That used to be the (convenient for religion) position.

However, sometime around the publication of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, the position changed to “Everything is open to scientific enquiry, including deistic belief systems and their claims

Whose position changed? Gould? National Academy of Sciences? (Real question)

Seems you have a few things you know it could not be
Not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

Ok, bit by bit if you like.

Could God have triggered the Big Bang?

And a follow up question, do you know anything beyond some basics about the big bang?

This should be fun as you both debate without saying anything

You keep saying that JY. But, I’ve answered all questions directed at me. You don’t ask me anything then complain I haven’t said anything. You’ll make someone a fine wife some day.

Tell me, do you dismiss Shakespeare as wrong?

Barking, the lot of you. the Goddists for parading fairytales and butwhatifs as an actual argument, and the NoGodists for even thinking that rational argument and reason is going to make the slightest bit of difference to the mindsets of people who have closed their minds a long time ago.

you are all wasting precious time, of which you only have a finite amount. Go do something productive, good, profitable, pleasurable… But give up with this pointless collective banging of heads on proverbial brick walls.

Excellent surface reading V8, now you might read it again and see if you see what we are discussing.

Excellent surface reading V8, now you might read it again and see if you see what we are discussing.

18 pages?? No ta. I refer you to my previous post. I’m off to the park with my kids.

Whose position changed?

I don’t have the names, but it was a position I heard with increasing frequency since 2001 via the media, from several in the scientific community as I recall, whenever the subject came up.

Ok, bit by bit if you like.

So you’re now trying to construct, after the fact, some proofs of your statement that it “Seems (I) have a few things (I) know it could not be”.

Interesting approach.

Could God have triggered the Big Bang?

Unlikely – there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity of any sort (do you REALLY want to sick all this up yet again?).

And a follow up question, do you know anything beyond some basics about the big bang?

Yes, again and again, because it’s a complicated explanation full of abstruse observations and explanations, many of which are hard to grasp so I don’t carry them around in my head. I am able to access the references, though. I recommend the Brian Cox contribution to “An Atheist’s Guide to Christmas”, if you’re curious.

So you’re now trying to construct, after the fact, some proofs of your statement that it “Seems (I) have a few things (I) know it could not be”.

Well, it did seem that way, to me. So, in short ‘no’. This isn’t a competition for me, i’m try to work out what people think and why. Maybe address some misconceptions, in others and myself. I had thought you would have said god did not trigger the big bang, I was wrong, I can live with that

Could God have triggered the Big Bang?
Unlikely – there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a deity of any sort (do you REALLY want to sick all this up yet again?).

Not necessary, i’m happy that you think it is a possibility

I don’t have the names, but it was a position I heard with increasing frequency since 2001 via the media, from several in the scientific community as I recall, whenever the subject came up.

Ok, so you don’t know.

Closed mind you say V8

Tell us, how many times have you actively looked to let God into your life?

As I’ve said before, Richard Dawkins generously gives the existence of a god a measure of probability so small that the likelyhood of the existence of such a thing is next to zero as makes no difference.

I’m less generous.

I had thought you would have said god did not trigger the big bang

As I said – there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was “triggered” by a god is , to put it mildly, risible.

Charlie and Ro5ey – just one irrefutable item of proof, just one cast iron piece of evidence that can be tested by a third party. Go on, just one. Otherwise V8 looks to have summed it all up rather well IMO. 🙂

As I said – there is no evidence of a god, so the measurement of probability that the universe was “triggered” by a god is , to put it mildly, risible.

Fine but,i ‘m just trying to be clear, you admit it is a possibility,even if you would laugh at the probability.

CM it is not really debating but sport for you. I think the exchange with northwind where you denied examples were given yet another then argued etc sums you up on here tbh. i dont want to join in feeding you tbh and its a shame as you are clearly bright

Fine but,i ‘m just trying to be clear, you admit it is a possibility

Read it again.

As I said – there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was “triggered” by a god is, to put it mildly, risible.

Charlie and Ro5ey – just one irrefutable item of proof, just one cast iron piece of evidence that can be tested by a third party. Go on, just one. Otherwise V8 looks to have summed it all up rather well IMO.

You haven’t read the thread either have you, the issue with V8’s comment os nothing to do with the proof of the existence of God,it’s that he / she completely missed what we have been discussing. But thanks for your input, you moron.

In the same vein Charlie, do you also agree that there may be a possibility that God does not exist, even a probability at which you would laugh?

Read it again.

I did, except you edited out the bit of my quote which was a the same as what you said.

Why did you do that?

In the same vein Charlie, do you also agree that there may be a possibility that God does not exist, even a probability at which you would laugh?

Yes.

For clarity and focus.

i said

Fine but,i ‘m just trying to be clear, you admit it is a possibility,even if you would laugh at the probability.

You said

As I said – there is no evidence of a god, so to attribute a measurement of probability that the universe was “triggered” by a god is, to put it mildly, risible.

They are the same thing aren’t they? Why cut out he bit of my quoute which actually made them the same thing,then ask me to read again.

Well, if clarity and focus are what you are after, then a simple yes or no, would suffice.

Well, if clarity and focus are what you are after, then a simple yes or no, would suffice.

For you, maybe.

But thanks for your input, you moron.

At this revelation of attitude, despite my reputation for being something of a “rottweiler” in these matters, I take my leave…

Just checking if he was reading.

Wow, that’s a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.

But thanks for your input, you moron.
At this revelation of attitude, despite my reputation for being something of a “rottweiler” in these matters, I take my leave…

This wasn’t even directed at you, but when asked a direct question you chose to take offence and leave. Do you happen to live in Tower Hamlets?

So any suggestion you have is just as likely as that it was triggered by God.

There’s two flaws in this.

1) You appear to be suggesting that in the absence of a definite explanation, all possibilities are equally likely, which is silly. Say I find a dead bird in my garden; I don’t know what killed it, but that doesn’t mean that aliens from the planet Splot are ‘just as likely’ an explanation as that ginger tom from two doors down.

2) You know, it’s ok not to know things. We don’t absolutely know lots of stuff about the Earth and the universe around us, but fortunately for us nature does not require our understanding in order to get on with things.

Retro-fitting “god did it” as a convenient explanation for anything we don’t understand is a cop-out; it’s the same sort of lies-to-children story as the stork bringing babies. And one the biggest issues I have with it is that it doesn’t actually answer anything, it just rephrases the same question. If a god did it, where did he come from?

Big questions often have difficult, complicated answers, and sometimes no answers at all. And that’s ok.

Wow, that’s a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.

Good, that’s what i understand too.

I personally believe the Catholic Church is quite evil. In many cases they are more interested in maintaining power and influnce, rather than doing whats morally right, just off the top of my head:

– protecting those who sexually abuse children and in (granted isolated cases) punishing the victims (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9153676/Dutch-Roman-Catholic-Church-castrated-at-least-10-boys.html)

– no condoms, even in AIDS ridden areas of Africa becuase it’s better that more catholics are created rather than controlling the spread of disease.

– virtually everyone I have met who went to a catholic school has a story about evil nuns and/or getting battered by those in charge.

Rogertgecat, won’t happen, religion is all about faith, they’re inseparable. Without faith there’s no religion. Facts take away the faith bit. If you could prove the exsistance of god ( any one of them would do it) that’s pretty much the end of any/ all religions So, it’s in the best interests of the churches to be as obscure as they can. Otherwise they pretty much disappear in a puff of logic. If god exsists you don’t need a church….

Ergo trying to argue the toss with religion using facts ain’t going to get very far.

1) You appear to be suggesting that in the absence of a definite explanation, all possibilities are equally likely, which is silly. Say I find a dead bird in my garden; I don’t know what killed it, but that doesn’t mean that aliens from the planet Splot are ‘just as likely’ an explanation as that ginger tom from two doors down.

Not at all, i asked Woppit for a more likely explanation. He said there wasn’t one.

2) You know, iit’s ok not to know things. We don’t absolutely know lots of stuff about the Earth and the universe around us, but fortunately for us nature does not require our understanding in order to get on with things.

Of course it’s ok to not know things, apart fromanything else, i think, this is what faith is based on.

Retro-fitting “god did it” as a convenient explanation for anything we don’t understand is a cop-out; it’s the same sort of lies-to-children story as the stork bringing babies. And one the biggest issues I have with it is that it doesn’t actually answer anything, it just rephrases the same question. If a god did it, where did he come from?

i agree, but often people suggest pseudo-scientific explanations for things they don’t understand, most commonly ohnthat was due to evolution. I don’t say evolution is wrong only that it should not be used as a glib response tomwhy things are the way they are anymore than God should. I oly ask that people have an understanding of the science tomwhich they attribute the causal mechanism. Case in point below.

Big questions often have difficult, complicated answers, and sometimes no answers at all. And that’s ok

Yup, but I’m sure you agree, we should keep looking.

– no condoms, even in AIDS ridden areas of Africa becuase it’s better that more catholics are created rather than controlling the spread of disease.

Have you looked at the data?

Wow, that’s a bit nasty and not very Christian!
I have read the entire thread thanks.
I cannot recollect a direct quote to me re damnation for non adherence to a church edict but the fact that a set of rules, defined by the church, that state clearly that some deity, the existence of whom cannot be proven, may condemn you to purgatory ad infinitum implies the fact that you will be damned if not explicitly stated.

Good, that’s what i understand too.

Good, I am glad we agree that some unprovable idea – let’s call it God – has influenced a group of “people” to impose the threat of eternal damnation upon other people, unless they obey the rules set by the “people” in charge.

i asked Woppit for a more likely explanation. He said there wasn’t one.

Well, no, he said he didn’t have one, not that there wasn’t one.

I don’t say evolution is wrong only that it should not be used as a glib response tomwhy things are the way they are anymore than God should. I oly ask that people have an understanding of the science tomwhich they attribute the causal mechanism.

Sure, and I’d love it if that could be the case. But as I said before, these things are complicated and difficult. So, the amount of explanation people are actually capable of understanding will vary wildly between individuals and, with the best will in the world, most people are not scientists.

Even with simplified examples, people still misunderstand. For instance, “if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” People poking holes in TBBT usually follow the same format too; they fundamentally misunderstand the theory and then adopt the opinion that it’s wrong.

Yup, but I’m sure you agree, we should keep looking.

Of course. And as far as I’m aware, we are.

Good, I am glad we agree that some unprovable idea – let’s call it God – has influenced a group of “people” to impose the threat of eternal damnation upon other people, unless they obey the rules set by the “people” in charge.

I preferred it the way you said it first time, lets leave it at that, unless you are actually looking to argue.

Well, no, he said he didn’t have one, not that there wasn’t one.

To be fair, he said that one was not available.

Sure, and I’d love it if that could be the case. But as I said before, these things are complicated and difficult. So, the amount of explanation people are actually capable of understanding will vary wildly between individuals and, with the best will in the world, most people are not scientists.

Even with simplified examples, people still misunderstand. For instance, “if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” People poking holes in TBBT usually follow the same format too; they fundamentally misunderstand the theory and then adopt the opinion that it’s wrong.

Sure but it works both ways, people will claim a scientific explanation, with a fundamental misunderstandng of the science.

At it’s most basic level, you get this with flight. If someone argued that god held aeroplanes in the air, and someone else argued that no it was purely due to air flowing over the top faster than it went under. Both show a pack uf understanding of science.

And a follow up question, do you know anything beyond some basics about the big bang?

If I may? (repetition number 14,000,053)

The “Big Bang Theory” was a pejorative term coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge cosmologist and mathematician, who was a proponent of the static universe. He considered the idea of an expanding universe to be pseudo-science. However, it was catchy and stuck.

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [l?m?t?] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[1][2] He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble’s law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article.[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’

And Le Maitre said that God done it. 😉

Has this thread considered the meaning of the words ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ yet? (And saying it’s ‘just semantics’ isn’t allowed, unless you also want to debate language, linguistics and communication at large…)

There are some slightly rabid sounding atheists on here accusing religious people of closed-mindedness when it seems to me that the ability to put your faith in something unbelievable (death and resurrection, for example) points to an open mind. And it’s the atheists who are sounding closed-minded on this thread, whereas in my experience the more spiritual your nature, the more inclined you are to see and accept the differences in others (differences of religious outlook, sexuality, etc); and the more likely you are to see and to be able to deal with doubt, duality and hypocrisy.

Of course there is no direct link between spirituality and political ambition or position within the church – so the activities causing much populist outrage at the moment (legitimately, in all probability) still do not represent the religious or spiritual inner workings of most people who see themselves as religious.

Sure but it works both ways, people will claim a scientific explanation, with a fundamental misunderstandng of the science. At it’s most basic level, you get this with flight.

<nods> agreed, and an excellent example.

I guess the question then is, does it matter? If people misunderstand or oversimplify the science, that doesn’t necessarily devalue the scientists who understand it properly. Ie, it doesn’t make those Theories wrong.

Maybe the problem comes when you’re arguing against something you don’t really understand. When this happens, you can approach it as a learning opportunity, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and shout loudly.

I’m not a scientist, I’m at best an enthusiastic amateur. I have to take it on face value – have “faith” if you like – that a lot of very clever people are broadly in agreement that this is how things are, based on craploads of research and other very clever people trying to prove them wrong and generally reaching a consensus. For instance, I have no doubt that atoms exist, but I’ve neither the means nor the understanding to prove that for myself.

Whilst the same could be said to an extent about religion, the difference is that no-one seems to be able to agree (even within the same faith, let alone between different ones) and so the whole thing then becomes an exercise in who can make up the least implausible story.

putting your faith in something unbelievable (death and resurrection, for example) points to an open mind.

The problem there is, an open mind lets any old crap in if you let it.

Have an open mind by all means, just back it up with a little scepticism and critical thinking.

“And it’s the atheists who are sounding closed-minded.”

Surely not.

I thought they had all personnal tried finding God, rather than just dismissing faith without even giving it a good go themselves.

Dorset . I think most atheists aren’t bothered by any individuals spirituality, most have issues around the special status given in society to churches ( my short hand for religious organisations) one only has to look at the sad case of cardinal o’brian to see the hypocrisy and self delusion required*

Edit: *by him personally ( I’ve just read that back and it sounds more than a little pejorative, apologies)

I thought they had all personnal tried finding God, rather than just dismissing faith without even giving it a good go themselves.

Which god? I see over 3000 to have a bash at: http://www.godchecker.com/

I only have a finite life. I can’t believe in them *all*. I’d never get the washing done or go out biking or owt.

You know, I’d reject the suggestion that all atheists are closed-minded or are only atheists because we’ve never tried not to be.

There’s plenty of born-again atheists, for a start; quite a few have discussed that a way back on this very thread. Plenty more will have come to their own conclusions by other routes, but I’d be surprised if many had just never given it any thought at all. As we’ve discussed previously, religion can be non-trivial to avoid.

(Actually, I’d reject the assumption that “all” of a given demographic are anything, really)