"I asked God to help me"

Big bang theory, evolution – two credible theories with evidence to support them that explain how we got here

I don’t think they do. There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

Stephen Hawking says Gravity could have created the Big Bang, but as John Lennox has replied, what created Gravity?

There is no problem of creation. these two things answer it.

The viability of Ayer’s work doesn’t hinge on his later comments.

I agree. Ayer is interesting, more subtle than Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins. And overall I would agree with the quote you featured above.

But I think if he were living now he would be surprised at the lack of intellectual integrity behind much of the New Atheism, which is regurgitated so faithfully by the pseudo-intellectuals on here.

There is no problem of creation. these two things answer it.

Please explain how, exactly?

Not at all TJ, indeed never argued for pick and mix. I do not agree with many issues supported by many orthodox religions but can still respect the reasons why they argue for them.

Actually the poetry idea came from some poorly educated, indoctrinated child incapable of independent thought (apparently) 😉

Edit: It would be a bit narrow minded to critique something without considering different interpretations and the context in which they were written

But I think if he were living now he would be surprised at the lack of intellectual integrity behind much of the New Atheism, which is regurgitated so faithfully by the pseudo-intellectuals on here.

I’d suggest that speculating about the thoughts of a dead philosopher in order to criticise forum posts is not itself a great example of intellectual integrity. Or indeed logically valid in any way.

I’d suggest that speculating about the thoughts of a dead philosopher in order to criticise forum posts is not itself a great example of intellectual integrity. Or indeed logically valid in any way.

This is a good point. I stand corrected.

There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

You keep saying this like it’s something anyone believes. It’s not. Read the Wikipedia link I sent you.

You keep saying this like it’s something anyone believes. It’s not. Read the Wikipedia link I sent you.

I have old chap. And it still doesn’t explain how something came from nothing.

We are in a cycle which is no longer virtuous. Goodnite and God Bless.

There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

Your argument is essentially that of infinite regress.

Whatever explanation is provided for the origins of the universe you can say ‘but what was before that’ or ‘What caused that’

To my mind this is only a fruitful line of reasoning if you continue to inquire into those causes. Slotting god in as a cause is a cop out as it removes the need for any further inquiry.

And it still doesn’t explain how something came from nothing.

Something did not come from nothing.

To my mind this is only a fruitful line of reasoning if you continue to inquire into those causes. Slotting god in as a cause is a cop out as it removes the need for any further inquiry.

Nobody said God was simple. Theologians who accept that God was the starting point are happy to dedicate their lives to inquiry.

As for Infinite Regress, too much Star Trek?

I have old chap. And it still doesn’t explain how something came from nothing.

Try this:

Something did not come from nothing.

You sound very certain. Please explain.

Nobody said God was simple. Theologians who accept that God was the starting point are happy to dedicate their lives to inquiry.

Correct me if I’m wrong but your suggestion seems to be that we follow scientific enquiry to a point and then accept that it can take us no further in explaining the universe and instead devote our time to exploring the mysteries of god?

Cheers Rusty, I’ve read Krauss. I’ve also read Hitchens and Dawkins (who I have talked to a couple of times at Oxford during my student days – when they let in believing morons). I still find John Lennox to be the most persuasive speaker I have heard at numerous believer vs atheist debates.

teamhurtmore – Member

Not at all TJ, indeed never argued for pick and mix.

So to you the bible is the literal word of god? the earth was created in 8 days.

Either it is the word of god and is true in its entirety including the earth being created in 8 days and Homosexuals being an abomination to be killed or you are simply choosing which bits to beleive. which is it?

Badness is your point that you believe that god is eternal but it is impossible for time and the universe to be eternal ? Can the universe not exist outside of linear time just as your concept of god does . Time is but one of the 10 dimensions.

If an atheist needs to explain how something came from nothing then a theist needs to explain where god came from and who created him or her . And why god kept quiet for so long in human history but then revealed him self to one obscure people in one location .

It would also be handy if you could explain why he chose to reveal himself by causing a heart problem in an athlete arranging for a member of a not unusual profession to be in a rather large crowd and then for the athlete to recover via a medical intervention . Surely a talking burning penalty spot or a rain of frogs on the crowd would be less open to debate?

Correct me if I’m wrong but your suggestion seems to be that we follow scientific enquiry to a point and then accept that it can take us no further in explaining the universe and instead devote our time to exploring the mysteries of god?

Yes, you are wrong so I will happily correct you.

There is no dis-junction between scientific and theological inquiry. Newton dedicated his works to God. As did Galileo. As does John Lennox.

There is no dis-junction between scientific and theological inquiry.

Really. Evolution? directly in conflict with the bible

Badness is your point that you believe that god is eternal but it is impossible for time and the universe to be eternal ? Can the universe not exist outside of linear time just as your concept of god does . Time is but one of the 10 dimensions.

The other dimensions outside of time and space have not been proved. They are still science fiction. Yes God is eternal, time and space and the universe itself is limited and by nature not eternal.

Yes God is eternal,

Evidence?

time and space and the universe itself is limited and by nature not eternal.

evidence?

The Tandem

Really. Evolution? directly in conflict with the bible

Not necessarily. Plenty of Christians subscribe to evolution. McGrath, Lennox, are quite prominent Christian evolutionists.

If an atheist needs to explain how something came from nothing then a theist needs to explain where god came from and who created him or her . And why god kept quiet for so long in human history but then revealed him self to one obscure people in one location .

I agree with the first statement. Again I’m not trying to convert anyone. Just pointing out the limitations of atheism.

For the second question, I think you need to educate yourself about the Christian tradition. God revealed himself continually throughout Jewish history. He then became flesh as Jesus, and revealed himself to many people.

There is no dis-junction between scientific and theological inquiry. Newton dedicated his works to God. As did Galileo. As does John Lennox.

I don’t believe this answers my question.

If there is no dis-junction between science and theology you do seem to be suggesting that one can field can inform the other which is frankly ludicrous.

The fact that some scientists believed in god in no way suggests congruity between the fields.

It would also be handy if you could explain why he chose to reveal himself by causing a heart problem in an athlete arranging for a member of a not unusual profession to be in a rather large crowd and then for the athlete to recover via a medical intervention . Surely a talking burning penalty spot or a rain of frogs on the crowd would be less open to debate?

Again, what on earth would I know about this incident! What do you know about it!? All we know is his own testimony and he said God saved his life.

badnewz

Ah – so we are back to pick and mix belief then. You can chose which bits of the bible you believe to be true.

If there is no dis-junction between science and theology you do seem to be suggesting that one can field can inform the other which is frankly ludicrous.

The fact that some scientists believed in god in no way suggests congruity between the fields.

Science implies a rational, order universe. There is plenty of room for a rational creator.

I’m not a theology expert TJ but know enough to understand that there are lots of interpretations of how religious books eg The Bible are meant to be read. I think the idea of the creation story as a poem has more credibility than the idea of it as a literal explanation of how the world came into existence. I cannot see why a Christian wouldn’t think the same.

V narrow minded to think otherwise. Take a simple example, the concept of 40 days and nights in the wilderness. Would a Christian’s belief be valid/invalid if they didn’t think that Jesus spent literally 40 days alone in the wilderness?

(ps as usual your personification of this means that you are barking up the wrong tree again!)

Theistic evolution?

You sound very certain. Please explain.

I’m sorry. According to the theory of The Big Bang, which is what I thought you were arguing against, something did not come from nothing.

If your belief that “something came from nothing” stems from your religious beliefs, you’ll need to take that up with your own religion. Seems to me you’re trying to find a solution for a non-existent problem if that’s the case though.

Plenty of Christians subscribe to evolution.

This much is true. Many Christians have eschewed creationism as the nonsense it evidently is. But then, we’re back to pick ‘n’ mix Christianity.

I’m sorry. According to the theory of The Big Bang, which is what I thought you were arguing against, something did not come from nothing.

If your belief that “something came from nothing” stems from your religious beliefs, you’ll need to take that up with your own religion. Seems to me you’re trying to find a solution for a non-existent problem if that’s the case though.

You completely misunderstood my point.

The Big Bang Theory implies a moment of creation. When something was made from nothing. It arguably undermines a lot of atheistic reasoning from the nineteenth century, when everyone thought the Universe was eternal.

until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing

This is not in the sphere of athiesm other than by association.

It is in the sphere of physics and there are theories around that attempt to explain just what you suggest particularly quantuum vacuum fluctuations.

Who knows perhaps some of the physicists working on this are not even athiests?

So teamhurtmore – the bible to you is not the literal word of god – you chose which bits to believe depending on what is convenient?

Nice GIF CFH 🙂

know enough to understand that there are lots of interpretations of how religious books eg The Bible are meant to be read.

Can’t help but think, if it was the word of god, he’d have been a little less vague.

‘s true though. It’s difficult to translate text from a largely dead language. With that in mind though, it’s also difficult to see why anyone would invest a lifestyle belief system in something we’re not really all that sure about.

There is plenty of room for a rational creator.

I accept the theoretical possibility of this as anyone who aims for a rational world view logically must.

I would qualify it though by suggesting that if there is a rational god it is unlikely to be the ‘jealous god’ of the judeo-christian tradition.

The Big Bang Theory implies a moment of creation. When something was made from nothing

Ah, I see now what you’re getting at.

No, it doesn’t. The Big Bang Theory implies a moment of creation, where something we recognise now as ‘the universe’ was created out of something that wasn’t.

You’re suggesting that ‘creation’ implies a creation of matter, but that’s not what we’re saying (not least because it would contradict accepted science). A potter may create a pot, but he starts with clay. Moreover (and removing this pesky ‘creator’ analogy), A block of ice at room temperature creates water. Doesn’t mean we’re creating water out of nothing.

Regardless. However you argue semantics, the BBT does not posit to create something out of nothing. Transform might be a better word perhaps.

Not the person to ask as I am no expert on the matter TJ. But FWIW, highly unlikely that the current versions of any Bible or other religious script that has been through multiple translations and edits should be taken at face value.

Hence the simple illustration of 40 days and nights. To a modern reader (ok perhaps not Theresa April) that may mean 40 calendar days. To a Jewish reader it can equally mean merely a long time.

Poetry (Genesis?), symbolism, songs (Psalms?) can be interpreted in lots of ways.

But ask a priest or a vicar about the other stuff.

Cougar, perhaps that’s why theology is still taught at universities. Theologians still have lots to understand if they want to move beyond a monochrome world of black and white!

No, it doesn’t. The Big Bang Theory implies a moment of creation, where something we recognise now as ‘the universe’ was created out of something that wasn’t.

You’re suggesting that ‘creation’ implies a creation of matter, but that’s not what we’re saying (not least because it would contradict accepted science). A potter may create a pot, but he starts with clay. Moreover (and removing this pesky ‘creator’ analogy), A block of ice at room temperature creates water. Doesn’t mean we’re creating water out of nothing.

Who is “We” exactly? Are you all typing from the same keyboard?

Your comment makes no sense. The big bang theory implies that Matter, Space and Time was suddenly created.

Your clay analogy, with the potter (where did the clay come from btw), is ridiculous for supporting an Atheistic position.