If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

Only that the scientists who got there the hard way may have a better understanding than the true believer.

There's no doubt the cosmologists understand the math and physics of the hot big bang better than the Pope and the archbishops.

I only stated that Christianity and Judaism claimed there was a beginning to the universe. The scientists of the young Einstein's day generally thought that was incorrect.


An interesting sidebar is that the person who first discovered the universe was expanding, and extrapolated it back to an origin point was a Belgian Catholic priest.

 

[Margot]

There's no doubt the cosmologists understand the math and physics of the hot big bang better than the Pope and the archbishops.

I only stated that Christianity and Judaism claimed there was a beginning to the universe. The scientists of the young Einstein's day generally thought that was incorrect.


An interesting sidebar is that the person who first discovered the universe was expanding, and extrapolated it back to an origin point was a Belgian Catholic priest.

Pope's and Bishop's know lots about Catholicism,very little about theology!

 

[ZenMode]

They pointed to actual confirmed scientific knowledge as proof of the mind of god.

This is one of the craziest claims I've read in a long time.

What is 'scientific knowledge" that proves the "mind of God" that you're referring to?

Scientists can't even determine how consciousness works in the human brain today, but you're claiming they can prove that the "mind of God" exists?

 

[Cypress]

Prominent astronomers like Fred Hoyle were angry about the big Bang theory and did not want it to be true. Because they knew exactly what it would imply - that the universe had a moment of creation.

That's why Robert Jastrow wrote this:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries". ​

​

- Robert Jastrow, American astrophysicist​

The ironic thing about Fred Hoyle is that his atheism caused him to be hostile to the Big Bang theory as an intrusion of religion into science.

But his later work on cosmology led him to say that the fine tuning of the universal physical constants could not have come about by chance. The most logical inference was that there was a rational mind establishing the values of the physical constants. He didn't think it was the Abrahamic God, but he seemed open to the possibility of some type of clock-maker deity.

 

[Cypress]

Pope's and Bishop's know lots about Catholicism,very little about theology!

I'm not in a position to judge. I personally think the theological arguments between Catholics and Protestants tend to be fairly trivial. Last week I saw a Catholic priest and a Protestant pastor argue about whether Jesus actually had siblings,

 

[Cypress]

This is one of the craziest claims I've read in a long time.

What is 'scientific knowledge" that proves the "mind of God" that you're referring to?

Scientists can't even determine how consciousness works in the human brain today, but you're claiming they can prove that the "mind of God" exists?

Newton thought the universal mathematical laws of physics were evidence of a higher rational mind.

A lot of people, including Newton, Galileo, Kepler, thought it was crazy to believe that mathematical rationality, lawful organization, fine tuning is caused by chance and purely inanimate reasons. That's apparently what you believe. Newton would have said that believing the rational can come from the irrational is logically incoherent and unintelligible.

Consciousness is orders of magnitude more complex than physics. Physics is a highly developed discipline. We don't even have a science that can adequately explain consciousness, and perhaps we never will.

 

[gfm7175]

​

Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

What does 'heavens' mean? The sky? Space? The entirety of the "known" ("physical") universe?

The "heavens and the earth" mentioned in Genesis 1:1 are God's creation, but God exists before his creation existed, therefore "the heavens and the earth" cannot be "the universe" entirely (but rather a "physical" part of it). Obviously, there is more to "the universe" beyond the created "heavens and the earth" part of it that Genesis 1:1 mentions (otherwise where was God existing before that creation?).

Genesis is all about the Earth, not the universe (or even "the heavens" all that much). Genesis goes into detail about how the Earth (and all within it) was formed (six days of work, one day of rest), how Adam and Eve were formed to have dominion over it, how Satan used a serpent to deceive Eve to disobey God, how Adam intentionally disobeyed God, the immediate aftermath of "the fall" (and a promise of future redemption), and early history after "the fall".

 

[Cypress]

What does 'heavens' mean?

Obviously it meant everything they could see: the stars, the planets, the Milky Way, the black void of the night sky.

God exists before his creation existed, therefore "the heavens and the earth" cannot be "the universe" entirely (but rather a "physical" part of it).

If God is the first cause of matter, space, and time, then it must be an immaterial force outside of the universe, existing independent of space and time.
Every normal person is referring to the physical universe when they speak of the creation or beginning of the universe.

 

[ZenMode]

Newton thought the universal mathematical laws of physics were evidence of a higher rational mind.

Right.. he "thought" mathematical laws were evidence of a higher rational mind.

A lot of people, including Newton, Galileo, Kepler, thought it was crazy to believe that mathematical rationality, lawful organization, fine tuning is caused by chance and purely inanimate reasons. That's apparently what you believe. Newton would have said that believing the rational can come from the irrational is logically incoherent and unintelligible.

Newton, Galileo, etc saw something they couldn't explain, how the complex mathematics of the universe came to be, and filled in that gap in knowledge with a "god".

 

[gmark77]

Do you "believe" that "there are no gods"...or...that "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?"

I'm still curious why this "magical phrase" seems to be so "meaningful" to you. It's simple. I don't see any evidence you have provided that would cause me to believe there is a God.

It's really fuckin' simple.

Why it scares you so badly that you have to make up some "magical phrase" that seems to be like some weird totem for you is beyond me.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm still curious why this "magical phrase" seems to be so "meaningful" to you. It's simple. I don't see any evidence you have provided that would cause me to believe there is a God.

There is none that I see either...which is the reason I do not "believe" there are any gods.

What the hell is causing you to miss that?

It's really fuckin' simple.

Yes it is, so I wonder why you keep missing it.

I also do not see enough evidence to cause me to "believe" or guess that any gods exist.

But I do not use atheist as a self-descriptor.

And it is my opinion that anyone who does use it as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor...does so because they apparently think they see enough evidence to suppose there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Besides "not believing" any gods exist or that it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none exist...

...I also do "not believe" that there are no gods or that it is more likely that there are no god than that there is at least one.'

So...why not give my question a try. Since it is so fucking easy to understand even a moron could see it.

Why it scares you so badly that you have to make up some "magical phrase" that seems to be like some weird totem for you is beyond me.

Only a truly stupid person would see it that way. So...unless you persuade me otherwise, I am going to consider you to be a stupid person.

You just don't get what I have been talking about...arguing about this entire time.

 

[Into the Night]

My point was made and confirmed. Your word games/trolling won't change that.

You aren't making a point, Automaton. You can't blame your word games on anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

​

Genesis 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

...and what is 'the heavens'?

It's not the Universe, dope.

 

[Into the Night]

Sorry, I don't understand this comment and the bit about green cheese

Guess you're not as well read as you thought.

 

[Cypress]

Right.. he "thought" mathematical laws were evidence of a higher rational mind.

Newton, Galileo, etc saw something they couldn't explain, how the complex mathematics of the universe came to be, and filled in that gap in knowledge with a "god".

A strong case can be made that your belief that a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned universe is somehow caused by chance and purely inanimate physical reasons is both irrational and illogical.

That's where Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler were coming from.

Logic and reason are among our tools for making decisions and acquiring knowledge, because not everything is amenable to visual observation and sense perception. That concept always seems alien to atheists for some reason

 

[Into the Night]

God of the gaps is an argument pointing to areas where we don't have scientific theories and saying God lives there.

Non-sequitur fallacy. The lack of a theory is not a space.

That is the exact opposite of what Newton, Galileo, Kepler did. They pointed to actual confirmed scientific knowledge as proof of the mind of god.

Science is not a proof. Science is not people. Name dropping and calling it 'science' doesn't work.

What you have to decide for yourself is whether 1) a mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe can come together by inanimate chance,

The Universe is not organized. What makes you think the Universe was created?

or 2) whether mathematical rationality and lawful organization are more likely to come from a rational force or entity.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Invalid conjunction. False dichotomy fallacy.

Newton, Galileo, Kepler were saying that the rational cannot come from the irrational. That is logically incoherent. Rationality can only come from a rational mind.

So? Why do you keep dropping these names? Do you worship them?

 

[Into the Night]

There's no doubt the cosmologists understand the math and physics of the hot big bang better than the Pope and the archbishops.

There is no math or physics of the Theory of the Big Bang. The Theory of the Big Bang is a religion.

I only stated that Christianity and Judaism claimed there was a beginning to the universe.

Some people do, but neither Christianity nor Judaism does not.

The scientists of the young Einstein's day generally thought that was incorrect.

Science is not a person. Science has no theory about past unobserved events or the lack of one.

An interesting sidebar is that the person who first discovered the universe was expanding, and extrapolated it back to an origin point was a Belgian Catholic priest.

The Universe has no known boundary. What is 'expanding'? There is no known 'origin point'.

 

[Into the Night]

Obviously it meant everything they could see: the stars, the planets, the Milky Way, the black void of the night sky.

'Obviously'??? Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

If God is the first cause of matter, space, and time, then it must be an immaterial force outside of the universe, existing independent of space and time.

There is nothing 'outside' the Universe because there is no 'inside'. The Universe has no known boundary. You are being irrational.

Every normal person is referring to the physical universe when they speak of the creation or beginning of the universe.

What 'beginning of the Universe'? What do you mean by 'physical Universe'? The creation is about Earth and some other location called 'Heavens'. Earth is not the Universe. 'Heavens' is not the Universe. Throughout the Bible, 'Heavens' is a place. That means it is IN the Universe. It is not the Universe itself.

 

[Into the Night]

Right.. he "thought" mathematical laws were evidence of a higher rational mind.

Considering that Man invented mathematics, he's right.

Newton, Galileo, etc saw something they couldn't explain, how the complex mathematics of the universe came to be, and filled in that gap in knowledge with a "god".

What 'complex mathematics of the Universe'? The Universe is unorganized.
There is no 'gap'. Non-sequitur fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm still curious why this "magical phrase" seems to be so "meaningful" to you. It's simple. I don't see any evidence you have provided that would cause me to believe there is a God.

It's really fuckin' simple.

Why it scares you so badly that you have to make up some "magical phrase" that seems to be like some weird totem for you is beyond me.

I have already provided some objective evidence. You can't make it just disappear. You are simply desperate to ignore it.