Einstein's Letter on God Uncovered

[Blackking]

this is what you first wrote



when I called you out, this is what you responded with
You didn't call me out.. And I was open to your opinion. and if you can't see how the next post relates then that's not really my problem, is it?


you can't even stay on the train of thought for 24hrs

lol, what train of thought? I do other things in life, I have no set train of thought on here... lame as statements, smh.

Secondly, how logical does it sound, to place at the feet of a non believer, the idea that something must come from something, when you yourself won't even ask the same question about your own creator.
The question wasn't confrontational. I thought you may actually have something good to say.
You don't know what I would ask... or have asked? or is saying that an atheist doesn't know something an oxymoron?

 

[Blackking]

You're essentially asking me how something came from nothing, but you can't answer me how something can always exist. The only difference is, there is much more evidence for the prior, than there is for the latter.

So there's evidence that something can from nothing?... and thats logical? or is it possible theres just a gap in understanding?

Now, there is a critical flaw in your argument blackking. You say you wrote about the BBT, but I think pretty much everyone understands that the BBT explains the expansion of our current universe, from the infintely small to its current state.I'm surprised that since you wrote papers about it you seem to not understand the most basic idea behind the theory. It has never claimed to explained anything prior to that. Only theists assumes that it does.

No, I do know that....which is why I didn't want you to say what you just said. I'm just asking your thoughts on before the expansion. Figured you might have at least one thought on it.

Now, there are multiple hypothesis out there than attempt to understand what happens prior to a Big Bang event. I personally like the black/white hole explanations, but it is not an established concrete theory yet. It seems to make sense logically, but the evidence needs to come forth.

I like that one as well... which y I asked about Singularities

 

[Blackking]

Theists cant even define or describe "nothing". Theres no evidence that nothing is even possible.

philosophically speaking nothing isn't possible, imo.

However, I was just wondering about 13 billion years ago, what was the state that the universe began expanding from.

Also, There's another important quality of the Big Bang that makes it unique. While an explosion of a man-made bomb expands through air, the Big Bang did not expand through anything. That's because there was no space to expand through at the beginning of time. Rather, physicists believe the Big Bang created and stretched space itself, expanding the universe. Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

in your opinion, what is this describing.. nothing or something?

 

[tru_m.a.c]

My point was that your first statement wasn't well thought out at all and misrepresented our stance.

Your second point on theist not believing they're the center of the universe is wrong as well. Unless you're really trying to make the point that being the focal point of God's plan isn't the same idea as being the focal point of the universe.

I didn't take your question on the origins of the universe as confrontational, I just saw them as dishonest. Which is why I asked, why must I prove what happened prior to my understanding of what happened, when you've never questioned the story of your creation in the same way? And if you have, please walk us through your thought process that let you know it was the right thing to believe.

 

[Blackking]

My point was that your first statement wasn't well thought out at all and misrepresented our stance.

Your second point on theist not believing they're the center of the universe is wrong as well. Unless you're really trying to make the point that being the focal point of God's plan isn't the same idea as being the focal point of the universe.

I didn't take your question on the origins of the universe as confrontational, I just saw them as dishonest. Which is why I asked, why must I prove what happened prior to my understanding of what happened, when you've never questioned the story of your creation in the same way? And if you have, please walk us through your thought process that let you know it was the right thing to believe.

Focal point of God's plan isn't a staple of theism, so I don't know how else to explain that.
Even most major religions don't say that. I study and read about Islam basically non stop, it's speaks on our creation and to God's creations, but doesn't touch on God's focus of the entire universe, because that is unknown. Religious text are more guides on living as opposed to cosmological guide books, anyway. There are passages about these topics and others... but it isn't intended to combat science or even other viewpoints- the intent is to provide lessons and to put things in the perspective of we were created, there are physical limitations to our universe that coincide with our creation, and there was something that was a catalytic behind it all. Also, a belief in God doesn't have to follow a belief in religion.

My questions, were just questions. It's been my experience that people usually ask questions to get answers; so maybe you find dishonesty in that?

And if you have, please walk us through your thought process that let you know it was the right thing to believe.

---The thought that I ended up with is that maybe one day science will explain or maybe we will find out the truth in a different way. I arrived at this conclusion because religion virtually does the same thing science does and starts are the creation and expansion of the universe. It's merely an internal desire I have, being an inquisitive person, to wonder wtf was there before... and 'nothing' has always sounded dumb to me.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Lot of wisdom being demonstrated by Black King....

 

[Fervid]

Einstein was a pantheist. He didn't believe god was a being, but that god is everything we observe in nature (and more).
He also stated many times that he is a very religious person, but what he described as religion was his passion for scientific inquiry.

 

[NoMayo15]

Many cosmologist have no problem accepting the possibility of a creator. I don't know y people arrive at different beliefs without knowing absolute truth.. in science it's absolutely true that what we call gravity will pull a tree down if you cut the trunk at one side. Out side of science there are many absolute truths like ellipse = pi r1 r2.... and also within scientific topics such as.... the fact that something science may not ever consider, could have set the expansion of the universe into motion. Aren't alternative hypothesis a part of science as long as they aren't outside the realm of what we know to be possible?

Science gives predictions and explanations for observed phenomena. So, in the gravity example, it doesn't say that every single time, that tree will fall. It's more like "we suspect this tree will fall, but can be proven wrong". My point is there is always a margin of error.

Atheist proclaim (illogically, imo) a random unintelligent purposeless random universe is where we currently reside. Would you consider that......
"Nothing in Nature is random... A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge.”

Well, no, atheists don't assert this ... you assert atheists assert it. If you define random (noticed you said that twice ) to mean "not guided by a supernatural thing", then suurreee, atheists believe that. But generally we don't believe it to be random at all.

There are people who have faith and beliefs without reason. At the same time there is a reality to the order of the universe and there's a reason for the physical laws of the universe - and that reason, imo, isn't that they randomly fell in those intricate complicated places.

That order you perceive is guided by the laws of nature, and the pattern seeking nature of the human mind.

One could say that logic is logic, but that statement becomes untrue when it is assumed that inanimate random matter- void of intelligent catalyst- eventually developed into complex intelligent and insightful thoughts and internet post on the very existence of that matter. You can't always believe in the Theory of everything'

Hmmm.... The problem is we've conducted experiments that show that the basic building blocks of life can form through natural chemical reactions, given the right conditions. Let me ask you a question, since you constantly dodged TUH's questions last night -- Do you think it's impossible for inanimate matter to become amino acids, and eventually form into life (abiogenesis)?

 

[NoMayo15]

Got to love humans who uses only a fraction of the brain who have never left their galaxy let alone anything past their own moon to explain what doesn't exist outside in the galaxy and multi-universe.

to true

Actually, this is not true. Humans use all of their brains. It's a common myth ... but it's just a myth.

 

[NoMayo15]

Theists cant even define or describe "nothing". Theres no evidence that nothing is even possible.

This.

 

[NoMayo15]

]Religious text are more guides on living as opposed to cosmological guide books, anyway. There are passages about these topics and others... but it isn't intended to combat science or even other viewpoints

So why do you give theistic explanations any more credence than scientific ones? Because the science ones don't make sense to you?

My questions, were just questions.

I could answer some of your questions, but I feel they would fall on deaf ears. If you really want to learn this stuff, you could easilyyyy google it and find out.

The thought that I ended up with is that maybe one day science will explain or maybe we will find out the truth in a different way. I arrived at this conclusion because religion virtually does the same thing science does and starts are the creation and expansion of the universe. It's merely an internal desire I have, being an inquisitive person, to wonder wtf was there before... and 'nothing' has always sounded dumb to me.

And a mystical, being that exists beyond space and time, lives eternally, that you can't see, or communicate with (objectively) ... that we have no objective evidence that it manifests in the real world DOES sound completely reasonable? I could see if we knew of other universes that a god also created or something, so it might be likely that a god also created our universe.... but we don't have that. And you haven't appealed to it, but this is why the watchmaker argument fails so horribly.

 

[Blackking]

Science gives predictions and explanations for observed phenomena. So, in the gravity example, it doesn't say that every single time, that tree will fall. It's more like "we suspect this tree will fall, but can be proven wrong". My point is there is always a margin of error.

Not always.

Well, no, atheists don't assert this ... you assert atheists assert it. If you define random (noticed you said that twice ) to mean "not guided by a supernatural thing", then suurreee, atheists believe that. But generally we don't believe it to be random at all.

Atheist do use the word random. Atheist on this very board have used it. I do know what you all mean by this, without purpose.

That order you perceive is guided by the laws of nature, and the pattern seeking nature of the human mind.

There is order in the laws of nature, There are physical laws of the universe. The fact of order is fact. I don't think that patterns and order in the universe is mere illusion.

Hmmm.... The problem is we've conducted experiments that show that the basic building blocks of life can form through natural chemical reactions, given the right conditions. Let me ask you a question, since you constantly dodged TUH's questions last night -- Do you think it's impossible for inanimate matter to become amino acids, and eventually form into life (abiogenesis)?
lol, so we've formed life from these building blocks in an experiment? The question isn't what are the BAsic building blocks of life; we all know what those are. IDK what TUHs question was, but I've never intentionally dodged any question.. I don't even debate u guys.. u all debate me, I just make points and ask questions that I'm interested in.
And yes, I don't think that we proven that inanimate matter can become life.... especially on it's own. Even if I created life from amino acids in a lab... that didn't happen on it's own and I'm not sure how I would prove that it ever could without an intelligence force behind it.

However, it is possible, (though none of you have mentioned it) that the Early Earth conditions that created life in the soup may no longer exist creating a void in our understanding... maybe our oxygen levels prevent us from being able to prove that random matter can generate life.

 

[Blackking]

So why do you give theistic explanations any more credence than scientific ones? Because the science ones don't make sense to you?

Most of the scientific ones make sense to me, some don't. I go with what I find logical.

I could answer some of your questions, but I feel they would fall on deaf ears. If you really want to learn this stuff, you could easilyyyy google it and find out.

I have, some people have better opinions on things, or may have came across something online that I've over looked. FYI it's ok to not know the answer to something ... even if you are an atheist

And a mystical, being that exists beyond space and time, lives eternally, that you can't see, or communicate with (objectively) ... that we have no objective evidence that it manifests in the real world DOES sound completely reasonable? I could see if we knew of other universes that a god also created or something, so it might be likely that a god also created our universe.... but we don't have that. And you haven't appealed to it, but this is why the watchmaker argument fails so horribly.


designer behind design seems logical. purpose to something with a beginning makes sense. Not discounting something plausible that I can't prove against makes sense to me.

 

[NoMayo15]

Atheist do use the word random. Atheist on this very board have used it. I do know what you all mean by this, without purpose.

Yes, because the universe isn't self-aware. The steps which led to our eventual creation was "random" but guided by the laws of nature.

There is order in the laws of nature, There are physical laws of the universe. The fact of order is fact. I don't think that patterns and order in the universe is mere illusion.

Sure, but any conclusion you make about the supernatural based on this order is a mistake.

lol, so we've formed life from these building blocks in an experiment? The question isn't what are the basic building blocks of life; we all know what those are.

Well, no because that would probably take millions or billions of years. The point of the experiments was organic material could form from inorganic substances.

IDK what TUHs question was, but I've never intentionally dodged any question.. I don't even debate u guys.. u all debate me, I just make points and ask questions that I'm interested in.

Okay

And yes, I don't think that we proven that inanimate matter can become life....

This is not what I asked you. I didn't ask if we've proved it yet, I asked if you thought it was impossible.

Even if I created life from amino acids in a lab... that didn't happen on it's own and I'm not sure how I would prove that it ever could without an intelligence force behind it.

But we're dealing with possibilities. Theists often assert that it's impossible for life to come about from "a random unintelligent purposeless random universe". The experiment doesn't show that life on Earth wasn't guided, only that it's possible that it could have formed without guidance.

However, it is possible, (though none of you have mentioned it) that the Early Earth conditions that created life in the soup may no longer exist creating a void in our understanding... maybe our oxygen levels prevent us from being able to prove that random matter can generate life.

Well of course those conditions don't exist anymore ... we probably wouldn't be able to survive in it. But we have tried to recreate those conditions in a lab.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Wise people have discussions to further their discernment and understanding...

Most people debate simply to win, which is a sign of vanity\arrogance.

This is what's been going on in this thread since page 7