Coming out as an Agnostic

[ALAYMAN]

Try to keep up. 

Then slow down.

I didn't ask you if there was a God or gods.  I asked you, as a scientist, to make a reasonable effort to explain how something can come from nothing.

I am not a scientist, ALAYzMAN.  Besides, I am not the one who claims that something came from nothing.  You explain it.

Nope, nice dodge.  As an atheist you must posit a reason for our existence, based on scientific naturalism.  Have at it, that's your job.

 

[Jo]

I have met many people who's lives were changed when they received salvation, but I've never met an atheist whose life was changed for the better because of his belief. The fact that man searches and longs to be loved and share love shows me that we have souls. At the present moment, I'm overhearing 2 young men at a restaurant discussing their souls. They are discussing how to become better husbands and fathers. Wonder where that desire comes from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

If at any time in the existence of the universe there was nothing, how did something come from nothing?

It makes absolutely no sense to me to say that there was not a designer; that there was nothing or NOone and still something exploded on its on and became the glorious world and universe that we have today. To me, this is scientific PEER PRESSURE.

I strongly suspect that there is a designer.

But as far as the Big Bang goes, why wouldn't that go hand in hand with Genesis 1:1?  As I understand it, the Hebrew word used there means to make something out of nothing. Why couldn't God have used the Big Bang to create the Universe - creating something out of nothing?

Why couldn't this god, whoever he is or they are,  USED the big bang and then evolution to get to where we are today?  For those of you that believe in the Bible, WHY must what science says, contradict the Bible?  God made something out of nothing.

Ok,

Why couldn't he have done it by the Big bang - which was something coming from nothing?

I don't see the necessity of Biblical believers always being at odds with science when you both are saying the same thing: that something came from nothing.

Scientists believe that something came from nothing and no one

Theists believe that SomeOne created something from nothing. 

It seems like the difference between the two camps is the Source, not the method.











A very reasonable post Gringo, one given from the position of a true AGNOSTIC.  Your point about scientific pressure prophetically is verging on stealing my thunder though.

To answer your question, I am a young earth creationist, but I don't make it a point of dis-fellowship for those who hold to an old earth.  I do think that those who embrace theistic evolution to be potentially bordering on heresy, depending on their particular strain.

All that said, you don't fit the mold for the "something from nothing" demographic.

 

[Joseph007]

I did. It was in the presentation. You must have missed it. Watch it again when you get a chance.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I listened too, but you offered it as proof of how something comes from nothing, so I asking you what you heard and to respond here in this forum so that I can address specifically your argument (taken from the video).

I didn't offer it as proof. I offered it as an explanation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Route_70]

ALAYzMAN, you and I go a ways back.  Why the inconsistency?  First you said:

make a reasonable effort to explain how something can come from nothing.

Then you say:

posit a reason for our existence, based on scientific naturalism.  Have at it, that's your job.

You know I would love to discuss this issue with you.  But you don't know enough to understand or to cogently follow a discussion on the topic.

 

[ALAYMAN]

ALAYzMAN, you and I go a ways back.  Why the inconsistency?  First you said:

make a reasonable effort to explain how something can come from nothing.

Then you say:

posit a reason for our existence, based on scientific naturalism.  Have at it, that's your job.

You know I would love to discuss this issue with you.  But you don't know enough to understand or to cogently follow a discussion on the topic.

I have a coherent explanation for our existence.  You are an atheist, as such, it falls to you to defend your position.  If you want to play games and duck the question just keep up what you are doing.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I didn't offer it as proof. I offered it as an explanation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What in that video gave you an explanation that is sensible about something coming from nothing?

 

[Route_70]

I have a coherent explanation for our existence.

I agree that you do have an explanation.  So did the Romans and the Greeks and a whole host of extinct and extant civilizations.  All, including yours, rooted in mythology.

You are an atheist, as such, it falls to you to defend your position. 

Only if I want to.  In your case defending my position would be like casting pearls before swine.  No, thanks.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Only if I want to.  In your case defending my position would be like casting pearls before swine.  No, thanks.

You have the floor.  You could persuade all these onlookers who might be convinced of the strength of a naturalistic worldview absent all the fables, myths, and fairy tales.  Seems a bit suspicious that you'd run from a simple question when you have such a huge opportunity to show the unassailable nature of why a person should be an atheist.

 

[Joseph007]

I didn't offer it as proof. I offered it as an explanation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What in that video gave you an explanation that is sensible about something coming from nothing?

I didn't say it would be an easy concept to understand. Theoretical physics, quantum physics and cosmology are difficult subjects. That's why those that go in to those fields are geniuses or at least have a higher than average IQ. It is much more difficult to comprehend than "God did it" which is why it is so readily dismissed. There was a time when many natural things were not understood and as such they were worshipped or were attributed to supernatural causes. The wind could be felt and it's effects on objects around it could but seen but the wind itself could not be seen so it was believed that it was the actual breath of a god. The sun and moon were not understood so they were worshipped as gods. The same with lightning and thunder. The earth was understood to be flat and anyone who thought differently was ridiculed. In fact, religious people executed anyone who declared anything different from the church's opinion on the earth's shape.  Once science explained what those completely natural phenomena are people quit worshipping them or giving them supernatural attributes. It is difficult for us with our knowledge of the physical world to understand how anyone could believe such things but we have the benefit of years and years of scientific research and study that they did not have. We think they were stupid or at least woefully ignorant. The second part is certainly true.
If someone tried to convince you that the wind was the actual breath of a god you would dismiss them as crazy or try to explain to them what causes the wind and what chemicals make up its composition and why all of that explains why it is invisible to the naked eye. If that person had the scientific understanding comparable to someone about 5,000 years ago they may dismiss that explanation as too difficult to understand to be true. And that gives you an idea of what a theoretical physicist and cosmologists thinks about your dismissal of today's scientific explanations.
I don't understand it = God did it

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Route_70]

You have the floor.  You could persuade all these onlookers who might be convinced of the strength of a naturalistic worldview absent all the fables, myths, and fairy tales.  Seems a bit suspicious that you'd run from a simple question when you have such a huge opportunity to show the unassailable nature of why a person should be an atheist.

You do not know my disposition for being here, even though it is in my signature line.  I don't care if I convert anyone to my point of view or not.

However, it would be very entertining to have a genuine converstion with someone who was genuinely interested in something like ... the Higgs boson, the so-called "God" particle.

 

[Route_70]

Theoretical physics, quantum physics and cosmology are difficult subjects. That's why those that go in to those fields are geniuses or at least have a higher than average IQ. It is much more difficult to comprehend than "God did it" which is why it is so readily dismissed. There was a time when many natural things were not understood and as such they were worshipped or were attributed to supernatural causes. The wind could be felt and it's effects on objects around it could but seen but the wind itself could not be seen so it was believed that it was the actual breath of a god. The sun and moon were not understood so they were worshipped as gods. The same with lightning and thunder. The earth was understood to be flat and anyone who thought differently was ridiculed. In fact, religious people executed anyone who declared anything different from the church's opinion on the earth's shape.  Once science explained what those completely natural phenomena are people quit worshipping them or giving them supernatural attributes. It is difficult for us with our knowledge of the physical world to understand how anyone could believe such things but we have the benefit of years and years of scientific research and study that they did not have. We think they were stupid or at least woefully ignorant. The second part is certainly true.

If someone tried to convince you that the wind was the actual breath of a god you would dismiss them as crazy or try to explain to them what causes the wind and what chemicals make up its composition and why all of that explains why it is invisible to the naked eye. If that person had the scientific understanding comparable to someone about 5,000 years ago they may dismiss that explanation as too difficult to understand to be true. And that gives you an idea of what a theoretical physicist and cosmologists thinks about your dismissal of today's scientific explanations.

I don't understand it = God did it

Beautiful.  Thanks for saving me all that typing.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I didn't offer it as proof. I offered it as an explanation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What in that video gave you an explanation that is sensible about something coming from nothing?

I didn't say it would be an easy concept to understand. Theoretical physics, quantum physics and cosmology are difficult subjects. That's why those that go in to those fields are geniuses or at least have a higher than average IQ. It is much more difficult to comprehend than "God did it" which is why it is so readily dismissed. There was a time when many natural things were not understood and as such they were worshipped or were attributed to supernatural causes. The wind could be felt and it's effects on objects around it could but seen but the wind itself could not be seen so it was believed that it was the actual breath of a god. The sun and moon were not understood so they were worshipped as gods. The same with lightning and thunder. The earth was understood to be flat and anyone who thought differently was ridiculed. In fact, religious people executed anyone who declared anything different from the church's opinion on the earth's shape.  Once science explained what those completely natural phenomena are people quit worshipping them or giving them supernatural attributes. It is difficult for us with our knowledge of the physical world to understand how anyone could believe such things but we have the benefit of years and years of scientific research and study that they did not have. We think they were stupid or at least woefully ignorant. The second part is certainly true.
If someone tried to convince you that the wind was the actual breath of a god you would dismiss them as crazy or try to explain to them what causes the wind and what chemicals make up its composition and why all of that explains why it is invisible to the naked eye. If that person had the scientific understanding comparable to someone about 5,000 years ago they may dismiss that explanation as too difficult to understand to be true. And that gives you an idea of what a theoretical physicist and cosmologists thinks about your dismissal of today's scientific explanations.
I don't understand it = God did it

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Joseph, none of that stuff was in the video.  I am a Radiochemist, trained in the sciences, including physics.  Yes, that dude in the video is smarter than the average bear, and me included, but I'm willing to discuss the video with you since you posted it as an explanation of how things come from nothing.  What about the video helps you understand that we came from nothing?

 

[ALAYMAN]

You do not know my disposition for being here, even though it is in my signature line.  I don't care if I convert anyone to my point of view or not.

However, it would be very entertining to have a genuine converstion with someone who was genuinely interested in something like ... the Higgs boson, the so-called "God" particle.

You continually duck and dodge a simple question.  I know why, and the truth is, your smart enough to know why you're ducking it.  I don't blame you, because to answer those kind of questions would be to admit that our existence and destiny is far more significant than mere "entertainment".

 

[Route_70]

You continually duck and dodge a simple question.  I know why, and the truth is, your smart enough to know why you're ducking it.  I don't blame you, because to answer those kind of questions would be to admit that our existence and destiny is far more significant than mere "entertainment".

ALAzYMAN, I don't care what you call it.  Call it a dodge if you must.  I don't care.  As I said, radiochemist or not; trained in physics or not; discussing the matter with you would be a waste of my time.  You don't know enough physics to truly comprehend these things.

 

[logos1560]

You know I would love to discuss this issue with you.  But you don't know enough to understand or to cogently follow a discussion on the topic.

If you really wanted to discuss this issue with the poster to which you relied, you would discuss with him.  You would demonstrate and prove whether the person knows enough to understand and follow a discussion on the topic instead of making arrogant, self-serving, unproven claims or allegations against him.

You have presented no objective, authoritative source or standard for truth that would serve as a proper basis for your claims.    If you accept no authoritative standard of objective truth that exists outside your own imperfect mind, you have no sound basis for your subjective opinions or unsound arguments.

When God and the Scriptures are rejected, are all behaviors merely a matter of preference or opinion?

 

[Route_70]

If you really wanted to discuss this issue with the poster to which you relied, you would discuss with him.  You would demonstrate and prove whether the person knows enough to understand and follow a discussion on the topic instead of making arrogant, self-serving, unproven claims or allegations against him.

You have presented no objective, authoritative source or standard for truth that would serve as a proper basis for your claims.    If you accept no authoritative standard of objective truth that exists outside your own imperfect mind, you have no sound basis for your subjective opinions or unsound arguments.

When God and the Scriptures are rejected, are all behaviors merely a matter of preference or opinion?

I'm sorry; what were we talking about?  Specifically what "claim" did I make?

 

[Jo]

https://www.allaboutgod.com/angels-fall-faq.htm

The last shall be first and the first shall be last. Humility is not your strong suit. It sounds like you are your own god.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

You continually duck and dodge a simple question.  I know why, and the truth is, your smart enough to know why you're ducking it.  I don't blame you, because to answer those kind of questions would be to admit that our existence and destiny is far more significant than mere "entertainment".

ALAzYMAN, I don't care what you call it.  Call it a dodge if you must.  I don't care.  As I said, radiochemist or not; trained in physics or not; discussing the matter with you would be a waste of my time.  You don't know enough physics to truly comprehend these things.

Nobody on your team has made even one attempt to lift a quote or idea from the video.  How in the world are we supposed to have any kind of substantive dialogue about "something from nothing" if y'all just keep shuckin' and jivin' and letting Dawkins and Hitchens lift your load for ya? 

Hey, if you want to get one of them to come on here to clean up y'alls mess.

 

[Route_70]

Nobody on your team has made even one attempt to lift a quote or idea from the video.  How in the world are we supposed to have any kind of substantive dialogue about "something from nothing" if y'all just keep shuckin' and jivin' and letting Dawkins and Hitchens lift your load for ya? 

Hey, if you want to get one of them to come on here to clean up y'alls mess.

"Something from nothing" is your phrase, not mine.  Try to pay attention.