you said that you believe humans have evolved into our current status. my question is simple for i too am a simple man.

Where did the first atom of matter come from? Where did the substance that was our previous status come from?

thank you sir.
Trent

Since our new resident atheist punts on the question, I'll answer.

Our best current cosmology suggests that the known universe came into being as the result of the Big Bang--a veritable explosion into being of all things some 15-20 billion years ago.

The standard theory--the version that is supported b y both direct empirical evidence and any plausible theory of physics--is that our Big Bang was one of a kind.

If you are an atheist, then this kinda sucks. COnsider the well-know quote from Robert Jastrow:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Why is it a "bad dream"? Because to suggest that the universe had an absolute beginning in time invites the question, "What brought it into being?" And the apparently theological implications of this question are "repugnant" to the atheist.

Suppose you thyink the following are all true:

(1) "Our" Big Bang occurred
(2) There is no God.
(3) Nothing just pops into existence without a prior cause.

ANyone who accepts (1) - (3) needs to say that, somehow, there always having been something is compatible with the theory thqat our universe had an absolute beginning. And the solution is....

The Oscillating Model.

On this model, our Big Bang, which signals the inauguration of our universe, is one in an infinite series of Big Bangs. The idea is that, perhaps, a uiniverse explodes into being and begins to expand. As it expands, that is, as the individual particles of which it is comprised put more and more "daylight" between them, there is a counterforce. That counterforce is the mutual gravitational attraction of the stuff that makes up the expanding universe. At some point, this counterforce prevails, the expansion halts, and the universe begins to collapse back on itself. Suppose that it has done this over and over and over again--infintely. Then we can say that matter-energy is eternal and uncreated and also embrace Big Bang theory.

The Oscillating Model is the "Great White Hope" of thinking atheists. (There are plenty of unthinking atheists, but they are another matter.)

Problem: It's a reasonably simple equation to determine whether the osciullating model coresponds to how things are. The basic question is this: Is the universe dense enough? That is, is there sufficient matter so that the mutual atrraction would prevail over the thrust of the explosion of the Big Bang? And the question is resolved empirically--a matter of trying to discover various forms of matter that, together, might throw everything into reverse. And, unfortunately, it just ain't there.

So it looks like our best science (are all you "dumb Georgia hicks" still reading this?) implies an absolute beginning to the material universe.

And, as Jastrow observes, "Let there be light" may well be a nice metaphorical way of describing what happened.

Muddle, excellent points, and I basically agree with you. However, one other possibility to consider in support of the Oscillating Model is that the universe might be curved back on itself in the same way as the Earth is. The surface of the earth can be considered as a two-dimensional curved surface on a three-dimensional object, and if two individuals both start at the North Pole and head south in opposite directions, they will be heading directly away from each other at first, but eventually they will meet back together at the South Pole. (assuming they can walk on water, both travel at the same speed, etc, etc) It is possible that the universe is curved in four dimensions like the Earth is curved in three dimensions. If so, then two spaceships departing Earth in opposite directions would eventually pass each other at the far end of the universe, wherever that happens to be. If you extend that concept to the Big Bang, then it doesn't require any counterforce to bring all the matter back into a "big crunch" at some point billions of years from now. All the matter that is currently expanding will eventually pass the halfway point where it is the maximum distance apart (corresponding to the two individuals passing the equator on opposite sides of the planet) and then the matter will start getting closer together without ever changing direction.

Even if this turns out to be true, I don't think it shows there is no God. The main problem I see with atheism is that it promotes a very cold, meaningless view of our existence. There has to be a meaning to live, or otherwise, what's the point?

Atheism doesn't have the answer for you, but if you feel like you can't carry on your life without knowing that absolute answer then I would settle for what the church tells you. But I can for certainty tell you that the world is not flat and that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and the church ALSO says the first matter was created by God, so...

Seriously though if you're genuinely interested in knowing what the best theories are on the formation of the universe (and I know you're not) I would read some of Carl Sagan's work. But if you want your answers in absolutes, and wrong, check the bible.

Long story short, the bible is NOT a work of God, good Christians already know not to interpret it literally. Except for the quaint old South.

.

Great reply! If only such discussions could achieve this level of reflection,

I admit that I need a refresher course. What you describe sounds like Hawkings' assessment of the Big Bang.

What does the model really imply? I mean, your example of the curvature of the earth is interesting. But the earth doesn't oscillate. It's just, like, round and hangs there. Does the universe really oscillate, or is this just an account of how we might perceive space-time with a gravitational curve?

(You've driven me off to do some homework, at any rate.)

This is an absolutely incidniary environment for so many reasons. I believe in God and I also believe that evolution or acclimation or adaptation has occurred, does, and will occur. This, of course, is why micro-organisms adapt to antibiotics requiring us to recreate a better peniccilin. Pardon the spelling by the way. I believe evolution is also a creation of God. This is how we survive at high altitudes or in deserts or in northern Alaska. We have been given tools to adapt.

Here, I believe, is where christianity and other religions run afoul in the eyes of non-believers or those of agnostic or atheistic tendancies. When religion is used to raise mega millions and make individuals incredibly wealthy, this brings skepticism to anyone not in the church. When those proclaiming christ and the precious nature of life aggressively support death penalties and oppose tax dollars being used for social benefits like SCHIP or environmental protection, it makes outsiders doubt the sincerity of those professing the Be attitudes. When the very judgemental end up in gambling, financial, or sex scandals, it causes others to question not only their personal behavior, but also the faith which they profess. I know many a non-believer, and trust me when I say the big-haired lady on TBN is not going to win them for christ (especially when talking aobut the thousands upon thousands of dollars of XMAS decorations planned this year). This gets very confusing. Do you believe in the Mormon version of afterlife with people and planets worshipping you in your latter day sainthood? Are we recreated over and over as a Hindu believes? Are there (gulp) many more virgins waiting than your average gentleman would care to address? And what happens to Muslim women when they cross over? Is there someone like that "Mr Wonderful" doll giving compliments and doing housework?
Bottom line is the only chance we have with this subject is peaceful coexistence; we all have the right to disagree here.
My belief in God has alot to do with the will to live. Teetaw, you ever here of people dying because they are old and suddenly widowed and alone? Or people injured so severly that doctors write them off? But they pull through? I've seen and lived enough miracles to know in my heart that God exists. I also know people use his name to make wars, money, guilt, etc. That is their problem. I enjoy the diversity of ideas though.

Cheers

Kevin "Hack" King

If I thought that true Christianity was represented by what I see when I turn on the cable channels, I would never go to church.

Wait.

I don't ever go to church. Lately, anyway.

It's no real surprise, though, that religion could become big business in a culture like ours. I noticed in Barnes and Noble the other day that Joel Osteen has a new book on the racks. It is, no doubt, yet another "baptized" version iof pop psychology.

But I would like to keep things separate here. The question is whether, despite acknowledged idiocy, there are grounds for thinking we live in a universe "charged with the grandeur of God."

I don't think that either view is inevitably a result of what one arbitrarily "chooses to believe." Ideas have consequences. The question is whether the world as we know it is compatible with would-be theistic consequences or would-be atheistic consequences.

(I confess that I sometimes watche the religious channels on the grounds that I don't have cable and cannot get the Comedy Channel. The things that preachers say are sometimes quite laughable.)

I know I don't have all the answers. But, I know Christ.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I'm not going to debate but rather offer you a sincere invitation to my church home.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I've laid down several propositons that I think are defensible. Each offers some indepdent reason for embracing theism over naturalism. Taken together (so say I), they form an impressive cumulative case argument.

I invite you to challenge any one of them in serious debate instead of indulging yourself in references to the "good ol' south" and redneck Christianity.

As river said, your case doesn't really confirm or deny the existence of God. So what should I challenge exactly? If you're going to quote material from websites "arming" Christians with knowledge about atheist nightmares, heres a hint: it isn't going to work, because the burden of proof isn't on us. Heres some more atheist nightmares if anyone feels like laughing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&NR=1

On a side note, since I'm here, anyone here think the earth is 6000 years old?

I'm not sure what you have in mind regarding "websites." I suppose you have in mind the fundamentalist pseudo-intellectual who gasses up on canned and contrived responses to big bad atheists. Sounds like more of the same from you--appealing to stereotypes rather than actually offering a case for what you think. This, of course, is the trademark of the Village Atheist. (Amazingly, Dawkins' most recent book is several hundred pages of precisely this, as he attacks theistic "proofs" that no serious philosopher would ever defend, and carefully chooses examples of wild-eyed fundamentalism to belittle.) I had rather hoped to discover someone whose atheism is the product of genuine and careful reflection.

To allege that "the burden of proof isn't on us" is to assume a presumption in favor of atheism. But why think that? Garden variety atheism is not a neutral view, but a worldview--naturalism--that is a competitor just as surely as is any other worldview. And I maintain that naturalism is, at bottom, inadequate. What you are called upon to defend, then, is the adequacy of naturalism.

So, again, I refer to the set of propositions that I laid down in the other thread. My guess is that you've never thought about the sorts of projects that are forced upon the thinking naturalist in these areas. What I would demonstrate to you, were you up for the debate, is that while the issues are stimulating, and there are lots of interesting moves the naturalist can make, (a) at the very least, the deal has not been sealed as people like you so glibly assume and (b) in fact, there are lingering and potentially fatal objections to a thoroughgoing naturalism.

Should I assume, then, that you are pretty much limited to bumper sticker debate? You know: The Christian opens with the "truth fish." You reply with the Darwin amphibian. The fundamentalist rejoinder is the truth fish devouring the Darwin amphibian. Up to you, then, to think of something nasty to do to the truth fish....

Meanwhile, if you continue to play in the shallow end of the pool with those who "think the earth is 6000 years old" then I'm not sure that we could together sustain much of an exchange after all.

you done stepped off in it now! I'm not even going to address your comments, you are too far gone! As the saying goes, it is what it is . . . God is what it is!

Personally, I'm running for cover, because simply responding to your comments might get me struck by lightening!

Well rivers, man made the pond but not the water!
The pond can and will disappear, but the water will not. It comes and goes!

Just an FYI - water is a compound made up of hydrogen and oxygen and can be made. Just look up at jet contrails.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I believe Mr. Rivers meaning is that the elements cannot be created, only imitations!
Water of course is not an element but what it is made of is!
Sometimes deep thought is beyond some.

where then do the hydrogen and oxygen molecules come from my friend?

can you make even one of those and put them together?

can you make even one molecule of anything from nothing?

Trent

Oh wise one - the use of metaphors can sometimes lead one to question the intent and accuracy of the discussion. After your acknowledgement I see your intent.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

The 'order of the universe' is astounding, isn't it? And there are those that believe that it just happened? Heck, just look at how our bodies are constructed and how we're wired. And we're supposed to believe that all this technology we use daily evolved from inert matter?

Which one requires more faith? The faith that God created the universe and the order within? Or, the faith that life and the perfectly timed and orchestrated universe in which we exist evolved from.... 'whatever'?

If one steps back and honestly looks at our world, they would have to concede that it takes less faith to believe in a creator than it does to believe that we arose from some slimy pit.

On a side note.... Have you wondered how many of 'those' who deny God's existence are the folks that believe in mediums and ghosts?

We each place our faith in one god or another, don't we? But, that's a whole other blog.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

"The 'order of the universe' is astounding, isn't it? And there are those that believe that it just happened? Heck, just look at how our bodies are constructed and how we're wired. And we're supposed to believe that all this technology we use daily evolved from inert matter?"

There is a lot less order in the universe than you are giving it credit for. The human being is imperfectly created, believe it or not, and somewhat inefficiently at that, if you care to do some homework about the human spinal posture and eyes. This isn't technology in any sense, but does lend itself credence to evolving over time and necessity.

Which one requires more faith? The faith that God created the universe and the order within? Or, the faith that life and the perfectly timed and orchestrated universe in which we exist evolved from.... 'whatever'? Puzzled

It takes less faith to believe that we magically came to be in a puff of smoke and divine sparklers than it does to believe that we gradually came to existence and awareness by evolving. But I suppose thats just a silly statement to believe.

On a side note.... Have you wondered how many of 'those' who deny God's existence are the folks that believe in mediums and ghosts? Puzzled

Atheists don't believe in the supernatural and it is laughable to say that the same people who believe there is no such thing as God, believes in ghosts. It's the religious folk that do that. We're just not divine enough to believe (or like to believe) that there are holy (or less than) ghosts floating about out there. I would love to see evidence that atheists are more superstitious than theists.

my people are from north carolina and florida. we know that no matter where we are- god too is there.

no man can make a grain of sand or a single feather.

a single man cannot move that which he does not touch, yet GAOH, god of the wind, can make things move without revealling the bear or the panther to the eyes of men.

Trent

I'm not sure about North Carolina, but the bear and the panther can still be hidden behind a wind blown bush, I agree,
I have never believed in the wind nor electricity anyway. You can't see either one, and what you might feel about it doesn't explain its existence.
When you have a headache, it might not be there. Could be it is the wind blowing, maybe!
GAOH? I don't know it!

Hi, welcome back!

God Bless

Be certain that we choose the right god and walk the true path. It is good to see your return to the blogs my friend.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY