AJ Philips

The significance of the big-bang theory has to do with the theory that the universe had a beginning.

There are two competing theories (a) the universe just is, the so called ‘steady-state’ (b) the universe had a beginning, the big-bang theory . However, the debate between the big bang and the steady state was over in 1965, with big bang the clear winner because the steady state theory did not stand up to what was observed by science.

http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm

The steady-state theory would have favoured the atheists in that life just is (i.e. it is eternal, it has no beginning nor an end), there is no need for any intelligent design. And in fact many atheists appealed to this theory to support their faith.

Two eminent cosmologists (Fred Hoyle, Allan Sandage) who started out as atheists abandoned their faith when faced with the evidence.

"Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Fred Hoyle)

“… the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes…” (Allan Sandage)
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.htm

AJ Philips

There are 4 types of atheists:

(i) Honest atheists.
(ii) Atheists who deny the existence of God at the outset.
(iii) Atheists who are material reductionist practicing scientism (the belief that science will eventually explain everything)
(iv) Practical atheist, agnostics.

It is a pity that you have shut your mind to recent scientific evidence that points to a supreme being.

Antony Flew was an honest atheist who when faced with the scientific evidence abandoned his atheist faith.

Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God

Philip Tang,

I really wonder what you are trying to achieve:

"The significance of the big-bang theory has to do with the theory that the universe had a beginning."

Fine, that must be very significant to science, but what significance has this issue, whether the universe had a beginning or otherwise, to the subject of this thread, about God and about religion?

"It is a pity that you have shut your mind to recent scientific evidence that points to a supreme being."

The existence or otherwise of a supreme being, interesting as it may be, has no impact on the issue of God and religion - see my reply to The Blue Cross (15.12.2010, 16:14:13).

Fortunately God's existence cannot be proven, ever. But let's play with that idea for a moment: Suppose God was proven to exist, that gloomy day would be the final demise of religion. No faith would then be possible from that day on; all that remains would have become material; even the Holy Spirit could not survive; and man's relationship with God would be reduced to the level of practicality. In other words, that just fits the description of hell! A God proven is a God lost!

"Those who deny God at the outset by some form of circular reasoning will never find God"

- Everyone will find God in the end. Circular reasoning can actually be beneficial, because it increases the chances of a short-circuit to occur, leaving the atheist with the direct experience of God - not just a thought about the existence of God, but the actual presence and unity with the Lord.

Belief and Faith have nothing to do with each other.

I can see any further discussions with Yuyutsu are are waste of time.
He seems to be a person totally brainwashed into Christianity. He has closed his mind to any reasonable ideas. He refuses to read "The Australian Book of Atheism". I wonder if he has read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Dan Barker.

In case he has forgotten I was a Roman Catholic who realised that it is all based on lies and bad fiction. I accept Science. I do not accept a "God" or the "Supernatural". I do not accept blind faith. Science is based on proper investigation. Faith is not.

THERE IS NO "GOD". "GOD" WAS MADE IN THE MIND OF MAN.
RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING.
RELIGION IS A SERIOUS MENTAL HEATH HAZARD.

Yuyutsu,

If you believe that what’s in the heart counts for more than what’s in the mind, then we are on such completely different pages and levels here that I’m not sure there’s any point in continuing.

<<Things either exist or they don't. There are no things 'beyond' existence. I hope this is clearer.>>

Thanks. It was clear the first time. But since we’re obviously not going to get anywhere there, I’ll just bring to your attention the fact that your response/claim is a logical fallacy - special pleading - and assertions that have been cleverly devised to avoid scrutiny in what can only be described as a show of contempt for the truth.

You’re speaking a lot about subjectivity and have even raised an analogy with the tooth fairy that I would have raised too. But you are making positive and definitive claims about a god. I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with what you’re saying if you were to include qualifiers such as “I believe...”, or “In my opinion...”, but you don’t. You are stating your beliefs in a very ‘matter-of-factly’ kind of way; “God is not...”, etc. How do you, or could you, know what he is not?

<<While it is perfectly valid to claim what God is not: "God is not X" (substitute whatever you like in place of X, including even ~X: only things/objects are subject to logic, such as having to be either X or ~X), it is nonsense to claim that "God is X" (including "God is invisible").>>

This simply amounts to more special pleading, I’m afraid.

If god is beyond existence, and you can't say what god is, then how do you know he's god? How do you know that you love and adore god if you don't know what you're loving and adoring?

Besides which, god wouldn’t have to tell people that he was invisible, so I think my point about the usefulness of not manifesting in reality still stands.

Continued...

...Continued

<<-In the language of science, there is indeed no distinction between the [god and the tooth fairy].
-But in the subjective language, there is. I adore God, but hold no similar feelings towards the tooth-fairy.>>

According to your logic here, the tooth fairy would have just as much legitimacy as your god if you simply loved and adored it. That doesn’t say much for your god.

I understand that you don’t expect me to believe in your version of god, but surely you still expect to be taken seriously. So considering your tooth fairy analogy, and the fact that you want to stick to subjectivity, I’ll summarise my main point by asking you this:

If I was to start making exactly the same claims that you are, but replace “god” with any other fantastical entity, should I expect to be taken just as seriously as you would expect to be taken, and if not, why not?