needimprovement

No matter how many fancy scientific terms you use, you simply cannot have something appear from nothing. The ONLY way anything can exist is because God has created it, and since God is infinite, He needs no beginning. There can't be any other explanation. String, quantum, fluctuating mathamechanicsmattermakingmazingmealymon stosities! Non of it explains how anything can be formed from nothing. If scientists go so far back as to claim that there was something the universe evolved from that always existed, then they've basically admitted to the existence of God! It isn't complicated, it's just that atheist scientists would rather spend their time proving the universe doesn't need God to exist.

Having read and posting on various threads where atheists have expressed their views. The Following questions seem appropriate. This thread grows out of another thread but I felt the subject needed it's own thread. When a Christian asks you to believe in God and preaches the Gospel etc to you, they are offering you a hope in Eternal Life. The questions for you are are these. 1. What is it you are offering to us when you ask us NOT to believe? 2. What advantage(s) does belief in NO God offer? 3. Why is Rejection of God better than Acceptance of God? 4. Why is Hopelessness (No afterlife) better than Hopefulness (glorious afterlife)? Let it be know right now that I am no philosopher, nor am I a theologian. I am a simple believer in God, because it makes no sense to me NOT to believe in God. I am a Christian because Christianity, built upon Love, makes more sense than any other faith that I have looked at. I recognize that there are numerous examples of people of faith acting badly, even horrifically, yet I cannot see that as some sort of proof against Gods existence. So tell me - What does the "faith of Atheism" offer that is not found in a "faith of theism". Most forms of belief in God, particularly Judeo/Christian belief, whether right or wrong, offers the Hope of salvation and an eternal life of happiness. What can Atheism offer me except the grave?

AS for natural explanations, sure as I mentioned before there were some natural explanations given on some aspects of the miracle but if a scientist were to attack it from every aspect of the event, natural explanations come up short. As I said before, when I apprached atheists about the clothing drying up almost instantaneously, they dodge the issue by saying all there is are eye witness accounts. Now why would eyewitness account of an event seen by many people is believable. By the same account if those 70,000 people said they saw nothing, atheists or scientists would say " there you have it" These people saw nothing and that is proof that nothing happened, and as warpspeedpete eloquently pointed out many times empiricism isnt the only way at determining truth. How would you know if your parents are really your parents? The answer is you cant for sure. Oh yea you can go back and do a dna test, but even those could be faked, cant they? Ill give you a story of my friend's grandfather being saved from death by a miracle. Hi grandfather was in egypt a long time ago (probably early 50's or even before) and he was the manager of a store in alexandria for his relative. He was so honest and truthfull that he prevented the workers there from stealing like they used to do in the past. So about 7 of his coworkers decided they were going to get rid of him once and for all. They befriended him (my friend's dad was honest and truthful but very caring and naive), and invited him to the beach with them. They took him to the most remote part of the beach and told him to help them dig a hole in the ground. Once everyone finished digging the hole they grabbed my friend's grandfather and were about to throw him into the hole, and wanted to bury him alive. At that point an old bearded man was at the top of the hill and descended upon the 7 coworkers with superhuman speed. His eyes were glowing white. The 7 men dropped their hats and shovels and ran for their lives. My friend's grandfather was so nice that he tried to give one of the coworkers his hat back that he dropped, but the coworker didn't care about the hat at that point. He just wanted to get the heck out of there. My grandfather turned around to try to thank the old man for saving him but he wasn't there. He simply vanished. He asked his dad if granddad was really telling the truth. My friend's dad told my friend that if anyone else told him this story he would have laughed, but because he knew my grandfather and how honest , down to earth and practical of a person he was , that he wouldn't have lied about something like this. 2 days before this happened , my friend's aunt called him up from over seas and told him that she had a dream that saint Joseph was going to save him from death but he laughed and didn't believe it. He certainly believed it after. Even if this could be investigated , there were only 8 people there, but at Fatima there werte things that happened that many people saw. They weren't just ignorant village people, but people from all walks of life and professions. Now as a strict scientist who is very narrow minded and only believes in something that can be tested in a lab every time he would never believe it, but why would anyone not take the word of believers as well as non believers alike when there were so many at that event in Fatima? This isn't something like a picture of Jesus created by the fog on some window. This was an event that caused some things that might be able to be explained naturally (the spectacular colors, sun dancing etc), but the drying of the peoples clothing cant be explained naturally. Why do you think that in ever Fatima hoax site almost all skeptics dodge the drying of the peoples clothing (and the ground) and instead focus on the stuff they can explain. Just because they believe in only empricism doesn't mean that things can happen outside the realm of empiricism. The fact that they decide to dodge this issue shows how biased they are against seeking TRUTH. I hope this helps to answer your question --------- Miracles happen. http://www.themiracleofthepacocha.com/ Why do atheists and some agnostics deny it?

Another proof: Where do atoms came from? Please follow this link for in-depth discussion My link

Not really: The minute hand is taller than the hour hand (this is a trick question after all). Disregarding the above and just concentrating on angles, I would say: at any time the minute hand and the hour hand overlap, which would be 22 times in 24 hours.

What makes me think that if there is such a thing as singularity that the energy contained within came from somewhere? Philosophy 101 delt with "Cause and Effect." Does my questioner believe that an Effect doesn't have to have a cause? This discussion was directed toward "singularity". It is said that before the Big Bang all of the energy and matter we find in today's universe was in a dimensionless unmeasurable point - an infinitely small point. This is a theory by the way. Astronomers can only see so far back in time - they can't see the Big Bang....so all this business about singularity is theoretical. That is my opinion. Singularity exists in the center of black holes right now. The precursor of the Big Bang was singularity. Think. Before the Big Bang occurred ( if it did occur) then there was no matter nor energy except in that volumless point called singularity,i.e., it is said that all the energy and matter in our universe was contained within that infinitely small point which gave rise to the potential of the Big Bang. This raises a problem. Chemists will ask today, "What keeps the like charged protons so close together in a nucleus when like charges repel?" The answer is nuclear glue. Do cosmologists also have an equivalent of the chemist's "nuclear glue". What we are talking about is beyond measurement or experimental science - it is only theoretical.... conjecture. We cannot see back in time to the big bang much less back to before the big bang. So the average reader of CA will call this goble-DE gook. Secretly, I was waiting for someone to admit that the precursor of the big bang was God. The so-called singularity = God. A step farther. Why I supposed that the energy in singularity had to come from somewhere? I ask where did singularity come from? We know that energy can be transformed into matter, and visa versa. So, the question becomes "Where did the Energy come from?" Assume that here I am considering a point in time before the advent of the Big Bang and the hypothetical precursor of the Big Bang - singularity. Most rational humans will agree that if Energy was put into that squishy thing called singularity that energy had to coexist with singularity or before. We get into the problem of the Beginning of the precursors of the universe. Common man says that time has no beginning nor end, it always was and will always be. That makes one think of infinity. An infinite time-line has no ends. I ask, "At what point did singularity find it's way onto the time-line.....if I may? The precursors of the components of the Big Bang obviously were not existing before time began ; if I may? I could ask here, "Then assuming that God exists, did he go shopping for his angels or did He create them. Were the angels somewhere nearby to God and God thought it would be a good idea to use the angels for sending messages? I disagree with that! If God was a Spirit and He is then mere man not being able to measure in a lab any Spirit is simply using conjecture when contemplating where the energy of singularity came from. The bottom line is that light is measurable - it is a created thing. God could have easily created light. This light could have been transmuted into other forms of energy. This energy could have been changed into sub-atomic particles and thus, finally, into atoms, i.e., matter with all the properties of matter. So the energy came from God.

Sorry, Not the right answer.

I think I am starting to catch on to your meaning. One of the problems is that I treat the term "literal" differerntly than do most people. For me, a literal reading is one that correctly identifies and appreciates the literary genre of a text. Thus, if I take the Noah account as a theological polemic, I am reading it literally, even though it is not necessarily historical. As a theological polemic worked into a history of salvation, the Noah story is true. It teaches a number of theological and moral truths. There are different ways of communicating truths. A story need not be historical in order for it to be true. Fundamentalists have a hard time with that fact. It is a modern bias that says something must be historical in order for it to be true. However, the ancient Hebrews did not have our notion of history. They wrote very differently about historical matters. If they had had a more scientific notion of history, like Thucydides, then we would not have so much difficulty with interpretation. Taking the Noah story as literal and historical, in the modern sense of those terms, creates innumerable problems. Just to mention a couple of problems, the Ark was not a sea-worthy vessel. It was shaped like a barge or a giant box. It's dimensions, as recorderd are all symbolic numbers. Also, there is no scientific evidence for a global deluge. In fact, there is geological evidence which conclusively disproves a global deluge. The global deluge in the Noah story is, rather, symbolic for God justice, which reaches to the ends of the earth. In sum, the Noah story is true, yet it is not necessarily historical. The account has elements that are based in history, but it is not primarily an historical narrative. Does this mean that it is "just a story"? Not by any means. It teaches a number of profound theological and moral truths. Science can help show that aspects of the Noah story are not literal-historical. What science can never do is show that the Noah story, when properly interpreted, is false or untrue.

Secularism must be distinguished from secularization. Secularization is the praiseworthy contribution of modern man which avoids the primitive temptation to explain all mysterious and unknown forces in terms of spirits, gods, or some other supernatural power. Due to secularization, modern man is aware of his mastery over life and of the fact that the future of the world is, in a very real sense, in his hands. Secularism is something quite different. Secularism is an attitude or philosophy of life which holds that only secular values are real and that all religious values are nothing more than superstition. Materialism holds not that material things have value, but rather that only material things have value. More money, a bigger car, a nicer home: These are the only values worth living for. Because religious cannot directly add to your material gains, they are a hindrance. Pragmatism holds that a thing is worthwhile only if it is useful. Since God cannot build a computer or give you a better complexion, he is not real, or at least he is unnecessary. What are your thoughts?

I don't believe behaviorism or developmental psychology can explain "qualia", categories of what's it's like or what one's values are. Functional MRI may show areas of the brain that are active when you hear or see something you like, but that isn't an explanation. Let me give an example (not mine, but from a philosopher of consciousness whose name I forget): suppose Sally has been raised in a room without color, just shades of gray; she has instruments that can tell her what wavelength various colors might have, their intensities and so forth, but she has never experienced the color red, so she really doesn't know what it is. What you experience when you see red or hear the Symphony Fantastique may be be totally different from my experienc, but we'll never know what that difference is, nor will any psychologist. And, to be nasty, I lump psychology in with the social sciences (an oxymoron if ever there was one)--or, as W.H. Auden said, "thou shalt not sit with statisticians nor commit a social science The mystery isn't in the measurements or their relation to equations but in their interpretation. That's why physicists and philosophers are still debating about what quantum entanglement means in terms of "reality", "non-locality", etc. Wigner was important for formulating some of the very early and fundamental applications of quantum mechanics, particularly involving the use of symmetry, and in trying to interpret the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics, i.e. the collapse of the state function on measurement. One of his speculative notions was that consciousness--the act of observing--was involved. Do a Google search on "Wigner's friend" to get a fuller explanation. I think quantum non-locality is a different kind of mystery from that of how white sharks breed. Presumably with enough government funds and ingenuity one could explore the latter--i.e. there should be nothing intrinsically mysterious about breeding for any terrestial species. On the other hand quantum non-locality (and other aspects of quantum mechanics) seem to contradict what we know intuitively about the world. Richard Feynmann gave a lecture at Caltech (to freshman and others) about quantum mechanics and prefaced it with the remark (as near as I remember) that anyone who says he understands quantum mechanics doesn't. Physicists have used QM operationally--you get numbers out that represent what can be measured, but what a state vector is or what happens when you make a measurement is still a mystery.

Krauss in fun to hear lecture, even for an hour, and is one of few theoretical physicists to say out loud that string theory is going nowhere. He said that he’s written a book about Fenyman, who I also like, so I’ll look out for that. I’m not a scientist but everything he said made sense from all I know of physics, except for the business at the end about all stuff coming from a quantum fluctuation. That argument was also made before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, but it makes a big assumption. Given that space is expanding, we can run the idea backwards to come to the big bang. At that point there was no space, just an infinitely small singularity. The quantum fluctuation argument doesn’t explain where that came from. If you say it was a fluctuation then you are assuming some kind of background from which it came, and are into chicken-and-egg. However, is that one tiny thing sufficient to make us believe in God? Is he right to say that faith in God should not be based in science? Of course. (And is he right to Krauss in fun to hear lecture, even for an hour, and is one of few theoretical physicists to say out loud that string theory is going nowhere. He said that he’s written a book about Fenyman, who I also like, so I’ll look out for that. I’m not a scientist but everything he said made sense from all I know of physics, except for the business at the end about all stuff coming from a quantum fluctuation. That argument was also made before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, but it makes a big assumption. Given that space is expanding, we can run the idea backwards to come to the big bang. At that point there was no space, just an infinitely small singularity. The quantum flunctuation argument doesn’t explain where that came from. If you say it was a fluctuation then you are assuming some kind of background from which it came, and are into chicken-and-egg. However, is that one tiny thing sufficient to make us believe in God? Is he right to say that faith in God should not be based in science? Of course.

Science cannot explain why reason exists, or why humans are the only "animals" which have a highly developed reason. No other animal even comes close, even though (so we are told) that the great apes and homo sapiens share about 98% of the genetic code (as I recall). IMO, even the fact that we can and do think about ourselves and our place in the universe is a kind of proof that we are unique in the world. Why isn't there another ____-sapiens running around? There seems to be evidence that there were several other species at one time. Science is science -- it is necessary to "believe" that science can tell us verifiable truths about the physical universe, but it takes a sense of wonder about it, the spirit of curiosity/discovery which makes us humans strive to figure out all that there is to possibly know about us. Science (and scientific research) must be ethical, but cannot (and probably should not) be the sole arbiter and definer of ethics. Fire away - I'm just a musician, but am curious about this question, esp. how anti-religionists and atheists deal with these things.

Exactly swansont, that is why the Vatican employs some of the most stringent methods of studying Miracles and it took them many years to accept Even Fatima as a miracle. The Vatican even sends Atheist doctors and scientists to check a lot of these miracles out. That is amazing in and of itself. Its like saying Dawkins investigating a miracle and using theists to check it out for him. The miracle of Fatima isn't comparable to some of these other miracles like seeing an image of a saint on a piece of cheese because many people were there and the things that happened (drying and cleaning of clothes, prediction by the kids etc etc) cant be explained by scientists. This was the most documented miracle of our time. Reply With Quote

What caused it to suddenly create a universe? What caused the singularity to change into the Big Bang? Can anyone explain how ALL the mass-energy was accumulated into the "singularity"? Where did the Energy in singularity come from? Could it be that human cosmologists are only stating an unproven Theory? We know that energy can be transformed into mass, and mass into energy. My ultimate question: (If the "singularity" contained all the energy and mass in the present universe, then you will have to admit that said energy and mass came from somewhere or something) Where did it come from? Any ideas?

I think you have hit upon a very important issue, and one that truly underlies much of the problem in communicating between theists and atheists. Atheists look for evidence to provide proof in either a scientific or philosophical way before accepting belief. In so doing certain parameters, walls, are established based on the governing rules of science and/or philosophy. This necessarily limits the ability of an atheist to accept what doesn't neatly fit those parameters. Theists work to a different standard. That standard is a simple one. First comes the acceptance of the possibility, even probability of a higher intelligence. Perhaps this is based largely on a desire to believe, but it allows for a much wider interpretation of evidence. Belief, or at least a genuine openness comes before evidence. With your stand, I assume that you find the evidence weak and unconvincing. I know that a man of science leave the door open to new evidence. Now, here is the question: Are you willing to consider new evidence of the same type? By that I mean, does quantity of evidence make any impression upon your consideration? What I see in your post is that you require God to prove himself to you, and that he must do it in a way that is acceptable to parameters that you define. You are unwilling to accept that Science is limited in a.) what it can consieve and b.) what it can measure and c) what it can repeat and that God just might exist outside of those parameters. If you leave the door open, it seems you have two options. 1) Accept that God may very well exist because you don't know everything. 2) Reject that God exists because you don't know everything. It is this predisposition, one way or the other, it seems to me, that determines whether one can truly come to understand the real and true existence of God.

If the hour and minute hands are equidistant from the 6 hour, what is the exact time?

Proofs: - Shroud of Turin. One of the cool things is the bruise under the one eye, it just makes the Shroud feel really real! - The love revealed by Jesus in His teaching, life, death and Resurrection... - Life - The second law of thermodynamics, Entropy law. That says in short, that the world tends to entropy. Every system will degrate, go to entropy, to chaos, if there is no any Ruler, to put the order. Looking carefully to the world processes, we see many proves of the world going to bad, but never collapsing. SOMEBODY takes care, that not to happen! - Historical proof: he entered time and space and left the marks of his passage. And to those befuddled atheists who don’t accept that reason alone can prove the existence of God, have not used their reason reasonably: Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist, now attests to reason and is now a deist. "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence," he affirms. "I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. "Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature." (There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).

First, I never said anything that would imply the Flood story "is nothing more than a story." You have profoundly misinterpreted my post. I said the Deluge story is a theological polemic. I did not say which elements of the polemic are derived from historical fact. Furthermore, the Deluge story reveals many truths. The key to understanding those truths correctly lies in the ability to understand and appreciate the genus litterarium. Second, you have involved yourself in a contradiction by saying that the Flood story is not literal and historical, but then you treat it exactly as if it were literal and historical. You can't have it both ways. BTW, how did kangaroos and polar bears get on the Ark?

I was so intrigued by this response that I felt it needed its own thread. So I started one HERE.

The following was posted on another thread and I was so intrigued by it that I felt is was worth its own thread. Agreed. However, in the absence of proof we must go with what is reasonable. However, here are a few of my favorite proofs: Miracle of the Sun- could 70,000 people be lying or insane? Saint's (e.g. Padre Pio) bodies which have not decayed Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano along with Shroud of Turin- both have AB blood, an uncommon type (but it is not super uncommon in Palestine) just a coincidence? And Finally: The fact that atheists always say that God cannot be proven despite these proofs (+many many more) AND the fact that St. Anslem's ontological argument was proven mathematically! I believe that the above is more reasonable and thus it is more reasonable to make the leap of faith that it is true versus the leap of faith that a purely physical, but unproven and flawed.. Yes - I cannot prove God's existence using the scientific method - for God is not subject to measurement. In the end, we must all make a choice to trust. You are free to choose to trust in the existence of no God. Certainly I cannot "compel" you otherwise by logic or scientific proof. For me, though, in the absence of scientific proof that there is no God, I don't care to go down that nihilistic road. I'll take the "high way" So how about you? What is your favorite proof for God?

Did you mean he opened the window and jumped inside?

Many people who have an interest in the world will try and find out about the world. Some people appear to be inclined in a more curious way than others. Naturally; then it follows that someone who is interested in finding out about the world; if they are religious would have more options; such as theology; philosophy as well as science. Wheras; an atheist does not have the same flexibility. I would doubt an atheist would study theology; and if the atheist were credulous he would also not study philosophy (as there are no credible philosophers who are atheist) - so what choice in studying the world does the atheist have but through science?

Your meaning is unclear. The Flood story has nothing to say about genetic diversity. Genetics is a modern science, one completely unknown to the biblical writers. Also, the Bible does not teach science. The message of the Flood story is strictly theological and moral. It is a theological polemic against the Babylonian flood stories, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh. Don't worry about things ever falling up. The laws of nature are stable. That is one thing about creation that the Old Testament gives assurance. It is part of the Noaic polemic against the Babylonian's false ideas about the gods who arbitrarily sent floods and other disasters to vent their capriciousness and anger on mankind.

Since there was nothing to cushion his fall or slow his descent, how could he have survived the fall? Wouldn't water cushion a fall????

Thank you for the book recommendation. I'll try to illustrate the different divisions of Philosophy and how none of them "make" anything: Metaphysics is the study of things that are beyond the physical . Ontology is the study of Being. Epistemology is studying knowledge. Ethics is the study of Morality. Logic is the study of arguments. Aesthetics is the study of beauty. Politics is the study of governance and individuals within societies. Philosophies of Mind deal with the relation of mind and body. Philosophies of Religion ask questions about religion. Philosophies of Language ask questions about the origin and use of language. None of these "Make" anything; but it would be foolish to say all (or even some) of them are bad. Modern scientific method is a practical consequence of Empiricism from the Philosophy Epistemology; Realism from the Philosophy of Metaphysics and Induction from the Philosophy of Logic. Philosophy isn't to do with making something; it is to do with understanding the nature of reality - the products of philosophy can be seen in Politics (Democracy), Science (Scientific Method), Mind (Psychology), Language (Linguistics), Ethics (Human Rights; Just War) and many other things... To say something has to actually produce something material to be effective is silly. Mathematics does not "produce" anything; but it is still useful. Likewise; philosophy producing logic and epistimological systems for understanding the world allows and opens up possibilities for the practical application of theory. There could be no practical applications if there were no theories to apply. ----- AzurePhoenix - I will post my thoughts later in response to your recent post. I'm pretty busy the next few days, but will get back to you sooner or later.