesus Christ himself describes resurrection. Note that you can't use an argument of ignorance as a proof. That's a fallacy.

My thoughts on it is if you don't believe in the afterlife and someone else does don't worry about it.

If one says they don't worry about it, that's actually an indication they DO worry about it somewhat. Otherwise, there would be no need to comment on it at all.

 

[Into the Night]

I really have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly.

Obviously.