Another Nail In The Coffin Of Religious Creation Myths?

[BvBPL]

I'm pretty sure your apparently grasp of the current state of the science of cosmology would not be perceived by the actual researchers as being accurate.

Setting aside any grammatical errors in the above, I hasten to point out that an archeological finding has little to say about cosmology. In fact, attempting to shoehorn a cosmological conclusion from archeological evidence is an example of an appeal to an irrelevant authority.

Moderator Action: Grammar and spelling police are frowned upon. Warned for several such posts in this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, I don't think there is any doubt about that.

What I don't get though is why they won't admit why they are so offended about merely discussing their own religion.

I dunno, man. You'd think that challenging their beliefs might kinda, you know, offend them? Yeah? Maybe? Yelling "HELL YEAH, SCIENCE! TAKE THIS, YOU BLOODY BASTARDS STUCK IN THE DARK AGES!" might possibly, maybe, slightly, offend them?

Give it a thought.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I don't think there is any doubt about that.

What I don't get though is why they won't admit why they are so offended about merely discussing their own religion, especially parts which they claim are "bedtime stories".

I'm actually not offended by conversations, I just have no use for people who consistently provide nothing but attempts to offend, then cry their little eyes out about being "personally attacked."

 

[Formaldehyde]

I dunno, man. You'd think that challenging their beliefs might kinda, you know, offend them? Yeah? Maybe? Yelling "HELL YEAH, SCIENCE! TAKE THIS, YOU BLOODY BASTARDS STUCK IN THE DARK AGES!" might possibly, maybe, slightly, offend them?

Give it a thought.

Only that is obviously not what I'm stating at all. You would have to see this through the eyes of the most narrow-minded people imaginable to perceive it that way.

Again, the only person whining so vociferously about this thread doesn't appear to even believe the creation myth as presented in the Bible.

The only person who has even tried to discuss the matter in that light is Berzerker, and he obviously doesn't perceive it that way. He's willing to discuss just about anything in a calm and rational manner, as he has clearly done here.

No, this is just another ludicrous attempt to derail the thread through a variety of different means other than actually discussing the topic.

 

[Archbob]

I'm pretty sure your apparently grasp of the current state of the science of cosmology would not be perceived by the actual researchers as being accurate.

Physics professors actually get extremely preachy and start sounding like religious preacher when they talk about the Big time or what caused it because they honestly don't really know anything about it.

Take this link for example:

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/...e-because-there-was-no-time-for-him-to-do-so/

Ignore the part after "Must causes precede their effects in time?" because that is the guy's own reasoning and not Hawking's interview or logic.

He argues that God could not have created the Universe because there was no time in which God could have done so. Basically that time didn't exist so God had no time to create a universe. But by the same logic, the Universe should not have had time to create itself but yet the Big Bang says they Universe came to be in a single point in time. That is a logical contradiction if time itself does not exist. The universe should not have had the "time" to come into being. Really, none of us or anything should exist in reality(surprisingly this was another theory I read in Scientific American by another Physicist, who, you guessed it, pulled it out of his ass).

 

[gay_Aleks]

OT's a wide place, and there's place for everyone and everything.

(Exceptions being: Republicans, blacks, racists, confederate apologisers, etc etc)

 

[Berzerker]

Berzerker is an ancient astronaut enthusiast. Engaging him on the Genesis creation story will get you only slightly further than with a YEC.

I dont recall you engaging me in a debate about the creation story in Genesis, do you have a link to your effort? Other than following me around to warn people to avoid debates all I see from you are insults.

Thanks for the warning.

It was a personal attack, you dont like them...remember?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Only that is obviously not what I'm stating at all. You would have to see this through the eyes of the most narrow-minded people imaginable to perceive it that way.

Though if it didn't actually take "the most narrow minded people imaginable" it could account for the apparently widespread "personally attack Formy" movement.

Just in case you have yet to recognize what the common element in all these "personal attacks" on you that you complain about is.

By the way, I think the people you are complaining about do a pretty good job of disputing your positions without getting personal, despite you being clearly wont to do so yourself.

 

[Arakhor]

Archbob, I think you might be confusing the common notion of the passage of time with the concept of time-space. We only notice time by the inevitable decline of all things into disorder, whether that's hunger, sleep, leaves falling, trousers fraying or what-have-you. If every point in space is already at maximum entropy, there would be no way to indicate that time is passing or, indeed, anyone to notice that, but that does not at all mean that the universal hourglass has been flipped on its side.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm trying to derail your thread about creation myths by talking about creation myths?

After some extended observation I have concluded that anything that does not fully support Formy's views on creation myths will be condemned as attempts at "derailing the thread." Basically, anything other than "wow Formy, we are so blessed to have you informing us" doesn't make the cut.

Meanwhile...ancient astronauts? Cool stuff. I read Chariots of the Gods when it was new, but it seemed like after that a lot of people just jumped on the bandwagon and plowed out some fairly thoughtless books.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Archbob, I think you might be confusing the common notion of the passage of time with the concept of time-space. We only notice time by the inevitable decline of all things into disorder, whether that's hunger, sleep, leaves falling, trousers fraying or what-have-you. If every point in space is already at maximum entropy, there would be no way to indicate that time is passing or, indeed, anyone to notice that, but that does not at all mean that the universal hourglass has been flipped on its side.

I think that's a huge overstatement. The objective universe provides a staggering number of cyclic phenomena that, while they may ultimately be processes leading into a distant disorder, provide plenty of fuel for noticing the passage of time without any consideration of entropy at all.

 

[Arakhor]

I dont recall you engaging me in a debate about the creation story in Genesis, do you have a link to your effort? Other than following me around to warn people to avoid debates all I see from you are insults.

Please don't flatter yourself that I'm following you around, but I'm sure that if you do a forum search for "Enuma Elish" or something of that ilk, you'll turn up at least one thread in which you and I discuss your views. Besides which, I hardly think that it's insulting to say that you're an ancient astronaut enthusiast, because that is where you're coming from, right? If so, it's usually fair to tell people if you are arguing from an entirely different premise as everyone else.

 

[tetley]

Really, none of us or anything should exist in reality(surprisingly this was another theory I read in Scientific American by another Physicist, who, you guessed it, pulled it out of his ass).

That's it right there. All this "intelligent" theorizing and reasoning, yet arguing what God can or cannot do is about as preposterous as a cricket arguing with me about my 401k allocation. It's pure-and-simple scientific method:

Theory: a cause must precede every effect.
Corollary: that means none of us or even God can exist.
Experimental data says yes, we do.
Conclusion: the theory is wrong.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Physics professors actually get extremely preachy and start sounding like religious preacher when they talk about the Big time or what caused it because they honestly don't really know anything about it.

Take this link for example:.

This is conflating Stephen Hawking's personal views with those where he is an acknowledged expert in his field.

The problem with science isn't so much what is being investigated by scientists as it is for those who aren't scientists who are intimately familiar with that particular field to try to come to grasp with the intricacies of the field.

He argues that God could not have created the Universe because there was no time in which God could have done so. Basically that time didn't exist so God had no time to create a universe. But by the same logic, the Universe should not have had time to create itself but yet the Big Bang says they Universe came to be in a single point in time. That is a logical contradiction if time itself does not exist. The universe should not have had the "time" to come into being. Really, none of us or anything should exist in reality(surprisingly this was another theory I read in Scientific American by another Physicist, who, you guessed it, pulled it out of his ass).

Again, this isn't science at all. The existence or non-existence of a god has no place in the subject. The author of the article you posted is trying to mix apples and oranges.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was a personal attack, you dont like them...remember?

Sorry. I didn't realize those were not your beliefs. But getting back to this "companion" you mentioned previously. Who are you suggesting it was?

 

[Archbob]

Again, this isn't science at all. The existence or non-existence of a god has no place in the subject. The author of the article you posted is trying to mix apples and oranges.

The point is, you don't actually have a theory that is more logical or with any more proof than any creation myth when it comes to the subject of creation because the scientific explanation and theory of creation isn't really logical or reasonable at all. According to its own logic, we should even exist so its laughable that you would say that any religion's creation myth is "illogical" or "has no evidence".

Archbob, I think you might be confusing the common notion of the passage of time with the concept of time-space. We only notice time by the inevitable decline of all things into disorder, whether that's hunger, sleep, leaves falling, trousers fraying or what-have-you. If every point in space is already at maximum entropy, there would be no way to indicate that time is passing or, indeed, anyone to notice that, but that does not at all mean that the universal hourglass has been flipped on its side.

Not really. The whole concept of space-time didn't really exist as a whole until after the Big Bang. Hawking argues against the concept of God creating the Universe by saying that God could not have created the universe because there was no time for him to do so before the Universe came into being.

 

[Berzerker]

After some extended observation I have concluded that anything that does not fully support Formy's views on creation myths will be condemned as attempts at "derailing the thread." Basically, anything other than "wow Formy, we are so blessed to have you informing us" doesn't make the cut.

Meanwhile...ancient astronauts? Cool stuff. I read Chariots of the Gods when it was new, but it seemed like after that a lot of people just jumped on the bandwagon and plowed out some fairly thoughtless books.

I had to edit that out of my post, wasn't sure if Forma was accusing me of derailing his thread.
I read Chariots of the Gods but it was Zecharia Sitchin's "The 12th Planet" that got me thinking, his interpretation of the Enuma Elish (Babylonian Epic of Creation) was a mind blower.

So now I dont know what to believe, I'm open to the ancient astronaut theory until I find evidence to the contrary. I'm still looking... But I used to at the Bible, mainly Genesis - mythic time.

Sitchin taught me how to read it and the science supports the idea of a dark, water covered world before life and landmasses. Thats what Genesis says and so do most of the world's creation myths.

 

[Arakhor]

Not really. The whole concept of space-time didn't really exist as a whole until after the Big Bang. Hawking argues against the concept of God creating the Universe by saying that God could not have created the universe because there was no time for him to do so before the Universe came into being.

Well, if God is an unfalsifiable entity who exists outside of space-time, that wouldn't be difficult to discount, as if we assume that God was the Prime Mover, fiat lux and all that, expecting him to conform to post-Big Bang physics seems to be somewhat pointless.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The point is, you don't actually have a theory that is more logical or with any more proof than any creation myth when it comes to the subject of creation because the scientific explanation and theory of creation isn't really logical or reasonable at all. According to its own logic, we should even exist so its laughable that you would say that any religion's creation myth is "illogical" or "has no evidence"..

I never claimed to have my own "theory". But I think the creation myths are just that, and that includes the one found in Genesis.

Is there more work that needs to be done in cosmology? No doubt there is. I'm sure Stephen Hawking and any other cosmologist would readily admit that. But I also think the work which has been done is scientifically sound given that they are trying to explain and understand events that occurred nearly 14 billion years ago. Suffice to say, this isn't a field with a plethora of empirical data to make it much easier.

It may eventually turn out the Big Bang theory was completely wrong. Or it may need to be considerably tweaked to incorporate future discoveries. But that's how science works.

And you made it look like the next part was written by me when it clearly wasn't...

 

[Formaldehyde]

I had to edit that out of my post, wasn't sure if Forma was accusing me of derailing his thread.

That is because I obviously wasn't. I even referred to your quite level-headed discussion in a post above as an example of just the opposite.

But notice what sort of nonsensical response it provoked!

But you still haven't responded to your previous comment about a "companion" that I have now asked you about 3 different times.

Well, if God is an unfalsifiable entity who exists outside of space-time, that wouldn't be difficult to discount, as if we assume that God was the Prime Mover, fiat lux and all that, expecting him to conform to post-Big Bang physics seems to be somewhat pointless.

Hawking thinks he has explained how the universe could start from nothingness. That is why he has made his comment about there being no god. It remains to be seen if his theory holds up.