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, 09:18 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Speaking of which:

Scientist May Have Discovered Alternate Universes
The world as we know it may actually just be "a region within an eternally inflating super-region."

Alternate or parallel universes may actually exist, according to the findings of one astrophysicist, but many in the scientific community aren't convinced.

Ranga-Ram Chary, U.S. Planck Data Center's project manager in California, recently discovered a "mysterious glow" by mapping the Cosmic Microwave Background, otherwise known as the light that was left over from a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang.

Ordinarily, Chary would have found nothing "except noise." But the spots of light were 4,500 times brighter than they should have been.

Chary concluded that the glow could represent matter from another universe "leaking" or colliding into ours. This would validate the hypothesis that our universe is merely "a region within an eternally inflating super-region," said Chary in an Astrophysical Journal study published in September.

Cosmologists have speculated about multiple universes for years, but have thus far been unable to prove their existence. Chary's research is therefore significant because it could lend credence to the theory that cosmic inflation -- which is the notion that the universe began inflating right after the Big Bang -- led to multiple universes.

However, this type of claim would "require a very high burden of proof," Chary wrote. There's a 30 percent chance that the glow is nothing out of the ordinary.

Other scientists share this skepticism. Alexander Vilenkin, director of Tufts University's Institute of Cosmology, doesn't see how "this signal can be explained by a collision with another bubble universe." Any collisions must have been "more like little nudges," Vilenkin added. "But a collision that would greatly enhance the density of protons seems to require a much more violent encounter."

"The supposed observations of a giant void and an apparently cold spot in the cosmic background radiation have so many types of potential explanations," said Jay Pasachoff, chair of the astronomy department at Williams College. He maintains that it's too premature to cite an alternate universe as the explanation.

"But it could also be something new and unexpected," Vilenkin added.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scie...7f2cab4d14

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 09:44 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 05:29 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is one of the first books my parents sent me, when I announced I had deconverted. I sent it back, annotated and footnoted in the margins, for the myriad errors and logical problems it contains. I credit that book (and one by Phillip Johnson called Darwin on Trial, against evolution) more than any other single document as the reason for my confidence about atheism. I no longer have that book, having sent it back with the footnotes/annotations, to my parents. However, I do still have the copy of The Case for Faith still in my personal library.

I think the book is truly written by Strobel to sell to Christians, not to atheists, as a way to comfort them and think "hey our experts have answers, too!" More importantly, Strobel's use of the "I used to be an atheist" argument is sketchy, for reasons that are well laid out here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...ike-you-2/

As the author points out, this rebuttial is a little like the "no True Scotsman" argument in that it draws a distinction between well-informed atheists (like me) and apathetic types (what my brother calls his belief: "Ijustdontgiveafuckism"), but he thinks it is well-supported that only the second type is prone to the "I used to be an atheist" type of conversion to religious fundamentalism. I was given a number of books by "ex-atheists", including the famous Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and I noticed in all of them the pattern of apathetic-type atheism.

That's not to say one cannot become a Christian after knowing as much as we know about the history of Christianity and the philosophical claims thereof, just that it's exceptionally unlikely, and we should be skeptical of those who claim to be "ex-atheists" turned Biblical Apologists. The more-likely explanation is that they're using a gimmick to sell their books to the credulous who really, really want to believe their side is "Saving souls for Jesus", and that this guy can/will do it if they just BUY HIS BOOK and give it to their little lost son/daughter/friend/neighbor.
I was a real atheist for over 20 years. Still believe in evolution for the most part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 09:44 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:  ... 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. 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 ...

A recurring argument from the theistic side of the house is personal incapacity to consider something that confounds "common sense". It's one thing to say "I just can't believe that ..." such and such could be possible, which is the incessant plaint of the theist, and entirely another to say "that's unbelievable, but I'll try to consider it", which is the credo of the scientist.

Not everything warrants consideration, however, and that the theist refuses to consider certain "impossibilities" is often defended by pointing out that science just as vehemently refuses to consider theistic constructs. What's the difference?

Good question. What "impossible" notions warrant serious consideration and what "impossible" notions warrant dismissal?

Part (or much) of the answer is track record. Theistic concepts have no track record of predictive power. Theistic concepts have been swirling in our minds for millenia, but have never proven genuinely useful for anticipating or (especially) shaping the future. Whatever power we ascribe to them is the illusion of rationalization.

The "impossible" concepts described by science, on the other hand, have very powerful track records for shaping the future, are generally defined (theistic concepts are rarely actually defined in any meaningful sense), and have at their foundation substantial and rigorous empirical experience. Thus when science advances a concept that cuts across the grain of "common sense", it warrants consideration because its genesis was not uneducated speculation, its genesis was a collaboration of mind and calculated experiment.

Finding something "hard to believe" is universal. But knowing whether to "ponder it" or "disregard it" takes an educated mind, open to continuous education.

I take my hat off to Jason, who seems to me possessing a mind open to continuous education (and has the "street cred" to show for it) - I hope we continue to learn from each other as a result.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Airportkid's post
04-11-2015, 10:40 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
I think I`m getting old, 15 pages in and I just could not take the stupidity from pops and Alla and stopped reading.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 10:48 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 09:44 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I was a real atheist for over 20 years. Still believe in evolution for the most part.

What part don't you believe? Consider

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
04-11-2015, 11:23 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 01:09 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Evolution is true to some extent, but it is the advancement of existence as a whole. There is a way to evolve exponentially farther than the point we seem stuck at now. And it doesn't involve survival of the fittest in any violent, negative way.

pops, it behooves you to read and actually understand what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself any further.

“Survival of the fittest” isn’t referring to a bitch-slap fest where the physically stronger overcomes the weaker. No. “Survival of the fittest” refers to species that best evolve and adapt to their environment.

As for the rest of your misguided babble I simply don’t want to spend the time to teach you evolution 101, go read books on Evolution (Why Evolution is True is a good one) then when you have questions we can refer specifically to chapter and page and tackle it from there. Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
04-11-2015, 11:25 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 09:44 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I was a real atheist for over 20 years. Still believe in evolution for the most part.

So, you handed back your 'A' badge then? Wink

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 11:38 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 06:58 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 03:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is an "atheistic explanation"?
There is no atheist scripture, no mandated explanations to anything.
The label "Atheist" is merely used to denote a person who lacks a belief in gods.

An atheist can believe whatever they want with regards to the beginnings of time, space, and energy/matter. Just as long as they don't believe that a magical god did it.
It's not that we will punish atheists if they choose to believe that a magical god did it. It is that this believe would mean that they believe in at least one god and hence can't fit the label "Atheist". We aren't a group, so it doesn't amount to a group of atheists excluding this person.

Regarding the beginnings of time, space, and energy/matter, as far as I'm aware, scientists have come to a naturalistic understanding on the expansion of our observable universe from a fraction of a second AFTER the initial Big Bang event, to the formation of stars and galaxies and planets till now. But they haven't come to any findings as to what was around prior to the Big Bang event. Postulating that there was nothing is nothing more than speculation. Postulating that something can come from nothing is speculation and it violates the law of conservation.
But even the scientific understanding doesn't have to be understood or accepted in order for a person to be an atheist.

There is no "atheistic explanation" for the beginning of time and space.
Ok buddy. Let's read the thread a little. You got me face palming myself. LolTongue. If you look at one of my later posts I explained "atheistic explanation " as any explanation that does not have any involvement to a god or gods and is in no way describing any specific theory. Btw....the rest is covered bro. You are preaching to the choir.
So basically.....every single explanation that has ever been given for anything that can actually be supported with demonstrable evidence?
Is gravitational theory a theistic or atheistic explanation?
Is Evolutionary Biology an theistic or atheistic explanation?
Geology? Taxonomy? Calculus? Embryology? Radiology? Plate tectonics? Is the explanation for microwave radiation "god dun it!"?

Through out the entirety of human history at no point have we arived at any explanation, that we could demonstrate was accurate, that a god/s were responsible. The god explanation has a track record of successful explaining phenomena of exactly 0%.

But oh no this time it must be right!

You have exactly no demonstrable evidence that a god exists, let alone that it could even create a universe if it wanted to, and you have a track record of God being the correct explanation that has been wrong 100% of the time.

If I was to say that the universe as we know it was created due the my good friend Brian microwaving a pizza pocket for too long and on too high a setting I'd actually be more rational because I can at least show that Brian, pizza pockets, and microwaves actually exist. Tongue

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
05-11-2015, 05:45 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 11:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 06:58 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok buddy. Let's read the thread a little. You got me face palming myself. LolTongue. If you look at one of my later posts I explained "atheistic explanation " as any explanation that does not have any involvement to a god or gods and is in no way describing any specific theory. Btw....the rest is covered bro. You are preaching to the choir.
So basically.....every single explanation that has ever been given for anything that can actually be supported with demonstrable evidence?
Is gravitational theory a theistic or atheistic explanation?
Is Evolutionary Biology an theistic or atheistic explanation?
Geology? Taxonomy? Calculus? Embryology? Radiology? Plate tectonics? Is the explanation for microwave radiation "god dun it!"?

Through out the entirety of human history at no point have we arived at any explanation, that we could demonstrate was accurate, that a god/s were responsible. The god explanation has a track record of successful explaining phenomena of exactly 0%.

But oh no this time it must be right!

You have exactly no demonstrable evidence that a god exists, let alone that it could even create a universe if it wanted to, and you have a track record of God being the correct explanation that has been wrong 100% of the time.

If I was to say that the universe as we know it was created due the my good friend Brian microwaving a pizza pocket for too long and on too high a setting I'd actually be more rational because I can at least show that Brian, pizza pockets, and microwaves actually exist. Tongue
Read the post. It was specifically in regards to the explanations on the origins of the universe. I don't have time to repeat myself for every new person to pop up on this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(04-11-2015 09:44 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I was a real atheist for over 20 years. Still believe in evolution for the most part.

I'm sorry, do you mean to tell me you had studied the origin of the Abrahamic religions, understood their archaeological, societal, and historical context, understood that they were just iterations of other contemporary and precursor stories? That you at one time valued evidence, rationality, and the scientific method; and was comfortable with doubt and the fact that "I don't know" is not only an acceptable answer, but often times the best one?

And you gave that all up in favor of emotions, irrationality, and belief without evidence?

Sure you did jackass, sure you did. Anything else you'd like to lie about, or could you kindly stop being an equivocating lying piece of shit?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: