As someone else already pointed out, Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are separated by 20,000 years. This is in no way supporting the Christian Adam and Eve. We evolved as a population, which is explicitly not the position of the Catholic church:
"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own"
I noticed that you glossed over the part of that wiki article which refers to exactly the concept that I was referring to:
and the reality of a single human ancestor (commonly called monogenism) for all of mankind.
Yes, the Catholic church accepts theistic evolution. No, the very specific doctrine of Christian monogenism(not the scientific idea of monogenism) is not supported by science.
This isn't true. Or, at least, it is not the whole story. The Catholic church certainly holds certain beliefs as foundational, regardless of the scientific merit. One of the major ones would be the belief that all of human kind was decended from a single man and woman(Catechism of the Catholic Church 390). They also declare certain events as bona fide miracles, regardless of the relative merits of the claims.
Well, it's like throwing pearls before swine, I suppose, but I'll answer anyway.
I intentionally point to the Greek Philosophers when debating that question. Why? Because they did not have the same hang up.
And they also had theistic baggage, in case you haven't noticed. Aristotle imbued his "prime mover" with intellect. Precisely the same trap that later philosophers like Aquinas fell into, leading to today when it is hobbling your thinking.
What you repeatedly state is that your belief is the only possible answer. To the point even where you claim that even asking the question is biased
Are you deliberately dense, or is this an act? A "creator" would be considered a valid avenue of exploration if there was ever evidence of it. Asserting its existence before acquiring that evidence is irrational and unscientific. But, of course, that answer doesn't fit with your stunted view of the universe, so it must be rejected.
That is a pretty deep bias you have
I'm sure it looks that way to you. The philosophical masturbation you engage in to prop up your "creator" belief is certain to cause you some problems understanding reality.
What are you talking about? Where in the big bang was the cause of the mass explained? I won't wait for you to answer, it was not there. But everyone teaching and writing on the big bang said "there is no creator because the big bang made the universe". We have the same with the expanding universe theory. There is no explanation for how the first piece of space came to exist.
If inflationary theory is true, there was never a "first piece of space." Indeed, outside of spacetime, the term doesn't even have meaning. This universe, along with every other "universe," is just a eternally replicating pattern of vacuum fluctuation. Funnily enough, you propose something similar for your "creator" and don't seem to have a problem of conceiving of an eternal mind which pops into existence. But when confronted with that idea on a cosmological scale, you suddenly start yammering. I suppose when you are biased towards looking for supernatural answers to the questions of the universe, such knee jerk reactions are to be expected.
Yet people giving presentations and writing books use the exact same rhetoric denying a creator. "Bully in the sky", "superstitious man in the sky", etc..
And you keep punting, punting, punting. Keep it up! It makes for amusing, if exasperating, reading. In the end, we are indeed asking similar questions. The difference is that you start with an a priori assumption that the rest of the world has reviewed, found wanting and rejected.
If the term creator conjures up images to you, that's not my issue but your issue. My use of the term is correct. At first you blamed the use on Theology, now you just don't like the term I guess.
No, I still blame it on your theology. If you can't see that the term "creator" signifies an active agent, especially in opposition of a term like "cause" which makes no initial assumption about the possible nature of an agent or system, then there is nothing more to be said on that matter.
I didn't claim there was a grand conspiracy, I stated that the actions were easily provable.
Let's review your claims:
If you want to make money in Cosmology you bash a creator.
Why did the Government remove critical thinking from schools over half a century ago and move to work based training?
Why are people paid to give speeches and presentations which push atheism?
Even though we proved that subliminal messaging works, and have proof that it's happening all the time in all forms of media you can deny it exists, or deny it has influence.
These are all classic hallmarks of conspiracy theories. Do you think that they are related? Who do you think is driving these disparate agents to act towards the same goal?
I specifically gave the answer to that.
No, you didn't. You asserted that it was wrong and based on a fallacy without pointing out which fallacy you thought it represented:
Your argument is plain old wrong and based on fallacy. We can not prove there is such a bubble.
First, lets be clear: Cosmology does not attempt to address the question required. "Did something cause the Universe to exist?"
Actually, it does. It's part of the very definition: Cosmology is the study of the origins and eventual fate of the universe.
Since that something is extremely complex the term used is normally, and historically, given as "Creator".
A term which is loaded with theistic baggage.
What cosmology teaches in fact, is to ignore the question and diminish the importance of the question. The inflation theory you posted, and the Big Bang theory taught as gospel for more than half a century never address the question.
Wrong. Cosmology addresses the question without theological baggage, taking the inquiry as far as it can go. And the answers they are finding conspicuously lack the need for a "creator."
It would be easy for a Cosmologist to say "Since we can't know with science we don't tackle the question, go see the Philosophers"
Like the atheistic philosophers? Or am I to assume that your taste in philosophy runs more classical than that?
What happens is that we have speeches about "The bully in the sky"
No, we have those because of the historical oddities of the JudeoChristianIslamic mythology and the behavior ascribed to that deity by the followers of those religions. A true "philosophers god" would be quite immune to such criticism. Tribal gods which are described as behaving in certain ways are certainly not immune to such criticism.
papers discounting theology mixed in to the cosmology
Which papers?
and a taught bias so that people never look at the question
Plenty of people look at the question. They just come up with an answer that you are not comfortable with.
I also admit that it is an opinion, and have stated several times that we can never prove what caused the Universe to exist. I'm not sure you would admit the same, and no I probably have not changed your mind either.
Oh, I quite agree that there may be a point at which science might be stymie
You start with a loaded question("is there a creator") without recognizing the fact that you are making a large assumption just by introducing a "creator" archtype into what you claim is the primordial question. Then you spend some time assuming conspiracy theories, since reality is not matching up with your ideas.
Why do people not believe anymore? It must be a grand conspiracy to brainwash them through college, the media, etc!
Why do cosmologists consistently reject the notion of creator gods? It must be a grand conspiracy to pay them to lie!
You quibble about my "space-time bubble" comment, but what about it do you disagree with? The space-time part? Or the bubble, by which I mean expansion? An expanding space-time universe is central to virtually all of modern cosmology, and so I stand by my comment. For the record, I'm not familiar with Krauss' claims, although I suspect that they are drawn from the same basic theory I believe is true. And, yes, you are punting the question. In fact, you fell into the very logical fallacy that you claim that I did: the Conjunction Fallacy. "The Universe" + "a Creator" is not more likely than "The Universe" alone. On top of that, you(and everyone else who holds your view) fail to give any explanation as to why it is more improbable that a universe simply exists than a fully functional intelligence with the capability to create universes simply exists. This is why what you propose is not science. It's not even good philosophy, because you claim:
We can trace that back to a point where we simply don't know anything else. That long chain reaction of events ends for us at the time the Universe came in to existence.
And yet you proceed to make groundless claims about a state which you claim "we simply don't know." Bad science and bad philosophy. Not a winning combination.
After reading your posts in the other threads, I don't think that this post will have changed your mind. Anyone who could honestly say that the only evidence of evolution is a bird beak is quite simply someone who has no interest in pursuing evidence. Whether you agree with the theory of evolution or not, making that claim is either astoundingly dishonest or an indication of breathtaking willful ignorance.
We know there was an initial event that started the Universe. That question is answered simply by our existence. Did a creator create the Universe or did it just happen is the question.
We know that this particular time-space bubble had a beginning. This says nothing about all of reality. You are just punting the question anyway. It is a groundless assertion to claim that this universe requires an explanation while a deity would not.
There is by definition a requirement for the creator (if you believe one exists) to be supernatural. Save the paradox and/or other subjects for a different thread. Go read the definition for supernatural. A creator does not have to fit a Theological definition, but must be within the definition of supernatural.
No, this is just your assertion, again caught up in your theological baggage. If this universe is caused by a natural event, then by definition there is no need for a supernatural explanation.
Finally, when it comes to assaulting the character of people that refuse to see what is plain to anyone that looks, I make no apologies.
What precisely is "plain to see?" Are you projecting your own mental blinders upon those that you argue with?
I'm well aware of numerous theologies and don't believe much of what they teach. I do however believe in a Creator, since the logic is easy to grasp.
The logic is flawed, based on groundless assertions and logical fallacies. People are not leaving your belief systems behind because they were brainwashed by college professors or the scary, scary media. They are leaving because it never made sense in the first place, and now the social and political pressures which would have previously kept dissent bottled up have lost their potency.
never ever go looking for answers to the real question: "Is there a creator?".
That question is biased. The proper question would be "what caused this?" Your question almost sets up a false dilemma(a creator god or nothing), and certainly betrays a predilection towards a supernatural answer.
Furthermore, you make a grave mistake by assuming that people suddenly turn atheist when they get to college. In most cases, those people were closet atheists already, having wrestled with those existential questions for much of their lives. It is only once they are in a heterogenous group which does not apply social pressure on religious issues that they are free to be who they were the whole time. Do you really think that the teachings of the average religious instutition are so weak that a professor grumbling about a "bully in the sky" would wash away a lifetime of religious indoctrination?
I also doubt that there is a lot of atheistic talk coming from said professors in the first place. I can say that in my own college career, I never ran across a professor(or even a teaching assistant) who professed any form of atheism(even in my studies of philosophy). The closest I could come would be the organismic biology instructor who argued for evolution as opposed to special creation.
Finally, when it comes to assaulting the character of your creator god, I make no apologies. I am well aware of the tortured theological excuses used to exonerate the JudeoChristian deity, and they don't stand up at all. I don't need to read Dawkins to find myself digusted by the evil acts of a supposedly omnibenevolent creator. I just have to crack open a holy book, and read it for myself.
Absolutely rare, not the normal. The majority of atheist are bigoted and won't learn about any theism. Just read/. for a while. The same stereotypes or childhood memories always repeat. Actual knowledge of Philosophy and theory do not exist.
I call bullshit. If you think that/. represents atheistic thought, then you are being willfully blind. Hit google for a moment, and you will find hundreds, if not thousands, of pages debunking theological concepts from virtually every religious tradition. Most of the "modern" theology I've read recently is just flabby rehashes of Aquinas, which fail for all the same reasons that his original proofs do. Hell, it's sad when the most interesting thing you've read in a while theology-wise is Plantiga's weak attempt at reviving the Ontological argument. And don't get me started on the rampant abuse of the term "quantum" by some philosophers(I use the term loosely) and theologians. I can't count the number of times some theist has popped onto a board I frequent and promised that if we just understood his "sophisticated theology" we would all be converted. This generally ends with "well, go and read this library of books" or "you just have to have faith" and the poster promptly disappearing for some site where they won't be held accountable for their claims. They never can seem to make their theology work when non-theists are observing it. Maybe it is just too "quantum"...
Answers in Genesis being cited as science. Sir, you win the Internet today for your hilarious...wait, you are serious? Jesus Christ, people get stupider every day...
If you were to accept that, why not accept also a God that always existed?
Lack of evidence. A "god" is a specific thing, with specific qualities(though the theists today are loathe to postulate any actualy measurable properties). Believing that there is "something" is a lot different from believing that there is "this thing."
The argument there gets a bit more complex, but you can get the basic point by looking at entropy. An unordered system is not likely to become ordered over time, and it cannot do so over an infinite time, which it would need to (it would eventually degenerate into a final stable state, unlike the universe we see around us with non-homogeneous elements).
You've already noted the primary problem with this argument: over time. Outside of this particular time-space bubble, please explain what entropy would even mean.
But, to your first point, God didn't create himself, he simply always was. Eternal uncreated existence is required.
Non sequitur. You haven't demonstrated that "eternal uncreated existence is required." Before you can make the claim "X always was," you first have to establish that "X is," or at the very least that "X was." Moreover, you are applying a loaded term("god") to a state about which you can generate no useful inference. I'll go into this more in the next section.
You can then argue that that thing has to be what theologians call "god" (which isn't particularly "human-like" except is certain very limited ways), but like I say, that is an argument in philosophy.
And this is where the cosmological proofs fail. It is simply a bad attempt at a bit of rhetorical slight of hand. There is no data to support the idea that anything which exists outside of our universe is in any way linked to the human concepts of "god." To attempt to link the two(or more, depending on intent) concepts is another non sequitur, when it is not downright deceptive
I would argue that most of the scientists you hear arguing for atheism have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, because they assume that if it exists in any way, it can be reached scientifically, and that anything that cannot be reached scientifically, cannot exist (that combined with their reluctance to trust the authority of anyone or anything they can't understand tends to lead them to atheism).
Anything that has no measurable effect on the universe is irrelevant to any discussion about the universe. None of the "supernatural" entities postulated by various human cultures have been demonstrated to have a measurable effect on the universe. If you can demonstrate such interference, you will gain the allegience of every honest skeptic. Until then, if you press your case sans evidence, then do no be surprised when you are relegated to the same bin as every other crank.
Furthermore, the general claims presented these days are not against some lofty "philosopher's god," but rather the very real organizations which are working towards their own social goals. And these organizations are virtually uniform in making concrete claims which are easily refutable. The moment the claim "god wants/will do X" is made, you have now stepped away from the shelter of ultimate ignorance and you'd better be able to support your claims.
You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
See above about your "god" comment. As for faith(in the religious sense; don't bother trying to conflate it with trust), I consider it to be odious and one of the worst afflictions of mankind. All too often, it is used to engender suffering and fear.
Referring to the Westboro as if it is even remotely representative of christianity is dishonest in the extreme. I (and a great many others) find what they do to be sinful and a denial of the values taught in the new and old testaments, all in the name of elevating "hatred of a particular sin" to their chief concern.
And yet it is funny that if I remove the whole "offending people by protesting funerals" element, there is very little to differentiate the Westboro group from the more strident strains of Fundamentalism which are quite common in the Bible Belt. I've even heard worst from Catholic priests and Lutheran ministers, and they are certainly not known for the eschatalogical flights of fancy that their Fundamentalist brethren are famous for. I truly wonder where you live in the US which is so free of this nastiness that you discount it. I've primarily lived in the South and the Midwest, and this is simply a fact of life. I currently live in a Midwest town with a population of a little less than 4,000. In that environment, we have one local Baptist church which is fighting a public battle over evolution. We have a homeschool group which teaches kids that Obama is the anti-Christ and that the world is ending any day now, so don't bother going to college to get your mind corrupted. We have several churches which teach about faith healing, and I have watched first hand the agony caused by a cancer sufferer who, in addition to dying a slow, painful death, was also plagued by the fact that she obviously lacked the faith to be healed, and was thus destined for hell. Several churches are quite vocal about the "harlot worshipping Papists," including a Spanish speaking Fundamentalist church made specifically to convert the local Latino population from Catholicism. We have churches which refused to work on the local "Council of Churches" because one church had a female pastor. How about the Catholic visionary who was invited by the priest to speak of her visions of Mary, complete with weeping statues, before announcing that this town had a mark on it, and she was to gather the faithful at a farm and they would be protected from the coming apocalypse. That would have had some interesting fallout if she hadn't keeled over from a heart attack after fleecing some money and buying the property. Or the passion plays, where a minister pointed at the bloody crucifix they were carrying around and yelled at the kids, "You did this! Every cut is there because of your sin! How dare you not be grateful to him?" I could go on for a long time in this vein. And the thing is, none of this raises an eyebrow. It's the same in the neighboring towns(and, in fact, is worse in some). It's been the same in every place I've ever lived. If you don't see this on a regular basis, then you are either living in a secular wonderland or you aren't paying attention.
I do agree that the Westboro people do not share in Old Testament values. The Old Testament commanded that gays be murdered, for example, not simply protested against.
And even so you acknowledge that what they do-- probably one of the most extreme examples-- is and should be lawful.
Of course. When did I say otherwise?
You can potentially see this in any echo chamber. Certainly I see "demonizing outgroups" even in forums like slashdot; did we not see people calling for the hurricane to wipe out the GOP convention back in august, some posters in full seriousness?
So, the takeaway message here is that I should expect the average Christian church to be no better than a random group of anonymous people on the Internet?
Yet from my experience, the worst of it is that if you walk away from your faith it will change the nature of your relationship with others of the church. I have seen it in my own church, and it is not what you claim it to be.
So you haven't seen families broken apart because of religious differences? I have. You haven't w
You are the one assuming that statement. Even Dawkins, whom so many are demonizing here, famously noted that he is only a 6.9 out of 7 when it comes to absolute certainty about the non-existence of a deity. If we are talking about "philosophically pure" statements here, then of course it fails. But, by that same token, every other statement about reality fails under those conditions.
There does not exist any test protocol by which said penis can be detected, thus no test protocol applied can provide a falsifiable result. The assertion that the penis does not exist, while lacking any means to verify that claim, is a lesson in applied faith, not science or logic.
No, it is a lesson in epistemology, namely the difference between the epistemological frameworks that you and I have. Lacking the barest evidence for such self-contradictory space genitalia, I would be completely unjustified in making the claim that it exists. Furthermore, I would be completely justified in disregarding such a claim prior to the presentation of evidence.
In the case of human deities, they fail on multiple levels. Where specific, nontrivial testable claims are made, they invariably fail. Non-testable claims are left unevaluated and disregarded of necessity. There is no room left for the gods of men.
The lack of belief in a particular deity would place agnostics and atheists under the same umbrella, which is not conserved in practice.
Agnostics assert that they cannot know if a deity exists or not. Without such knowledge, they cannot believe in the existence of such a being. (De-facto atheist.)
Um, you just said it. I would agree entirely that they are de facto atheists, whether they are inclined to accept the definition or not. Agnosticism is a different question from athiesm("do I believe in a god?" versus "can I know whether a god exists?").
The actual tenet of atheism is closer to the belief that no deity exists. That leap of faith is just as profound as the inverse. A true atheist has just as much faith in the non-existence of a deity as the theist does for that deity's existence. Both are not supportable with logic.
Nope. Substitute something completely silly for "god" and it becomes clear.
I believe in an intergalatic immaterial invisible purple penis which brought forth all life.
There is no logical support for it. It is entirely a fabrication I made up literally moments ago. It requires no "faith" at all for you to reject this claim.
Odd. Not sure why the link broke. But you found it, so good for you.
I assume you do not have any arguments or facts at this point.
Since you managed to get to the wiki page I was referencing, and yet blathered out this line, I'm going to assume that you are one of those will never figure out reality.
Since we don't have life yet, from where did the methane come?
Again, you can't even manage to read wiki? From that link:
Methane has been detected or is believed to exist in several locations of the solar system. In most cases, it is believed to have been created by abiotic processes.
See that "abiotic" bit? Methane can be produced without life. Your point fails immediately. But let's continue.
Currently scientists do not believe the atmosphere used in this experiment (methane, hydrogen, ammonia) is similar to the atmosphere of the early earth (carbon dioxide, nitrogen)
In fact, the idea is that the probable atmosphere was even MORE condusive to organic compound formation than Miller-Urey indicated:
More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules.
These same amino acids have been found meteorites. They are fairly common molecules.
Indeed. The fact that the basic components of life are "fairly common" is indicative of what, exactly? Because it certainly doesn't help your case.
Amino acids are a long ways from self replicating life and soot is even further.
They are far more closer to self replicating life than "random Canaanite blood god magically poofs life into existence."
NOT true. Dawkins doesnt say "I have no belief regarding deities", he makes an affirmative statement: "I believe there are no deities".
That is, its not a lack of belief, its an active belief.
No shit. The other poster made the point perfectly. Dawkins is claiming more than atheism. As am I. I believe that there is no god. I'll go further. I believe that a belief in god is a net evil for humanity. See, I am also antitheistic, in addition to being an atheist. Get your categories straight.
Wikipedia defines religion thus...
Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values
Certainly what Dawkins believes falls under that. He has beliefs about human spirituality, as shown by this very article.
Then everyone is religious, and the term is absolutely meaningless for anyone to use. Congratulations on your obfuscation.
Slashdot Mirror
"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own"
Humani Generis 37
and the reality of a single human ancestor (commonly called monogenism) for all of mankind.
Yes, the Catholic church accepts theistic evolution. No, the very specific doctrine of Christian monogenism(not the scientific idea of monogenism) is not supported by science.
This isn't true. Or, at least, it is not the whole story. The Catholic church certainly holds certain beliefs as foundational, regardless of the scientific merit. One of the major ones would be the belief that all of human kind was decended from a single man and woman(Catechism of the Catholic Church 390). They also declare certain events as bona fide miracles, regardless of the relative merits of the claims.
I intentionally point to the Greek Philosophers when debating that question. Why? Because they did not have the same hang up.
And they also had theistic baggage, in case you haven't noticed. Aristotle imbued his "prime mover" with intellect. Precisely the same trap that later philosophers like Aquinas fell into, leading to today when it is hobbling your thinking.
What you repeatedly state is that your belief is the only possible answer. To the point even where you claim that even asking the question is biased
Are you deliberately dense, or is this an act? A "creator" would be considered a valid avenue of exploration if there was ever evidence of it. Asserting its existence before acquiring that evidence is irrational and unscientific. But, of course, that answer doesn't fit with your stunted view of the universe, so it must be rejected.
That is a pretty deep bias you have
I'm sure it looks that way to you. The philosophical masturbation you engage in to prop up your "creator" belief is certain to cause you some problems understanding reality.
What are you talking about? Where in the big bang was the cause of the mass explained? I won't wait for you to answer, it was not there. But everyone teaching and writing on the big bang said "there is no creator because the big bang made the universe". We have the same with the expanding universe theory. There is no explanation for how the first piece of space came to exist.
If inflationary theory is true, there was never a "first piece of space." Indeed, outside of spacetime, the term doesn't even have meaning. This universe, along with every other "universe," is just a eternally replicating pattern of vacuum fluctuation. Funnily enough, you propose something similar for your "creator" and don't seem to have a problem of conceiving of an eternal mind which pops into existence. But when confronted with that idea on a cosmological scale, you suddenly start yammering. I suppose when you are biased towards looking for supernatural answers to the questions of the universe, such knee jerk reactions are to be expected.
Yet people giving presentations and writing books use the exact same rhetoric denying a creator. "Bully in the sky", "superstitious man in the sky", etc..
And you keep punting, punting, punting. Keep it up! It makes for amusing, if exasperating, reading. In the end, we are indeed asking similar questions. The difference is that you start with an a priori assumption that the rest of the world has reviewed, found wanting and rejected.
You are right. There is no point talking to you.
If the term creator conjures up images to you, that's not my issue but your issue. My use of the term is correct. At first you blamed the use on Theology, now you just don't like the term I guess.
No, I still blame it on your theology. If you can't see that the term "creator" signifies an active agent, especially in opposition of a term like "cause" which makes no initial assumption about the possible nature of an agent or system, then there is nothing more to be said on that matter.
I didn't claim there was a grand conspiracy, I stated that the actions were easily provable.
Let's review your claims:
If you want to make money in Cosmology you bash a creator.
Why did the Government remove critical thinking from schools over half a century ago and move to work based training?
Why are people paid to give speeches and presentations which push atheism?
Even though we proved that subliminal messaging works, and have proof that it's happening all the time in all forms of media you can deny it exists, or deny it has influence.
These are all classic hallmarks of conspiracy theories. Do you think that they are related? Who do you think is driving these disparate agents to act towards the same goal?
I specifically gave the answer to that.
No, you didn't. You asserted that it was wrong and based on a fallacy without pointing out which fallacy you thought it represented:
Your argument is plain old wrong and based on fallacy. We can not prove there is such a bubble.
First, lets be clear: Cosmology does not attempt to address the question required. "Did something cause the Universe to exist?"
Actually, it does. It's part of the very definition: Cosmology is the study of the origins and eventual fate of the universe.
Since that something is extremely complex the term used is normally, and historically, given as "Creator".
A term which is loaded with theistic baggage.
What cosmology teaches in fact, is to ignore the question and diminish the importance of the question. The inflation theory you posted, and the Big Bang theory taught as gospel for more than half a century never address the question.
Wrong. Cosmology addresses the question without theological baggage, taking the inquiry as far as it can go. And the answers they are finding conspicuously lack the need for a "creator."
It would be easy for a Cosmologist to say "Since we can't know with science we don't tackle the question, go see the Philosophers"
Like the atheistic philosophers? Or am I to assume that your taste in philosophy runs more classical than that?
What happens is that we have speeches about "The bully in the sky"
No, we have those because of the historical oddities of the JudeoChristianIslamic mythology and the behavior ascribed to that deity by the followers of those religions. A true "philosophers god" would be quite immune to such criticism. Tribal gods which are described as behaving in certain ways are certainly not immune to such criticism.
papers discounting theology mixed in to the cosmology
Which papers?
and a taught bias so that people never look at the question
Plenty of people look at the question. They just come up with an answer that you are not comfortable with.
I also admit that it is an opinion, and have stated several times that we can never prove what caused the Universe to exist. I'm not sure you would admit the same, and no I probably have not changed your mind either.
Oh, I quite agree that there may be a point at which science might be stymie
You start with a loaded question("is there a creator") without recognizing the fact that you are making a large assumption just by introducing a "creator" archtype into what you claim is the primordial question. Then you spend some time assuming conspiracy theories, since reality is not matching up with your ideas.
Why do people not believe anymore? It must be a grand conspiracy to brainwash them through college, the media, etc!
Why do cosmologists consistently reject the notion of creator gods? It must be a grand conspiracy to pay them to lie!
You quibble about my "space-time bubble" comment, but what about it do you disagree with? The space-time part? Or the bubble, by which I mean expansion? An expanding space-time universe is central to virtually all of modern cosmology, and so I stand by my comment. For the record, I'm not familiar with Krauss' claims, although I suspect that they are drawn from the same basic theory I believe is true.
And, yes, you are punting the question. In fact, you fell into the very logical fallacy that you claim that I did: the Conjunction Fallacy. "The Universe" + "a Creator" is not more likely than "The Universe" alone. On top of that, you(and everyone else who holds your view) fail to give any explanation as to why it is more improbable that a universe simply exists than a fully functional intelligence with the capability to create universes simply exists. This is why what you propose is not science. It's not even good philosophy, because you claim:
We can trace that back to a point where we simply don't know anything else. That long chain reaction of events ends for us at the time the Universe came in to existence.
And yet you proceed to make groundless claims about a state which you claim "we simply don't know." Bad science and bad philosophy. Not a winning combination.
After reading your posts in the other threads, I don't think that this post will have changed your mind. Anyone who could honestly say that the only evidence of evolution is a bird beak is quite simply someone who has no interest in pursuing evidence. Whether you agree with the theory of evolution or not, making that claim is either astoundingly dishonest or an indication of breathtaking willful ignorance.
There is no intentional bias in the question.
It is rarely the case that bias is intentional.
We know there was an initial event that started the Universe. That question is answered simply by our existence. Did a creator create the Universe or did it just happen is the question.
We know that this particular time-space bubble had a beginning. This says nothing about all of reality. You are just punting the question anyway. It is a groundless assertion to claim that this universe requires an explanation while a deity would not.
There is by definition a requirement for the creator (if you believe one exists) to be supernatural. Save the paradox and/or other subjects for a different thread. Go read the definition for supernatural. A creator does not have to fit a Theological definition, but must be within the definition of supernatural.
No, this is just your assertion, again caught up in your theological baggage. If this universe is caused by a natural event, then by definition there is no need for a supernatural explanation.
Finally, when it comes to assaulting the character of people that refuse to see what is plain to anyone that looks, I make no apologies.
What precisely is "plain to see?" Are you projecting your own mental blinders upon those that you argue with?
I'm well aware of numerous theologies and don't believe much of what they teach. I do however believe in a Creator, since the logic is easy to grasp.
The logic is flawed, based on groundless assertions and logical fallacies. People are not leaving your belief systems behind because they were brainwashed by college professors or the scary, scary media. They are leaving because it never made sense in the first place, and now the social and political pressures which would have previously kept dissent bottled up have lost their potency.
never ever go looking for answers to the real question: "Is there a creator?".
That question is biased. The proper question would be "what caused this?" Your question almost sets up a false dilemma(a creator god or nothing), and certainly betrays a predilection towards a supernatural answer.
Furthermore, you make a grave mistake by assuming that people suddenly turn atheist when they get to college. In most cases, those people were closet atheists already, having wrestled with those existential questions for much of their lives. It is only once they are in a heterogenous group which does not apply social pressure on religious issues that they are free to be who they were the whole time. Do you really think that the teachings of the average religious instutition are so weak that a professor grumbling about a "bully in the sky" would wash away a lifetime of religious indoctrination?
I also doubt that there is a lot of atheistic talk coming from said professors in the first place. I can say that in my own college career, I never ran across a professor(or even a teaching assistant) who professed any form of atheism(even in my studies of philosophy). The closest I could come would be the organismic biology instructor who argued for evolution as opposed to special creation.
Finally, when it comes to assaulting the character of your creator god, I make no apologies. I am well aware of the tortured theological excuses used to exonerate the JudeoChristian deity, and they don't stand up at all. I don't need to read Dawkins to find myself digusted by the evil acts of a supposedly omnibenevolent creator. I just have to crack open a holy book, and read it for myself.
Absolutely rare, not the normal. The majority of atheist are bigoted and won't learn about any theism. Just read /. for a while. The same stereotypes or childhood memories always repeat. Actual knowledge of Philosophy and theory do not exist.
I call bullshit. If you think that /. represents atheistic thought, then you are being willfully blind. Hit google for a moment, and you will find hundreds, if not thousands, of pages debunking theological concepts from virtually every religious tradition. Most of the "modern" theology I've read recently is just flabby rehashes of Aquinas, which fail for all the same reasons that his original proofs do. Hell, it's sad when the most interesting thing you've read in a while theology-wise is Plantiga's weak attempt at reviving the Ontological argument. And don't get me started on the rampant abuse of the term "quantum" by some philosophers(I use the term loosely) and theologians. I can't count the number of times some theist has popped onto a board I frequent and promised that if we just understood his "sophisticated theology" we would all be converted. This generally ends with "well, go and read this library of books" or "you just have to have faith" and the poster promptly disappearing for some site where they won't be held accountable for their claims. They never can seem to make their theology work when non-theists are observing it. Maybe it is just too "quantum"...
Well, does this make you feel older or younger?
If you really want to hear the original, here it is.
Brent is exactly correct here: http://pvponline.com/comic/2008/12/08/they-love-the-80s/
It's not legal even then. Go look up the Dover trial.
Upon hearing this, Bobby Jindal and Sam Brownback both started looking for ways to implement this in their states.
Answers in Genesis being cited as science. Sir, you win the Internet today for your hilarious...wait, you are serious? Jesus Christ, people get stupider every day...
Do you have a reason for supposing that nothing is a default state instead of something?
If you were to accept that, why not accept also a God that always existed?
Lack of evidence. A "god" is a specific thing, with specific qualities(though the theists today are loathe to postulate any actualy measurable properties). Believing that there is "something" is a lot different from believing that there is "this thing."
The argument there gets a bit more complex, but you can get the basic point by looking at entropy. An unordered system is not likely to become ordered over time, and it cannot do so over an infinite time, which it would need to (it would eventually degenerate into a final stable state, unlike the universe we see around us with non-homogeneous elements).
You've already noted the primary problem with this argument: over time. Outside of this particular time-space bubble, please explain what entropy would even mean.
But, to your first point, God didn't create himself, he simply always was. Eternal uncreated existence is required.
Non sequitur. You haven't demonstrated that "eternal uncreated existence is required." Before you can make the claim "X always was," you first have to establish that "X is," or at the very least that "X was." Moreover, you are applying a loaded term("god") to a state about which you can generate no useful inference. I'll go into this more in the next section.
You can then argue that that thing has to be what theologians call "god" (which isn't particularly "human-like" except is certain very limited ways), but like I say, that is an argument in philosophy.
And this is where the cosmological proofs fail. It is simply a bad attempt at a bit of rhetorical slight of hand. There is no data to support the idea that anything which exists outside of our universe is in any way linked to the human concepts of "god." To attempt to link the two(or more, depending on intent) concepts is another non sequitur, when it is not downright deceptive
I would argue that most of the scientists you hear arguing for atheism have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, because they assume that if it exists in any way, it can be reached scientifically, and that anything that cannot be reached scientifically, cannot exist (that combined with their reluctance to trust the authority of anyone or anything they can't understand tends to lead them to atheism).
Anything that has no measurable effect on the universe is irrelevant to any discussion about the universe. None of the "supernatural" entities postulated by various human cultures have been demonstrated to have a measurable effect on the universe. If you can demonstrate such interference, you will gain the allegience of every honest skeptic. Until then, if you press your case sans evidence, then do no be surprised when you are relegated to the same bin as every other crank.
Furthermore, the general claims presented these days are not against some lofty "philosopher's god," but rather the very real organizations which are working towards their own social goals. And these organizations are virtually uniform in making concrete claims which are easily refutable. The moment the claim "god wants/will do X" is made, you have now stepped away from the shelter of ultimate ignorance and you'd better be able to support your claims.
You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
See above about your "god" comment. As for faith(in the religious sense; don't bother trying to conflate it with trust), I consider it to be odious and one of the worst afflictions of mankind. All too often, it is used to engender suffering and fear.
I don't know why men can't grow full beards. I have had one since I was 17.
Maybe because they don't want to? Why is the facial hair configuration of someone else even an issue for you?
Referring to the Westboro as if it is even remotely representative of christianity is dishonest in the extreme. I (and a great many others) find what they do to be sinful and a denial of the values taught in the new and old testaments, all in the name of elevating "hatred of a particular sin" to their chief concern.
And yet it is funny that if I remove the whole "offending people by protesting funerals" element, there is very little to differentiate the Westboro group from the more strident strains of Fundamentalism which are quite common in the Bible Belt. I've even heard worst from Catholic priests and Lutheran ministers, and they are certainly not known for the eschatalogical flights of fancy that their Fundamentalist brethren are famous for. I truly wonder where you live in the US which is so free of this nastiness that you discount it. I've primarily lived in the South and the Midwest, and this is simply a fact of life. I currently live in a Midwest town with a population of a little less than 4,000. In that environment, we have one local Baptist church which is fighting a public battle over evolution. We have a homeschool group which teaches kids that Obama is the anti-Christ and that the world is ending any day now, so don't bother going to college to get your mind corrupted. We have several churches which teach about faith healing, and I have watched first hand the agony caused by a cancer sufferer who, in addition to dying a slow, painful death, was also plagued by the fact that she obviously lacked the faith to be healed, and was thus destined for hell. Several churches are quite vocal about the "harlot worshipping Papists," including a Spanish speaking Fundamentalist church made specifically to convert the local Latino population from Catholicism. We have churches which refused to work on the local "Council of Churches" because one church had a female pastor. How about the Catholic visionary who was invited by the priest to speak of her visions of Mary, complete with weeping statues, before announcing that this town had a mark on it, and she was to gather the faithful at a farm and they would be protected from the coming apocalypse. That would have had some interesting fallout if she hadn't keeled over from a heart attack after fleecing some money and buying the property. Or the passion plays, where a minister pointed at the bloody crucifix they were carrying around and yelled at the kids, "You did this! Every cut is there because of your sin! How dare you not be grateful to him?" I could go on for a long time in this vein. And the thing is, none of this raises an eyebrow. It's the same in the neighboring towns(and, in fact, is worse in some). It's been the same in every place I've ever lived. If you don't see this on a regular basis, then you are either living in a secular wonderland or you aren't paying attention.
I do agree that the Westboro people do not share in Old Testament values. The Old Testament commanded that gays be murdered, for example, not simply protested against.
And even so you acknowledge that what they do-- probably one of the most extreme examples-- is and should be lawful.
Of course. When did I say otherwise?
You can potentially see this in any echo chamber. Certainly I see "demonizing outgroups" even in forums like slashdot; did we not see people calling for the hurricane to wipe out the GOP convention back in august, some posters in full seriousness?
So, the takeaway message here is that I should expect the average Christian church to be no better than a random group of anonymous people on the Internet?
Yet from my experience, the worst of it is that if you walk away from your faith it will change the nature of your relationship with others of the church. I have seen it in my own church, and it is not what you claim it to be.
So you haven't seen families broken apart because of religious differences? I have. You haven't w
I apologize profusely! If I say 15 "Hail Peni" can I still be forgiven?
The leap of faith is "Since it does not exist."
You are the one assuming that statement. Even Dawkins, whom so many are demonizing here, famously noted that he is only a 6.9 out of 7 when it comes to absolute certainty about the non-existence of a deity. If we are talking about "philosophically pure" statements here, then of course it fails. But, by that same token, every other statement about reality fails under those conditions.
There does not exist any test protocol by which said penis can be detected, thus no test protocol applied can provide a falsifiable result. The assertion that the penis does not exist, while lacking any means to verify that claim, is a lesson in applied faith, not science or logic.
No, it is a lesson in epistemology, namely the difference between the epistemological frameworks that you and I have. Lacking the barest evidence for such self-contradictory space genitalia, I would be completely unjustified in making the claim that it exists. Furthermore, I would be completely justified in disregarding such a claim prior to the presentation of evidence.
In the case of human deities, they fail on multiple levels. Where specific, nontrivial testable claims are made, they invariably fail. Non-testable claims are left unevaluated and disregarded of necessity. There is no room left for the gods of men.
Careful there.
The lack of belief in a particular deity would place agnostics and atheists under the same umbrella, which is not conserved in practice.
Agnostics assert that they cannot know if a deity exists or not. Without such knowledge, they cannot believe in the existence of such a being. (De-facto atheist.)
Um, you just said it. I would agree entirely that they are de facto atheists, whether they are inclined to accept the definition or not. Agnosticism is a different question from athiesm("do I believe in a god?" versus "can I know whether a god exists?").
The actual tenet of atheism is closer to the belief that no deity exists. That leap of faith is just as profound as the inverse. A true atheist has just as much faith in the non-existence of a deity as the theist does for that deity's existence. Both are not supportable with logic.
Nope. Substitute something completely silly for "god" and it becomes clear.
I believe in an intergalatic immaterial invisible purple penis which brought forth all life.
There is no logical support for it. It is entirely a fabrication I made up literally moments ago. It requires no "faith" at all for you to reject this claim.
I assume you do not have any arguments or facts at this point.
Since you managed to get to the wiki page I was referencing, and yet blathered out this line, I'm going to assume that you are one of those will never figure out reality.
Since we don't have life yet, from where did the methane come?
Again, you can't even manage to read wiki? From that link:
Methane has been detected or is believed to exist in several locations of the solar system. In most cases, it is believed to have been created by abiotic processes.
See that "abiotic" bit? Methane can be produced without life. Your point fails immediately. But let's continue.
Currently scientists do not believe the atmosphere used in this experiment (methane, hydrogen, ammonia) is similar to the atmosphere of the early earth (carbon dioxide, nitrogen)
In fact, the idea is that the probable atmosphere was even MORE condusive to organic compound formation than Miller-Urey indicated:
More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules.
These same amino acids have been found meteorites. They are fairly common molecules.
Indeed. The fact that the basic components of life are "fairly common" is indicative of what, exactly? Because it certainly doesn't help your case.
Amino acids are a long ways from self replicating life and soot is even further.
They are far more closer to self replicating life than "random Canaanite blood god magically poofs life into existence."
NOT true. Dawkins doesnt say "I have no belief regarding deities", he makes an affirmative statement: "I believe there are no deities".
That is, its not a lack of belief, its an active belief.
No shit. The other poster made the point perfectly. Dawkins is claiming more than atheism. As am I. I believe that there is no god. I'll go further. I believe that a belief in god is a net evil for humanity. See, I am also antitheistic, in addition to being an atheist. Get your categories straight.
Wikipedia defines religion thus... Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values
Certainly what Dawkins believes falls under that. He has beliefs about human spirituality, as shown by this very article.
Then everyone is religious, and the term is absolutely meaningless for anyone to use. Congratulations on your obfuscation.