The big bang theory has run into some trouble.
Doing the maths backwards towards the singularity it has been discovered
that the maths fails in last few seconds or so.
One suggestion is that it might all pass through into another collapsing universe.

Saltpetre,

What part of what previous post would make you think I am “physhing”? This is a strange word to use in the context of the discussion. Explain it?

I don’t feel like going through this but if you are saying you agree that atheists are no better or worse than religious folk, then why be religious and why try to adapt democracy to follow religious tenets?

And you have totally missed my point about innate knowledge and common-sense. Many humans have used their innate knowledge and common-sense to add to the pool of human ethical thinking. Others look at what has been said and written and use their innate knowledge and common-sense and try to work out if it is viable for the human situation.

Others look at the words in so-called holy books and cherry pick to suit their existing thoughts. Thoughts that are not necessarily their own but the result of early indoctrination.

Atheists do not follow any individual’s thoughts as a firm rule or guide unless that ties up with innate knowledge and common-sense.

Glad you admit that atheists don’t have a doctrine. It is a ridiculous step in ‘logic’ that from the one commonality of atheists, that is, they don’t accept a god or gods exist, to forming a doctrine about it. There is no basis for a doctrine. You are just parroting the thoughts of desperate religious leaders in suggesting otherwise.

Repeating myself is tiresome but it appears to be par for the course.

For the umpteenth time it is the bad parts of religion atheists rail against. Atheists and the religious have to follow religious precepts against their wishes even in a democracy. These have been enunciated many times on this forum and if I have to repeat them I’ll know you are not serious but merely supporting religious prejudice.

David

David,

>"Atheists do not follow any individual’s thoughts as a firm rule or guide unless that ties up with innate knowledge and common-sense."<

Sorry David, but the only 'Innate Knowledge' I am aware of is the limited and narrow operation of Instinct (from the Id) and Reflex (built into the autonomic nervous system) - with all else being accumulated from the interaction of our senses with the environment and environmental stimulation. If you have access to a scientific text which illuminates some other 'innate' human Intellect or Understanding I wish you would share it with us.

Or, could it possibly be a 'feeling' or 'sensing' to which you refer, perhaps even akin (without your recognition or acknowledgement) to the sensing common to humankind of the possibility of something more in the ethos than just blank space and heavenly bodies, something bigger than ourselves, something responsible, somehow, for our good fortune in existing at all, and surrounded by such myriad beauty, mystery and possibility?

I know of no innate 'sensing' of right and wrong, good and evil - but our emotions would indicate some sensing of compassion, of attraction/revulsion, and even of empathy? Nature/Nurture - the realm of possibility, of question, and of our kinship with the natural world and the universal cosmos. (Hate broccoli today, love it tomorrow; fear the unknown, yet embrace its possibilities.)

Humanity has reached a stage where it has the capacity, the impetus and the escalating imperative to address the future development of society on a global level. The resolution of philosophical and religious differences at a foundational level appears to be the key to an harmonious multicultural existence, and total abandonment of long held beliefs is not an option - at least at this time in human history. Are we up to the challenge?

FWIW - 'blasphemy' is a crude concept of a crude or corrupted intellect, and deserves no credence in an enlightened society.

Saltpetre,

You missed explaining “Physhing”.

You have also gone into a long diatribe which originates from a religious mind-set. I have no feelings, thoughts or emotions or indeed, evidence, leading me to think there is something “bigger than ourselves”. Yes, the universe is bigger than ourselves but that is not what you are proposing.

I agree, there is an ever so slight but negligible possibility there is something bigger than ourselves in the way you mean it but it has never evidentially interacted with humanity and therefore is irrelevant to us except on the personal level. Personal experience is not a good guide for all others. And that is what atheism is about. Not letting personal experience without evidence used as a rule for everyone. Humans are known to be deluded, liars, insane and genuine about supernatural matters. How to work out which is why we should discount it.

This is a very reasonable stance. Believe what you want about supernatural concepts just believe them yourself and don’t abuse children with them.

I would find it disappointing to ‘know’ there is a god as it would take away the wonder of the universe for me. It would destroy the awe of an unfolding cosmos if I had a goddidit attitude. Fortunately, that is unlikely to ever happen.

Higher species and even lower ones have an innate knowledge that has them cooperating otherwise evolution would not be possible. How far the innate moves into the conscious or slowly over time gravitates into the conscious is hard to determine but they include care of others, love and protection of offspring, fear of strangers and other groups etc. It varies in species. Humans have the ability to apply reason to these beneficial traits to the advantage of individuals and the species by using critical thinking skills and embracing advantageous mores and codifying important ones in written law.

It is the pipe dream of the religious that religions will all get along and the world will be a wonderful place. This doesn’t say that a world without religion would be utopia.

David

>>I'm saying based on this universe start with a single point and continue. A Big Bang is exactly that. An explosion would never create something like that of a cosmos, which means that the planets aren't crashing together, order, not chaos.<<

>>The big bang theory has run into some trouble.
Doing the maths backwards towards the singularity it has been discovered that the maths fails in last few seconds or so.<<

That particular trouble has been around for a while. And it’s not in the last few seconds – the breakdown occurs a fraction of a second so tiny you can’t really imagine it. But it does exist: our best physical theories break down when we try to look at singularities. A singularity is an infinitely dense point and our theories break down when we try to look at matter that is almost infinitely dense.

People have advanced a lot of interesting and plausible hypotheses but they’re largely speculative at this stage. That’s not a good reason to say ‘God must have done it then’ and stop looking for better theories that do explain the things we don’t understand yet.

The term big bang is a bit misleading – it’s not any explosion in any normal sense of the term. It refers to the rapid expansion of space itself: not some sort of cataclysmic detonation which occurs in space and flings the planets all over the place XD. The universe did most of it’s inflating when it was very young although it is still at it: at that time the place was just a hot soup of subatomic particles – it was a while before atoms formed let alone grouped themselves into planets.

to be continued

>>Hoyle said the likelihood of this happening is comparable to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

What about eventually the Human Being? The amount of coincidences that would have to occur would be impossible without a creator.<<

Hoyle’s fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy

I’m already familiar with this particular bit of nonsense. You keep coming up with the same dodgy arguments that Christians do but they aren't any better when applied to Allah instead of Jehovah. Hoyle's fallacy is not a good argument – Richard Dawkins makes some very good points about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRQQmCpmuGc

>>The signs of God are everywhere.<<

I’ve seen those billboards too. They say things like: Jesus is the Answer! This is a lie: the answer is 42.

>>As for many gods:
God says in The Qur'an: Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined..

This is logical. Also The Qur'an explains a lot of things regarding our creation which makes sense to me and doesn't oppose logic. Also keeps intact history and previous messengers messages Jesus, Moses, Noah etc. I read the Qur'an and I believe that it is the word of God with surety.<<

But the Hindus have a bunch of Gods. And Christians and Jews have their own God and holy books that keep intact history - sort of - and previous messengers Jesus, Abraham etc. People read the Bible and believe that it is the word of God with surety and their arguments for this being the case are the same as yours. What is there that allows you to select one as right and the other as wrong: they’re so similar that I would say that either both have to be right or they both have to be wrong. Wrong makes more sense.

Cheers,

Tony