Religion and Ethics and Health BBS

Religion and Ethics and Health BBS
[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]

Why Science Is Pointing Back to God

Posted by DFM on October 13, 2026, 6:45 pm

In part because atheism,

Posted by observer on October 14, 2026, 12:01 pm, in reply to "Why Science Is Pointing Back to God"

“The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and that nothing magically exploded for no reason, and then magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no
reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense.”

Worst. Summation. EVER.

Posted by 7:77 on October 15, 2026, 12:47 pm, in reply to "In part because atheism,"

Surely you recognize that...

What's the difference ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on October 17, 2026, 8:11 am, in reply to "Worst. Summation. EVER."

1. God who created the universe from nothing.

2. A "singularity" which supposedly resulted in the universe from nothing?

Is there really a strong argument for taking one side or the other?

Isn't it just a personal preference?

Then, why all the grandstanding?

absolutely

Posted by Trish on October 16, 2026, 6:13 am, in reply to "Worst. Summation. EVER."

The belief that there was this being who came from nothing, suddenly whipped out a magic wand, and made everything for no particular reason; after that, nada. So what happens when we discover new species. Did the wand come back out?

evolution is necessary for survival IMO

What's the difference between that "magic wand" and a "magic singularity"? Really?

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on October 17, 2026, 8:07 am, in reply to "absolutely"

There's no proof that the "magic singularity" chock-a-block full of bizillions of galaxies of primordial shit from nowhere existed.

Your reasoning is lop-sided.

just a comparative mondo

Posted by trish on October 18, 2026, 6:56 am, in reply to "What's the difference between that "magic wand" and a "magic singularity"? Really?"

pointing out that it is a moot point to argue whether God was the singularity, or whether the singularity was not god but self-aware

Where did it come from, and why? Did it "do" anything, or did creation occur due to its mere presence?

Sometimes our questions are far greater than the human mind can explain. Keeps the wonder in things, I think

The "magic" part...obviously.

Posted by 7:77 on October 17, 2026, 3:09 pm, in reply to "What's the difference between that "magic wand" and a "magic singularity"? Really?"

I can't believe I broke my little promise to myself not to wade in on these threads about this...

Now that you are here ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on October 18, 2026, 4:15 pm, in reply to "The "magic" part...obviously."

... please explain how, out of nowhere, for no reason at all, a supposed "singularity", a realm currently beyond direct scientific measurement or theoretical explanation, that never existed theretofore, did in Planck time, 5.391247 * 10^-44 seconds, which some say is the shortest amount of time possible based on the time for a photon moving at the speed of light to travel a distance of one Planck length (about 1.6 * 10^-35 meters), erupt and spew forth a bunch of stuff that we now call the universe.

Inverse peaks in the frequency modulation.

Posted by Moishe on October 18, 2026, 8:37 pm, in reply to "Now that you are here ..."

You're welcome.

I’m sure it seems that way to a scientific mind.

Posted by observer on October 15, 2026, 7:20 pm, in reply to "Worst. Summation. EVER."

Likewise to a believer in a Creator God, the ridiculousness of not believing in said Creation is expressed in this tribute to atheism.

Or anyone who disdains strawman arguments.

Posted by 7:77 on October 17, 2026, 3:11 pm, in reply to "I’m sure it seems that way to a scientific mind."

Sorry, the ignorant cannot recognize their own ignorance.

Posted by DFM on October 15, 2026, 2:02 pm, in reply to "Worst. Summation. EVER."

I’ve noticed that, too,

Posted by observer on October 15, 2026, 7:24 pm, in reply to "Sorry, the ignorant cannot recognize their own ignorance."

It’s always accompanied with a extreme arrogance.

Is that how you see it?

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on October 14, 2026, 2:18 pm, in reply to "In part because atheism,"

How do you know this?

After all, you've been taught a far more obtuse and impossible view of the creation of the universe.

Are you of the belief that all of mankind rose from a singular gene pool?

Anything tangible?

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on October 14, 2026, 3:59 am, in reply to "Why Science Is Pointing Back to God"

I know how you insist on tangibility in order for it to be accepted...

For EVIDENCE, Try Reading This Book

Posted by DFM on October 14, 2026, 11:22 am, in reply to "Anything tangible?"

https://www.godthesciencetheevidence.com/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FHMZ6R9L?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback

Words on paper are not tangible evidence...

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on October 14, 2026, 1:13 pm, in reply to "For EVIDENCE, Try Reading This Book"

...any more than photos and eyewitnesses are to you. Using your logic, they are easily edited and swayed by other influences.

Step back into reality and see that you are not chosen people to anybody but yourselves.
Just more grains of sand in an infinite universe.
🏖️

Not tangible, but the apparent fine-tuning of the Universe is very intriguing.

Posted by DFM on October 14, 2026, 1:22 pm, in reply to "Words on paper are not tangible evidence..."

Apparent to whom?

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on October 14, 2026, 2:03 pm, in reply to "Not tangible, but the apparent fine-tuning of the Universe is very intriguing."

How can someone determine such a fallacy when the understanding of our immediate vicinity is still in question?

Amusing how people place graph paper over randomness/chaos

Posted by Mugwump on October 14, 2026, 4:36 pm, in reply to "Apparent to whom?"

and choose to call the result "order".

Key Aspects of Fine-Tuning

Posted by DFM on October 14, 2026, 4:06 pm, in reply to "Apparent to whom?"

The apparent fine-tuning of natural laws refers to the observation that the fundamental physical constants, force strengths, and initial conditions of the universe fall within extraordinarily narrow, life-permitting ranges.

• Fundamental Constants: Parameters such as the gravitational constant, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the fine-structure constant, and the mass of the electron or quarks must be set with extreme precision.
• Cosmological Parameters: The cosmological constant (dark energy density) and the initial entropy or fluctuation amplitudes near the Big Bang leave very little margin for error.
• Catastrophic Deviations: Even minuscule changes—such as slightly altering the strong nuclear force or the resonance level of carbon-12 (the Hoyle state)—would prevent stars from forming, atoms from binding, or carbon-based life from existing.

The contortions needed to get to the Christian god are far too many

Posted by Mugwump on October 14, 2026, 7:49 am, in reply to "Anything tangible?"

But you could build a case for the deranged and monstrous god of Moses, I suppose. Ki

Lapsed Atheist: Charles Murray Makes the Case for God

Posted by DFM on October 13, 2026, 11:17 pm, in reply to "Why Science Is Pointing Back to God"

His childhood indoctrination is strong...

Posted by Allah Fubar *= on October 14, 2026, 4:01 am, in reply to "Lapsed Atheist: Charles Murray Makes the Case for God"

Luckily, I was never subjected to such indoctrination.

ad hominem argument.

Posted by DFM on October 18, 2026, 12:03 pm, in reply to "His childhood indoctrination is strong..."

An ad hominem argument (Latin for "to the person") is a rhetorical tactic that attacks an opponent's character, motive, or personal traits instead of addressing the actual substance of their argument.

Key Characteristics

• Misplaced Focus: It shifts the attention away from evidence, logic, and facts and onto the speaker's background, appearance, or past behavior.
• Logical Fallacy: It is classified as an informal fallacy (specifically a fallacy of relevance) because a person's traits do not logically determine whether their claim is true or false.
• Diversion: It uses emotional or charged insults to distract an audience from the real issue being debated.

Common Types of Ad Hominem

• Abusive Ad Hominem: Direct name-calling or open insults directed at a person's character (e.g., calling someone an idiot rather than refuting their data).
• Circumstantial Ad Hominem: Claiming that someone's argument is invalid just because they have a personal stake, bias, or vested interest in the outcome.
• Tu Quoque ("You Also"): Accusing the opponent of hypocrisy or pointing out that they did the same thing instead of answering the point.
• Guilt by Association: Discrediting an argument by linking the speaker to an unpopular group or person.

« Index

[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]