What will it take to squash religion?

[Tom62]

A non-visible god is for me just as futile as a non-existing god, because both have the same effect on me (namely: none).

[Naked4Jesus]

I hope I remain alive to see the day evolution and natural selection is widely accepted as "the answer" for "where do we come from?" Scientist are always making new discoveries that support this, but people still fail to accept the truth. The amount of evidence that evolution and natural selection are facts is so much that I equate religious people to trying to block the sun with one finger.

I think we're almost there, but it's gonna take one last push to break this wide open. Like discovering life or evidence that life once existed in an other part of our solar system. Do you guys think this is our only chance? At this point I don't see how any other form of evidence could convince the rest of the world. I don't even know if life in space would be enough. These people are really stubborn.

Conversely, what if it was intellegent design after all.  No, I don't mean a god doing all the dirty work, I'm talking aliens dude!   What if little green men from an advanced race genetically minipulated DNA and made a bunch of animals, some of them smarter than others and what if they're still out there screwing with us?  The discovery of another creator besides a god pretty much end religion.  

I know that statement begs the question, well who created the aliens, well maybe it was other aliens and other aliens created those aliens and so on.  Not much different from the god arguement except that the little green guys aren't holy or spiritual, they're just real smart.  Smart green guys probably won't be worshipped as god so I figure though we'll be left with the same questions we would have hammered those Christian Theists into oblivion.

[easytrak]

tom62, why not go looking for God?

[McQ]

No matter what we learn, and what we know, there will always be people who fill in the yet unknown with god, a god, or little green men. And I really wish people would stop equating Big Bang Cosmology (or anything describing the "beginning" of the Universe) with Evolutionary Theory. Also, they don't belong in the same book, let alone chapter, verse, or sentence, for purposes of learning where "we" came from.

[Tom62]

tom62, why not go looking for God?

Been there, done that (got the T-Shirt  ). I looked for him when I was young. Even as a child I quickly found out that the God of the Bible was nothing more than a very nasty, nitpicking, imaginary creature, with morals that were similar like that of the boogeyman or the evil giants from the fairytales. When I grew older I came to the conclusion that the whole concept of the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes that wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery is absolutely preposterous.

[jcm]

Would you consider the idea that there may be a creator that lives outside our universe that has its own set up laws that govern its own existence? Its existence may or may not be finite and that "God" may have its own creator. The god that created our universe or set it into motion may or may not have the ability to intervene in the universe's evolution. Science has pointed out that the laws of physics break down in a black hole and at the beginning of the universe, so maybe there is a different set of laws that allow other words outside of our universe. These laws might govern a creator. By saying that the universe has always existed with out a creator is the same argument that many religion folks use to describe the existence of God.

[Tom62]

Hi jcm - I've indeed considered the idea of a creator that lives outside our universe. Although I find the idea very interesting, it is a bit too abstract  and philosophical  for me; and like similar creator ideas it is not based on any thread of evidence. From a logical point of view we cannot conclude that a different law of physics has anything to do with a creator that lives outside our universe. Making a creator more abstract creates problems for theists as well, because it becomes impossible for them to relate such an abstract creature with the deity they'd described in their "holy books".

[joeactor]

Hi jcm - I've indeed considered the idea of a creator that lives outside our universe. Although I find the idea very interesting, it is a bit too abstract  and philosophical  for me; and like similar creator ideas it is not based on any thread of evidence. From a logical point of view we cannot conclude that a different law of physics has anything to do with a creator that lives outside our universe. Making a creator more abstract creates problems for theists as well, because it becomes impossible for them to relate such an abstract creature with the deity they'd described in their "holy books".

Gotta agree with that... which is why I'm an Agnostic...

[SteveS]

Hi jcm - I've indeed considered the idea of a creator that lives outside our universe. Although I find the idea very interesting, it is a bit too abstract and philosophical for me; and like similar creator ideas it is not based on any thread of evidence.

Yup - you've hit the nail on the head with this one.  In point of fact, we have no knowledge of anything outside our universe.  If it's possible to exist outside the universe, then anything that does exist there is at best completely unknown.

[jcm]

Holy books are man made and I am not arguing for them. What I am saying is that we still do not know how the universe came to be. Most atheists believe that the universe was created by nothing or it has always been there. Where is the logic in that? How can something be without a creator? Wouldn’t all the particles in the universe need to be the product of some outside influence? The universe may very well be a curved surface with no edge, but logics tells me that the universe would need to be supported be something. It would need a corridor to expand into. Something else must have existed to create all the particles and forces in the universe. How do you go from absolutely nothing to trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of particles without a creator? For that creator to be worship and feared is different story.

[McQ]

Holy books are man made and I am not arguing for them. What I am saying is that we still do not know how the universe came to be. Most atheists believe that the universe was created by nothing or it has always been there. Where is the logic in that? How can something be without a creator? Wouldn’t all the particles in the universe need to be the product of some outside influence? The universe may very well be a curved surface with no edge, but logics tells me that the universe would need to be supported be something. It would need a corridor to expand into. Something else must have existed to create all the particles and forces in the universe. How do you go from absolutely nothing to trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of particles without a creator? For that creator to be worship and feared is different story.

jcm, the short answers to a couple of your questions and points:

Where is the logic in that? How can something be without a creator?
 
To which type of logic are you referring? The mathematics and physics of the very very large and the very very small aren't intuitive or "logical" in the common sense of cause and effect or in many other ways. So do you really mean to say that it doesn't make sense to you? Or do you mean it isn't logical as in deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, inference, demonstration, etc.? The universe doesn't owe humans any explanation or need to make sense at all.

Wouldn’t all the particles in the universe need to be the product of some outside influence?  

No.

The universe may very well be a curved surface with no edge, but logics tells me that the universe would need to be supported be something. It would need a corridor to expand into. Something else must have existed to create all the particles and forces in the universe.

Nope. Doesn't need to be supported by anything. Didn't need a corridor or space to expand into either. The universe did not expand in to anything. That's one of the fundamental problems that people don't understand about cosmology. Part of it is due to having it taught via analogies such as the universe being represented by a balloon with dots all over it being inflated. As the balloon inflates, the dots on it move farther and farther apart, like galaxies within our universe. It's not a good analogy to use, at least when you go no further than using it and adding some more complex information to it. The balloon expands into existing space. The universe did not. It created space via its expansion.

How do you go from absolutely nothing to trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of particles without a creator?

You don't. You go from the change of energy to matter. And it doesn't require the services of a creator to necessarily happen.

OK, in a bit of a hurry so I'll leave it at that. Gotta go celebrate my wedding anniversary.

 

[jcm]

“The universe doesn't owe humans any explanation or need to make sense at all. “

Neither does god.

“Nope. Doesn't need to be supported by anything. Didn't need a corridor or space to expand into either. The universe did not expand in to anything. That's one of the fundamental problems that people don't understand about cosmology. Part of it is due to having it taught via analogies such as the universe being represented by a balloon with dots all over it being inflated. As the balloon inflates, the dots on it move farther and farther apart, like galaxies within our universe. It's not a good analogy to use, at least when you go no further than using it and adding some more complex information to it. The balloon expands into existing space. The universe did not. It created space via its expansion. “

Hmm, no the universe does need to be supported by something. Take MY word for it.

Yes the universe is a closed system that expands and contracts over time. So what. What is outside of it? Nothing? Ok then I guess there would be an infinite amount of time before nothing created everything. Oh that makes sense to me.  

“You don't. You go from the change of energy to matter. And it doesn't require the services of a creator to necessarily happen.”

I am talking about particles of energy. Waves and particles are interchangeable. What you are talking about is how the “stuff” in the universe changes. The production of the “stuff” would need to be created from an outside source.

BTW congrats

[McQ]

“The universe doesn't owe humans any explanation or need to make sense at all. “

Neither does god.

“Nope. Doesn't need to be supported by anything. Didn't need a corridor or space to expand into either. The universe did not expand in to anything. That's one of the fundamental problems that people don't understand about cosmology. Part of it is due to having it taught via analogies such as the universe being represented by a balloon with dots all over it being inflated. As the balloon inflates, the dots on it move farther and farther apart, like galaxies within our universe. It's not a good analogy to use, at least when you go no further than using it and adding some more complex information to it. The balloon expands into existing space. The universe did not. It created space via its expansion. “

Hmm, no the universe does need to be supported by something. Take MY word for it.

Yes the universe is a closed system that expands and contracts over time. So what. What is outside of it? Nothing? Ok then I guess there would be an infinite amount of time before nothing created everything. Oh that makes sense to me.  

“You don't. You go from the change of energy to matter. And it doesn't require the services of a creator to necessarily happen.”

I am talking about particles of energy. Waves and particles are interchangeable. What you are talking about is how the “stuff” in the universe changes. The production of the “stuff” would need to be created from an outside source.

BTW congrats

OK, your sarcasm is noted, but don't you think you are being unduly pedantic, jcm? This is a discussion forum and you initiated this current direction that it has taken by trying to bring up logic in the face of a theory that is counterintuitive. What is your point? Also, why is it that I should take your word for something? Present some facts. Tell us what your position or argument is. Let's get on the same page before we start jumping all around this subject. And try to keep the unnecessary sarcasm out of it.

Just like another recent new poster here, you have not done us the courtesy of an introduction. Maybe one is in order, so that we may know where you are coming from. It would certainly go far in eliminating confusion. While you're at it, feel free to look over the other introductions and see who all is here and what we think.

When you're finished, perhaps you can address the things I pointed out directly, without the sarcasm, and possibly with some scientific basis (since it is science that is at the heart of Big Bang Cosmology). Let's find some common ground upon which to start and see where it goes.

[Piemaster]

The Creationism argument is largely irrelevant to the existance of religion.  If it was proved 100% that evolution was fact with irrefutable evidence then religion would just evolve, the same way it did when we proved that the Earth was round rather than flat.  Genesis would be subtely changed over time:

1:14 And on the fourth geological era God created amino acids.  And he looked upon the amino acids and saw that they were good.  And he did say 'ya amino acids, go forth and combine to make proteins' and the amino acids went forth in the knowledge and love of God.

Religion exists because lots of people can't cope with the idea that this life is all there is.  Especially people who have a crappy life.  And like all commodities, if there is enough demand someone will step up and provide it, probably making a lot of profit in the process.  Religion isn't going anywhere until all the gullible people and all the people prepared to take advantage of gullible people are gone.  

And that isnt happening any time soon.

[pjkeeley]

1:14 And on the fourth geological era God created amino acids.  And he looked upon the amino acids and saw that they were good.  And he did say 'ya amino acids, go forth and combine to make proteins' and the amino acids went forth in the knowledge and love of God.

Bahahahahahahaha!!!