Atheists on "Spirituality"

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
You are saying two things there. There's a difference between accepting the big bang happened and thinking god caused it and just not accepting the big bang happened at all.

We have evidence the big bang happened (i.e. the theory seems to explain the reality), but I don't know if we'll ever be able to know what happened before that.

The problem wit ...[text shortened]... ain that belief. You don't have to do that with the big bang theory and that's a big plus.

I am not a YEC. The earth is 4.5 billion years old! (give or take a million🙂) So any arguments referring to YEC has no effect on my position.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That's why we should treat religion with religious arguments, and science with scientific arguments.
When trying to prove religious matters with science, then things begin to go wrong.
When trying to learn science with faith, then things begin to go wrong.

Science is science, religion is religion. Don't mix them together. Because they are non-intermixable.

Quite true--yet see what forum we are in?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I am not a YEC. The earth is 4.5 billion years old! (give or take a million🙂) So any arguments referring to YEC has no effect on my position.

That's exactly why I specified YEC. Old earth creationists vary in their views from still being pretty contrary to scientific discoveries to being pretty compatible. I frankly didn't think you were in the YEC camp, but I'm not sure exactly where you see god being involved and where he's not.

It's just the YEC crowd that are the most egregiously contrary to science.

There are creationists who admit the world is billions of years old, but deny evolution ever happened and god did create adam and eve, etc.. there are pretty much all types along the scale I would think.

My personal view is that the natural reason should be sought out and held over any supernatural reason. Attributing god to things tends to be a research dead end.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn


My personal view is that the natural reason should be sought out and held over any supernatural reason. Attributing god to things tends to be a research dead end.[/b]

And for me, dead ends are perfectly acceptable results. We agree to disagree, as gentlemen have done throughout the ages.

With the rest of your reply, I am in total agreement.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
And for me, dead ends are perfectly acceptable results. We agree to disagree, as gentlemen have done throughout the ages.

With the rest of your reply, I am in total agreement.

I guess I wonder where you draw the line at that dead end?

For example, Newton said that the fact that all the planets rotated around the sun in the way that they did was so unexplainable and perfect that it must have been god's work. Then we found the real explanation. If we had thought that dead-end was an acceptable result then noone would have found the real explanation.

The question of what happened before the big bang is a much harder question I think, but I don't think we'll find anything out if we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, god must have done it."

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I guess I wonder where you draw the line at that dead end?

For example, Newton said that the fact that all the planets rotated around the sun in the way that they did was so unexplainable and perfect that it must have been god's work. Then we found the real explanation. If we had thought that dead-end was an acceptable result then noone would have fou ...[text shortened]... 'll find anything out if we just shrug our shoulders and say "well, god must have done it."

I heard Stephen Hawking once say that whatever happened before the Big Bang was of no importance anyway. I'd say that's worse than saying "God did it". Of course, I'm not saying you agree with Hawkung---I'm just sayin'

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I heard Stephen Hawking once say that whatever happened before the Big Bang was of no importance anyway. I'd say that's worse than saying "God did it". Of course, I'm not saying you agree with Hawkung---I'm just sayin'

Hawking is actually right.

The reason is that anything which happenned "before" the Big Bang could have no influence on this universe. It simply isn't relevant to our universe.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I heard Stephen Hawking once say that whatever happened before the Big Bang was of no importance anyway. I'd say that's worse than saying "God did it". Of course, I'm not saying you agree with Hawkung---I'm just sayin'

That's an interesting question and I'd be curious as to the complete context in which he mentioned that.

I actually in a sense agree with him. I think what happened before the big bang is of no importance to whether the big bang happened or not.

I also agree that what happened before the big bang is meaningless when it comes to how we look at our universe since what happened before it has no effect on our present time.

I would say it's a very interesting question to ask about though.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I heard Stephen Hawking once say that whatever happened before the Big Bang was of no importance anyway. I'd say that's worse than saying "God did it". Of course, I'm not saying you agree with Hawkung---I'm just sayin'

To have a scientific opinion about areas where science don't give any answer (at the time point of BigBang, t=0, all information of previous eras is destroyed and lost) is not important for science. I agree with Hawking completely.

It is not essential for science to have an opinion of everything. Those areas where science cannot know anything (afterlife, existence of a god, soul and such) science should not hve an opinion. Why? Of the simple reason that it is not science! It is religion!

If you say that "god did it" it is not science anymore. No scientists says ever that "this experiment works because of the presense of a divine spirit", that would be nonsense.

So don't use science in religious matters, don't use religion in scientific matters. There is an impermeable border between the two!

Hawkings remark about the era before BigBang is higly relevant. It is of no importance to science.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hawking is actually right.

The reason is that anything which happenned "before" the Big Bang could have no influence on this universe. It simply isn't relevant to our universe.

I see Hawking's remark as a dodge; it's irrelevent because HE says it is? Or because HE doesn't have a theory for it? You say anything before t=0 is irrelevent--fine. I respectfully disagree, since I don't believe time to be finite. Case unresolved--and that's okee-dokee.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I see Hawking's remark as a dodge; it's irrelevent because HE says it is? Or because HE doesn't have a theory for it? You say anything before t=0 is irrelevent--fine. I respectfully disagree, since I don't believe time to be finite. Case unresolved--and that's okee-dokee.

It's not irrelevant because HE said it is, it's irrelevant because what happened before the big bang has no effect on our universe.

If before the big bang there was a massive orgy of all the roman gods then that doesn't mean anything because it gives us no useful information about our current universe. It would be an interesting thing to know, but it isn't relevant to our current state in our universe.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I see Hawking's remark as a dodge; it's irrelevent because HE says it is? Or because HE doesn't have a theory for it? You say anything before t=0 is irrelevent--fine. I respectfully disagree, since I don't believe time to be finite. Case unresolved--and that's okee-dokee.

Well, you can respectfully disagree - that's both your right and you perogative. However, logically, it makes as much sense as disagreeing about gravity.

ALL evidence so far accumulated backs the Big Bang model. Sure, new contradictory evidence may come in in the future - we just don't know. But one thing I do know - you're going to have to re-write a lot of physics before your disagreement holds any intellectual water.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, you can respectfully disagree - that's both your right and you perogative. However, logically, it makes as much sense as disagreeing about gravity.

ALL evidence so far accumulated backs the Big Bang model. Sure, new contradictory evidence may come in in the future - we just don't know. But one thing I do know - you're going to have to re-write a lot of physics before your disagreement holds any intellectual water.

"I" don't have to rewrite anything. I am not trying to insist that people "convert" to the correct way of thinking. I couldn't care less if they wish to live in ignorance. Ignorance is bliss, and I say Euphoria to 'em.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hawking is actually right.

The reason is that anything which happenned "before" the Big Bang could have no influence on this universe. It simply isn't relevant to our universe.

It's still relevant to our understanding of how we got here.
I think delving deeper and deeper into the details of the CMB, we will find more and more answers as to what came before the BB and maybe lead the way to new phyics in the bargain.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
"I" don't have to rewrite anything. I am not trying to insist that people "convert" to the correct way of thinking. I couldn't care less if they wish to live in ignorance. Ignorance is bliss, and I say Euphoria to 'em.

Then don't expect to be taken seriously.