Originally posted by One Free Man
There is no "factual" about god or the big bang. You can't prove either exists.
There is a difference here.
We have no scientific evidence whatsoever that god exists.
We have valid scientific theories and evidence that suggest the big bang or something similar, did happen.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well, some parts of it.
...which is to be expected, given its length.
....
In response to the thread starter:
The Christian god (and most gods, for that matter) is not one who simply created the big bang and then stepped away. He has, and allegedly still does, interact with His creation frequently (and "mysteriously" if we're to believe half the semi-spiritual theists on the planet). As such, the utter lack of evidence for such interaction, and the utter lack of evidence of anything other than strict physical determinism, is damning to such a religion.
To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.
The Big Bang represents our best current understanding of the origins of the universe, and can be considered a valid scientific belief until contradictory or supplementary evidence is discovered. The power of science lies in its ability to self-correct over time, its adherence to logic, its admittance of our areas of ignorance (instead of trying to fill such voids with nonsense), and its lack of dogmatism. I believe (not unconditionally, mind you) that the Big Bang happened, and I believe in no god. That's my answer to the two areas of the thread's title.
Originally posted by Digi
...which is to be expected, given its length.
And that some parts are simply letters sent early Christian churches.
Originally posted by Digi
To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.
That's Deism or Gnosticism isn't it?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's Deism or Gnosticism isn't it?
Possibly some of both, and certainly the former (I'm not as familiar with Gnosticism). Honestly, my description of the non-interactive god/force could fit into many kinds of agnostic or spiritual-but-not-religious worldviews.
I must respect such a position intellectually, because it is logically untouchable with our current knowledge, but it's always seemed to me like a cop-out....something for believe who recognize the lack of evidence, whether they admit it or not, but still feel the need for a spiritual crutch. I realize I'm generalizing, and exceptions could easily be found, but I'm basing it on my experience with such arguments and the people who use them.
Originally posted by Digi
I must respect such a position intellectually, because it is logically untouchable with our current knowledge...
There are several good arguments against the Cosomological argument.
I mentioned one up a few posts. If a person accepts the premise of a first cause, it does not necessarily follow that such a cause must be intelligent or supernatural.
From that premise alone, the universe itself could be a first cause, because if you accept that there must be a first cause, it does not demand that a cause be intelligent.
Originally posted by Digithanks for the opinion. i believe otherwise though
...which is to be expected, given its length.....
In response to the thread starter:
The Christian god (and most gods, for that matter) is not one who simply created the big bang and then stepped away. He has, and allegedly still does, interact with His creation frequently (and "mysteriously" if we're to believe half the semi-spiritual theists on the planet). As such, the utter lack of evidence for such interaction, and the utter lack of evidence of anything other than strict physical determinism, is damning to such a religion.
To say, however, that one believes in some creative force (god or otherwise) creating the big bang and then stepping back, like you seem to do in the first post, is at least more intellectually tenable. Not because it has any more evidence than an interactive deity, but because the lack of evidence is not damning to this position. However, it represents a sort of theistic retreat, because such a deity or creative force would require nothing of us, as modern religions do, and therefore has no bearing on our lives or philosophies about the universe.
The Big Bang represents our best current understanding of the origins of the universe, and can be considered a valid scientific belief until contradictory or supplementary evidence is discovered. The power of science lies in its ability to self-correct over time, its adherence to logic, its admittance of our areas of ignorance (instead of trying to fill such voids with nonsense), and its lack of dogmatism. I believe (not unconditionally, mind you) that the Big Bang happened, and I believe in no god. That's my answer to the two areas of the thread's title.
Originally posted by AutokratWell, then, I leave the burden of proof too you. Educate us. What valid scientific evidence do we have? No theories please, theories are of little use in this sort of thing, as anything can be a "theory of great scientific importance".
We have valid scientific theories and evidence that suggest the big bang or something similar, did happen.
I know the story of the big bang. Give me the evidence.
Originally posted by One Free Man
Well, then, I leave the burden of proof too you. Educate us. What valid scientific evidence do we have? No theories please, theories are of little use in this sort of thing, as anything can be a "theory of great scientific importance".I know the story of the big bang. Give me the evidence.
The expanding universe.