Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[RecoveringYuppy]

Our calender is based on the birth of Christ.

Not much. If you think that's true, you need to also agree that it's based on Norse gods and deified Roman Emperors. Do you agree?

Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

You're really proud it got that one yes/no question correct aren't you? How about the yes/no question that the Church was willing to kill over: The Earth is the center of the universe?

What do you make of the fact they got that one wrong?

How about the parts of Genesis that claim there are windows in the sky for rain to fall from and that the stars are attached to a firmament?

 

[joobz]

Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

Again, I'll the question I asked on the first page.
Do you believe that the universe did not exist when it was a big bang singularity (or what ever form of condensed energy/matter it was)?

if it existed during that state, how can you say that the universe "began" then?

 

[wahrheit]

Hundreds of thousands of changed lives.

"Changed lives", why so modest? I'd say these lives changed dramatically when getting shot by a Spanish musket, when burning at the stake or getting disemboweled by a knight's sword.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip...
Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

Not to step on joobz's toes, but this is simply wrong. The BB theory emphatically does not say there was a “definite beginning to time, space, and matter.”

The best we can do is rewind the movie back as far as our physics takes us, which is about to the Plank dimensions. Past that point, time itself becomes wonky, loses its meaning as we know it (it’s probably senseless to speak of t=0), and we’re simply at loss for a physical theory as things stand.

I do know of one theory which resolves the problem using known physics. It was put forward by physicist J. Richard Gott, and posits a time loop where you would otherwise put t=0. In other words, go back far enough and you eventually discover a self-connecting loop -- somewhat like a klein bottle -- of time. In such a scenario there is no t=0, no discrete moment of creation. No “definite beginning.” This theory was published in one of the Physical Review Letters, if memory serves.

I think there really are some interesting, if highly metaphorical, parallels between Genesis and modern BB theory, but nothing like what DOC’s suggested. One can always dream up similarities between any sufficiently nebulous allegory and almost any esoteric and highly mathematical physical theory.

All ink blots and poetry.

 

[joobz]

Not to step on joobz's toes, but this is simply wrong. The BB theory emphatically does not say there was a “definite beginning to time, space, and matter.”

The best we can do is rewind the movie back as far as our physics takes us, which is about to the Plank dimensions. Past that point, time itself becomes wonky, loses its meaning as we know it (it’s probably senseless to speak of t=0), and we’re simply at loss for a physical theory as things stand.

I do know of one theory which resolves the problem using known physics. It was put forward by physicist J. Richard Gott, and posits a time loop where you would otherwise put t=0. In other words, go back far enough and you eventually discover a self-connecting loop -- somewhat like a klein bottle -- of time. In such a scenario there is no t=0, no discrete moment of creation. No “definite beginning.” This theory was published in one of the Physical Review Letters, if memory serves.

No problem at all. Since page 1, I was trying to get DOC to realize that BB theory is not the same as "beginning of the universe" in the way he was implying it.

DOC has avoided answering my question under the guise of implying that my error regarding singularity invalidated my point. I think it is important to highlight this fallacy. Especially in regards to your next statement.

I think there really are some interesting, if highly metaphorical, parallels between Genesis and modern BB theory, but nothing like what DOC’s suggested. One can always dream up similarities between any sufficiently nebulous allegory and almost any esoteric and highly mathematical physical theory.

How can one pretend to claim that the bible and science are in agreement when they also attempt to invalidate counter arguments on the grounds of tangential minutiae?

 

[Elizabeth I]

really? So communion doesn't involve transubstantiation and doesn't represent the eating of Jesus' body and blood?

And all Christian denominations don't practice communion in some form? Every church I have ever been to - and I have attended churches of many different denominations - observed a communion ceremony.

They may not all believe, as the Catholics do, that the wafer and wine actually turn to flesh and blood during the ceremony, but they do all agree that the [bread product] and [liquid] represent Jesus' body and blood. That is the symbolic consumption of the flesh and blood of someone who, according to another poster in this thread, was once an actual living person.

Bringing us back to - symbolic cannabalism.

Keep giving him hell, Joobz.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Jefferson said the morals and ethics of Christ are the best he's ever seen.

He also said "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology"

I guess he must have changed his mind.

 

[DOC]

excellent! You just proved my OP in the "DOC's proof of christianity through irrelevant fact attrition."

You forget the title of that thread was false and the 2nd sentence of the OP was false.

 

[Ashles]

Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

And obviously the Bible was the first story or religion to ever suggest there might have been a start to time, space and matter.
The very first.
None had ever suggested that before. Unh huh. No way.

 

[joobz]

You forget the title of that thread was false and the 2nd sentence of the OP was false.

So either the OP was false, which means you lied here about what you just presented weren't facts supporting christianity or they are facts supporting christianity and you falsely claimed my OP wrong.

 

[godless dave]

Some of them aren't even facts. There is no evidence Jesus's tomb was empty, or even that he was buried in a tomb.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

...snip...
How can one pretend to claim that the bible and science are in agreement when they also attempt to invalidate counter arguments on the grounds of tangential minutiae?

If you can make science confirm the Bible (DOC’s mangled BB theory), then the Bible must be right -- science says so. If science contradicts the Bible (evolution), then science must be wrong -- the Bible says so.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

 

[joobz]

And all Christian denominations don't practice communion in some form? Every church I have ever been to - and I have attended churches of many different denominations - observed a communion ceremony.

They may not all believe, as the Catholics do, that the wafer and wine actually turn to flesh and blood during the ceremony, but they do all agree that the [bread product] and [liquid] represent Jesus' body and blood. That is the symbolic consumption of the flesh and blood of someone who, according to another poster in this thread, was once an actual living person.

Bringing us back to - symbolic cannabalism.

Keep giving him hell, Joobz.

Thanks. That's been my point.

I'd like to point out the fact that in this thread, DOC has made many inferences towards my errors but has yet to actually show any error.

Indeed, when pressed for such information, wether it is regarding the beginning of the universe, cannibalism and chrsitianity, "facts" of christianity, he fails to present this information.

People have answered his questions honestly and in good faith. This behavior has not been reciprocated. I only reference this because it helps highlight the foundation which the OP is based upon.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC
Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?

Posted by DOC
Water is converted to steam by natural forces, but natural forces didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang. If they did what were those natural forces?

Posted by DOC
Would you say the Big Bang was caused by natural forces or supernatural forces. If you believe natural forces, what were they?

Posted by DOC
Name two natural physical laws that existed at the time of the Big Bang?

This is ridiculous. It's obvious what you're trying to do. Creationists and other woo believers do it all the time. You know that you can't win the argument, so you're trying to find one thing that your opponents don't understand fully and then you intend to point at that and just act as if you just won the argument. It's pathetic.

Robert Jastrow, the man who has been director of the Mount Wilson Observatory (the place where Edwin Hubble worked) and the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies would disagree with you.

Here is an excerpt from the book "I Don't Have enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. (pg 84 - 85)

[In light of Jastrow's personal agnosticism, his theistic quotations are all the more provacative. After explaining some of the Big Bang evidence we've just reviewed, Jastrow writes, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy".

The overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang and it consistency with the biblical account in Genesis led Jastrow to observe in an interview, "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet , every living thing in the cosmos and on the earth. And they found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."]

 

[joobz]

Robert Jastrow, the man who has been director of the Mount Wilson Observatory (the place where Edwin Hubble worked) and the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies would disagree with you.

Here is an excerpt from the book "I Don't Have enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. (pg 84 - 85)

[In light of Jastrow's personal agnosticism, his theistic quotations are all the more provacative. After explaining some of the Big Bang evidence we've just reviewed, Jastrow writes, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy".

The overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang and it consistency with the biblical account in Genesis led Jastrow to observe in an interview, "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet , every living thing in the cosmos and on the earth. And they found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."]

That's funny. You quoted a person making the same unsubstantiated assertion. How is that evidence?

I sincerely hope the Geisler is a little better than that in his book.
An assertion by one scientist and an inability to properly define a word origin? Not the behavior you would expect from one of the "worlds great apologists".

 

[DOC]

I sincerely hope the Geisler is a little better than that in his book.
An assertion by one scientist and an inability to properly define a word origin? Not the behavior you would expect from one of the "worlds great apologists".

So you're now blaming Geisler for an assertion made by a director of the Mount Wilson Observatory in addition to blaming him for something his co-author said about a word origin.

And Jastrow wasn't the only scientist who held such views. According to Geisler's and Turek's book cited earlier (pg. 85):

[By evoking the supernatural, Jastrow echoes the conclusion of Einstein contemporary Arthur Eddington. As mentioned earlier, although he found it "repugnant"', Eddington admitted, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural".]

 

[mrshadyvale]

So are some Christians armed with facts. Christ was an historical figure. The tomb is empty. Peter died in Rome. Christ said upon this rock {Peter} I will build my church. The vatican is likely built on his grave. The bible is the best selling book of all time. Hundreds of thousands of changed lives. Our calender is based on the birth of Christ. Jefferson said the morals and ethics of Christ are the best he's ever seen. Scientists have learned there was a definite beginning to time, space, and matter, which is similar to Genesis. etc. etc.

DOC, I sincerely mean it when I say Thanks for directly replying to something directed to your attention. This is how the discussion should work.

I was going to refute this point by point, but I was beaten to it on several counts by people much more qualified than myself. The only additional statement I will make is in regards to relevance.

But I will comment on the "best selling book of all time" remark. Sure, the bible may be the best selling book of all time (estimated 5 to 6 billion copies) but it is tied with Quotations from Chairman Mao with even some estimates putting that one at 5 to 6.5 billion.

So if you want to use that as a basis for the relevance the bible has on humanity I guess Jesus can stand shoulder to shoulder with Chairman Mao.

 

[joobz]

So you're now blaming Geisler for an assertion made by a director of the Mount Wilson Observatory in addition to blaming him for something his co-author said about a word origin.

And Jastrow wasn't the only scientist who held such views. According to Geisler's and Turek's book cited earlier (pg. 85):

[By evoking the supernatural, Jastrow echoes the conclusion of Einstein contemporary Arthur Eddington. As mentioned earlier, although he found it "repugnant"', Eddington admitted, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural".]

Not at all. I'm blaming him for quoting a scientist who is making a blanket unsupported assertion. If he (or you) had better arguments against BB, I would assume you would have presented it.

 

[Hokulele]

So you're now blaming Geisler for an assertion made by a director of the Mount Wilson Observatory in addition to blaming him for something his co-author said about a word origin.

"I think" "seems to present" "the details differ".

That really doesn't sound all too conclusive (or persuasive). If that is the best evidence Geisler can present, I am amazed anyone takes his work seriously.

 

[arthwollipot]

Jefferson said the morals and ethics of Christ are the best he's ever seen.

Jesus was fine with slavery.

As far as I can recall, so was Jefferson.