The Faith & Religion mega Thread

@ntubski:
On changeable parameters, I have no opinions or position on changing Mathematical constants. Go ahead & try, if you feel inclined

On the 4 physical fundamental forces, these are all affecting the atom, and have implications for the presumed 'Big Bang' and everything else. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude they were set at those figures for the Universe to turn out at all like it actually is. I posted on this already to @enorbet.

When I ponder the implications of the Universe's existence being dependent on those four forces I feel I can draw conclusions. There's not enough pondering & meditation today, I feel.

Your Douglas Adams quote begins with the word "This", meaning the context, which I don't have. It follows dubious conclusions by a sentient, cognitive but not very intelligent pool of water, as it met it's demise. I don't see the point.

On believers explaining God, we can only repeat about him what He chooses to reveal about Himself, and what conclusions we have reached based on His information. With their (at the time) superior attitude, the Jesuits would say: "Unless there was something which had no beginning, nothing could ever begin." I think they were right on that point, if only that. Just about everything else was <expletive>. But we see design evident in many, many parts of Nature which is more familiar territory for most of us; The thread has taken us to the Origins, and I feel ok going there.

@enorbet: From Behe I take irreducible complexity. I followed the detailed debates with Dawkins. On the thing driving the cell along, they lost me in gobbledygook. On blood clotting Behe definitely seemed to have the upper hand imho. Hoyle has much of interest - Stellar NucleoSynthesis seemed good, his research on stellar grains; but I reject Panspermia, Cosmic eggs, Steady State theories, & other stuff he was refuted on. His manner of thinking impressed me more than his discoveries though. He was prepared to follow the evidence even when it led him to positions he was biased against.

I believe firmly that the Earth is old. The oldest rocks are dated ~4.5 billion years, and we've no quibble with 4 billion years. We are not dogmatic on the earth's age. The ~6000 years is bull, based in part on a misinterpretation of Scripture.

On origins beliefs:
The Big Bang theory, to sum it up is that nothing left a singularity in the Universe and that nothing exploded it randomly. And further, that the effect of the Higgs field (which physicists know would collapse the Big Bang inside the 1st second) somehow didn't collapse it. Are scientific folks that credulous? The Big Bang is in fact refuted. Admittedly, that explanation doesn't have God in it. I know black holes do strange things, existing with swirling stuff around them, and emitting stuff. I have never seen a meaningful explanation of how the initial inert singularity came about,why it was a singularity, not a Black hole, and how old it was, or who put it there. Never mind how it was so carefully exploded, and why it didn't collapse under the Higgs field. They omit that from the explanations, hoping it will go away because it's not mentioned. A search for 'Big Crunch' should get you meaningful papers on the collapse.

We have no firm explanation, therefore no details. The words 'God Created…' sum up this time period. There is a little more insight in Job 38, but the language there is figurative. Personally, I imagine how things happened and while it seems reasonable to me I'm not posting it on a public forum. And I'm not dogmatic. Contact me by PM if you want to go there.

I prefer Creation. When it comes to Evolution, it's only a difference in the method of creation if you accept God. I refuse to go there with folks who don't accept God or Scripture, because it's a waste or everybody's time, mine included.

Originally Posted by business_kid On the 4 physical fundamental forces, these are all affecting the atom, and have implications for the presumed 'Big Bang' and everything else. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude they were set at those figures for the Universe to turn out at all like it actually is.

IMO, this is mistaking the map for the territory. The 4 numbers exist in our (current) model of reality, not reality itself.

Your Douglas Adams quote begins with the word "This", meaning the context, which I don't have.

Sorry, I just copied it from the first search hit which happened to be one of those quotation websites. The full speech is here: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html

On believers explaining God, we can only repeat about him what He chooses to reveal about Himself, and what conclusions we have reached based on His information. With their (at the time) superior attitude, the Jesuits would say: "Unless there was something which had no beginning, nothing could ever begin." I think they were right on that point, if only that.

Right, so I don't see much difference between declaring that God has no beginning vs declaring that matter has no beginning. Problem solved either way.

Originally Posted by business_kid @enorbet: From Behe I take irreducible complexity. I followed the detailed debates with Dawkins. On the thing driving the cell along, they lost me in gobbledygook. On blood clotting Behe definitely seemed to have the upper hand imho. Hoyle has much of interest - Stellar NucleoSynthesis seemed good, his research on stellar grains; but I reject Panspermia, Cosmic eggs, Steady State theories, & other stuff he was refuted on. His manner of thinking impressed me more than his discoveries though. He was prepared to follow the evidence even when it led him to positions he was biased against.

I have no idea where anyone could conclude that last sentence considering that even the accidental discovery (obviously, zero agenda) of Red Shift let alone the Cosmic Background Radiation didn't convince Hoyle that Steady State is literally an impossibility. There is no shame in being mistaken. Nobody knows everything. However IMHO continuing to be mistaken out of ego or stubborn hysterical blindness after solid evidence is learned or otherwise exposed is absolutely shameful and sad.

Originally Posted by business_kid I believe firmly that the Earth is old. The oldest rocks are dated ~4.5 billion years, and we've no quibble with 4 billion years. We are not dogmatic on the earth's age. The ~6000 years is bull, based in part on a misinterpretation of Scripture.

Whew! Congrats! Good to know you can think critically even in delicate areas.

Originally Posted by business_kid On origins beliefs: The Big Bang theory, to sum it up is that nothing left a singularity in the Universe and that nothing exploded it randomly. And further, that the effect of the Higgs field (which physicists know would collapse the Big Bang inside the 1st second) somehow didn't collapse it. Are scientific folks that credulous? The Big Bang is in fact refuted. Admittedly, that explanation doesn't have God in it. I know black holes do strange things, existing with swirling stuff around them, and emitting stuff. I have never seen a meaningful explanation of how the initial inert singularity came about,why it was a singularity, not a Black hole, and how old it was, or who put it there. Never mind how it was so carefully exploded, and why it didn't collapse under the Higgs field. They omit that from the explanations, hoping it will go away because it's not mentioned. A search for 'Big Crunch' should get you meaningful papers on the collapse. We have no firm explanation, therefore no details. The words 'God Created…' sum up this time period. There is a little more insight in Job 38, but the language there is figurative. Personally, I imagine how things happened and while it seems reasonable to me I'm not posting it on a public forum. And I'm not dogmatic. Contact me by PM if you want to go there. I prefer Creation. When it comes to Evolution, it's only a difference in the method of creation if you accept God. I refuse to go there with folks who don't accept God or Scripture, because it's a waste or everybody's time, mine included.

Contrary to popular opinion and sensationalist journalism, The Standard Model is not in danger of being falsified anytime in the foreseeable future. In fact it is stronger than ever. What is referred to as Big Bang or Cosmic Egg most certainly did happen. We literally have it's "baby photos" in WMAP. We have it's school years and graduation photos all around us thanks to light having a finite and mostly fixed velocity. No actual, peer-reviewed scientist imagines the Higgs Field would have collapsed the early Universe. Higgs isn't an attractive force like Electromagnetism or Gravity that would have, even could have counteracted Expansion, let alone Inflation. It is a rather big subject as there is now LOTS of evidence but if you actually have an interest in weighing opposing view this is a pretty good explanation without getting too "gobbledegook" as you say.

https://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/e...e/bigbang.html

Big Crunch is many orders of magnitude more speculative exactly because it hasn't happened yet and is likely many times further away in Time than The Bang. Currently Dark Energy could lead to no Crunch but we know so little about Dark Energy we have no clue whether or not it changes behaviour over time or if something else yet to occur would counteract it.

I am bothered by your "No Trespassing" signs cordoning off areas of discussion, but I will try to give you the respect to avoid those areas. I have to say though, that it is pretty clear evidence that you are dogmatic... partly because to some degree, we all are. That degree is defined largely by exactly what we blind ourselves to, especially willfully with knowledge that area even exists.

Examine this for yourself, please...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Dogma Dogma is an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion, such as Roman Catholicism,[1] or the positions of a philosopher or of a philosophical school such as Stoicism. In the pejorative sense, dogma refers to enforced decisions, such as those of aggressive political interests or authorities.[2][3] More generally, it is applied to some strong belief whose adherents are not willing to discuss rationally. This attitude is named as a dogmatic one, or as dogmatism; and is often used to refer to matters related to religion, but is not limited to theistic attitudes alone and is often used with respect to political or philosophical dogmas.

I submit that we are all subject to dogmatism and "confirmation bias" but it is before us to fight such tendencies just as total honesty with everyone all the time is arguably impossible but that doesn't mean it is not a worthy ideal we should all work hard to achieve and certainly wherever the possible consequences are only our sensibilities.

Oh and BTW "Singularity" is sort of a "waste basket term" for where mathematics breaks down from too little information, often in areas far outside our realm of experience. That all we have in such area is Mathematics says a lot about how distant such things as an singularity is from our mostly Earth-bound experience. In the case of The Big Bang "singularity" we can and have pushed back that "veil" further and further to literally the first billionths of a second after The Bang, but that data has been limited by the fact that there was in fact a "Let There Be Light" moment when the Universe was finally reduced in density enough that photons could travel and not be "stuck", and the Universe became visible to us. Since we depend naturally on that spectrum data beyond it is somewhat limited. The new James Webb Space Telescope and others are designed to operate in deeper sp[ectrums to push back even further and Gravity Wave astronomy is just beginning and promises to be a huge leap Scientists cant wait! Scientists are not ignoring data that could "undermine" current conclusions. Most welcome them! There is no such thing as "undermine" unless one is "married to" an idea. There is only "mining" to reveal what seems hidden to our "normal" view..., consequences be damned!

After ≅20 posts here and there with no refutations on to the points raised

• How Life Originated
• How the Universe originated
• The Ultra-precise setting of 4 physical forces allowing the universe to exist

I feel entitled to say those points stand. There are many outstanding issues, and I'll deal with them
I won't defend Hoyle, bigotry, or obstinacy. Some of what I read from him was interesting - to me. You are entitled to your opinion, as I to mine.

@enorbet: On age of earth: I already posted about the age of the Earth in posts #9171 & 9187. You stand convicted of not reading my posts!

2 points from ntubski: Matter being eternal? How do you explain the 'big bang'/whatever 13.8 billion years ago and the precise values of the relevant 4 forces that allow the universe to turn out at all? Why isn't there equal amounts of matter & anti-matter that would be expected from a random event? On the basis of the best available evidence, you'd lose that one in any court and I'd be awarded costs. I await your scientific explanation.

On map/territory. An interesting concept, but it's immaterial. Let me explain.

Like most Theists, for want of a better word, I accept the Bible over science. There is a Material Universe (this one) and a 'spirit ' system of things. It is important to state that this comes through the filter of ancient languages that simple agricultural people would comprehend. Things we know about this other 'Spirit' world are:

• Population >100 Million.
• Spirits are on occasion, sent to visit us, but we or anything material can't go there, so they informed us.
• Spirits are invisible and can exist in proximity without us being aware of them. There are accounts describing how they have shown themselves in visible shapes, and speak, and have done things.
• Spirits are apparently bound by or respect our 4th dimension, time. There are occasions where rolling back time might have been attractive, but it was never done. Maybe they chose not to. Who knows?
• We are told One of them is the Creator with no beginning, and the rest are creations.
• We are told a small number of humans will be given spirit bodies and brought there with a specific purpose. They have to die here in most cases.
• There were issues raised in the past which were raised on Earth. It was chosen to settle them here, and they have been largely settled over the passage of time.

This is our understanding from the Bible, on the subject of a world nobody has seen. It would appear our material universe exists only because someone there started it. It's the only reality we know, and certainly not a map of the spirit realm. If people want to take me up on scriptural interpretation, PM only pls. It doesn't matter whether anyone believes this. It's not lesson 1, and you need to get a groundwork.

In our membership, 0.625% feel they have that (heavenly) calling. Among 'Young Earthers' (the crazies who think the earth is 6000 years old) the proportion is ≥50,000% if not much higher

On the origins, @enorbet I'm with you forward from the CMB. Agreed, Without atoms, nothing could be seen. WMAP (I thought it was WiMAP?) may find something, whatever it is, which will be interpreted as 'proof of the big bang.' No scientist dare say anything else.

I can dismiss the Big Bang, because you're left answering "Who lit the Big Fuse?" Science's answer is that it is 'Unknown & Unknowable.' You guys are stuck with the Big Bang, Because it's "Too big to fail" in the words of GWB. My answer is 'God Created…' which is short on detail. I imagine some class of very powerful & controlled Energy --> Matter event, which gave us the CMB. I'll stop imagining that if "God Created…" is expanded on. Humans can do Matter --> energy, as in Hiroshima, & Nagasaki. I reckon energy --> matter is possible for a Creator.

On the Big Crunch, in my 'Universe' folder, I have 4-5 papers from magazines or Universities (US, England, Japan, Australia) that look more like PhD. papers, but you're right, not peer reviewed. They are all presented at prestigious places. The Japanese in particular do not like their scientists to release rubbish. They already got past their respective Professors & external examiners, so that would be a peer review in itself. I also have one on the instability of the Higgs vacuum. I had a stroke in 2015. I'm no longer called on to do this sort of research for my talks. I don't need to pursue that stuff any more. So as my info is out of date, and you guys are coming up short on the beginning of the Big Bang anyhow, so I'll enter a 'nolo contendere' the Big Crunch. (Nolo Contendere = Legalese for 'don't wish to contest').

In my mind, The origin of the Universe and the Origin of Life are supports, like meat hooks in a butcher's cold room, for the whole body of atheistic science. On closer examination, those meathooks aren't there. If there wasn't an origin of life, life in all it's forms couldn't exist. There isn't even a theory to discredit - they can't form one. But that's also 'too big to fail.' So, at it's very basest level, if life didn't originate, none of us would be here. But we kind of are here, at least I like to think so, so nobody can fault me for pointing to the best available (Language/time filtered) evidence in Genesis 1 which goes into a little detail on how God did it.

On the origin of the universe, nobody can say who lit the 'big fuse.' Without the big fuse being lit, there would be no CMB. But we have a CMB, so some other explanation is needed. There is no evidence, and evidence needs to start at µsec 0 of time. "In the beginning, God created…" There's a language filter in place on that "In the beginning…" too. There would be a limited number of ways of putting that in the most ancient Hebrew.

On cordoning off areas for discussion: For most scientists, scientists must accept evolution as an article of faith, and they believe it too. What I can do is embarrass them by showing how ridiculous certain steps are. I will proceed to point out things that stretch even their credulity. But nobody has ever stopped and thought of what I have said. I have left their pet theory in shreds, with road blocks all around them but they will dream that the impossible comes true. Whatever long odds are imposed, they will accept. Even the origin of life, which has no explanation, however ridiculous, people say: "Oh, someone will come up with a hypothesis, and then we'll all believe it." How unscientific is that?

What's your personal reaction to the fact that (repeating myself) since Francis Crick's Nobel for dna, there hasn't been a credible hypothesis for the origin of life, multiple catch-22 scenarios forbidding it, etc? How do you guys react when I say "The Emperor has no clothes?" Do you all say 'Long Live the emperor, mumble, mumble … …?'

First of all thank you business_kid for clarifying your position by declaring "I accept the Bible over science". From my POV that point pretty much ends discussion since no religion's Bible has been or can be substantiated and over and over again it has been shown NO interpretation of parts of the Bible can spin doctor proven faults, actually wrong even impossible statements that Science has revealed. One example is certainly potent in the case of Galileo but it's hard to blame you since it took The Church 300 years to admit the wrong and "apologize"... and probably with good reason, eh?

On top of that such claims as "@enorbet: On age of earth: I already posted about the age of the Earth in posts #9171 & 9187. You stand convicted of not reading my posts!" I actually congratulated you for not being a "Young Earther" so please where did I claim otherwise? I asked. You answered. Done. However I could turn that "conviction" around since I and others have addressed the 3 Big issues and apparently you may possibly have read those but I don't see any consideration and the link I posted for evidence for Big Bang included a picture of the advances in resolution of CMBR and clearly shows WMAP, not WiMAP. The "W" stands for the name of Wilkinson a very important figure in it's development. I'll include the graphic as an attachment but the entire treatise is very good yet still you deny Big Bang. You would do well to look here https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/. So are you reading anyone's posts to the degree others read yours?

BTW regarding "the most ancient Hebrew" it was one of the first written languages and was an attempt to spell words to sound like their spoken counterparts and since that varied with region only consonants were used which is why much of the Dead Sea Scrolls have taken so long and are so speculative in translation. One needs the context of living in a region thousands of years ago since there is no Dictionary, no Rosetta Stone for Ancient Hebrew.

Science in no way expects scientists to accept anything on faith. That approaches an outright lie... at the very least Hysterical Blindness. It is about Preponderance of Evidence that many things carry strong reliability. Look up the meaning of "5 Sigma" to see how tough the terms of that contest really are. Because of this lofty position at very high levels of Probability, the Standard Model is "The Champion" and any contender must clearly "beat the Champ" and like gunfighters of the Old West, many line up to challenge. The Big Bang and Evolution are just two areas of extreme probability despite the fact that religious types like to pretend they are "on shaky ground". The evidence says otherwise and to a degree that few individuals ever strive. Please do click the above link, and pay special attention to the degrees in WMAP's Top Ten. The same is true for Evolution but the evidence is much harder to find on the Internet since the religious tend to hate it so much there is a lot of cruft to wade through.

Science has literally shaped your life. You would be hard-pressed to survive without it's benefits at this late date, as would we all. What has Religion done for you? Has it provided a Living? Were your "talks" as a paid presenter? and did you depend at all on science and technology, whether paid or not, to disseminate those talks?

Anyway since it is unlikely this conversation will get any further let me just say I, too, have suffered a stroke so I do feel your pain and offer my condolences and wish you well.

Ooops...sorry.... forgot the graphic

Incidentally regarding your "Big Three"

1) How Life Originated - We are narrowing that field to a huge degree based on actual and repeatable experiment and observation. Considering the religious "alternatives" which have proved so exact in other areas given having been written by incredibly ignorant (not stupid... just ignorant), superstitious people thousands of years ago and given the premise that all we have is one or a few of those writers sworn testimony that "it was revealed to me by God" ... yeah, we heard that more recently from Joseph Smith, right?... so reliable <sarc>

2) How the Universe originated - Let the record show that The Bible, ANY bible, has zero mention of galaxies, nebulae, black holes, quasars, or even solar systems beyond what it did claim "The Earth is the Center of the Universe and everything revolves around it (read "Us")" they can't even get that most basic fact of what the Universe IS right let alone be trusted for how it got here.

3) The Ultra-precise setting of 4 physical forces allowing the universe to exist - They aren't "ultra precise settings". They are just what remains, has "shaken out" after 13.77 Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution. We know for a fact the Universe wasn't always as it is now. It DID evolve. CMB proves that whether there was A Designer or not. We know for a fact that for a moment in time the Universe was filled with particles and anti-particles each annihilating the other but an extremely slight imbalance resulted in not ALL being annihilated. That imbalance is one of just a number of "Butterfly Effects", simple causes leading to every effect thereafter.

It's like creating anything even these words on a virtual page. One starts with a blank sheet and there are near infinite possibilities. With the first word written the possibilities immediately narrow down to the finite. With each successive word each next word becomes increasingly limited in choice. By the very last word there are at best just a handful of words that will fit most just minor variations on the other few.

This is true in chance as well as creation. The reason The Butterfly Effect is called that is because a simple butterfly flapping it's wings in Africa can be viewed as resulting in a hurricane that destroys coastlines in Florida later. There are such key events , such tipping points, where removing just one "stone" causes "the walls" to tumble or never form. That's just Progression and Probability, Causes and Effects. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that some entity was The Creator, are we also to assume that entity must micromanage every tiniest detail to make sure it results exactly according to The Plan? Even people create wind up toys that once wound up are let go to travel as they will. If everything is designed and micromanaged down to the tiniest detail, what's the point in doing it? What then is the point of the existence of a God, any God?.. and how did He/She/It get here?

The point is, at least to humans, some questions... MOST questions are unanswered and many are likely unanswerable. That does not in any way invalidate a system at answering SOME questions that has been proven repeatedly to work and only improve with time and effort, especially in contrast to some sprawling, inconsistent mysticism proven wrong repeatedly. Given any conflict between the two, I'll take what's known to work any time over what's known to fail

It is impossible to argue "There is no God", it's just more likely true than any alternative and really from my POV doesn't matter. It is possible to argue that whatever else, no Bible, no scripture, has ever been an accurate source to rely on all by itself, and certainly not to describe this Universe. The Big Three are proof of nothing. The first two are just question in the process of being figured out. The third, is no more accurate at describing how things are and their causes than assuming you got sick because there is a demon in your belly or the old neighbor lady that lives alone placed a curse on you before she flew off on her broomstick.

Originally Posted by enorbet 2) How the Universe originated - Let the record show that The Bible, ANY bible, has zero mention of galaxies, nebulae, black holes, quasars, or even solar systems beyond what it did claim "The Earth is the Center of the Universe and everything revolves around it (read "Us")" they can't even get that most basic fact of what the Universe IS right let alone be trusted for how it got here.

May I quote Galileo? "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not to show us how the heavens go." Why on earth should you expect a book which is about God, His people and His plan of salvation to contain information about quasars and black holes?

Originally Posted by hazel May I quote Galileo? "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not to show us how the heavens go." Why on earth should you expect a book which is about God, His people and His plan of salvation to contain information about quasars and black holes?

Hello hazel
In point of fact, I don't expect a religious book to deal with how the Universe is. I didn't bring it up. Frankly I think, at least in present times, it has no business there at all. I'm only responding to those claims that because Science has yet to answer some important questions fully, and/or questions nobody can ever get a confirmed answer (at least while we are alive), that not only does that imply to them that Science is faulty and invalid, but that some ancient text is better in that regard!

I would be overjoyed and probably never bothered to post in this thread if Religion was only about Spirituality but instead it tries to compete with Science in many if not most cases about Physical Reality and Social Concerns and worse, tries to enact laws and exert punishments to enforce dogma in what is effectively a Kangaroo Court since no dissent is allowed, let alone considered. To me it isn't at all surprising that historically Abrahamic religions, just to name a few, have supported things like stoning deaths for "crimes of conscience" and slavery.

@enorbet #9201: Ignoring the derogatory comments which I'm used to by now from you, On the age of the earth, I posted in #9171,& 9187, which were ignored. I mentioned it again in #9195 and you acknowledged that in #9198. I think your conviction stands, not that it matters.

I plead not guilty to not reading your posts, but guilty to not reading all the long/boring treatises & videos of those trying to reform me. I did undertake your 9 minute 'answer everything' video. Out of kindness I didn't comment initially. I cut it some slack, thinking it may have been produced on celluloid. I got the impression at first he was auditioning for a presenter's job (which he clearly failed) but for a low budget thing it was ok.

His explanation for the origin of life was: "Over time, inert matter drew itself together and willed itself into life" sort of thing. There's no need for me to attack that. The guy wasn't even up with Alexander Oparin (1920s in Russian) whose theories Stanley Miller tested in a rigged experiment in the 1950s. [It was rigged because the chemicals he created using sparks would have been destroyed again by the same sparks much quicker. So Miller(1953?) had a trap in his test tube to rescue them.] He certainly hadn't read about the double helix(1956 iirc). I don't take issue with events from the CMB forward. He had nothing to offer. It's obviously been a while since you watched it.

There's no need to post me WMAP stuff - I have it. WMAP = WiMAP, just in the early days they left the 'i' in from 'Wilkinson.'

The thing the Bible has over most books is that it was contemporaneous, i.e. mainly written by the people concerned. If a few cases, there are compilations, but they usually had many sources to reference. Consonantal Hebrew isn't so bad once you realise they had a small vocabulary of words. Jewish Tradition (A sometimes reliable source) says that Noah took 11 documents into the Ark, and paternal heads seemed to compile stuff. Your negative opinion matters little to me anyhow.

Don't give me a lecture on how rigorous science is. I know the ropes. I know the theory(rigorous) and the practise. Rigorous science to make humanity better gave us nuclear bombs, Agent Orange, etc. You know the practise as well as the theory, so please don't treat me as stupid or ignorant. I won't take lectures on rigorous science benefiting mankind, when the world is suffering from it.

I hope your stroke wasn't too bad. It left you with your memory and your marbles anyhow, . The guy I felt sorriest for in the Nursing home had had a stroke. He looked unharmed - he could see & walk fine. But he had no memory, and no marbles. He could (and did) 'talk for Ireland' but he couldn't make sense; he had present, but no past or future. He could recognise his daughter, but didn't know her name. They asked him if he had a Medical Card(a sort of ID thing here). The girl queried him for 5 minutes, but couldn't get sense, and I realised I had to do something. She was going to burn out. My card was in a wallet in a drawer away from me, and all that stuff took time for me. I took out my own card, held it up, and said loudly: "Look at me! Have you got one of these?" He was able to say 'Yes.' Poor guy.
#9203:

Originally Posted by business_kid 2 points from ntubski: Matter being eternal? How do you explain the 'big bang'/whatever 13.8 billion years ago and the precise values of the relevant 4 forces that allow the universe to turn out at all? Why isn't there equal amounts of matter & anti-matter that would be expected from a random event? On the basis of the best available evidence, you'd lose that one in any court and I'd be awarded costs. I await your scientific explanation. On map/territory. An interesting concept, but it's immaterial.

I think you missed my point. The 4 values are in the map, not (necessarily) in the territory. The fact that you think they need to be "tuned" is just an assumption you make based on the existing theories. Before the standard model was developed, we didn't have those values. It's possible that future theories won't have them.

I can dismiss the Big Bang, because you're left answering "Who lit the Big Fuse?" Science's answer is that it is 'Unknown & Unknowable.'

I can dismiss God, because you're left answering "Who created God?", to which the answer is "Nobody, God is eternal", or similar. In other words, refuse to allow the question. Which is fine, I just don't see why we can't do the same with matter instead of God. Would it help if we say "matter is God"?

Even the origin of life, which has no explanation, however ridiculous, people say: "Oh, someone will come up with a hypothesis, and then we'll all believe it." How unscientific is that?

How about, "someone will come up with a hypothesis, some people will believe it, others will come up with alternatives, and eventually we'll converge on something that most accept, at least until something better comes along."

@enorbet#9203:

Originally Posted by enorbet 1) How Life Originated - We are narrowing that field to a huge degree based on actual and repeatable experiment and observation. Considering the religious "alternatives" which have proved so exact in other areas given having been written by incredibly ignorant (not stupid... just ignorant), superstitious people thousands of years ago and given the premise that all we have is one or a few of those writers sworn testimony that "it was revealed to me by God" ... yeah, we heard that more recently from Joseph Smith, right?... so reliable <sarc>

B.S. Experiments have repeatedly failed to produce even the basic chemicals for life. I know it, and find it hard to believe you don't know it. Please don't lie to me or treat me as stupid. In the context of the Origin of Life, repeatable experiments don't exist. I note again No theory exists.

2) How the Universe originated - Let the record show that The Bible, ANY bible, has zero mention of galaxies, nebulae, black holes, quasars, or even solar systems beyond what it did claim "The Earth is the Center of the Universe and everything revolves around it (read "Us")" they can't even get that most basic fact of what the Universe IS right let alone be trusted for how it got here.

The Bible is not a scientific book, but where it touches on science it is accurate. Don't try talking down to me in gobbledygook (By one definition "The pompous or incomprehensible jargon of specialists").
In summary, your answer to how the Universe got here is "F--- the Bible!" Shame on you. I or the Bible are not responsible for how people misread or twist it. Put up (Exactly how the Big Bang, therefore the Universe originated), or … …

3) The Ultra-precise setting of 4 physical forces allowing the universe to exist - They aren't "ultra precise settings". They are just what remains, has "shaken out" after 13.77 Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution. We know for a fact the Universe wasn't always as it is now. It DID evolve. CMB proves that whether there was A Designer or not. We know for a fact that for a moment in time the Universe was filled with particles and anti-particles each annihilating the other but an extremely slight imbalance resulted in not ALL being annihilated. That imbalance is one of just a number of "Butterfly Effects", simple causes leading to every effect thereafter.

They actually ARE ultra-precise settings. Investigate from your own sources. You apparently are reluctant to read mine. ElectroMagnetic Force is the easiest to verify. I know they use terms like 'Cosmic Evolution' to keep the idea of evolution going. Yes, the Universe changes over time, but certainly not by random mutations in the genes.

Matter & antimatter canceling each other out is what you'd expect, but to get that singularity apart initially, you'd need a huge multiple of the expansion force to get that singularity apart, and in that case, atoms would never coalesce. When you consult your own sources you'll find the expansion force is critical. This is where someone might mention the Inflation Theory (No doubt rigourous science, experimentally proved over several universes), but I'll just add it to the list of things lacking proof. The Energy -->matter concept dispenses with the need for inflation, the singularity, the matter/antimatter thing and brings us to the CMB with very little fuss or bother. There might even have been a Divine Big Bang - I don't know. The difference is: I attribute Creation to God; You attribute to ??? which is scientifically unsound.

If you're wedded to the Big Bang, I think even a skeptic like you will realize that getting the expansion of that right with all the matter/antimatter cancellations you posit was a very precise value indeed, that necessitated a knowledge of the mass of the initial singularity, the constitution of the resulting balance of matter/antimatter, a knowledge of the exact values of the fundamental forces and a most profound knowledge of physics along with a supreme calculating ability. Further, using the present values of the 4 forces, events can be simulated and calculated right back into the early moments of the universe, so you have no basis for saying they "shook out" or evolved. You are left with the issue of how those 4 values existed before the big bang that exist today and allowed the Universe to turn out at all during the Big Bang. I shouldn't need to correct these things.

There's not much I'll take issue with in the rest of what you say. Not much I'd agree with either, btw. This seems to be sinking into a familiar pattern of me pointing out huge gaps and suggestions for a more reasonable explanation involving God, and atheists swallowing impossibilities or astronomical odds with ease, rather than ever reflecting on what is most likely, and that impossibilities should not be believed in. Sadly, there seems little reflection.

Pointing out "gaps" in others points doesn't prove any other points. 1 + 1 = 5 is just as wrong as 2 + 3 = 9. By contrast I suffer no illusions that "Big Bang" and "Evolution" will continue to be refined and altered, but the basics are indeed firmly in place and have withstood countless attacks for almost 100 years in the case of Big Bang and just a decade shy of 200 years in the case of Evolution. It is especially important to note how the "snowball effect" has altered how quickly things change as time progresses. For most of human history any person born should expect his entire life to be almost exactly as it was when born.

An anecdotal note - When my Grandfather was born the US town he grew up in, it had hitching posts on Main Street and nothing was in the sky excepting birds and clouds. By the time he died the hitching posts had been gone for almost 50 years, Polio had been cured, men landed on the moon, and the home PC world was beginning. No previous generation, or it's ideas, had weathered such rapid progression. For a concept begun in 1900, to last just a decade had become remarkable. We still thought The Milky Way WAS the Universe until 1924.

As for the rest as I said, I'm done. There's no arguing with dogma since actual evidence has no consequence. To be completely open, honest and objective, I recognize I am a part of that equation since you are correct, Bibles don't count for much in my view.. a little history, a little philosophy, and a whole lot of unfounded mysticism and superstition, written thousands of years ago and decades after the subject matter by a loose mix mostly of people looking to be leaders of followers, or simply downright delusional.

Originally Posted by business_kid You attribute to ??? which is scientifically unsound.

I'm curious how you're defining "scientifically unsound" such that it includes saying "cause unknown".