Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
RE: RE: God`s Inexistence

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael Wright on October 26, 2000 07:55:24 UTC

"We (humanity) have created parent figures through history because, among other reasons, we as a race are afraid of our decisions. We prefer to have a deity to pray to or blame because of, or about our decisions. Belief in God, however is different because God doesn't govern our lives or play with humanity like Norse, Greek, Incan etc. gods." –Andy™

I may be wrong (I have not read the Bible), but didn’t God directly intervene with Moses and the 7 Deadly Plagues? I’m sure I’ve heard of other instances in the past, but it’s 2 am and none come to mind. My point - God was the reason for a lot of things in the past. Humans have moved explanations of our world away from God(s) and toward science. Our ancestors were perfectly happy with their explanation/interpretation of God and worldly phenomena. You are also perfectly happy with your explanation/interpretation. But, my friend, it is exactly that – an explanation (not even based on hard proven science or scientific data) and an interpretation (one that has probably evolved as you aged). Sure God doesn’t govern our lives now… but he did in the past, again I’m sorry I can’t back this up with evidence, but I hope some other people on this forum can. What made God suddenly so distant? Maybe, using your ideas about 6 days being 15.75 billion years, his pizza’s ready (and has been for 2000 or so earth-years) and he has to go get it out of the oven…

"Believe it or not, there are things that occur in this universe that are completely beyond scientific explanation. Not many, and many are frauds, but they do exist." –Andy™

Things that seem to defy scientific explanation are very interesting to me. I’ve yet to find one that actually does, though. Care to share some? And the one that are frauds – doesn’t the fact that they’re frauds mean they really are explainable scientifically by default?

"You're absolutely right that life is a miracle. The lack of evolutionary links between phyla, the apparent leaps of evolution according to the fossil record, the fact that matter forming after the big bang has odds similar to winning the lottery, and then the odds of planets forming around stars are like the same person winning the lottery a second time, and then the incredible odds that a planet's specifications are ideal for life to evolve are like winning the lottery for a third time. I could go on, but the point has been made. The odds of such things occurring are so extreme, that there is no way it could happen. There were very limited windows of opportunity in which events after the big bang had to occur." –Andy™

Dictionary.com says:
mir·a·cle (m r -k l)
n.
1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: “Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves” (Katherine Anne Porter).
2. One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder.
If you mean that life is a “miracle” by definition (1), then I urge you to read the latest research on the creation of life and go here http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt64.html. If you assert that life is a “miracle” by definition (2), I wholeheartedly agree! J Also, if you are too lazy to go to the local library (like I am) a simple internet search can do wonders.

I’m not going to touch your evolution bit; the issue has been beaten to death already in its own thread.

Your assertions on the creation of matter and planets and the “life zone” for planets I can address, though-
You spoke of matter forming after the big bang… This issue has nothing to do with the formation of planets. Planets are created in the solar nebulas of protostars and very young stars. As for your statement that planets forming around stars are very rare, visit any extrasolar planet web site or read any recent extrasolar planet book or article or other text and you will learn that extrasolar planets around main sequence stars (especially stable, long-lived, average stars that provide suitable “life zones” for planets to form in – like our sun, for example) are way more common than you think. Here’s a good starting point: http://www.jtwinc.com/Extrasolar/. Fact is, the odds aren’t as extreme as we once thought they were. You might disagree with me on this one, but before you close the issue entirely, read the next few sentences.
It never ceases to amaze me – the overwhelmingly majority of people that I speak to about astronomy or cosmology simply cannot grasp the mere vastness of our universe. Billions of galaxies with billions of stars each… No matter how small you think the odds are, look at the number of stars you can roll the dice on. Life probably isn’t all that uncommon – but hey, that’s not what this thread is about ;).

"We, as a race, do not try to explain events through religion. We strive to explain them scientifically and succeed most often. Many events portrayed in the bible are scientifically explainable, not all, but many. Even a six day creation is possible if one considers the fact that the CBR is the cosmic clock and by its standards and how much faster the "ticks" of the cosmic clock were after the big bang. By that method, it is possible to have 15 billion years of evolution in what would have been on earth a 24 hour day." –Andy™

Haven’t we (humans) been explaining things through religion for thousands of years? The creation of humans, earth, and even the universe (or cosmos for those Greek aficionados among us) are all explained in religious scripture, right?

As an undergraduate astronomy student, I would be very interesting if you can explain how CBR is the cosmic “clock” and how much faster the “ticks” were after the big bang (as opposed to before?). Then explain how you can fit 15 billion years into a 24-hour earth day. Don’t worry about getting technical; I can grasp the difficult language and mathematical formulas better than most.

"The days of using gods to explain rudimentary occurrences are past. God himself is still perfectly valid. Just because we are in his image doesn't mean we are physically created in his image. God has no body. being in his image simply means we have a soul. He quite possibly endowed us, the smartest beings on earth, with this soul at the end of the last day of creation (which, by the CBR was 1/4 billion years long)." –Andy™

Yes, I agree that the days of using gods to explain rudimentary occurrences are past. Why are they past? Is it because science has evolved and grown to explain what we have traditionally attributed to God? If so, then what makes you think that science won’t explain everything we can think of (the Big Bang, the beginning of life on earth, etc.)? Would God be valid then? Why? If everything is accounted for by science, God is just something we tack onto the end – an extra, unimportant factor. I apologize for asking so many questions, but I think that if everybody answers these for themselves, they might think a little more, ask more questions, and find some answers.

How does being in God’s image simply mean we have a soul? How do you know God has no body? Oh, yeah – it’s your interpretation, right? Gotcha. I’ll just file that one next to the 3 billion other interpretations, half of which contradict yours.

Back to the CBR… How does ¼ billion years equal one earth-day?

"Your position on the existence of God is quite plain. You made it clear simply by titling the thread in this manner. No amount of probability or statistics will change your mind about God’s exists. There's a chance, however slim, that a first-hand experience might, but it is unlikely if you have already closed your mind to the possibility, which you apparently have, judging by the title of the thread. Chances are, you wouldn't even be able to recognize the event. It is wise to continue to consider possibilities, however improbable they may be. If I hadn't, I would never have considered applying the Law of Relativity to the six day creation and found that a six day creation equals roughly 15.75 billion years, using the CBR as a cosmic clock (CBR is shorthand for Cosmic Background Radiation, an apparent remnant of the big bang.)." -Andy™

I don’t think that any probability or statistic will change your mind that God doesn’t exist. You might think that I have closed my mind to God – you think that I wouldn’t even be able to recognize the “event,” whatever that may be… But I like to fancy myself a very open-minded individual. From my humble experience and logic, it seems most likely (most probable, most statistically accurate) that God doesn’t exist. But, then again, that’s just my interpretation of the data (all we’ve ever learned through science).

And we’re back to the CBR again… How does a six-day creation fit into 15.75 billion years?


One more thing –

"He quite possibly endowed us, the smartest beings on earth, with this soul at the end of the last day of creation (which, by the CBR was 1/4 billion years long)." –Andy™

"…a six day creation equals roughly 15.75 billion years, using the CBR as a cosmic clock…" -Andy™

I am assuming that each day of creation was the same length relative to your “CBR clock.” If I am wrong, disregard this last paragraph. If I am correct, then according to your first statement, the last day of creation was ¼ billion years long.
But, according to your second statement, 6 days of creation were 15.75 billion years long. This implies that each day of creation was 2.625 billion years long. Last time I checked, 2.625 billion years does not equal ¼ billion years.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins