Hitchens and dawkins, etc

[Jocko_VT]

**You don’t really think I have to know everything to be an atheist, do you? **

No, but if you are going to make certain demands of theists, you should make them of yourself as well.

What demands have I made of theists? Or are you referring to other atheists?

The notion of multiple universes is purely speculative, and has no scientific justification.

That’s not correct. I gave you Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking. But I’m not going to argue with you about this. The point is that you’re wrong in your interpretation of the big bang.

It is an attempt by atheist scientists to skirt the problem of Creation.

That’s just an assertion.

**I agree that to most people, it’s more attractive. **

What I find peculiar is that the opposite view attracts anyone. What is the reason people prefer to believe in multiple universes (for which there is no scientific proof at all) than to believe in a Creation event for which there is abundant scientific proof?

There is evidence. However, it’s not that one chooses to believe in multiple universes rather than a religious creation story. There’s no evidence for the creation story. Furthermore, you make it sound as if everyone must believe in some answer to every question, and that’s not the case.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : God said, “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos said in 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

It really is a stretch. After all, as I’ve already stated, you’re interpreting the big bang as a beginning that no one knows it to be. Even my New American Bible’s notes is explicit that “let there be light” isn’t literal. But, have it your way. Even your church doesn’t agree with you, though most American catholics probably do.

 

[Jocko_VT]

“most people” includes eminent philosophers like Antony Flew, a lifelong atheist, who was compelled by the evidence of DNA to accept the existence of Design - without any reference to religion…

Indeed. And opposing Flew’s position is Ken Miller, an actual biologist (with his PhD in biology), and staunch opponent of “intelligent design.” Miller is downright militant in his support of evolution and his opposition of intelligent design. And, Miller is Roman Catholic.

Too much defensiveness in here!!

 

[Pieman333272]

Indeed. And opposing Flew’s position is Ken Miller, an actual biologist (with his PhD in biology), and staunch opponent of “intelligent design.” Miller is downright militant in his support of evolution and his opposition of intelligent design. And, Miller is Roman Catholic.

Too much defensiveness in here!!

Yeah, I have to agree that biological complexity/design is NOT a good argument.

 

[Pieman333272]

That’s not correct. I gave you Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking. But I’m not going to argue with you about this. The point is that you’re wrong in your interpretation of the big bang.

Jocko, just because some big-name scientists believe it isn’t evidence for it. It’s all just “mathematical metaphysics”, as a FB friend called it. They subscribe because it works for them, not because it actually has evidence, just like you accuse us of doing for God in the same scenario. As a matter of fact, Hawking notes in The Grand Design that his own theory is untestable and probably will never have a testable model! So, it is all just speculation.

 

[Pieman333272]

It really is a stretch. After all, as I’ve already stated, you’re interpreting the big bang as a beginning that no one knows it to be. Even my New American Bible’s notes is explicit that “let there be light” isn’t literal. But, have it your way. Even your church doesn’t agree with you, though most American catholics probably do.

Several notes:

1. The NAB has multiple non-doctrinal statements in the commentary, some of which conflict with Church teaching.
2. When the Church says “not meant to be interpreted literally”, they often still PERMIT and allow the OPTION OF a literal interpretation, merely saying that that isn’t where the evidence leads.
3. How is he “interpreting the Big Bang as a beginning nobody knows it to be”? He cited Sagan, who, to my knowledge, has not been refuted on the issue insofar.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Several notes:

1. The NAB has multiple non-doctrinal statements in the commentary, some of which conflict with Church teaching.

1. When the Church says “not meant to be interpreted literally”, they often still PERMIT and allow the OPTION OF a literal interpretation, merely saying that that isn’t where the evidence leads.

I’ll concede on these two points. I was wrong to word my comment so vehemently, anyway.

1. How is he “interpreting the Big Bang as a beginning nobody knows it to be”? He cited Sagan, who, to my knowledge, has not been refuted on the issue insofar.

No one knows that literally everything began with the big bang. Yes, the expansion of our universe began at that point, but that doesn’t actually mean there was nothing “before.” Furthermore, there’s no reason to suspect that our universe is alone. After all, until about 1924 (I had to google for that date), everyone thought the Milky Way was the universe, and it turned out that ours was just one of probably 100s of billions of galaxies.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Jocko, just because some big-name scientists believe it isn’t evidence for it. It’s all just “mathematical metaphysics”, as a FB friend called it. They subscribe because it works for them, not because it actually has evidence, just like you accuse us of doing for God in the same scenario. As a matter of fact, Hawking notes in The Grand Design that his own theory is untestable and probably will never have a testable model! So, it is all just speculation.

Didn’t I just say they were working on it? It’s not *mere *speculation. The theoretical work that has gone into it isn’t *merely *a game. The evidence is in how it helps understand observations (quantum mechanics, for example). I’ve not suggested that it’s on par with, say, evolution. I don’t think they’ve found the Higgs boson yet, either, but the standard model is still scientific. I believe the mechanism behind gravity is still speculative, too.

Again, the point is that the Big Bang is not what others in here have made it out to be–a definitive beginning of everything. Also, in response to an earlier post regarding this, a natural explanation is always more appealing than a supernatural explanation (I understand you’d probably disagree)–I don’t have to know the answer to every question, but when I go looking for the answers, I’m going to look for natural explanations.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko
**
It really is a stretch. After all, as I’ve already stated, you’re interpreting the big bang as a beginning that no one knows it to be. **

Apparently everyone but you knows it to be the start of the universe?

Even my New American Bible’s notes is explicit that “let there be light” isn’t literal.

Why isn’t it literal? Science says it is literal. The early universe was a blast of light that stretched outward into space and later cooled off. The Bible agrees.

The Bible certainly isn’t talking about the Sun, because the Sun and the moon were not created until several days later. So what light is it talking about if not the same light Sagan was talking about in this quote?

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[Jocko_VT]

jocko

Apparently everyone but you knows it to be the start of the universe?

To quote myself:
No one knows that literally everything began with the big bang. Yes, the expansion of our universe began at that point, but that doesn’t actually mean there was nothing “before.” Furthermore, there’s no reason to suspect that our universe is alone. After all, until about 1924 (I had to google for that date), everyone thought the Milky Way was the universe, and it turned out that ours was just one of probably 100s of billions of galaxies.

Again, the point is that the Big Bang is not what others in here have made it out to be–a definitive beginning of everything.

B]Even my New American Bible’s notes is explicit that “let there be light” isn’t literal

.

Why isn’t it literal? Science says it is literal. The early universe was a blast of light that stretched outward into space and later cooled off. The Bible agrees.

I’ve already conceded on the bible point. It’s not my place to tell Catholics about the Catholic interpretation of the Bible. I shouldn’t have said that. I’m sorry I did. I don’t believe the bible’s creation description is describing the actual creation of the universe. As far as “science says it is literal,” see the above comments from me.

The Bible certainly isn’t talking about the Sun, because the Sun and the moon were not created until several days later. So what light is it talking about if not the same light Sagan was talking about in this quote?

I’ll respond to this since you asked. Again, I don’t want to get in a debate about the literalness of the Bible–that’s your business and not mine. I’m happy to talk about these things, though.

But, here’s what my copy of the bible says–"Then God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light form the darkness. God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called “night.’”

To my literal reading, the light is indeed not from the sun, but it’s obviously daylight, because God called it “day.” This, of course, is problematic, because, as we know today, daylight *is *sunlight, as is so-called moonlight. So, this light is not the light referred to by Sagan. Furthermore, Earth was not around in the brilliantly illuminated early universe Sagan describes (Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, the universe about 13.5 billion years old), so the light from the big bang can not be the light from Genesis 1:3 because that light was created after the Earth, which is present in Genesis 1:1.

A literal reading would also lead to a conclusion that earth is older than the sun and the stars, I believe. Compare Genesis 1:1 and 1:9 with Genesis 1:14-18. We know that’s not true.

I like the Bible (and Gilgamesh and Atrahasis and the Gita and other religious texts) for the truths it presents. I just don’t think they are scientific or, usually, historical truths. I accept that the Bible is telling a truth about god (to the believer), but not that it’s a truth about the creation of the universe. For example, comparing Genesis to some other creation myths of the near east, your God did not struggle with chaos. He just said something and it was. Other gods battled with chaos. That’s a meaningful distinction being made about the world that humans inhabit. It was a distinct answer to the existential crisis of being a moral thinking animal.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I agree that there is a hatred of God in atheism. What is it exactly that you disagreed with in my post. You do realize that the first paragraph was just a joke.

Ok…then I’m sorry I jumped the gun.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

**Again, the point is that the Big Bang is not what others in here have made it out to be–a definitive beginning of everything. **

The science is in … the universe had a start. If you have proof (rather than mere wishful thinking otherwise) let us know. Enough with the theories about multiple universes. They have no basis whatever in fact. They are pure fiction and not subject to falsification.

**For example, comparing Genesis to some other creation myths of the near east, your God did not struggle with chaos. He just said something and it was. Other gods battled with chaos. That’s a meaningful distinction being made about the world that humans inhabit. It was a distinct answer to the existential crisis of being a moral thinking animal. **

Not so sure I’d buy this. After all, the Bible says on the seventh day God rested. Rested from what? His struggle with creation?

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed. And opposing Flew’s position is Ken Miller, an actual biologist (with his PhD in biology), and staunch opponent of “intelligent design.” Miller is downright militant in his support of evolution and his opposition of intelligent design. And, Miller is Roman Catholic.

Too much defensiveness in here!!

It suffices to say Miller is a biologist and not a philosopher - with consequent limitations, illustrated by his association of ID with Creationism. For him God is in effect a supernumerary!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The concepts I’m using are simple and common.

That this is a catholic forum is all the more reason I assumed, incorrectly it turns out, that there would be more level-headed, charitable discourse. You’re not providing it, and you’re blaming me!! God bless you!!

Let’s see…

(Generic) atheist registers at Catholic forum, comes in with sleeves rolled up and both fists flying, and says something like, “You dumb rubes believe in God! Well, you’re wrong! I don’t, and me and my towering intellect says so!”

Several people give said atheist answers.

Atheist retorts, “YOU PEOPLE AREN’T SHOWING ME ANY RESPECT!!! I KNEW IT!”

That about right?

 

[ibetrippin07]

I remember watching a interview with dawkins once. They are just too contradictory and they do it all the time!
he stated “we shouldn’t say oh I can’t think what the explaination for evolution is therefore it is designed”

almost within the same sentence he said: (loosely quoted) “when saying god designed it your left with the problem of where god came from?”

well geeze richard why dont you just apply the same logic to the design argument and you wouldnt jump to the conclusion of evolution just because you cant explain where God came from!

 

[lao_tzu]

Let’s see…

(Generic) atheist registers at Catholic forum, comes in with sleeves rolled up and both fists flying, and says something like, “You dumb rubes believe in God! Well, you’re wrong! I don’t, and me and my towering intellect says so!”

Several people give said atheist answers.

Atheist retorts, “YOU PEOPLE AREN’T SHOWING ME ANY RESPECT!!! I KNEW IT!”

That about right?

Other than the fact you made up the quote, made up the all caps, and totally misrepresented the exchange, yeah, that’s about … hey, what’s with you guys?

As ever, Jesse

 

[lao_tzu]

I like the Bible (and Gilgamesh and Atrahasis and the Gita and other religious texts) for the truths it presents. I just don’t think they are scientific or, usually, historical truths. I accept that the Bible is telling a truth about god (to the believer), but not that it’s a truth about the creation of the universe. For example, comparing Genesis to some other creation myths of the near east, your God did not struggle with chaos. He just said something and it was. Other gods battled with chaos. That’s a meaningful distinction being made about the world that humans inhabit. It was a distinct answer to the existential crisis of being a moral thinking animal.

Well said.

You should also carefully examine the cosmology in Job, where you’ll find remnants of a battle with chaos as well.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Jocko_VT]

Let’s see…

(Generic) atheist registers at Catholic forum, comes in with sleeves rolled up and both fists flying, and says something like, “You dumb rubes believe in God! Well, you’re wrong! I don’t, and me and my towering intellect says so!”

Several people give said atheist answers.

Atheist retorts, “YOU PEOPLE AREN’T SHOWING ME ANY RESPECT!!! I KNEW IT!”

That about right?

This exemplifies how atheists have been treated in here.

 

[Jocko_VT]

jocko

**Again, the point is that the Big Bang is not what others in here have made it out to be–a definitive beginning of everything. **

The science is in … the universe had a start. If you have proof (rather than mere wishful thinking otherwise) let us know. Enough with the theories about multiple universes. They have no basis whatever in fact. They are pure fiction and not subject to falsification.

**For example, comparing Genesis to some other creation myths of the near east, your God did not struggle with chaos. He just said something and it was. Other gods battled with chaos. That’s a meaningful distinction being made about the world that humans inhabit. It was a distinct answer to the existential crisis of being a moral thinking animal. **

Not so sure I’d buy this. After all, the Bible says on the seventh day God rested. Rested from what? His struggle with creation?

I’ve already given you names for my argument about the universe.

Are you actually saying God had to struggle to create the universe?

 

[Jocko_VT]

It suffices to say Miller is a biologist and not a philosopher - with consequent limitations, illustrated by his association of ID with Creationism. For him God is in effect a supernumerary!

The intelligent design push has been shown to be driven by the same people who drive for creationism in school- See the Dover case.

Miller’s arguments take apart Behe’s arguments, and Behe never responds.

Regardless, the point is that your citations of a single individual can easily be responded to with an equivalent citation. It’s a meaningless exercise.

 

[antunesaa]

Did Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro, Il, or Loughner do what they did in the name of Atheism? No.

Jocko, you have to understand that these people’s ideology is partly built upon the materialistic creed that man is the sole purpose and constructor of society. Even Hitler’s ideology, while not completely rejecting religion - he apparently thought that a pagan religion based on ancient Nordic tales would be suitable for the Germanic “races” - , was essentially materialistic, with its emphasis on the supposed eternity of the Reich and the worship of Hitler himself and Arianism. Compare that with a creed like Christianity, where all human beings are called to lead lives oriented to God and to run away from the temptations of the flesh - including, but not restricted to, the exclusive love for material goods, power and worldly pleasures. The fact that most of us humans (if not all) are constantly drawn to those things (and some did awful things because of that) doesn’t only mean we are weak; it also highlights the fact that we really need something to pull us back from that slavery. I don’t think atheism will do the trick because the atheistic counter factual, unlike what you seem to say, in fact exists and is not pretty. Actually it is quite frightening.