The Exploding Head

[tyler90az]

That was not a threat, just a simple reminder of the golden rule. Personally, I choose not to take part in ignorant mocking myself. I have much that could be mocked just like any other person, that applies to my beliefs as well. For me to do so, just like if you did, shows a lack of intelligence or lack of confidence in our own beliefs or we feel threatened.

[mfbukowski]

Of course it is -- you simply reverse the arrow of time and see what happens. But in the meantime, as Spock would say, the logic is inescapable.

Unfortunately, logic is always escapable. It depends on how a statement is expressed and interpreted. Sorry, but that is just a fact of life.

[TAO]

I wouldn't say this is a good response to atheists. Most atheists don't have problems with the unobserved, they just have problems with believing in the unobserved.

On the other hand, in my personal opinion, I don't think there's a foundation for those who think the universe created itself. There had to be something beforehand, either matter or God (or for us, both).

Edited July 10, 2013 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

I don't think there's a foundation for those who think the universe created itself. There had to be something beforehand, either matter or God (or for us, both).

I think we have to think that way. I don't think our minds are capable of understanding pure nothingness. To me, that is a good argument against ex nihilo- we really can't conceive of "nihilo"- and if God was there, then it wasn't "nihilo"' was it??

There's no evolutionary survival value in conceiving of such an idea. SomeTHING is always either chasing you or giving us problems. We are built to deal with rocks and trees, building houses, killing animals or being killed by them and foraging for food. Our minds work instrumentally- and contemplating nothingness doesn't really accomplish much which is useful. We just aren't built for it. I think that is as true for theists as well as atheists.

But I think we all need a purpose in life- something that gives us hope to go on and get out of bed in the morning- both theists and atheists need that.

It really just boils down to how we think about those ineffable experiences we all have- looking out at the milky way, or feeling guided in decisions in life or how we justify and rationalize those feelings we all get.

We create our own little worlds, and whether or not we include God in it is up to us, based on our own understandings.

[USU78]

I don't get how asking what caused the Big Bang either presupposes a Watchmaker or is a circular argument.

I've read at least 3 physicists who believe strongly in a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches . . . and the Turtles go all the way down in each of their conceptions of the cosmos.

Any child can ask the question, "Yeah, but what came before that?" and have us all stumped.

That is not circular.

It is, rather, unanswerable by the scientific method. No tool exists for measuring "what came before that."

And the "what" doesn't have to be a watchmaker. The existence or nonexistence of the watchmaker is irrelevant to the unanswerability of the question, in my view.

[mfbukowski]

I don't get how asking what caused the Big Bang either presupposes a Watchmaker or is a circular argument.

I've read at least 3 physicists who believe strongly in a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches . . . and the Turtles go all the way down in each of their conceptions of the cosmos.

Any child can ask the question, "Yeah, but what came before that?" and have us all stumped.

That is not circular.

It is, rather, unanswerable by the scientific method. No tool exists for measuring "what came before that."

And the "what" doesn't have to be a watchmaker. The existence or nonexistence of the watchmaker is irrelevant to the unanswerability of the question, in my view.

Agreed completely.

Darn it all. Those scientific tools get crunched along with the rest of it.

But a fun question, might be whether or not those scientists who believe in multiple Big Crunches have a faith-based belief system, since I suppose such a thing cannot be proven if indeed EVERYTHING gets crunched and there is no evidence for what came "before" if such a concept makes sense when time itself gets crunched too.

Edited July 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Questing Beast]

Well, existence is infinite in all dimensions. That means that this steel ball bearing in my palm, which is very dense in our scale of observation, is, in fact, non existent within itself. If you "descend" in scale far enough - far "beneath" the subatomic - the distance between the "particles" that make up the subatomic, is so great that no light reaches them. Anyone (thing) traveling between those "particles" perceives only a black void. And yet, scale up, and that traveler is inside the ball bearing resting weightily in the palm of my hand....

[mfbukowski]

Well, existence is infinite in all dimensions. That means that this steel ball bearing in my palm, which is very dense in our scale of observation, is, in fact, non existent within itself. If you "descend" in scale far enough - far "beneath" the subatomic - the distance between the "particles" that make up the subatomic, is so great that no light reaches them. Anyone (thing) traveling between those "particles" perceives only a black void. And yet, scale up, and that traveler is inside the ball bearing resting weightily in the palm of my hand....

Yep. So what is the ball bearing "really"?

It all depends on the context and perspective.

[cdowis]

Unfortunately, logic is always escapable. It depends on how a statement is expressed and interpreted. Sorry, but that is just a fact of life.

You might find this interesting, where it is stated in dimensions. Somehow he is able to throw "free agency" into a dimensional model.

[cdowis]

Make a cartoon that gives the atheist a stupid sounding voice. Now give the theist a smart sounding voice but have his actual words express the usual stupid talking points. Next have your atheist character implausibly have no comeback on any of these tired old nuggets of theistic pseudowisdom.

OK, let's give some real arguments that atheists give (on yourtube)

1. I don't understand (the ignorance argument -- also "God is deceptive")

2. If I were God, I would do things differently. (If God actually existed, he would do things differently)

3. That is absurd (mocking tone of voice)

4. Primitive people constructed the concept of god. (Since there are false gods, God does not exist)

4. Believers are ignorant, arrogant, superstitious -- someone as intelligent as Jesus would today be an atheist.

OH, BTW, "I am a passionate believer in the truth".

Edited July 11, 2013 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

An excellent response to cdowis' "arrow of time reversal".

[bcuzbcuz]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/10/evolution-vs-god-movie-so-popular-it-crashes-evangelical-leaders-website-its-going-to-take-down-evolution/

Here is a new movie about God vs Evolution. I have not seen the trailor yet so I am not sure what to think. My first reaction to some of the comment about how athiest are "nervous" make me think the people involved with this movie have some wishful thinking going on.

The movie is endorsed by Ken Ham! That's a seal of approval if anything is!??? (I only wish my sarcastic voice could be portrayed in this medium)

[cdowis]

An excellent response to cdowis' "arrow of time reversal".

OK, I also enjoyed it.... and?

[mfbukowski]

You might find this interesting, where it is stated in dimensions. Somehow he is able to throw "free agency" into a dimensional model.

Great video, thanks.

I think there are a couple of things I might point out, and that is that he still wants to make a connection to a physical "reality" which he spends most of the video saying can't really be done. I think this is clearest around minute 7:10. So that seems a little contradictory to me.

But I have no clue how he throws in free will there at the end. For me free will is a subjective experience which has nothing to do with science. It cannot be objectively observed or defined, so it is no more scientific than writing a symphony is.

I mean where does Beethoven's Fifth fit into this dimensional model? Clearly it has nothing to do with it. That is how I see free will.

[mfbukowski]

OK, let's give some real arguments that atheists give (on yourtube)

1. I don't understand (the ignorance argument -- also "God is deceptive")

2. If I were God, I would do things differently. (If God actually existed, he would do things differently)

3. That is absurd (mocking tone of voice)

4. Primitive people constructed the concept of god. (Since there are false gods, God does not exist)

4. Believers are ignorant, arrogant, superstitious -- someone as intelligent as Jesus would today be an atheist.

OH, BTW, "I am a passionate believer in the truth".

I think the ony thing accurate about the exploding head video is the way it portrays the attitude of atheists, and for that I would say it is right on.

Most of them are ignorant fundamentalists who's religon is science.

Clearly that does not apply to all of them any more than it applies to all theists, though we have our share of fundamentalists as well, obviously. I think that to be a thinking theist in today's world, one must have had personal experiences which can be explained only by the existence of God, and not all have had those. The experience carries with it it's own "verification" to the believer- and for him it can be explained no other way.

I can't explain why some have those experiences and others do not, all I know is that I have had them after being a total non-believer for many years and it was the experiences which changed it all.

[cdowis]

Yep, I was was hoping someone could explain it to me, but it is an interesting idea. I get the feeling that this video is part of a larger project, so perhaps he explains it elsewhere.

Now Beethoven's Fifth is a static "thing", while free agency is dynamic. There are lots of things that we cannot observe but it certainly can be defined. Anyway, my guess is that it may have something to do with quantum probability.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the ony thing accurate about the exploding head video is the way it portrays the attitude of atheists, and for that I would say it is right on.

Most of them are ignorant fundamentalists who's religon is science.

Clearly that does not apply to all of them any more than it applies to all theists, though we have our share of fundamentalists as well, obviously. I think that to be a thinking theist in today's world, one must have had personal experiences which can be explained only by the existence of God, and not all have had those. The experience carries with it it's own "verification" to the believer- and for him it can be explained no other way.

I can't explain why some have those experiences and others do not, all I know is that I have had them after being a total non-believer for many years and it was the experiences which changed it all.

Believe me Atheist can be just as ignorant about science as Theists are.

[mfbukowski]

Now Beethoven's Fifth is a static "thing", while free agency is dynamic.

I'm just giving you a hard time for fun here, but I think some might debate that point with you.

[ERayR]

Your argument presupposes a cause. A grand watchmaker. Science knows of no way to have a time before time existed.

You seem to presume that science knows everything. I reject that premise.

[ERayR]

Well, existence is infinite in all dimensions. That means that this steel ball bearing in my palm, which is very dense in our scale of observation, is, in fact, non existent within itself. If you "descend" in scale far enough - far "beneath" the subatomic - the distance between the "particles" that make up the subatomic, is so great that no light reaches them. Anyone (thing) traveling between those "particles" perceives only a black void. And yet, scale up, and that traveler is inside the ball bearing resting weightily in the palm of my hand....

Then again we may all exist inside a locker in an enormous wall. (MIB) Where is that wall located? On and on we go.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The movie is endorsed by Ken Ham! That's a seal of approval if anything is!??? (I only wish my sarcastic voice could be portrayed in this medium)

Yeah I saw that. I am not real big on the Creationists.

[ERayR]

Yeah I saw that. I am not real big on the Creationists.

I am not real big on the young earth Creationists or evolutionists.

Edited July 11, 2013 by ERayR

[tyler90az]

I think the Book of Mormon says it best, maybe your Prophet Alma was the one, just do not worry about how the earth was created. He basically says, this is how it was created now stop worrying about it. At first that may seem dumb to not worry about it, like your accepting ignorance. But, from my own thinking, we can not really know for sure how the earth was created. Rather it was the big bang or God, we just can not know with certainty. That means we are all ignorant on the subject of how the earth came to be. If ignorance is the only option then it is wise just to let it go. From that conclusion, it is best to apply my time to another subject. Now if you prayed and found out the answer more power to you. My thoughts have always drawn me towards creation. The only problem is I have no way to prove it, I am left to think endlessly on the subject.

[thesometimesaint]

You seem to presume that science knows everything. I reject that premise.

I do too. Science is merely the best explanation for a natural event/object we have so far.

PS. If you want to disprove science just come up with a better explanation of the evidence.

Edited July 12, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

Believe me Atheist can be just as ignorant about science as Theists are.

Edited July 12, 2013 by ERayR