Stumbling off the path.....

[wil]

Scientist tells God, "We've done it, we can make life from soil."

God says, "That's great! Make your own dirt..."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Plenty of examples of folks working together in my world... your statement makes me feel sad for your world.

Individually, yes. But not when it comes to countries and religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. I have to assume you have no clue how complex RNA and DNA truly are. I suggest you see what the famous atheist Anthony Flew had to say about DNA.
2. What does this have to do with proving that the universe began on its own? I'm not asking for evidence of WHY the universe behaves the way it does or for evidence backing the Big Bang theory. I'm asking for empirical evidence that the universe started all on its own. There is none. We just know that something kicked off the "Big Bang". We don't know what.
3. "Possibilities" is NOT the same as "empirical evidence". I'm not saying that life doesn't exist outside of Earth. It SHOULD exist outside of Earth. But the very existence of life outside of Earth is NOT empirical evidence. You could prove that aliens created life on Earth and that still wouldn't explain how life itself began.

Wikipedia is a wiki site. It is NOT the best place for you to learn about these matters. I suggest you find a library, preferably one at a university, to start studying.

I also suggest you look up the definition of "empirical evidence".

1. Yes, they are complex, but we can make changes both in vegetation as well as animal DNA. We have a hold and understand it. Of course, scientific work is progressing.
2. Same with Big Bang. We have some hold and research is progressing.
3. Yeah, possibilities are not the same as evidence. But gravitational lensing and Higg's Boson were, at one time, just possibilities.
Science progresses that way only. Theories, possibilities and then evidence.

 

[moralorel]

1. Yes, they are complex, but we can make changes both in vegetation as well as animal DNA. We have a hold and understand it. Of course, scientific work is progressing.
2. Same with Big Bang. We have some hold and research is progressing.
3. Yeah, possibilities are not the same as evidence. But gravitational lensing and Higg's Boson were, at one time, just possibilities.
Science progresses that way only. Theories, possibilities and then evidence.

So yes, none of this is empirical evidence. We can make changes to supercomputers. Doesn't mean that it began on its own. We know how they work. Doesn't mean they don't have a designer.

I often use the Big Bang theory as an example of a well-backed theory. It has nothing to do with how the universe first began... just everything afterwards. As you probably recall, the main critics of the Big Bang theory were atheists. It just seemed "too religious".

I didn't ask for possibilities. You said that your beliefs are from evidence, something you claim that believers don't seem to have. Yet your examples of "evidence" open the door for believers. The mere existence of DNA and RNA is often used as evidence from believers that a designer must exist. I tell them that this isn't empirical evidence. But based on your definition of "evidence", it is!

 

[Aupmanyav]

As you probably recall, the main critics of the Big Bang theory were atheists. It just seemed "too religious". I often use the Big Bang theory as an example of a well-backed theory. I didn't ask for possibilities. You said that your beliefs are from evidence, something you claim that believers don't seem to have. Yet your examples of "evidence" open the door for believers. The mere existence of DNA and RNA is often used as evidence from believers that a designer must exist. I tell them that this isn't empirical evidence. But based on your definition of "evidence", it is!

I am totally unaware of what Western atheists have said at any time. I have not read any except a small book of essays by Bertrand Russell. I liked it. Otherwise my atheism is only from Hinduism and Buddhism.
You agree that Big Bang theory is well-backed. Science has never being shy of accepting that it does not know many things.
The possibilities are not without evidence. A designer is a theory without any evidence.

 

[moralorel]

I am totally unaware of what Western atheists have said at any time. I have not read any except a small book of essays by Bertrand Russell. I liked it. Otherwise my atheism is only from Hinduism and Buddhism.
You agree that Big Bang theory is well-backed. Science has never being shy of accepting that it does not know many things.
The possibilities are not without evidence. A designer is a theory without any evidence.

The lead atheist who lead the charge against the Big Bang theory was Sir Fred Hoyle. He believed the theory was just some Genesis hogwash invented by a Catholic priest. Hoyle stood his ground until he died in 2001.

The majority of scientists who disagree with the Big Bang theory tend to be atheists and pantheists. Many scientists have struggled to tie the theory into their Hindu and Buddhists religious beliefs. The Big Bang theory is NOT cyclic, so therefore it is contrary to Hindu and Buddhist beliefs about the universe. However some Hindu writings have tried to reconcile the two (e.g. Rig Veda X.129.1-2). This is where the idea has come from that the Big Bang was just one of many beginnings to the universe. Some scientists have found the Hindu belief, that the universe is part of a never-ending cycle, to be very intriguing. But that is NOT part of the Big Bang theory. So these things become "theories without any evidence" as you call them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Big Bang theory is NOT cyclic, so therefore it is contrary to Hindu and Buddhist beliefs about the universe. However some Hindu writings have tried to reconcile the two (e.g. Rig Veda X.129.1-2). This is where the idea has come from that the Big Bang was just one of many beginnings to the universe. Some scientists have found the Hindu belief, that the universe is part of a never-ending cycle, to be very intriguing. But that is NOT part of the Big Bang theory. So these things become "theories without any evidence" as you call them.

Cyclic schemes are not an essential part of either Hinduism or Buddhism. RigVeda x.129.1-2 are not cyclic, it is a one-time occurrence. Finally in the last verses (6-7), it says (just like modern science) that it does not know, and even Gods do not know it (because they are later than this world's creation).

ko addhā veda ka iha pra vocat kuta ājātā kuta iyaṃvisṛṣṭiḥ |
arvāgh devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yataābabhūva ||
iyaṃ visṛṣṭiryata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na |
yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman so aṅgha veda yadi vā naveda ||

6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's creation. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], full text etext at sacred-texts.com

sacred-texts.com

For me, 'Nasadiya Sukta' is the most beautiful hymn in RigVeda. I date it around 1,000 BCE. I marvel at the intelligence and courage of the writer, supposedly, Prajapati Parameshthi, as per records. That also defines my personal belief.

 

[otherbrother]

There is no other side ...said with the exact same knowledge and authority of one who claims there is....belief.

None since Cain and Abel huh? So the world.has been in turmoil since a parable you don't believe in occurred? And you don't find that interesting?

No cooperation among humans eh? Then why are you here cooperating with humans? The ISS? Plenty of examples of folks working together in my world... your statement makes me feel sad for your world.

Wil, You and I pick up on this theme (positive self-fulfilling prophecy— “That’s our positive story, and we’re sticking to it!!!!”) in your newest post, “I Believe in Good.” I also saw and articulated a connection to an older post of my own: “God and Good” (Or was it Good and God?).

 

[wil]

Wil, You and I pick up on this theme (positive self-fulfilling prophecy— “That’s our positive story, and we’re sticking to it!!!!”) in your newest post, “I Believe in Good.” I also saw and articulated a connection to an older post of my own: “God and Good” (Or was it Good and God?).

I feel I am a logical utilitarian pragmatist...I look at statistics and cost benefit analysis...

It is to the benefit of those around me and myself to reamin positive...although it does piss some people off.