Joe Rogan isnt sold on the Bing Bang theory finds Jesus resurrection more plausible

[pinger]

Lol Religiousity his a direct proportional inverse relationship to quality of education.

Not surprised under the current circumstances we are seeing a return to the myths and fables of old

 

[Koro_11]

The point is this scenario where we take action in society but it has no effect on anything in it doesn’t exist, does it?

But generally humans have high intelligence and awareness and our thinking is often based on attempting to place ourselves in positions others experienced so that allows one to feel bad for someone not affecting them.

That’s why we can feel bad fictional characters who don’t even exist.

So in other words you also think humans are different from the other animals on this planet and we have a higher purpose that goes beyond the material needs and just reproducing, consuming food, and fighting for dominance?

That was basically my point, in a universe that has no meaning or purpose, the only thing that matters is physical survival, but it would appear that we have some higher form of consciousness and dare I say a soul.

 

[heloder]

I can't explain it because I simply don't know, and neither do you, and neither does any scientist, that's really my whole point.
This is science's explanation:

"According to the big bang theory, the universe began as an infinitely small, hot, and dense point, which rapidly expanded and continued to stretch over 13.7 billion years. This initial period of rapid inflation set the stage for the vast and still-growing cosmos we observe today."

Ok, if you're happy with this explanation and this settles it for you, then that's cool. For me it says nothing and it explains nothing about where it all came from, why, or how... to me it's still a big mystery, and unless someone can replicate this process on some scale I have no reason to believe that this is possible.

I guess I don't really understand why you're arguing about this then. Science does not claim to know the where, why, and how the singularity came from. That's beyond the scope of science. The Big Bang theory attempts to explain everything that happened from that singular point in time where the Big Bang is thought to have occurred. That's it.

Asking where it came from—scientifically—doesn't make any sense. Every "where" and every "when" in existence, that we know of, is within our universe, which came from the Big Bang. The questions you're asking pertain to something beyond that, which is beyond the purview of science as we know it.

And as I stated up thread, it's not even a particularly interesting question, because all you're doing is kicking the can down the road. Where did the singularity came from? Oh it came from this other place (say, the multiverse). Okay so where did that other place come from? Et cetera. The question doesn't solve anything; it just poses the same questions over and over in reference to different things.

And then you've got the "why". This is that anthropomorphism I was referring to. Nature need not have a reason, but as human beings we're conditioned to believe that everything must have a reason, just as we're conditioned to believe that everything must have come from somewhere, and must have been put there by something else. Causality is the basis of our entire understanding of existence.

And that is always the end of the road for any kind of debate on this matter. Because there exists only two possibilities:

A: The universe has always been and was never created.
B: The universe was created from nothing.

You can change the word universe to the word god if you want, because it's an irrelevant distinction in this case. The fact of the matter is, both possibilities are nonsensical and impossible as far as our current ability to comprehend them is concerned.

Oh and in regards to the "something coming from nothing" you often refer to, I would say that this is an impossible thing to test, because nowhere in our universe is there "nothing", because the universe itself is something. Spacetime is everywhere. The quantum field is everywhere. There are several theoretical, and some observable, phenomenon that cause fluctuations of, or predict particle-antiparticle pairs blinking in and out of existence from the quantum field (like Hawking Radiation, for example). That's as close as you're going to get, but as I said above, it's not "something from nothing".

But again, that's not even what the Big Bang theory attempts to explain.

 

[lowlife]

If you see these dogs in the yard, just know I'm upstairs going hard. Bing Bong!

 

[kflo]

So in other words you also think humans are different from the other animals on this planet and we have a higher purpose that goes beyond the material needs and just reproducing, consuming food, and fighting for dominance?

That was basically my point, in a universe that has no meaning or purpose, the only thing that matters is physical survival, but it would appear that we have some higher form of consciousness and dare I say a soul.

we have a bigger, more advanced brain.

you see plenty of acts of kindness in the animal kingdom as well.

 

[Koro_11]

we have a bigger, more advanced brain.

you see plenty of acts of kindness in the animal kingdom as well.

Where did you see that? In a Disney cartoon?

I'm a hunter, and I know more than a little bit about the world of animals, I've spent time observing them live and I've watched more animal documentaries than I can count, and as much as I love and appreciate animals I can tell you that they're absolutely ruthless... like even the ones you think are cute and innocent, even the seemingly harmless and innocent deer will eat baby birds out of their nests.

A lion will invade another pride, and if he can defeat and chase off their alpha male, the first thing he will do is kill all the cubs. An eagle chick that's only been out of the egg for a few days will push it's weaker sibling out of the nest while the parents are out hunting for food just to get a larger share of the meal without competition... just a few examples. They're absolutely ruthless, and there is no kindness to be found.

 

[Koro_11]

I guess I don't really understand why you're arguing about this then. Science does not claim to know the where, why, and how the singularity came from. That's beyond the scope of science. The Big Bang theory attempts to explain everything that happened from that singular point in time where the Big Bang is thought to have occurred. That's it.

Asking where it came from—scientifically—doesn't make any sense. Every "where" and every "when" in existence, that we know of, is within our universe, which came from the Big Bang. The questions you're asking pertain to something beyond that, which is beyond the purview of science as we know it.

And as I stated up thread, it's not even a particularly interesting question, because all you're doing is kicking the can down the road. Where did the singularity came from? Oh it came from this other place (say, the multiverse). Okay so where did that other place come from? Et cetera. The question doesn't solve anything; it just poses the same questions over and over in reference to different things.

And then you've got the "why". This is that anthropomorphism I was referring to. Nature need not have a reason, but as human beings we're conditioned to believe that everything must have a reason, just as we're conditioned to believe that everything must have come from somewhere, and must have been put there by something else. Causality is the basis of our entire understanding of existence.

And that is always the end of the road for any kind of debate on this matter. Because there exists only two possibilities:

A: The universe has always been and was never created.
B: The universe was created from nothing.

You can change the word universe to the word god if you want, because it's an irrelevant distinction in this case. The fact of the matter is, both possibilities are nonsensical and impossible as far as our current ability to comprehend them is concerned.

Oh and in regards to the "something coming from nothing" you often refer to, I would say that this is an impossible thing to test, because nowhere in our universe is there "nothing", because the universe itself is something. Spacetime is everywhere. The quantum field is everywhere. There are several theoretical, and some observable, phenomenon that cause fluctuations of, or predict particle-antiparticle pairs blinking in and out of existence from the quantum field (like Hawking Radiation, for example). That's as close as you're going to get, but as I said above, it's not "something from nothing".

But again, that's not even what the Big Bang theory attempts to explain.

All that to say what I've already said, that we simply don't know.

Can you agree that the possibility of a creator is just as likely as the possibility that there isn't one?

 

[heloder]

All that to say what I've already said, that we simply don't know.

Can you agree that the possibility of a creator is just as likely as the possibility that there isn't one?

What difference does a creator make? I just got done telling you that inserting some mystical creator into the equation doesn't actually solve any problems. If there were one, then where did they come from? It's literally the exact same question with a different subject.

 

[shockaholic12]

So in other words you also think humans are different from the other animals on this planet and we have a higher purpose that goes beyond the material needs and just reproducing, consuming food, and fighting for dominance?

That was basically my point, in a universe that has no meaning or purpose, the only thing that matters is physical survival, but it would appear that we have some higher form of consciousness and dare I say a soul.

I didn’t say anything about a higher purpose. I think asking for the purpose of life is like asking what’s the color of jealousy. You’re attaching a trait to something that doesn’t express it.

I just described how higher intelligence leads to more awareness of distant events and ability to be aware of how it would feel to endure them. I don’t think that comes from some higher calling I think that comes from our natural ability to establish vast social structures and our intelligence allowing us to assume the perspective of those across it.

I don’t think physical survival is only end game. If you’ve established the preference that life is better than death across your social structure you can continue establishing more preferences that limit the suffering or threats to life.

 

[Andy Capp]

Ok, so we have at least established it’s you and not science that is claiming this “something from nothing” occurred but as you put it you can’t explain anything about it at all…so why are you so adamant it ever happened?

Because you immediately ask again where it all came from. Can you not grasp that something having always been present in some state is possible? You admit you don’t have any evidence for a state of nothingness in history but still act as though it must be true.

If there were only two tribes then maybe our morals would look totally different and killing for resources wouldn’t be issue in that hypothetical social structure. But even in the hypothetical one you put forward morals can form as humans are intelligent enough to understand if they kill this other tribe for resources and set this preference of goods over lives then within that one tribe those members with less resources may feel justified killing another tribe member with more resources when things get hard and that could be my family. A tribe member seeing that at one time there had been a small group with a lot of resources may be convinced to try to use violence to take the resources and run off and make a new tribe. There are many scenarios you could come up with where morals can here wheee a diplomatic approach over killing could occur.

Part of system that makes these morals work in practice is installing a belief in people that we should practice empathy towards another in general. We have a heightened awareness and intelligence that we teach empathy to which allows us to grasp the suffering of another across the world.

As I said earlier ITT, it shows a clear inability (or a conscious effort to fail) to distinguish the question "Did the big bang happen?" from "How did the big bang happen?"

It's a simplistic (and possibly deliberate) conflation of theings that are entirely independent of each other. And whether a god had a hand in it occurring or not, there's no evidence since then of such a being having any hand in the subsequent evolution of the universe since it can all be explained by the laws of physics.

 

[Koro_11]

I didn’t say anything about a higher purpose. I think asking for the purpose of life is like asking what’s the color of jealousy. You’re attaching a trait to something that doesn’t express it.

I just described how higher intelligence leads to more awareness of distant events and ability to be aware of how it would feel to endure them. I don’t think that comes from some higher calling I think that comes from our natural ability to establish vast social structures and our intelligence allowing us to assume the perspective of those across it.

I don’t think physical survival is only end game. If you’ve established the preference that life is better than death across your social structure you can continue establishing more preferences that limit the suffering or threats to life.

Well then we will probably have to agree to disagree because I believe that if there is no purpose then everything is permissible and only survival of the fittest applies (as in the animal kingdom).

I think you're living by Judeo Christian values whether you're aware of it or not because it's deeply ingrained in our civilization, and that's good enough, if you wanna call yourself secular, or atheist or whatever, it really doesn't change much.

 

[Koro_11]

What difference does a creator make? I just got done telling you that inserting some mystical creator into the equation doesn't actually solve any problems. If there were one, then where did they come from? It's literally the exact same question with a different subject.

I think it solves a lot actually.

I believe that living my life with some higher purpose makes my life better as well as that of those around me.

 

[heloder]

I think it solves a lot actually.

I believe that living my life with some higher purpose makes my life better as well as that of those around me.

It makes a difference to you, because it makes you feel better. And that is what religion is all about.

As far as the reality of it is concerned, it makes no difference, for the reasons stated.

 

[shockaholic12]

Well then we will probably have to agree to disagree because I believe that if there is no purpose then everything is permissible and only survival of the fittest applies (as in the animal kingdom).

I think you're living by Judeo Christian values whether you're aware of it or not because it's deeply ingrained in our civilization, and that's good enough, if you wanna call yourself secular, or atheist or whatever, it really doesn't change much.

You can clearly see in more intelligent animals like primates that survive via social structures that preference for cooperative behavior over belligerent violent behavior develops and those species prosper from this cooperative behavior. You don’t seem to grasp moral behavior in pack animals can constantly benefit its survival and limiting of suffering. Is god passing chimps the Ten Commandments? No lol

 

[Cajun]

Where in the Bible is mentioned that the Bible is to be the only thing guiding Christianity?

There is nothing that validates Sola Scriptura in the Bible and its even worse once you know the Bible has been translated so many times over the years.

As i mentioned before the Catholic Church was basically the foundation of modern Western law and Canon law is the oldest extant Western legal system for a reason, it was the only Roman institution that survived.

As such Catholicism works a lot like a Western legal system, but in reality it is legal systems that work like Catholic church.

In the same way that you have lower courts, district courts and the supreme court in the church you have priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and the pope.

The idea of sola scriptura is as silly as thinking anyone can read the Constitution and have the same legal understanding of American law as the SCOTUS itself and that any ruling whatsoever must only be made on the written law, which is stupid as fuck to begin with.

There is a reason why you need to study a lot to be come a judge and its the same reason why you need to study a lot to become Pope, it requires understanding of a lot of concepts that allow you to interpret the Bible in a legal tradition that goes back almost 1700 years long.

If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life ...

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Sorry bud. If what men say contradict or add to what is written then we go with what is written.... its the entire guide to let us know what is valid. If you are Christian of course

 

[Koro_11]

You can clearly see in more intelligent animals like primates that survive via social structures that preference for cooperative behavior over belligerent violent behavior develops and those species prosper from this cooperative behavior. You don’t seem to grasp moral behavior in pack animals can constantly benefit its survival and limiting of suffering. Is god passing chimps the Ten Commandments? No lol

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about when it comes to animals because groups of chimps attack other groups of chimps all the time, they raid and tear each other apart for dominance over territory, terrible example go watch some wildlife documentaries.

 

[Koro_11]

It makes a difference to you, because it makes you feel better. And that is what religion is all about.

As far as the reality of it is concerned, it makes no difference, for the reasons stated.

Apparently it’s not just me, countless studies show that religious communities are more content and tend to do better than seculars by most metrics.

 

[heloder]

Apparently it’s not just me, countless studies show that religious communities are more content and tend to do better than seculars by most metrics.

Of course it's not just you. Most people are religious.

 

[shockaholic12]

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about when it comes to animals because groups of chimps attack other groups of chimps all the time, they raid and tear each other apart for dominance over territory, terrible example go watch some wildlife documentaries.

You’re pointing out they do this to other groups which is supporting my point. That choice highlights the fact that they have selected a mutual preference of non-violence among those closer in their constructed social structure, their own tribe. A moral standard that the other tribe also shares because it’s a trait of all intelligent social animals and not ethics from some supernatural entity.

 

[Koro_11]

You’re pointing they do this to other groups which is supporting my point. That choice highlights the fact that they have selected a mutual preference of non-violence among those closer in their constructed social structure, their own tribe. A moral standard that the other tribe also shares because it’s a trait of all intelligent social animals and not ethics from some supernatural entity.

Yes other groups, which are the exact same species… which brings us back to what we were discussing initially, why don’t we do that to other groups of our species?