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

There is no scientific theory that claims something came from nothing. There is no widely accepted science that claims there was ever a situation where there was or needed to be “nothing” then existence followed nor is there evidence that points to this.

You and a half dozen other people in this thread made that claim up. So why don’t you explain where it comes from and what evidence supports it since you’re making that claim and not science.

Because to me it seems you’re projecting the human condition of not being alive and then living on things that aren’t human. “I at one point didn’t exist and then I did so existence in all matters must be the same” is bad logic.
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 might not do something that directly helps my tribe because as an intelligent being I can ascertain that action can set a precedent for how my tribe could be treated. Species who survive off social structures don’t seem to have morally wrong actions that in all cases only bring benefit to them without also adding risks.

an intelligent social species can agree on the preference life is better than death as a vast majority of living things do and from there agree on being in a social structure is better than not because that equal death and continue from there on exploring preferences that become our moral framework.

At no point in this process do we need an outside entity who has predetermined these morals for us.
What if there was only two tribes, your tribe which was large and vastly more powerful, and one other tribe that was much weaker but had a ton of resources that would be useful to your tribe. You could conquer and wipe them out completely, reap all the benefits and have zero repercussions... would you concede that it would still be morally wrong to do so?

Yes life is better than death for you and your inner circle, but you lose zero sleep over someone's child dying on the other side of the world.... it's happening right now and it has zero effect on your life because you don't even see it or know about it. Yet if you did see it it would effect you and you would acknowledge it's a tragedy and you would wish it was not happening. There is clearly a moral compass in you that goes beyond what betters your own life and your social structure, it transcends mere practicality, and whether you like to admit it or not you are not living your life as if there is no meaning or purpose.
 
Now tell me what Christians have done on the subject? Where is your criticism of them doing 0 to prove their beliefs. Is it because they are on your "team" that you can't bring yourself to bring as much ire on them as you do scientists.
It's a faith. There's not much to push back on that they haven't heard a million times over. They believe what they believe, and they are no more right or wrong than anyone else on this subject, as we're all pretty much in the dark and don't know shit from shit on this subject.

My problem with the "scientific" explanation of this, is that it's treated with some sort of validity, even though it's no more or less ridiculous than any religious take on the matter. I find it funny that people will favor any group's "expertise" on the subject of the creation of the friggin' universe.
 
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.


What if there was only two tribes, your tribe which was large and vastly more powerful, and one other tribe that was much weaker but had a ton of resources that would be useful to your tribe. You could conquer and wipe them out completely, reap all the benefits and have zero repercussions... would you concede that it would still be morally wrong to do so?

Yes life is better than death for you and your inner circle, but you lose zero sleep over someone's child dying on the other side of the world.... it's happening right now and it has zero effect on your life because you don't even see it or know about it. Yet if you did see it it would effect you and you would acknowledge it's a tragedy and you would wish it was not happening. There is clearly a moral compass in you that goes beyond what betters your own life and your social structure, it transcends mere practicality, and whether you like to admit it or not you are not living your life as if there is no meaning or purpose.

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.
 
It's a faith. There's not much to push back on that they haven't heard a million times over. They believe what they believe, and they are no more right or wrong than anyone else on this subject, as we're all pretty much in the dark and don't know shit from shit on this subject.

My problem with the "scientific" explanation of this, is that it's treated with some sort of validity, even though it's no more or less ridiculous than any religious take on the matter. I find it funny that people will favor any group's "expertise" on the subject of the creation of the friggin' universe.
That's a serious cop out. It's treated with more validity because the theories are developed overtime with astronomical amount of time and resources spent studying these topics and having the integrity to say the theories can change.

You honestly think this is on the same level of beliefs that have not been tested at all, remain completely static, and worst of all, they actively try to suppress the study of information that contradicts what they believe.

Tall about an appeal to authority. Under no circumstance can you criticize your own side.
 
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.
How did you establish that?

I guess you missed my point and maybe I didn't articulate it well enough, but I will try to summarize it more clearly for you.

I don't know how we got here, you don't know how we got here, and science doesn't know how we got here. I have ZERO issue with someone saying they don't believe in a creator, and I have ZERO issue with someone saying that they do. My only issue is with both overzealous religious types who are convinced they know the truth and will kill you if you disagree, and secular atheist types who will ridicule you if you say you believe in God because they believe they somehow have science on their side.

This is not a knock on science, science is great at answering a lot of question, but it has yet to answer this one so I think the only honest thing we can say is that WE JUST DON'T KNOW.


Now as for the second part of your argument, while I admit I don't know if there is a creator or a purpose, I chose to live my life as if there is, and I do believe this makes for a better life. You can try to rationalize your morals to me, but at the end of the day if your position is that there is no purpose or meaning, I see no reason for you to follow any set of morals that help anyone other than yourself and your inner circle... in the end all your arguments seem to come down to what's ultimately best for you, and I'm talking about beyond that, like if there was zero benefit to you or your tribe, in the long or short term, I would like to think that you would still be compelled to do the morally virtuous thing simply because you think it's the right thing to do. If there is no purpose I don't see why anyone would be compelled to do that, but whether you like to admit it or not, I'm gonna assume you still live your life as if there is some purpose and meaning to it.
 
It's the other way around. Scientists aren't going around saying the Bible is wrong, so believe in the big bang. But religious people do this. They are the ones who scream that scientific theories are wrong therefore Christian mythology is correct. Religion is more concerned about science than science is of religion.
Scientist perhaps not, but people that "follow the science" certainly do, which would be the equivalent to "religious people" here. Not that I care, challenge everything as far as I'm concerned.
 
How did you establish that?

I guess you missed my point and maybe I didn't articulate it well enough, but I will try to summarize it more clearly for you.

I don't know how we got here, you don't know how we got here, and science doesn't know how we got here. I have ZERO issue with someone saying they don't believe in a creator, and I have ZERO issue with someone saying that they do. My only issue is with both overzealous religious types who are convinced they know the truth and will kill you if you disagree, and secular atheist types who will ridicule you if you say you believe in God because they believe they somehow have science on their side.

This is not a knock on science, science is great at answering a lot of question, but it has yet to answer this one so I think the only honest thing we can say is that WE JUST DON'T KNOW.


Now as for the second part of your argument, while I admit I don't know if there is a creator or a purpose, I chose to live my life as if there is, and I do believe this makes for a better life. You can try to rationalize your morals to me, but at the end of the day if your position is that there is no purpose or meaning, I see no reason for you to follow any set of morals that help anyone other than yourself and your inner circle... in the end all your arguments seem to come down to what's ultimately best for you, and I'm talking about beyond that, like if there was zero benefit to you or your tribe, in the long or short term, I would like to think that you would still be compelled to do the morally virtuous thing simply because you think it's the right thing to do. If there is no purpose I don't see why anyone would be compelled to do that, but whether you like to admit it or not, I'm gonna assume you still live your life as if there is some purpose and meaning to it.

You don’t see the reason intelligent creatures whose survival hinges on creating social structures would create a set of behavioral preferences? I mean the first blatantly obvious reason they would do so is survival lol.

It doesn’t just come to what is best for me. That’s not how social creatures, especially the most intelligent ones, prosper.
 
It's a faith. There's not much to push back on that they haven't heard a million times over. They believe what they believe, and they are no more right or wrong than anyone else on this subject, as we're all pretty much in the dark and don't know shit from shit on this subject.

My problem with the "scientific" explanation of this, is that it's treated with some sort of validity, even though it's no more or less ridiculous than any religious take on the matter. I find it funny that people will favor any group's "expertise" on the subject of the creation of the friggin' universe.

I mean science is more valid there as it admits there are limits to it’s knowledge and observations whereas religion claims it has the answer to things beyond our observational scope. One of those takes is more valid than the other.
 
Last edited:
My stated concepts and ideas are clearly beyond you- you have done nothing but state things I never said because you don't understand what I actually am saying; it's over your head, and I'm certainly not wasting my time arguing with some simpleton. Have a nice night though.


Translation:
You said something stupid and got called on it.
 
No worries. Christianity is not a competition of denominations or shouldnt be. There are ups and downs about all of it. Even when someone tells me they are Non-Denominational, I have a pretty good idea at some of their theological viewpoints. We will not know the whole truth in this life. But we also have to be honest. I also like the liturgy in the catholic church.

For the irreligious and general public, it's mostly known and associated for the aggrandizement of the papacy, widespread corruption, and sex abuse scandals (bleh, bad, real fucking bad). For the anti-Catholic, it's all of those things in addition to being rife with inane complexities and superfluous bullshit. On the contrary, I agree with @Rod1's earlier take. I also see the aesthetics of the religion as undeniable on two fronts.

The first and most important being the doctrine, theology, and structure. It is essentially grounded on two axioms (Nature-Grace Interdependence and Christ-Church Interconnection) with four pillars: believing in the Nicene Creed, celebrating the Sacraments, living the Commandments, and praying the Lord's Prayer. The second is just beauty in the literal sense of its architecture, artwork, and sacred music. A culture rich enough to murder diabetics.

I will disagree on your second point. Protestantism believes these things or should. If you went to a place that didnt teach the things you mentioned then they are not the church. They are a church but not a part of the church. James makes all of what you mentioned very clear. There is a reason you can be KKK and attend a Baptist service. Or be mafia and be a die hard catholic. Its what gives people the idea that Christianity is fake. Hypocrisy of those who practice it. But those people do not represent anything more than those that will say Lord Lord and still end up rejected by God. If you meet a true believer in Christianity be they Catholic or Protestant then you see it in their lives.

Oh, I'm not saying they don't. I'm pretty sure all mainline Protestant churches include that in their sermons and scripture readings. The idea is that faith will encourage and inspire good works, but they aren't considered a necessary component for salvation (hence sola fide). And yeah, I really don't think James could be any more clear on the matter.

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
 
That's a serious cop out. It's treated with more validity because the theories are developed overtime with astronomical amount of time and resources spent studying these topics and having the integrity to say the theories can change.

You honestly think this is on the same level of beliefs that have not been tested at all, remain completely static, and worst of all, they actively try to suppress the study of information that contradicts what they believe.

Tall about an appeal to authority. Under no circumstance can you criticize your own side.
Christianity doesn't have a "side", and this discussion was never tribal "left vs right", but I think I just got to the bottom as to why you're taking such offense to my denouncement of this silly theory. You actually do believe this is some sort of political debate, and view me as some sort of right wing Christian fundamentalist that is laughing at the BBT, because you think I believe in creationism or some shit.

Go touch some grass.
 
For the irreligious and general public, it's mostly known and associated for the aggrandizement of the papacy, widespread corruption, and sex abuse scandals (bleh, bad, real fucking bad). For the anti-Catholic, it's all of those things in addition to being rife with inane complexities and superfluous bullshit. On the contrary, I agree with @Rod1's earlier take. I also see the aesthetics of the religion as undeniable on two fronts.

The first and most important being the doctrine, theology, and structure. It is essentially grounded on two axioms (Nature-Grace Interdependence and Christ-Church Interconnection) with four pillars: believing in the Nicene Creed, celebrating the Sacraments, living the Commandments, and praying the Lord's Prayer. The second is just beauty in the literal sense of its architecture, artwork, and sacred music. A culture rich enough to murder diabetics.



Oh, I'm not saying they don't. I'm pretty sure all mainline Protestant churches include that in their sermons and scripture readings. The idea is that faith will encourage and inspire good works, but they aren't considered a necessary component for salvation (hence sola fide). And yeah, I really don't think James could be any more clear on the matter.

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
For baptists... its about the health and wealth nonsense taught today. Its the tv pastors which water down doctrine so that more people attend and more viewership. Pastors getting rich and buying private jets.... there's a special place in hell for guys like that. It is the men that go to church on Sundays only to beat their wives during the week. Its those types that peeps will point to on the Protestant side.

But in reality the true church goes much deeper. Your foundational points are why I can worship alongside any catholic and I have. There are foundational principles that are a must which you mentioned. If those are not in place then there is no basis for fellowship. I remember when I was young, monotheists inviting me to weekly studies before I knew they were monotheists. After about 3 or 4 weeks I asked them and they said they were. At that point there is not enough agreement to stand on.

And yes. I mentioned James as well. He kills any concept of the two not going hand in hand. Works are the outpouring of the Faith. It is why you can recognize them by their fruits...But the salvation aspect is what you are meaning. For true faith there must be works that accompany them. You get into the parable of the sower context on different types of false faith vs true. Also For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast.
So faith is the initial and true faith bears itself out in ones actions. But they are inseparable. Good chat bud. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Translation: You are a simple-minded little twerp that isn't capable of understanding a complex conversation.

Says the guy that asked religious person to prove where God's energy came from.
 
You don’t see the reason intelligent creatures whose survival hinges on creating social structures would create a set of behavioral preferences? I mean the first blatantly obvious reason they would do so is survival lol.

It doesn’t just come to what is best for me. That’s not how social creatures, especially the most intelligent ones, prosper.
I see it, but then I asked you if you would still be compelled to do the right thing even if it had zero benefit to yourself, the social structures or survival?
 
Christianity doesn't have a "side", and this discussion was never tribal "left vs right", but I think I just got to the bottom as to why you're taking such offense to my denouncement of this silly theory. You actually do believe this is some sort of political debate, and view me as some sort of right wing Christian fundamentalist that is laughing at the BBT, because you think I believe in creationism or some shit.

Go touch some grass.
No it don't think you are a Christian fundamentalist. And yes fundamentalist Christianity is heavily ingrained with Conservativism. I think you have no integrity and will not criticize fundamentalist Christianity because they are on your team. That is why you avoided any criticism of them.

You are the epitome of appeal to authority. You cannot criticize anything that is related to conservatism even as you say, you do not generally agree with them.

It's also funny how you talk about whether this should or shouldn't be a political debate, but you were the first one to bring up liberals in the conversation. You made it political.
 
I see it, but then I asked you if you would still be compelled to do the right thing even if it had zero benefit to yourself, the social structures or survival?

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.
 
It's a faith. There's not much to push back on that they haven't heard a million times over. They believe what they believe, and they are no more right or wrong than anyone else on this subject, as we're all pretty much in the dark and don't know shit from shit on this subject.

My problem with the "scientific" explanation of this, is that it's treated with some sort of validity, even though it's no more or less ridiculous than any religious take on the matter. I find it funny that people will favor any group's "expertise" on the subject of the creation of the friggin' universe.
you don't find it very different to say "there is some evidence supporting the idea that there was a big bang that set off the known universe" vs "the bible is the word of god and you should follow it" without any evidence? one has some evidence backing it, but isn't prescriptive on anything, while the other has no evidence, and is prescriptive.
 
I'm not christian but even as a non-christian some of the catholic theology bugs me

where in the bible does it mention purgatory? it was just some confected bullshit to allow corrupt middle ages priests to sell indulgences and get paid to pray over candles and generally monetise their position of religious authority.

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.
 
Back
Top