User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
eternity

I personally believe in Christ Jesus as my savior. I cannot prove God's existence, and I don't plan on it. What I would like for you to chew your brain over is this...NOBODY knows the exact creation of the planet, but scientist believe that it was created out of a explosion of a ball of gases. Now please explain to me how these gases came to be, and how do you know this. If you actually think about this, you come to the realization that you know this by faith in your own logic. My faith is placed not in my own logic, but in the logic of a creator. Please chew on this. I don't want to argue or fight anybody, I just want you to think. Feel free to send me an e-mail brian.weaver@ctx.edu, subject being this topic. Thanks.

Brian,

Your proposal is one-sided. You suggest that one scrutinize the formation of a planet, however you do not seem to apply the same scrutiny to the creation of a god.

When you explain how your god came to be, then you will have room to argue that one should explain how the world came to be. I do not personally claim to understand either. I do not have to. So often theists demand that atheists explain the origins of the world without realizing what little it has to do with the existence of gods. If science could not explain a single aspect of how the universe came to be it would not have an impact on my beliefs. Why should it? Put simply, if you don't have to know the origin of god for your beliefs, I do not have to know the origin of the world for mine.

As for faith in logic, you seem to equate that with faith in fairy tales. I trust my logic because it has proven itself time and again. God has never proven itself.

In reply,

To say God has a beginning would be to completely negate Him as a deity. Being a God means he is eternal, and therefore has no beginning, nor an end. That is the difference. Christianity's creator actually has no begining, He just is. Science claims a beginning. I'm just asking you to think of how these gasses came into being, it all had to start somewhere according to Science.

Brian,

That is a cheap cop-out and one of the fundamental errors in theistic thought.

If you take the position that god had no beginning simply because it is said to be so (I can safely say you have done no research on the subject), then you should have little problem accepting any explanation simply because it is given. You are working backwards from the premise that your god exists and your beliefs are true. Your bias inhibits your ability to view the subject objectively.

Were you to look at the two ideas in a fair and realistic manner, you would not be able to defend the position you have taken. If a book telling you god has always existed is enough proof for you, then a book telling you a scientific explanation should be enough proof. If you use such a cop-out as you have with no reasoning involved, then you put yourself in a dangerous position. You either have to accept anyone else's cop-out or admit a hypocritical bias.

The other mistake you make is to assume that science is a singular and homogenous pursuit. Scientists do not all agree on the origins of the universe. There is a wide array of ideas out there. To say that "science claims a beginning" is dishonest. Some scientists claim a beginning. Science itself does not make claims. It is a means of investigating claims.

I'll leave it to a more educated person than myself to explain the sciences involved. I simply will contend that no answer is needed for science to be valid. Because science is progressive, we will never have all of the answers. This does no decrease the credibility of the many things science has helped us to answer.

More importantly, were science to be absolutely wrong on the origins of the world, the probability of a god does not change. Refutation of one answer does not prove another when there are infinite possible answers. I would suggest that you learn to set aside your biases. The "I don't have to explain because my bible said I don't" response doesn't fly. If you look at your reply objectively you will realize that your argument hinges on that bias. You have not a shred of evidence for your cause, yet you demand evidence of another.

I never said I have don't have to explain because my books says I don't. I am in the process of researching both sides, reading respected scholars from each side.

And the definition of a god, in any religion!, is one that is immortal. Therefore, the god cannot have a beginning or an end.

While you did not ver batim say that you don't have to explain because your book says you don't, it is implicit from your position.

You are not in the process of researching both sides, I assure you. You cannot research creation. You cannot research the origins of god. How would you approach such research? Interview god? Watch the security tapes from the 6th day? You can read apologetics which refer only back to your bible (or whatever other pulp they believe). There are no respected scholars from the side of creation. All creationist arguments are geared toward evolution. Creationists work against other ideas, but never actually support their own. Cite me one example of a respected creationist argument that has evidence for creation (not just evidence against evolution.)

Nowhere does the definition of a god imply that the god was never created. To think otherwise is to be guilty of a gross ignorance of historical religion. Zeus was a god with an origin. He alone (even ignoring the countless gods with origins) proves your point to be absolutely false. Gods in general can have a beginning. Yours doesn't, but that has nothing to do with the definition of god and everything to do with your interpretation of your god. Your book told you that your god always existed and you believe this without any critical thought process. Yet you critique science.

Science has a diverse plethora of material form which to draw evidence. Religions always come down to one. When it comes to christianity, every argument stems only from one source, your bible. The only support for your rediculous claim that god cannot have a beginning comes from that book.

If one god can have a beginning (which you cannot deny), then they all can.

Well I'm glad that we had "descent" conversation about this issue. I'm sorry if I angered you, that was not my intent, I promise. You have made your point and I stand by mine. Thank you for your responses.

Very decent of you, Brian, though I did not notice the anger that you did.

I congratulate you on your salvation and your confidence in easy, simplistic answers to tough questions. You comprehend the creation of the universe and are allied with the creator itself. How marvelous. No, really.

We, on the other hand, think ideas are open to challenge, and that the process will result in the victory of those notions that can stand the heat.

Feeling a little warm?

No, I'm not feeling a little warm.

The Theory of the Big Bang:

In the beginning, there was thi nothing. This NOTHING exploded and became SOMETHING.

- Very natural and scientific.

Wouldn't it be a simpler, more sensible explanation to say that the universe is eternal?

Belief in God has nothing to do with science. Science does not deal in philosophical arguments. The so-called "Big Bang" theory is another matter because it is based on scientific research. It was originally called the "primeval atom" theory. The term those mocking it gave this theory was the "Big Bang. The "primeval atom" theory does not involve an explosion; it is a theory based on the expansion of the universe. The universe began in a hot dense state that began expanding, and is still expanding.The matter is not "exploding" it is standing still while space expands dragging the matter with it. There is no "explosion" it is expansion that is carrying all the rest of the universe away from us. There is plenty of evidence behind the "Big Bang" theory. Spectroscopy can determine the rate at which galaxies are moving away from us, and it takes light time to travel,the further away we look, the further back in time we are looking. That's how we know that all galaxies are moving away from us. The further they are the faster they are moving away. If you go all the way back the galaxies will come back together at a single point in time. This point in time is called the "Big Bang."

Shilling is right: The question of origins is not related to the existence of god. Creationism isn't proof of god, it's a claim of something people say god did. It's like saying that if your humors are out of sync, then you'll feel ill. You have to prove humors exist in order to even begin to claim they can "cause" anything.

And Brian: You wrote: "I never said I have don't have to explain because my books says I don't."

While technically correct (you didn't invoke a book), you definitely said _as much_, practically speaking, when you first posted and claimed: "I cannot prove God's existence, and I don't plan on it."

If you can't prove your god exists, then you have no premise upon which to base any further claims regarding things you imagine god does--any more than someone else can claim the humors cause illness.

If there is no god (and that's definitely possible, as you say you "can't" prove it--not simply that you haven't tried (and I recommend you do try at some point, the lightbulb might come on in that case), then all your claims and beliefs regarding god are incorrect and based on baseless speculation.

As an example: You claimed god is eternal. But it's impossible to claim _any knowledge_ about an item nobody--including you--has never examined. And if, as you said above, you have "no proof" god even exists--I assume you've not examined god in order to determine his attributes--such as durability or potential origins? You haven't even bothered to verify a god exists--but you have no problems talking authoritatively about this thing you admit you can't even say for sure is even real.

He Said: "Nobody knows the exact creation of the planet, but scientist believe that it was created out of (a) an explosion of a ball of gases. Now please explain to me how these gases came to be, and how do you know this." That was the question - And he has the theory wrong - Somebody knows.

And he says..."my faith is based not in my own logic, but in the logic of the creator;" the creator dosen't know that the universe is not "exploding" it is expanding.

He

I too am a Christian, and I have been studying these concepts for twenty five years.

It is my belief that matter does not create itself, or spring from nothingness.

Whether you believe in the big bang, or gases, or any other original "stuff" to have existed in the universe, one must inquire WHERE it came from.

Theists generally believe it was created by someone.

Atheists believe it created itself.

It seems logical to me, that there must be something or someone that transcends this "boundary of existence."

An Entity that is not bound by space and time, and is even above the entire universe and its laws.

I think it is clear that this universe has sprung forth from another dimension, a dimension where such an entity exists, far beyond the need for such things as "beginnings", time, or space, or even physical laws.

It is only logical.

Of course, logic is a subjective thing, and what one person sees so clearly from their view, someone else might see entirely different from theirs.

>It is my belief that matter does not create itself, or spring from nothingness.

>Theists generally believe it was created by someone.

So, theists believe matter doesn't spring from nothingness--except when they say someone can make it do that.

1. Law of Conservation of Matter dictates that matter/energy is not created nor destroyed.

2. Change is constant. The form matter takes is constantly changing. We see matter change form. We don't see it "created" in the sense you are describing above. Why should anyone assume matter _does_ "get created"?

>Whether you believe in the big bang, or gases, or any other original "stuff" to have existed in the universe, one must inquire WHERE it came from.

Actually, if one believes the Big Bang, then one assumes that all the matter and energy of this universe was included in the prior manifestation--the singularity.

What occurred prior to the singularity is not known--according to astrophysicists (stated pretty clearly by Stephen Hawking):

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them."

Hawking also clearly states that our physical laws might not apply at that time:

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."

This means that any physical law you may lean on to claim "it makes sense" that X "had to be like this" is not supported. What would you be basing it on? Obviously what you percieve the rules of matter of this universe to be--and that wouldn't apply.

So, in this universe, we have no examples to support your claim that matter has to be created--only that it changes forms (and we see this all the time in everything).

And in the time before this universe, nobody has any knowledge upon which to venture a guess at this time. So, your claims are unsupported.

Dear Tracieh,

I made no claims, I am stating an opinion. In order to make any claims, I would have had to have been there at the beginning.

Hawking is indeed a genius, and I find his work absolutely wonderful, but unlike him, I cannot simply disregard what came before the singularity or the big bang simply because we do not know. I believe that we can learn all things, given enough time to study it.

However, I do not have to hold one viewpoint. All viewpoints have value, including yours.

>In order to make any claims, I would have had to have been there at the beginning.

> but unlike him, I cannot simply disregard what came before the singularity or the big bang simply because we do not know.

If you can't make any claims without having been there, it doesn't really matter if you "cannot" disregard what happened before the singularity. You (and the rest of us) have to disregard it, because there is no information to "regard" at this time.

>However, I do not have to hold one viewpoint. All viewpoints have value, including yours.

And with regard to opinions about what could have been or must have been before the singularity, rather than state all viewpoints have value, I counter that NO viewpoints have value at this time, since we don't have even a shred of information to actually build a viewpoint upon. Disregarding the fact I have no information, and making up information, opinions and viewpoints instead is not a process people should support or value. It encourages the creation and support of falsehoods.

Tracie,

I understand what you are saying completely, and I agree to a point.

But to take up the position that speculation is counter productive..... I must disagree strongly.

Speculation of those things we do not yet know is what leads to theories, and to experiments, and finally to knowledge. To say what lies behind that door cannot be known, therefore lets not try to come up with a key that opens it is to be close minded and afraid of knowledge.

To be afraid of speculation about what came before the big bang or singularity because you won't like the speculation that some people come up with is absurd. "Oops, it will lead some people to believe in God, we had better not go there!"

>Speculation of those things we do not yet know is what leads to theories,

Not when that speculation is based on absolute nothing--which is the case with the time prior to the laws of this universe. "Making things up" to fill information voids is not the same as production speculation, based on actual data, that leads to theories. Finding ANY REAL information would be the first step in this case--where there is a complete lack of information. Speculating and stating opinions without the slightest clue or shred of information is just spouting B.S.

If what lies behind the door "can" be known, then we need a means to find that knowledge at this stage--not to speculate about what sort of information there might be, without actually pursuing it.

I'm not afraid of speculation, but I know that drawing conclusions--whether we call them opinions or claims--without information is just pulling ideas out of thin air. You have nothing upon which to base your ideas in this case--and so they are void. They offer no real input to finding an actual answer.

They are not based on nothing, remember, there are people who have had experiences you have not.

Again, I do not expect you or anyone else to believe based on my experiences, but it gives me something to not only speculate on, but to build upon.

>They are not based on nothing, remember, there are people who have had experiences you have not.

I was talking about the time before the singularity, not your personal experiences. You have your personal experiences, but they do not provide useful data upon which to speculate regarding the time prior to this universe. While they may serve to ignite your personal imagination--sharing the ideas with others is unhelpful, as it's only personal feelings and thoughts--and doesn't add any real data.

Speculation where data is lacking is useless. Subjective interpretations of personal experiences are not "data" to anyone outside of you. Speculating on what is happening to you is fine--you have an experience to base your speculation on. But speculation on the time prior to this universe is speculation based on no data.

I have enjoyed reading all of this,I look forward to hearing/reading more.

OpenMind says: "It seems logical to me, that there must be something or someone that transcends this "boundary of existence." And you're right: science and logic fail miserably at a certain point, because they are based on laws of cause and effect. But putting a "god" into the argument also fails miserably if you intend to be logical (and you seem like you're interested in being logical). But I would agree with you completely--as long as you subtract the "superstition" from you viewpoint--somewhere, somehow, the simple laws of cause and effect have to be "transcended" in order to "explain" everything as it is.

I think atheists demand RATIONALITY, which, by the way, does not need to be limited to logic. Just making stuff up to fill in logical holes (like a "god" to explain the "first cause") is definitely anti-rational, and that's why superstition irks atheists so much. The logical holes need to be filled (if they can be) with ways of understanding phenomena that transcend the cause and effect model. I don't think we yet possess those insights--and I think atheists are OK with admitting that, and don't have the need to make something up in the interim.

In many instances a scientist must use their imaginations to work out a scientific theory, but then they have to prove it. They have to do experiments over and over until it passes every possible scrutiny before it can become a law of physics or science. The problem with proving that something is there that can't be proven by any scientific method known to man is obvious. You can't prove a negative.

P.S. "Faith" is a great cop out, and it proves nothing. You say that people have experienced things that we haven't, plenty of people hear voices and see things, but that's not science.

The explanation that all theists give is "God did it." This does not explain anything. It's the say argument that parents give to kids when they ask too many questions, "Because I said so." Well, we are all adults now and the "Because I said so" answer has no authority. Does believing in an all powerful God automatically purge theist from thinking further.

So let's suppose that God is real and God created the universe. Why did God make a universe that, from our scientific analysis, seems to be expanding? What are the purposes of black-holes? Why is it that when astronauts orbit the earth for long periods of time, they experience space-time different from people on earth (Einstein's Theory of Relativity)? There are hundreds of things we observe in the universe that science is able to analyze. What does the bible say about what atoms are made of or explain why light can act like a wave or a particle (Double Slit Experiment) or how we are able to make electricity by just combining certain chemicals together?

God and Holy books don't have answers to these questions. When I want to know how planes are able to fly, I'm not looking at the Bible for insights. Sorry, your God answer is a non-answer. If I can replace your God with magical pixies or any nonsensical supernatural claim, then how weak is your God explanation.

Realize that atheist do not have this belief in a higher power that theist have. We are just searching for the truth and even if we don't have all the answers, I think it's dishonest to shove God into every mystery we can't explain. The simple "I don't know" is a far more honest answer than the claim that "God did it".

These were definitely the assertions to denounce -because they want science to fit their "beliefs" - because knowledge comes from their creator.

Brian Weaver said, "NOBODY knows the exact creation of the planet, but scientist believe that it was created out of a explosion of a ball of gases."

As I have already stated, this is clearly wrong - 13.7 billion years ago our universe came into existence as a "singularity". A singularity is an area of intense gravitational pressure that is infinitesimal small, extraordinarily hot and dense. After its initial appearance, it inflated "The Big Bang" expanded and cooled, going from extraordinarily small and hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it.

Brian Weaver said, "Now please explain to me how these gases came to be, and how do you know this. If you actually think about this, you come to the realization that you know this by faith in your own logic. My faith is placed not in my own logic, but in the logic of a creator."

No, we know this because the science has been demonstrated to scientists, and to us - they had to prove this "scientific discovery." Hydrogen and helium were the elements formed in the Big Bang. Scientist know this. The creation myths of the world's religions naturally linked the creation of the Earth with the birth of the Universe as a whole. However, there was no Earth or Solar System, there were two gasses - hydrogen and helium. Over billions of years, these gasses kept combining to form stars. Generations of stars were born and died in explosions called novas. These novas released clouds of dust and gas into the universe. They also released other elements, like metals. These elements had been created within the stars themselves. In fact, novas originally created almost all the elements we know today. This went on for about 10 billion years. Then, about 5 billion years ago One of these clouds of dust and gas began to collapse. This cloud of interstellar dust and gas is what's known as the Solar Nebula. As the Solar Nebula collapsed, it began to flatten and rotate like a disk. In its center, a new star was born. That star is our Sun. The cloud of dust and gas rotating about it (the Solar Nebula) became our Solar System. As the Sun got bigger and hotter, the disk around it got smaller and cooler. As the disk condensed and cooled, the gasses inside it turned into solids. After that, instead of gasses rotating around the Sun, there were billions of solid particles. These very tiny particles began to stick together to form chunks of matter. Over millions of years these chunks got bigger and bigger. Eventually they became planets. That's how the planet Earth was borne.

OpenMind said, "To be afraid of speculation about what came before the big bang or singularity because you won't like the speculation that some people come up with is absurd. "Oops, it will lead some people to believe in God, we had better not go there!"

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. "Because of the finite speed of light, we see distant galaxies as they were in the past, thus our telescopes are time machines." Astronomers can look back in time to map the history of the Universe.

"NOBODY knows the exact creation of the planet, but scientist believe that it was created out of a explosion of a ball of gases. Now please explain to me how these gases came to be, and how do you know this. If you actually think about this, you come to the realization that you know this by faith in your own logic."

Actually we have explanation on how we get from gases to planets. We have very good observations through cosmology and physic using various telescopes and particle accelerators. Scientist has explanations that simple elements like hydrogen and helium are capable of forming other heavier elements like carbon and iron. And if you actually do some of your own research, I recommend looking up "Big-Bang Nucleosyntheis" and works of Gamow, Alpher and Herman.

It would be beneficial to you Brian Weaver to research a little before ask others to think. It just makes you sound arrogant and close-minded.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.