Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2015, 11:57 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 08:46 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 07:21 AM)unfogged Wrote:  What baffles me is how you don't see the double standard that you are applying.
The idea of eternal existence is difficult to grasp and makes you doubt it applies to the universe but makes you more sure that it applies to an all-powerful, intelligent being. If anything, the complexity of the god concept makes that much less likely to just exist without cause, especially when compared to simple raw energy.

We know that the universe exists (assuming we don't accept solipsism) so we don't need to demonstrate that. To posit that something else is necessary to have created it but then also posit that the same reasons that something is required don't apply to the meta level is special pleading.
The energy came from a source.

Not a meta, The.

Infinity is observable within the Universe. There is no reason to believe that just because our current existence goes along a certain path and has a start and an end that these same laws must be conformed to by the responsible source.

Through our limited understanding based on the things we can readily observe, we for some reason, like to think the effect is the cause, or that the governing factors that constitute our existence must also be adhered to by a creative force outside of our total comprehension.
This is faulty.

[Image: facepalm_implied.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like ohio_drg's post
04-11-2015, 12:15 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 11:03 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I understand how my views on existence may seem ridiculous to many on this forum and I am completely fine with it. However, I honestly don't see a double standard. It is not a double standard to say that I can not believe that the existence of all matter is infinite or came to exist without a creator but rather believe that an all powerful God who is beyond any human comprehension had the power to do so. It is not a double standard be unable to fathom the idea that absolutely nothing created everything for absolutely no reason but rather think it is more likely that something or someone created everything from absolutely nothing because it had the power to do so.

You're changing the subject in mid stream there. We aren't talking about what had the power, or the reason, or the desire to create anything. If it makes no sense to believe that energy could exist without having been created then it should make even less sense to believe that a god could exist without having been created. If you can believe that a complex intelligence can exist without ever having been created then believing that energy can exist without ever having been created should be a snap.

Quote:This being doesn't even need to have a reason. Even the thought of Deism seems more plausible than atheistic explanations. Now I am no scientist (obviously ) but isn't there a law of thermodynamics that stated matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed? So even the thought of a singularity of nothing spontaneously burst into everything goes against the laws of physics.

The idea that a god created the energy also defies those same laws. If we can step outside the universe to allow god to operate under different laws then we can also posit something else outside the universe that operates under different laws. Jumping from "we don't know" to "must be an all powerful, super intelligent being" is a HUGE leap.

If you haven't watched or read Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" you should. I don't know if he's right or not as I'm not qualified to judge that but he's got the credentials to make his ideas worth considering. There are also various multiverse theories and other hypotheses under consideration. The bottom line is we haven't been able to look further back than the first fraction of a second of the universe so we do not know the answer.

Quote:Now like I said, these are my personal beliefs. I am in no way trying to change anyone's opinions. If you think I am insane that is fine. However, from my point of view, the very same reasons why many believe my beliefs (specifically in regards to the origins of the universe) are ridiculous is how I look at atheistic explanation to the origins of the universe.

There is no "atheistic explanation of the origins of the universe". Individual atheists might have their own hypotheses but the basic stance is "we do not know". When it comes to time and space having a beginning or both existing eternally I am personally boggled by either option but don't see a third choice. It makes no sense to me to pick an answer that feels good to me because none of them make sense when I try to think about them. I will stick with "I don't know".

Quote:But you have to understand I cannot accept an atheistic explanation unless someone gives me absolute proof that the universe was in fact created from nothing by nothing.

But you don't require absolute proof that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence that was itself not created? That is the double standard that I was talking about. What you aren't getting is that they key is to get over the need to have an answer. Admitting that you don't know is honest and leaves you open to evidence.

Quote:The best you can hope for is to prove the God of Abraham does not exist (also impossible to do) to convert me to deism.

If you are saying that it is impossible for you to stop believing in the xian god then that means you are not open to evidence or reason or logic and that would be sad if it were true. There are many, many people who were as adamantly convinced that Yahweh existed as you are but they allowed themselves the luxury of looking at the arguments and the evidence with a critical eye. Some became atheists, some became more agnostic theists, and some still believe strongly. If you won't even consider the alternatives then you aren't believing for good reasons, you are probably just believing out of indoctrination and fear.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
04-11-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 11:57 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 08:46 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The energy came from a source.

Not a meta, The.

Infinity is observable within the Universe. There is no reason to believe that just because our current existence goes along a certain path and has a start and an end that these same laws must be conformed to by the responsible source.

Through our limited understanding based on the things we can readily observe, we for some reason, like to think the effect is the cause, or that the governing factors that constitute our existence must also be adhered to by a creative force outside of our total comprehension.
This is faulty.

[Image: facepalm_implied.jpg]
Bwahahaha. I have to save that caption photo. It's priceless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 12:15 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 11:03 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I understand how my views on existence may seem ridiculous to many on this forum and I am completely fine with it. However, I honestly don't see a double standard. It is not a double standard to say that I can not believe that the existence of all matter is infinite or came to exist without a creator but rather believe that an all powerful God who is beyond any human comprehension had the power to do so. It is not a double standard be unable to fathom the idea that absolutely nothing created everything for absolutely no reason but rather think it is more likely that something or someone created everything from absolutely nothing because it had the power to do so.

You're changing the subject in mid stream there. We aren't talking about what had the power, or the reason, or the desire to create anything. If it makes no sense to believe that energy could exist without having been created then it should make even less sense to believe that a god could exist without having been created. If you can believe that a complex intelligence can exist without ever having been created then believing that energy can exist without ever having been created should be a snap.

Quote:This being doesn't even need to have a reason. Even the thought of Deism seems more plausible than atheistic explanations. Now I am no scientist (obviously ) but isn't there a law of thermodynamics that stated matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed? So even the thought of a singularity of nothing spontaneously burst into everything goes against the laws of physics.

The idea that a god created the energy also defies those same laws. If we can step outside the universe to allow god to operate under different laws then we can also posit something else outside the universe that operates under different laws. Jumping from "we don't know" to "must be an all powerful, super intelligent being" is a HUGE leap.

If you haven't watched or read Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" you should. I don't know if he's right or not as I'm not qualified to judge that but he's got the credentials to make his ideas worth considering. There are also various multiverse theories and other hypotheses under consideration. The bottom line is we haven't been able to look further back than the first fraction of a second of the universe so we do not know the answer.

Quote:Now like I said, these are my personal beliefs. I am in no way trying to change anyone's opinions. If you think I am insane that is fine. However, from my point of view, the very same reasons why many believe my beliefs (specifically in regards to the origins of the universe) are ridiculous is how I look at atheistic explanation to the origins of the universe.

There is no "atheistic explanation of the origins of the universe". Individual atheists might have their own hypotheses but the basic stance is "we do not know". When it comes to time and space having a beginning or both existing eternally I am personally boggled by either option but don't see a third choice. It makes no sense to me to pick an answer that feels good to me because none of them make sense when I try to think about them. I will stick with "I don't know".

Quote:But you have to understand I cannot accept an atheistic explanation unless someone gives me absolute proof that the universe was in fact created from nothing by nothing.

But you don't require absolute proof that the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence that was itself not created? That is the double standard that I was talking about. What you aren't getting is that they key is to get over the need to have an answer. Admitting that you don't know is honest and leaves you open to evidence.

Quote:The best you can hope for is to prove the God of Abraham does not exist (also impossible to do) to convert me to deism.

If you are saying that it is impossible for you to stop believing in the xian god then that means you are not open to evidence or reason or logic and that would be sad if it were true. There are many, many people who were as adamantly convinced that Yahweh existed as you are but they allowed themselves the luxury of looking at the arguments and the evidence with a critical eye. Some became atheists, some became more agnostic theists, and some still believe strongly. If you won't even consider the alternatives then you aren't believing for good reasons, you are probably just believing out of indoctrination and fear.
Ok. I pick up what you are throwing down . I guess I misunderstood your point. But yeah...I agree with most of what you are saying. Btw, I just wanted to explain my meaning of "atheistic explaination" being any explaination where a god or gods had no involvement. Not necessarily intended for any specific theory. I think that's a fair statement. I am not going to debate with you further about the subject because I am very interested to watch the video tonight after the boys are in bed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 11:03 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  But you have to understand I cannot accept an atheistic explanation unless someone gives me absolute proof that the universe was in fact created from nothing by nothing. The best you can hope for is to prove the God of Abraham does not exist (also impossible to do) to convert me to deism.

But you have to understand I cannot accept a theistic explanation unless someone gives me absolute proof that the universe was in fact created by God from nothing. The best you can hope for is to prove that we don't yet have an answer, but that theistic answers explain nothing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
04-11-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 12:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 11:03 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  But you have to understand I cannot accept an atheistic explanation unless someone gives me absolute proof that the universe was in fact created from nothing by nothing. The best you can hope for is to prove the God of Abraham does not exist (also impossible to do) to convert me to deism.

But you have to understand I cannot accept a theistic explanation unless someone gives me absolute proof that the universe was in fact created by God from nothing. The best you can hope for is to prove that we don't yet have an answer, but that theistic answers explain nothing.
Understandable and agreed. That is why I feel it is pointless to try to "convert" anyone on this forum. The best we can do is listen to each other's point of view and "respectfully disagree". Tongue. When I say "respectfully disagree" I really think it is more fun to make humorous satire out of it. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jason_delisle's post
04-11-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 08:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You are basically writing your own fiction loosely based on Genesis. None of that crazy stuff is in Genesis. But God creating light is in Genesis.

And that surprises you because? Mormonism is nothing if not pulled-out-of-your-ass fan fiction. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 12:26 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok. I pick up what you are throwing down . I guess I misunderstood your point. But yeah...I agree with most of what you are saying. Btw, I just wanted to explain my meaning of "atheistic explaination" being any explaination where a god or gods had no involvement. Not necessarily intended for any specific theory. I think that's a fair statement. I am not going to debate with you further about the subject because I am very interested to watch the video tonight after the boys are in bed.

Fair enough, but it is important to understand that there's no need to accept any explanation, atheistic or theistic, until there is sufficient evidence to support it. You don't have to believe that the universe came from nothing, or from a multiverse, or any other no-god-involved cause to also not accept the claim that a god created it. It is perfectly justifiable to leave it at "I don't know".

There is a very normal tendency to pick the explanation that seems to make the most sense even if it lacks the evidence to support it. It feels good to think that we have an answer even if we can't justify it. That is something that should be fought at every turn. If the evidence isn't there then belief should be withheld.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
04-11-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 12:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 08:16 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You are basically writing your own fiction loosely based on Genesis. None of that crazy stuff is in Genesis. But God creating light is in Genesis.

And that surprises you because? Mormonism is nothing if not pulled-out-of-your-ass fan fiction. Drinking Beverage

Agreed. What's funny is that she's making claims about what is or isn't in Genesis -- and then backing it up with a whole bunch of speculation that is not in Genesis at all. Genesis says what it says. Wacky Mormon theology is something else altogether.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 01:45 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 12:53 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And that surprises you because? Mormonism is nothing if not pulled-out-of-your-ass fan fiction. Drinking Beverage

Agreed. What's funny is that she's making claims about what is or isn't in Genesis -- and then backing it up with a whole bunch of speculation that is not in Genesis at all. Genesis says what it says. Wacky Mormon theology is something else altogether.
Perhaps it is a way to somehow rationalize the inconsistencies between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In all fairness though, many Christians do the same thing to rationalize inconsistencies between the old testament and the new testament. Some even flat out say that the old testament doesn't apply anymore because of the new. But eh...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: