06 Oct 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @eladarWhat do you mean by "first hand" here?
That unless we obseve it first hand, we are just guessing.
If you mean by "first hand" is me personally witnessing it then it still isn't 'guessing' on my part that the event happened. One doesn't always need to witness it first hand to rationally know someone else did; it just depends on the credibility of the source. Do you deny that it isn't mere assumption that stars sometimes explode because you or I haven't personally witnessed one exploding? If so, that is stupid. We have EVIDENCE that it did.
But if what you mean by "first hand" is somebody (anybody) witnessing it as in merely observing the data for it; I WAS talking about observing it first hand and you STILL called that my "religious beliefs" thus that interpretation makes no sense whatsoever.
06 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyWhat I mean is actually seeing.
What do you mean by "first hand" here?
If you mean by "first hand" is me personally witnessing it then it still isn't 'guessing' on my part that the event happened. One doesn't always need to witness it first hand to rationally know someone else did; it just depends on the credibility of the source. Do you deny that it isn't mere assumption that stars somet ...[text shortened]... you STILL called that my "religious beliefs" thus that interpretation makes no sense whatsoever.
If the light we see is old, but it is the light from the explosion, then fine it exploded.
As far as rationally knowing something, that depends on one's assumptions.
06 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseWhen it comes to assumptions that can't be proven, everyone has just opinion on their side.
That's all well and good but you have only opinion on your side, no science involved in saying goddidit. So far you are safe since there are only theories about how the universe got here so nobody will chide you for believing goddidit. Maybe a few hundred years from now that will not be true.
Congrats on seeing about my position, I wonder if you are capable about seeing it about yours.
06 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladarBy whom? Me personally or some other person or some other source?
What I mean is actually seeing.
What distinction if any do you make between "actually seeing" and "seeing"?
You are being very unclear.
If the light we see is old, but it is the light from the explosion, then fine it exploded.
Can that "light" be microwave radiation?
If not, why not?
If so, so you agree the big bang happened because of the 'light' (microwave radiation) from it has been detected and "the light we see is old, but it is the light from the explosion," ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
There is currently no other credible explanation (scientific or otherwise) for the origin of this clearly detected microwave radiation and the big bang explains it perfectly.
If it looks just like a duck and it quacks just like a duck and swims just like a duck and needs to eat just like a duck and it lays edible duck eggs and doesn't need batteries, it's a duck.
As far as rationally knowing something, that depends on one's assumptions.
What "assumptions" knowledge of a star exploding depend on that creditably could be wrong after observing that it clearly exploded?
How could it credibly be that no star ever explodes given the evidence?
06 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyBy you would be fine. By a person who is a credible person, even from history.
By whom? Me personally or some other person or some other source?
What distinction if any do you make between "actually seeing" and "seeing"?
You are being very unclear.
If the light we see is old, but it is the light from the explosion, then fine it exploded.
Can that "light" be microwave radiation?
If not, why not?
If so, so yo ...[text shortened]... at it clearly exploded?
How could it credibly be that no star ever explodes given the evidence?
If we make the assumption that God does not exist and the universe was not created, then I can see why you would believe in the big bang.
But that is an assumption.
Do you know about proofs by recursion?
06 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @fabianfnasKnowing what you know, is there anything else to aspire to? Are you satisified with our current scientific consensus?
That's a holistic view! I like that! But I don't understand it...
Do we *know* that this is actually the case - or is it just a beautiful dream?
The history of scientific thinking shows new discoveries have proven to be world changing (and paradigm destroying for the old view)
06 Oct 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @eladarI don't make that assumption when interpreting the evidence for the big bang (nor for most if not all other things) as it would be irrelevant. I just look at the evidence.
If we make the assumption that God does not exist
+ if I ever saw evidence for there being a god or gods then I would believe there is a god or gods, no problem.
and the universe was not created,
The universe as we know it was created by the big bang.
If you believe a god or gods created anything, why do you believe a god or gods did not create the big bang? How isn't that your assumption?
Hypothetically, if I did believe there was a god, how would that conflict with my belief the big bang happened when there is no contradiction between the two? -you make no sense whatsoever.
There being the big bang or no big bang doesn't change the probability of there being a god or gods. If there was no big bang then the steady state theory would seem to be more likely; don't see how that would effect the probability of there being a god or gods.
then I can see why you would believe in the big bang.
No, I believed the big bang happened because of the proof it happened and that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is a god or gods.
Why cannot there be a big bang AND a god? Or NO big bang AND NO god? Exactly WHERE is the contradiction there?
06 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyCould God have created a Universe with the evidence for the big bang in place?
I don't make that assumption when interpreting the evidence for the big bang (nor for most if not all other things) as it would be irrelevant. I just look at the evidence.
+ if I ever saw evidence for there being a god or gods then I would believe there is a god or gods, no problem.and the universe was not created,
The universe as w ...[text shortened]... re be a big bang AND a god? Or NO big bang AND NO god? Exactly WHERE is the contradiction there?
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarGoddidit... <*yawn*>
Could God have created a Universe with the evidence for the big bang in place?
07 Oct 17
8 edits
Originally posted by @eladarare you saying the evidence for the big bang is all a lie planted there by a god for us to see?
Could God have created a Universe with the evidence for the big bang in place?
If so, why would a god do that? I thought your 'god' was supposed to be honest and good, not a liar and a fraudster.
And how could it be reasonable to take into this account when interpreting the evidence for the big bang?
I mean, how am I supposed to take into account such a stupid wildly assumptive hypothesis when interpreting the evidence for the big bang? If an all knowing all powerful god faked all that evidence, presumably he would make the faked evidence flawless thus that hypothesis would be unfalsifiable so it would be futile for us to test or even consider it.
And you are wrong, I don't make the assumption of "that there is no god" when interpreting the evidence for the big bang because I cannot use that assumption to effect any conclusion.
If there is a god, why cannot 'he' have made the big bang for REAL i.e. NOT faked it? HOW isn't it your assumption that a god did NOT do this? You keep accusing me of making assumptions but it is YOU that is making wildly-by-far the most stupid wild ridiculous ones. You have so far totally failed to explain a single assumption I make that can be deemed even slightly unreasonable.
The only assumption I make is that what the evidence shows is generally the case unless we have specific reason to think there is something wrong with the specific data.
And HOW can it be sane NOT to believe the big bang happened when we have the empirical proof that it did?
As I said before;
If it looks just like a duck and it quacks just like a duck and swims just like a duck and needs to eat just like a duck and it lays edible duck eggs and doesn't need batteries, it's a duck.
07 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @humyYou claim that science contradicts the creation account. I say that it does not.
are you saying the evidence for the big bang is all a lie planted there by a god for us to see?
If so, why would a god do that? I thought your 'god' was supposed to be honest and good, not a liar and a fraudster.
And how could it be reasonable to take into this account when interpreting the evidence for the big bang?
I mean, how am I supposed to take into a ...[text shortened]... at just like a duck and it lays edible duck eggs and doesn't need batteries, it's a duck.
As far as I am concerned this is the only discussion here. You assume one worldview, I assume another. Neither can be demonstrated to be right or wrong by either of us.
The only thing we can discuss is the assertion that science contradicts creation as described in the Bible.
Answer this question then, if the creation account is true, then how long did it take for a star's light to reach the earth at the moment of creation?
The answer is instantaneous because when the star was created, everything about it came into existence including the light rays hitting earth at that moment.
If God created the Universe everything about it would be as it is in that moment. This includes star locations, the expanding nature of the universe, everything.
Models that describe how the big bang created the universe simple regress into negative time. It would be like writing the equation of a high diver's height over time, then using that to describe how high he jumped starting from the level of the water and how much time he was in the air after jumping from the level of the water.
In fact his path starts at mid jump.
07 Oct 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @eladar
You claim that science contradicts the creation account. I say that it does not.
As far as I am concerned this is the only discussion here. You assume one worldview, I assume another. Neither can be demonstrated to be right or wrong by either of us.
The only thing we can discuss is the assertion that science contradicts creation as described in the Bib ...[text shortened]... as in the air after jumping from the level of the water.
In fact his path starts at mid jump.
You claim that science contradicts the creation account.
Which one? Can't you read? I said there is NO contradiction in there being a big bang and there being god. Get it?
If you insist that the big bang didn't happen in YOUR "creation account" then, yes, the proof of the big bang (background microwave radiation + Doppler shift showing universe expanding + etc etc) contradicts YOUR "creation account". But why cannot you have a "creation account" where a god or gods created the big bang? How would that be any more assumptive? Actually, that would be LESS assumptive because it would be a massive assumptive indeed to assume all that proof was fabricated! (either by a god or gods or by mere people).
You assume one worldview, I assume another.
No I assume no worldview, you assume a god couldn't possibly create the big bang. I actually don't assume this.
The only thing we can discuss is the assertion that science contradicts creation as described in the Bible.
I take it this would be the literal interpretation of the Bible irrespective of the absurdities that leads to. What is the bases of your assumption that the Bible MUST be taken literally no mater what absurdity results?
Answer this question then, if the creation account is true, then how long did it take for a star's light to reach the earth at the moment of creation?
you mean YOUR "creation account"? not some other more credible "creation account"? The answer is YOUR "creation account"is false while some other "creation account" may be true.
The answer is instantaneous because when the star was created, everything about it came into existence including the light rays hitting earth at that moment.
here is the problem with that:
We observe through our telescopes a star exploding (a supernovae) that is, say, 100,000 light years away. Note that when a star explodes, it ceases to exist (at least as a star ).
So when did that star explode? Obviously the creationist cannot say it happened 100,000 years ago (like science says it must) because that would mean the universe is more than 100,000 years old.
OK, if the universe is, say, 6000 years old (or whatever age YOU insist it is) then, to see that star now, god must have produced a fake image made of light in transit showing the star exploding just as we would see it if light traveled much faster from its source (why would a god do that? -well, that's another big problem). That, of course, would mean the so-called 'starlight' we see in the image of a star exploding is fake in the sense that it couldn't have come from the star at all thus is not starlight (how can it be starlight if it didn't come from a star?) but rather some sort of "god light" because it was made by a god.
But unless this God is showing us LIES (why would a God do that!?), there must have been a real star exploded 100,000 light years away and that REAL starlight from that explosion still hasn't reached us because that light needs to travel for 100,000 years first, which it couldn't yet have done unless the universe is way older than 6000 years old.
But that means in a bit less than about 100,000 years time that REAL starlight from that explosion will eventually reach us and we will see the same star explode yet again i.e. for a second time! Even though the first explosion should have ended the star's existence! That makes no sense at all! Why would a god go to all the trouble to create such apparent cosmological contradictions? -just to confuse us? I thought this 'God' isn't supposed to show us lies?
07 Oct 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @humyIt would not be a fake image, it would be the image of an actual real universe created consistently with the natural laws put in place by God.You claim that science contradicts the creation account.
Which one? Can't you read? I said there is NO contradiction in there being a big bang and there being god. Get it?
If you insist that the big bang didn't happen in YOUR "creation account" then, yes, the proof of the big bang (background microwave radiation + Doppler shift showing ...[text shortened]... ogical contradictions? -just to confuse us? I thought this 'God' isn't supposed to show us lies?
Your point if view implies God of the Genesis account with limited fake view of reality.
God actually has an understanding and awareness above ours as the very smartest humans are compared to ants. Actually the difference is even greater, but I think you get the idea. I suppose for your point of view, we should say the God I believe in.
You see lies because of your assumptions. I do not see lies because of my assumptions.
07 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasHow does God creating the universe and the laws that govern the universe change anything when it comes to science?
Goddidit... <*yawn*>