I also believed that God-belief was childish at one time but I changed my mind.
The Big Bang theory is about the development of the universe from a point when it was very small. It does not say anything about what happened before a certain point. Many people have the misconception that it proves the universe had a beginning (or shows that it probably did). The truth is that we just don’t know. I suggest you spend some time researching what the Big Bang theory really says. This (talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#bigbang) might be a good place to start. Anyone can claim that a theory proves something. I could claim that the Quantum Refractory Theory of Hyperspace Dynamics proves that God is impossible. But if you want to have a meaningful, as opposed to merely rhetorical, discussion with someone, it’s good to know what the theories you reference actually say. By the way, I know that your intentions are good and it’s a common mistake, so I don’t blame you for it.
False. I have read papers by many cosmologists who would disagree with this statement. Merely asserting that the scientific evidence points in one direction does not make it so.
They aren’t mere speculations. If many of the theories of what happened before Planck time have an eternal universe, then I see no reason to rule that out. If the universe could easily have been infinite, then the finiteness of the universe is definitely not evidence of God. I never said that we should completely rule out the possibility of some form of creator. I just don’t think we should make any major assumptions unless we have a reason for making them.
Scientists make estimates of things. Since we have no idea what the likelihood of a universe with certain conditions is, any estimate of the odds is basically a guess. From the articles I’ve read, scientists acknowledge that they just don’t know.
No, what I was asking for is some scientific knowledge or evidence that backs up your argument. The Big Bang theory does not provide evidence either way. Quotes from a handful of physicists who disagree with the scientific consensus is not evidence. If you present Hoyle’s argument for how he got the numbers he did, I will look at whether he does a good job of justifying his claims. But I do not find arguments from authority convincing when those authorities seem to be going against what most experts are saying. And even if the experts were very narrowly divided, this would still only show that we were unsure of whether the universe had a beginning. In order to provide evidence of God, you would have to show that the universe could not have been eternal, and could not have been finite, absent a supernatural creator.
I’m familiar with it (or something similar). It’s just not valid. In your example, every single number n would have a proximate cause (n+1). And I have no idea what you mean when you say that in the end, the equation is zero. If you do a better job of explaining your step by step argument, I can point out where you go wrong.
But knowledge of only a limited amount of time is no reason to conclude that there must have been a creator at that point in time.
I agree. I hope you’ll stop.
I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility of something supernatural. I think that when you speculate on something existing without any evidence, the probability that you will be right is less than 50%. Especially when you start adding all the properties to God that Catholics believe he has, the probability of that God existing is infinitesimally small.
You have not presented evidence that the universe is finite. You have also not presented evidence that there must be an uncaused cause.
It depends on what is meant by universe. There is no accepted belief that the natural world originated in the Big Bang.
You’re free to have your own opinion of what the Big Bang theory means. But when it contradicts the scientific community’s view of it, you cannot possibly expect people to accept your word over theirs. Before Planck time, all of our laws of physics break down. We have good reason to expect that things would behave differently. Just as Newtonian physics no longer applies when things are moving extremely fast, quantum physics no longer applies before Planck time, and we do not know whether the universe would continue to contract if you went back in time, or if it would start expending.
I’ve heard versions of the argument before, and they all seem to make unreasonable assumptions. If you present your argument more thoroughly, stating your assumptions, and what follows from those, we can talk about where our disagreement lies.
Based on everything I’ve seen, I think atheism is probably true.
I am merely pointing out that your interpretation is incorrect. The version of it that scientists say we have evidence for only says what happens after Planck time. You are making the claim that the Big Bang theory says something different than what I have read that it says, and trying to use your interpretation as evidence of God. In order to do this, you must show that we have evidence for your version of the Big Bang theory.
I do not think we should ever try to debunk solid science with speculation. However, in some cases, I think speculation is appropriate. If my friend prayed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that he would win the lottery, and then won the lottery, I would not see this as good evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. I imagine that something like that would also not cause you to give up Catholicism. Even though it may be speculation to say that perhaps he only won the lottery by chance, I think that given the complete lack of any other evidence that would cause us to take the existence of the Flying Spaghetti monster seriously, it would take more than just a lottery win (even if the only alternatives were speculative, such as winning by chance or it being fixed) to convince us that he exists.
Do you want scientific proof for God? I can provide it. If I do, will you accept?
If the proof’s valid, of course I’ll accept it.
But there are people of all different religions who claim that their God performed miracles. I see no reason to think that such miracles happen. It seems more likely that things that people think are miracles actually weren’t. For example, someone who had a one in a million chance of surviving his disease but did, or someone who won the lottery, might think that it was a miracle. But some people will inevitably survive despite long odds, or win the lottery regardless of whether miracles exist.
I have no medical experience, so I don’t know what percent of handicapped people end up being able to walk or what people who are blind regain their eyesight (though if you have proven examples of these happening I will investigate them further). I think the best way to show that some place is miraculous is to show that people who go there recover better than those who don’t.
I understand that you have good enough evidence for you to believe, but I do not. To me things seem exactly like they would be if there was no God.
Well I don’t know what happened with Padre Pio, but I just don’t see it as good evidence that there is a God. Why do you think that so many seemingly good people in the Church investigated him during his lifetime and concluded that he was a fraud? To me it seems like the Church made him a saint because he was seen as a very nice man and had become very popular. Like with Mother Theresa, I think they made him a saint without good evidence that he had performed any miracles. I think it makes sense to be a bit skeptical given the number of religious frauds that have happened over the years.
I don’t recall if I’ve read anything from American Atheist, but I’ve read some pretty bad atheists arguments as well (though I think I have still read more bad Christian arguments than atheist ones).
I haven’t read Marx enough to know. I agree that a lot of atheists haven’t done a good job looking at the evidence on both sides. I even hear some very naive arguments from some of the most famous atheists. I think pretty much whatever side you’re on, there will be people who agree with you for very bad reasons. I care more about what’s true. For me, my atheism was never really a rebellion against anything. Also, if you can use anecdotal evidence for Lourdes, let me say that my cousin is a journalist, as well as a devout Catholic, so I don’t think they’re all atheists (and probably less than in some other professions).
I don’t have medical experience, so I can’t say what is a miracle and what isn’t. But there are some natural ways that your body can cure diseases, even very serious ones. If you give me specific examples of things you think are miracles, I can try investigating them.
I’m still pretty confident that atheism is the truth, but I guess we’ll see.
I just think that there are other possible explanations to stuff like that.
.
OK. First we must agree on the definition of God.
Well it’s your argument. I don’t know exactly what kind of God you believe in. As long as God is not defined as simply something like the universe, I’m okay with it. If God is the universe, then I already have good evidence for God.
Are you really that dense?? Did you not read my post that said I never ever used Einstein as an apologetics argument.
HelLooo! Did you read Einsteins’s quote that Cinnete posted? THAT type of God.
Surfmeister, I don’t want to turn this into a polemic.
Cinette, you can say that till you are blue in the face and I doubt very much whether Surfmeister will get your point. (Edited)Surfmeister, I don’t want to turn this into a polemic.
I repeat that I mentioned Einstein because here was a prominent scientist who had deep knowledge of science and came to a point where even he acknowledged the existence of God. He realised that he could not find all the answers in Science. That’s all.
Furthermore, Jean Paul Sartre, another atheist, also acknowledged God at the end of his life.
I do not consider either Einstein or Satre to be examples of apologetics but merely wanted to illustrate that such men sometimes can and do reach a point where they may acknowledge the existence of God.
If, in your opinion, this is “dishonest apologetics” then it remains just that - your opinion.
AMEN!!