• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where did the Universe come from?

Where did the Universe come from?


  • Total voters
    82
Faith can give you knowledge.

For example? Because if its known to be true, it has to be logically valid, rational, based on demonstrably true premises or axioms, and without logical fallacy.

Who said all gods are mutually incompatible?

Not I, where'd you get that from? The ones with contradictory claims and characteristics certainly are tho. Some gods can exist together, hypothetically speaking, like in polytheistic religions. But not between two competing polytheistic religions. Understand?


?
 
Last edited:
Faith is not rational.

Then why use it?

Faith can give you knowledge.

No it can't. A claim on something is not knowledge. I can state whatever I want and say I believe in it because of faith, but it gives me no new knowledge. In fact it gets me nowhere whatsoever.
 
For example?

When you have faith, you believe it to be true and that gives you knowledge. Granted, it is not verifiable. But there is truth in the imagination.



The contradictory claims and characteristics of them do.

That is merely superficial personality. At their core they are divine. The true God is without form. All religions offer a primitive version of the true God, although Vedanta and Islam come closest.



Sorry. :) Doch is an interesting German word that negates a negative.
 
Then why use it?

It is a part of who you are. You are not a rational person.



No it can't. A claim on something is not knowledge. I can state whatever I want and say I believe in it because of faith, but it gives me no new knowledge. In fact it gets me nowhere whatsoever.

There is a difference between saying you have faith in something and actually having faith in something. Having faith in something brings you knowledge.

It is like love. Loving someone brings you knowledge that they love you back. It is not rational.
 
Verrrry interesting... It reveals just how many closet religious and overt science believers there are on this forum.

ricksfolly
 
A claim on something is not knowledge. I can state whatever I want and say I believe in it because of faith, but it gives me no new knowledge. In fact it gets me nowhere whatsoever.

I agree, but only if you don't have the documentation or the demonstration to prove it.

ricksfolly
 
Verrrry interesting... It reveals just how many closet religious and overt science believers there are on this forum.

ricksfolly

:lol:
Why am I not surprised to see another theist making statements as fact and then FAIL to intelligibly defend them.
 
I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

When you have faith, you believe it to be true and that gives you knowledge.

Thats NOT knowledge. Believing something to be true doesn't effect the truth of your belief whatsoever.

Granted, it is not verifiable. But there is truth in the imagination.

What?!?! By that standard there is truth to the boogeyman story...

That is merely superficial personality. At their core they are divine. The true God is without form. All religions offer a primitive version of the true God, although Vedanta and Islam come closest.

Sorry. :) Doch is an interesting German word that negates a negative.

And you would know this how? Oh thats right I forget you don't draw distinctions between true knowledge and mere imagination. What an utterly baseless assertion...
 
Last edited:
I agree, but only if you don't have the documentation or the demonstration to prove it.

ricksfolly

If you can demonstrate the truth of something then why do you need faith? You don't!

The problem is no theist can demonstrate the existence of their god, the presence of miracles, spirit, souls, the devil, heaven, hell, or the holy spirit.
All they can do is CLAIM such things exist. They never demonstrate or use reason or evidence to confirm or verify that which they claim.

Instead you get those such as Reef who believe that because he can contemplate it in his mind and he wants it to be true then it MUST be true and real! Its downright ridiculous.
 
Hey, at least he admitted to not being rational or logical. I think that pretty much seals the deal on what he is trying to "argue". Frankly, I'm confused as to why he keeps responding; this is a debate forum after all, and one cannot debate with blind faith and feelings, no matter how warm and fuzzy they are.
 
Last edited:
Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

Thats NOT knowledge. Believing something to be true doesn't effect the truth of your belief whatsoever.

It is a form of knowledge.

Oh thats right I forget you don't draw distinctions between true knowledge and mere imagination.

No, I draw a distinction between those two different types of knowledge.
 
Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

It is a form of knowledge.
What "knowledge" exactly does imagination provide? Is there some way to confirm that your imagination represents reality rather than fiction?


No, I draw a distinction between those two different types of knowledge.
Please explain how you draw a distinction between imagination and verified confirmed theories and facts?
 
Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

What "knowledge" exactly does imagination provide? Is there some way to confirm that your imagination represents reality rather than fiction?

I believe I said faith provides knowledge, not imagination. Love also provides knowledge. There is no way to confirm it.



Please explain how you draw a distinction between imagination and verified confirmed theories and facts?

verified confirmed theories and facts are testable. Knowledge from faith is not.
 
Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

It was a Big Bang.

God spoke and *BANG*, it happened. :mrgreen:

Details of time scale and biological specifics are left open-ended as an exercise for the student.
(as I've mentioned before, I don't get in a tizzy over it. I'll know one day.)
 
Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

I believe I said faith provides knowledge, not imagination.
what knowledge does faith not provide?
can't it be argued that faith provides knowledge for anything, cincluding bigfoot, fairyies, gods, and string theory?

Love also provides knowledge.
such as?
You claimed before that love provides knowledge of mutual love. This is demonstrably false. We can show plenty examples of people who believe they are in love and the other person loves them back when in fact it is only one-sided.


There is no way to confirm it.
:lol: what use is knowledge that can't be confirmed? Is it for the placebo effect?
You can't even claim that the "knowledge" is true. All you can claim is that you "believe" its true.


verified confirmed theories and facts are testable. Knowledge from faith is not.
And is therefore indistinguishable from fiction.
 
Last edited:
Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

what knowledge does faith not provide?
can't it be argued that faith provides knowledge for anything, cincluding bigfoot, fairyies, gods, and string theory?

Yes.

such as?
You claimed before that love provides knowledge of mutual love. This is demonstrably false. We can show plenty examples of people who believe they are in love and the other person loves them back when in fact it is only one-sided.

True. I suppose love doesn't actually give one knowledge of another. Still.


:lol: what use is knowledge that can't be confirmed?

You can reason with it. You can find comfort in it. You can evolve spiritually with it.

You can't even claim that the "knowledge" is true. All you can claim is that you "believe" its true.

True.

And is therefore indistinguishable from fiction.

There is a world of difference between faith and fiction.
 
Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

Yes.



True. I suppose love doesn't actually give one knowledge of another. Still.




You can reason with it. You can find comfort in it. You can evolve spiritually with it.



True.



There is a world of difference between faith and fiction.

I rest my case.
 
Care to explain WHY you believe what you do?

1) What reason or evidence makes you believe God created the universe?
I'd be glad to explain my beliefs, and I'm sorry for the late reply. I have been in school all day.
The evidence I base my beliefs on is the fact that the universe is orderly and governed by scientific laws. Order does not arise from chaos. Not only this, but the odds for a life supporting planet are astronomical/impossible. We know through science that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This states, it would require a power beyond science to speak into existence all that we know. By scientific definition all of what comprises the physical universe could not have spontaneously generated itself or was self created, especially for no reason.
2) What makes you believe the universe isn't billions of years old? Have you read why geologists and scientists claim this?
Scientists base their belief that the universe is billions of years old on many factors such as starlight (billions of light-years away) and the Hubble constant (a rate for the expansion of the universe). I know there are several other things, but these two are major. My belief is that both means are false/flawed. I can't summarize everything here, but here are two links that disprove/show problems for the Hubble expansion constant. Hubble, hubble, big bang in trouble? The Hubble Law
Also, being able to see stars billions of light years away also poses a problem for the big bang. Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang

My view is also based on evidence from earth that the world itself is not billions of years old such as finding soft tissue in fossils, the earth's magnetic field, the record of human history that we have, geology, and many other things.
3) how has science been "hijacked by the naturalist's philosophy"? What reason or evidence do you have for this or are you merely parroting your preacher's/Sunday_school_teacher's sermon?

The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science in that it has pretty much removed the concept of a higher power and has deemed it as unscientific or illogical. It is the belief that all we can know/all that exists is nature, and that there is a natural, non-supernatural explanation for everything. Everything has come into being through a natural process devoid of the guidance or creation of a higher power. My evidence is that modern day science is very corrupt towards naturalism and old universe ideals because they must be true in order for naturalists theories like evolution and the big bang to be plausible. Objective science has been put to death so that the naturalist philosophy may rule. Also, I think it's evident when scientists refuse to be open minded about other things and state things as "fact" when they haven't been proven. Consensus doesn't equal being correct. Hypothetically, if science without a doubt proved that all existence was created by a higher power that the fact would be accepted? Or would it be "explained away" and rejected because it holds to the point that there is existence beyond our natural and that there are things beyond science and our physical world, things above the physical world that created it?
 
By scientific definition all of what comprises the physical universe could not have spontaneously generated itself or was self created, especially for no reason.

The principle of energy conservation is based on experiments performed in the contemporary universe. Its existence cannot be divorced from its historical context. It is possible beings that existed in an early phase of the galaxy experienced fundamentally different principles of physics, although the principle of energy conservation probably wasn't one of them and such beings would not resemble humans.

The principles of physics, from Copernicus to Einstein to the string theorists, can not be removed from their historical context except for purposes of further empirical investigation.

To make it clear, that means the principle of energy conservation can only be taken to mean "matter cannot be created or destroyed" only to the extent data collected from light streaming across the universe suggests that is the case. For practical purposes, that is "all the time", but sound science cannot make a descriptive statement based on limited experential evidence into an Newtowian style absolute like the one you are advancing. Even if such order exists behind the chaos of the quantum physics and the mysteriousness of cosmic history, the investigations of contemporary theoretical physics implies we will never be able to apprehend it for certain.

The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science in that it has pretty much removed the concept of a higher power and has deemed it as unscientific or illogical.

That's only if you conflate a "higher power" with biblical literalism. Biblical literalism is not the only spiritual viewpoint which includes a higher power, or even the only Christian one. Contemporary physics is passively hostile to biblical literalism. It is not actively hostile toward the concept of a higher power, but neither is it particularly favorable.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry for the late reply. I have been in school all day.
No problem. I've been particularly busy lately so I haven't had the time to respond.

the universe is orderly and governed by scientific laws. Order does not arise from chaos.

The flaws of arguments from design are well known:

Argument from design - Iron Chariots Wiki
The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even wilful ignorance in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially paramount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God done it!

This has led to the formulation of such theories as Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity, which was laughed out of court during the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case, who when presented with counterpoints, "Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))”.


You may also want to look into the Argument from Poor Design:
Argument from poor design - Iron Chariots Wiki


Not only this, but the odds for a life supporting planet are astronomical/impossible.
Even if we are the ONLY life forms in the entire universe, I don't see how that supports the argument for a intelligent creator being, let alone the god of the bible. perhaps you can connect the dots where no theists has done so before?

We know through science that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This states, it would require a power beyond science to speak into existence all that we know.
We don't know how everything came into existence or whether its always been there. Not knowing does not mean you get to make up any answer to fill in the gaps of knowledge, I.E., God of the gaps argument: God of the gaps - Iron Chariots Wiki

Theories, including God theories, must stand on their own merit. No theory is de facto truth because other theories are eliminated or seen as unlikely.

By scientific definition all of what comprises the physical universe could not have spontaneously generated itself or was self created, especially for no reason.
We don't know how the big bang was caused or what caused it or even if discussing causality "before" the Big bang is sensible. We simply don't know at this time. Theoretical Physicists have some great theories that work out mathematically but they are working on supporting them with evidence and experiments to CONFIRM and VERIFY them.

Do you have anything to provide to CONFIRM and VERIFY your God claims?

Scientists base their belief that the universe is billions of years old on many factors such as starlight (billions of light-years away) and the Hubble constant (a rate for the expansion of the universe). I know there are several other things, but these two are major. My belief is that both means are false/flawed.
I'm not very familiar with why scientists believe the earth and universe is as old as it is. its not really a major concern of mine except for the instances it comes up debating religion creation stories. In such cases I often refer to a site that heavily references scientific papers and is often focused on countering Creationist claims. This site is very well known and has been for quite sometime. Its talkorigins.org.
I'm neither an astrophysicist, a physicist, biologists, geologist, astronomer, or the like so I'll have to defer criticism of the details to those with much grater understanding of the subjects.
CH200: Age of the Universe
CH210: Age of the Earth

I'd like you to note that these pages cite their sources.
"NO, I do not consider ANY source to be unbiased because humans tend to be biased – including bible writers, scientists, senators, presidents, etc.

HOWEVER, when information comes from a wide variety of sources representing different viewpoints, the effect of bias is at least somewhat neutralized. For instance, if a physicist or small group of researchers claim to have achieved “cold fusion”, I would reserve judgment (not accept what they say as truthful and accurate without verification) because they could well be biased (or downright dishonest).

However, if a large number of researchers from different organizations – perhaps worldwide (including some who are competitors or doubters) duplicate the experiment and report similar results, I regard that as much more credible and probably worthy of acceptance. "


I can't summarize everything here, but here are two links that disprove/show problems for the Hubble expansion constant. Hubble, hubble, big bang in trouble? The Hubble Law
Also, being able to see stars billions of light years away also poses a problem for the big bang. Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
Once again, I'm not qualified to dispute these issues and I would guess that neither are you.

I can however ask if you believe humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Do you believe what this Ph.D and other creationists do Digsbe? Do you believe man lived with dinosaurs?

My view is also based on evidence from earth that the world itself is not billions of years old such as finding soft tissue in fossils, the earth's magnetic field, the record of human history that we have, geology, and many other things.
Do any of these theories have evidence and support? Have they been peer reviewed and accepted by scientists in their respective fields? have their claims been reproduced and tested by other independently?

The truth has nothing to hide from investigation.

The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science
Science is theories that best explain the evidence. When new evidence contradicts or discredits previous theories then those theories must be revised or discarded.

in that it has pretty much removed the concept of a higher power and has deemed it as unscientific or illogical.
What evidence do we have that is scientific and logical to conclude that there is a higher power ?

"I do NOT accept bible stories as evidence that bible stories are true. I have considered the topic at some length, asked for evidence... invited “gods” to contact me directly – and NOTHING – no evidence, no word from “gods”, no reason to accept the tales as true.

I ask that bible believers show something IN ADDITION to the stories to show that the stories are true.

For instance, a major Christian claim (and foundation of the religion) is that Jesus came back from the dead. I AGREE that there are stories in the bible (religious promotional material) that make that claim. I ASK what evidence (besides the story itself) can be presented to show that the story of “resurrection” is true.

“faith and assumption” is what religion offers as reason to believe its tales and claims. Some may be swayed by the emotionalism and by threats and promises; however, others are not.

If a single source, the bible, reports a “resurrection” and NO other sources can be cited to verify the claim, I reserve judgment and ask for further evidence. When claims have been challenged for a thousand years with no evidence provided, I am inclined to think the source is biased (only reported by religious believers / followers / proponents) and possibly dishonest)."



It is the belief that all we can know/all that exists is nature
Science has never supported such a claim. To my knowledge there is no theory that states "everything can be and will be explained by science". Do you know of such a theory?

and that there is a natural, non-supernatural explanation for everything.
Once again, you are wrong. Science has not claimed that supernaturalism cannot exist. There simply hasn't been any evidence or support for claims of the supernatural. If you have evidence or ANY means to verify and support supernaturalism then please contact the James Randi foundation and collect your $1,000,000 prize.
Challenge Info
JREF Challenge FAQ

Everything has come into being through a natural process devoid of the guidance or creation of a higher power.
The evidence points to the fact that life evolves through natural processes and that that natural processes continuously work throughout the universe without any divine intervention.

Where "everything" came from "in the beginning" (if there is a beginning) has not yet been resolved by scientists and may never be. Only the religious claim to know such things.

My evidence is that modern day science is very corrupt towards naturalism and old universe ideals because they must be true in order for naturalists theories like evolution and the big bang to be plausible. Objective science has been put to death so that the naturalist philosophy may rule.
This is backwards. You believe science is wrong because you think science presumes naturalism in order to support evolution and the big bang. In fact its the other way around. The evolution and the big bang are supported by evidence and have natural causes. Thus these theories that are independently confirmed and verified, collectively point toward naturalism. But that doesn't mean science must be naturalistic. it merely means that so far all the theories appear to support naturalism.

Also, I think it's evident when scientists refuse to be open minded about other things and state things as "fact" when they haven't been proven.
Scientists usually state things as fact when their is so much evidence for them it seems highly unlikely that they would be wrong. But scientists have been wrong in the past and probably will be in the future. SCIENCE IS ALWAYS TENTATIVE. A theory is only as strong as the evidence. When new evidence is presented that contradicts or discredits previous theories then they must be discarded or revised.


Consensus doesn't equal being correct.
Of course not. But evidence doesn't lie, or make mistakes, or become delusional. People do.
NO, I do not consider ANY source to be unbiased because humans tend to be biased – including bible writers, scientists, senators, presidents, etc, etc.

HOWEVER, when information comes from a wide variety of sources representing different viewpoints, the effect of bias is at least somewhat neutralized. For instance, if a physicist or small group of researchers claim to have achieved “cold fusion”, I would reserve judgment (not accept what they say as truthful and accurate without verification) because they could well be biased (or downright dishonest).

Hypothetically, if science without a doubt proved that all existence was created by a higher power that the fact would be accepted?
It is beyond the power of science or philosophy, at this time, to prove with absolute certainty ANYTHING. Science can only SUPPORT theories, it does not PROVE any of them. It is very important to remember this.

Or would it be "explained away" and rejected because it holds to the point that there is existence beyond our natural and that there are things beyond science and our physical world, things above the physical world that created it?
If religionists could present evidence or some means of verifying or confirming their claims of a higher power then I would believe it.

However, we have been waiting since the dawn of man for religions to present evidence for their claims. All we get are excuses, hearsay, and unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims. Why do you suppose that is?
 
Back
Top Bottom