Atheism - alive and well in Thailand?

[nidieunimaitre]

I googled Fraser Clarke - nothing usefull came up.

Can you give a link or more details?

Fraser Clark: Monkey's Trip, A Short History of the Human Species

erocx1.blogspot.com/…er-clark-monkeys-trip-short...

Fraser Clark: Monkey's Trip, ... REVERSING THE 'BIG LIE' THE TRUE STORY OF Monkey's Marvelous Trip From The African Jungle To Inner & Outer Space.

Thanks for the link.

An interesting theory, that certainly should be researched more - but who is going to fund that research?

[manarak]

I googled Fraser Clarke - nothing usefull came up.

Can you give a link or more details?

Fraser Clark: Monkey's Trip, A Short History of the Human Species

erocx1.blogspot.com/…er-clark-monkeys-trip-short...

Fraser Clark: Monkey's Trip, ... REVERSING THE 'BIG LIE' THE TRUE STORY OF Monkey's Marvelous Trip From The African Jungle To Inner & Outer Space.

Thanks for the link.

An interesting theory, that certainly should be researched more - but who is going to fund that research?

this is very important, because then Drake's formula (see in earlier posts) needs to be revised to include the probability of magic mushrooms.

[Hermes100]

I googled Fraser Clarke - nothing usefull came up.

Can you give a link or more details?

Fraser Clark: Monkey's Trip, A Short History of the Human Species

erocx1.blogspot.com/…er-clark-monkeys-trip-short...

Fraser Clark: Monkey's Trip, ... REVERSING THE 'BIG LIE' THE TRUE STORY OF Monkey's Marvelous Trip From The African Jungle To Inner & Outer Space.

Thanks for the link.

An interesting theory, that certainly should be researched more - but who is going to fund that research?

this is very important, because then Drake's formula (see in earlier posts) needs to be revised to include the probability of magic mushrooms.

who has taken magic mushroom/DMT? What happen's when you take them in correct way?. People all say same. We are what eat.These things changes us for good (,ever see mushroom /DMT associated violence, social disharmoney?)

in exact same way Mcdonalds/drinking too much changes us for bad.

The plants grow in the area in afrka where we all came from. The apes ate, tripped out and expanded their consciousness, to be exact, to be able to question ones own thought process ( the hallmark of a good trip) and so, they decided to expand.

Evidence of their diet including these propetys has been recorded.

Shamanic traditions, the most equal and not warlike would ingest during gatherings.

This lecture says it all- as strange as it may be. But not nearly as strange a virgin giving birth, a talking snake and a loving god whohas murdered apx 30,000 innocent people yet who many in the world still beleive in!

This is why we evoled to become what we are today

[partington]

who has taken magic mushroom/DMT? What happen's when you take them in correct way?. People all say same. We are what eat.These things changes us for good (,ever see mushroom /DMT associated violence, social disharmoney?)

in exact same way Mcdonalds/drinking too much changes us for bad.

The plants grow in the area in afrka where we all came from. The apes ate, tripped out and expanded their consciousness, to be exact, to be able to question ones own thought process ( the hallmark of a good trip) and so, they decided to expand.

Evidence of their diet including these propetys has been recorded.

Shamanic traditions, the most equal and not warlike would ingest during gatherings.

This lecture says it all- as strange as it may be. But not nearly as strange a virgin giving birth, a talking snake and a loving god whohas murdered apx 30,000 innocent people yet who many in the world still beleive in!

This is why we evoled to become what we are today

This is silly. This non theory (not being necessary to explain anything at all, and having no evidence to support it), seems not to take account of the simple fact that evolution cannot and does not work through preservation of actions animals take during their lives. This is like believing that weightlifter's grandchildren will be born with big muscles!

Evolution works through differential survival of animals with different genetic attributes. It has to be genetic in origin or it wouldn't be inherited, and therefore would not affect future generations.

Eating a ton of magic mushrooms wouldn't affect how your grandchildren behave in an inheritable ( = evolutionary) way! Just random internet nonsense.

Edited August 30, 2014 by partington

[Hermes100]

who has taken magic mushroom/DMT? What happen's when you take them in correct way?. People all say same. We are what eat.These things changes us for good (,ever see mushroom /DMT associated violence, social disharmoney?)

in exact same way Mcdonalds/drinking too much changes us for bad.

The plants grow in the area in afrka where we all came from. The apes ate, tripped out and expanded their consciousness, to be exact, to be able to question ones own thought process ( the hallmark of a good trip) and so, they decided to expand.

Evidence of their diet including these propetys has been recorded.

Shamanic traditions, the most equal and not warlike would ingest during gatherings.

This lecture says it all- as strange as it may be. But not nearly as strange a virgin giving birth, a talking snake and a loving god whohas murdered apx 30,000 innocent people yet who many in the world still beleive in!

This is why we evoled to become what we are today

This is silly. This non theory (not being necessary to explain anything at all, and having no evidence to support it), seems not to take account of the simple fact that evolution cannot and does not work through preservation of actions animals take during their lives. This is like believing that weightlifter's grandchildren will be born with big muscles!

Evolution works through differential survival of animals with different genetic attributes. It has to be genetic in origin or it wouldn't be inherited, and therefore would not affect future generations.

Eating a ton of magic mushrooms wouldn't affect how your grandchildren behave in an inheritable ( = evolutionary) way! Just random internet nonsense.

Silly? mmm, my best friend was up until his late 20's a Commando Captain who would kill, torture, abuse quite freely and with great pleasure his captives, men under him,etc, a sexist, a theif, a racist.

He was mirror image of his father.But not mother who was a hippy.

She introduced him to these things in early 30's---- the change was incredable. Instant. He is now a champion of human rights, equality, even gay and aninal rights.

And he extols this to his children, who when come of age will also probably partake.

Do you not think that chrecterics of how ones brain is shapped is passed down from one parent to another? And those can be changed by these propetys?

I do.

[partington]

who has taken magic mushroom/DMT? What happen's when you take them in correct way?. People all say same. We are what eat.These things changes us for good (,ever see mushroom /DMT associated violence, social disharmoney?)

in exact same way Mcdonalds/drinking too much changes us for bad.

The plants grow in the area in afrka where we all came from. The apes ate, tripped out and expanded their consciousness, to be exact, to be able to question ones own thought process ( the hallmark of a good trip) and so, they decided to expand.

Evidence of their diet including these propetys has been recorded.

Shamanic traditions, the most equal and not warlike would ingest during gatherings.

This lecture says it all- as strange as it may be. But not nearly as strange a virgin giving birth, a talking snake and a loving god whohas murdered apx 30,000 innocent people yet who many in the world still beleive in!

This is why we evoled to become what we are today

This is silly. This non theory (not being necessary to explain anything at all, and having no evidence to support it), seems not to take account of the simple fact that evolution cannot and does not work through preservation of actions animals take during their lives. This is like believing that weightlifter's grandchildren will be born with big muscles!

Evolution works through differential survival of animals with different genetic attributes. It has to be genetic in origin or it wouldn't be inherited, and therefore would not affect future generations.

Eating a ton of magic mushrooms wouldn't affect how your grandchildren behave in an inheritable ( = evolutionary) way! Just random internet nonsense.

Silly? mmm, my best friend was up until his late 20's a Commando Captain who would kill, torture, abuse quite freely and with great pleasure his captives, men under him,etc, a sexist, a theif, a racist.

He was mirror image of his father.But not mother who was a hippy.

She introduced him to these things in early 30's---- the change was incredable. Instant. He is now a champion of human rights, equality, even gay and aninal rights.

And he extols this to his children, who when come of age will also probably partake.

Do you not think that chrecterics of how ones brain is shapped is passed down from one parent to another? And those can be changed by these propetys?

I do.

It is silly because it is nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution works through GENES , not through people explaining things to each other.

A parent can affect a child by influence, and a parent can try to affect a child by influence and completely fail, For every commando captain who becomes peaceful I could show you the child of liberal university professors who becomes a violent drug addict. So what!

Your "mechanism" relies on parents explaining to children certain beliefs, and that these beliefs are then accepted 100% by the children and passed with 100% acceptance to the next generation throughout all of human history , and in every society in every country in the world. You must know through common sense that this is an absurd belief.

Changes in opinions that happen in one generation have NO CERTAINTY AT ALL of being passed unchanged to the next. Only genetic changes are CERTAIN to be inherited, because genes are transmitted as complete units from one generation to the next . Only genetic change can cause evolution. You have a pointy nose like your grandmother because you have some of your grandmother's genes, not because she persuaded your dad that a pointy nose was a good thing to have.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

[Mzungu]

Slightly off topic. Less than 1% of American prison population are atheist.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

The same time less than 10% American scientists are religious.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Maybe just statistics but think about it...

[Hermes100]

Slightly off topic. Less than 1% of American prison population are atheist.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

The same time less than 10% American scientists are religious.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Maybe just statistics but think about it...

all desperate and sad people cling to something,, Thai's and most Asians do because most poor, have to work too hard, have little real hope in life because they are totally exploited by those who rule over them using their made up religion to do so.People in prison do same.

But your stat on USA is totally flawed for one simple reason-people lie!

In west one earns what is called "brownie points' by attending religious brain washing. This is the case in almost every prison I have studied from Uk- france, from USA to canada. They also attend because they are able to meet and make 'show friends' with people who help them with their parole.

That is the only reason the stat so high.

There is no way that they are this way otherwise. Look at the root cause of all things and they become obvious.

[nidieunimaitre]

who has taken magic mushroom/DMT? What happen's when you take them in correct way?. People all say same. We are what eat.These things changes us for good (,ever see mushroom /DMT associated violence, social disharmoney?)

in exact same way Mcdonalds/drinking too much changes us for bad.

The plants grow in the area in afrka where we all came from. The apes ate, tripped out and expanded their consciousness, to be exact, to be able to question ones own thought process ( the hallmark of a good trip) and so, they decided to expand.

Evidence of their diet including these propetys has been recorded.

Shamanic traditions, the most equal and not warlike would ingest during gatherings.

This lecture says it all- as strange as it may be. But not nearly as strange a virgin giving birth, a talking snake and a loving god whohas murdered apx 30,000 innocent people yet who many in the world still beleive in!

This is why we evoled to become what we are today

This is silly. This non theory (not being necessary to explain anything at all, and having no evidence to support it), seems not to take account of the simple fact that evolution cannot and does not work through preservation of actions animals take during their lives. This is like believing that weightlifter's grandchildren will be born with big muscles!

Evolution works through differential survival of animals with different genetic attributes. It has to be genetic in origin or it wouldn't be inherited, and therefore would not affect future generations.

Eating a ton of magic mushrooms wouldn't affect how your grandchildren behave in an inheritable ( = evolutionary) way! Just random internet nonsense.

Silly? mmm, my best friend was up until his late 20's a Commando Captain who would kill, torture, abuse quite freely and with great pleasure his captives, men under him,etc, a sexist, a theif, a racist.

He was mirror image of his father.But not mother who was a hippy.

She introduced him to these things in early 30's---- the change was incredable. Instant. He is now a champion of human rights, equality, even gay and aninal rights.

And he extols this to his children, who when come of age will also probably partake.

Do you not think that chrecterics of how ones brain is shapped is passed down from one parent to another? And those can be changed by these propetys?

I do.

It is silly because it is nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution works through GENES , not through people explaining things to each other.

A parent can affect a child by influence, and a parent can try to affect a child by influence and completely fail, For every commando captain who becomes peaceful I could show you the child of liberal university professors who becomes a violent drug addict. So what!

Your "mechanism" relies on parents explaining to children certain beliefs, and that these beliefs are then accepted 100% by the children and passed with 100% acceptance to the next generation throughout all of human history , and in every society in every country in the world. You must know through common sense that this is an absurd belief.

Changes in opinions that happen in one generation have NO CERTAINTY AT ALL of being passed unchanged to the next. Only genetic changes are CERTAIN to be inherited, because genes are transmitted as complete units from one generation to the next . Only genetic change can cause evolution. You have a pointy nose like your grandmother because you have some of your grandmother's genes, not because she persuaded your dad that a pointy nose was a good thing to have.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Evolution from one species to another indeed requires genetic change, drugs do not cause genetic change.

But what about CULTURAL change?

Europeans now and 1.000 years ago have the same genes, but behave differently. OK, to my taste, not differently enough, but still....

And is CULTURE not what differentiates us from all other animals?

The idea that natural drugs such as magic mushrooms brought about the change should not be dismissed, I think, and should be researched.

How about: Apes not using their brains >>>>> eating mushrooms >>>>>> discovering the power of imagination >>>>> starting to be creative >>>>>> developing into humans? (and next restricting the use of drugs to shamans, laying the foundation of organised religions?).

Of course I won't "believe" this theory, untill it would be proven, and therefore we need research.

[Deacon Bell]

What's really a shame is that atheists will never know real love.

[nidieunimaitre]

Slightly off topic. Less than 1% of American prison population are atheist.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

The same time less than 10% American scientists are religious.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Maybe just statistics but think about it...

Of course!

How did you think that the Europeans managed to convert Africans and South Americans? The carot and stick method, the carot being the most effective.

I do not think that atheist prisoners will get the chance to attend "social functions", while believers get time out for church services, and may get lucky with some understanding priest.

[nidieunimaitre]

What's really a shame is that atheists will never know real love.

The real love for the real god, and the permission to kill all his real enemies during crusades and jihads.

[Mzungu]

What's really a shame is that atheists will never know real love.

I hope you are trying just to be sarcastic...

[orosee]

What's really a shame is that atheists will never know real love.

I thought real love is unconditional. Yet there's an awful lot of conditions attached to religions, and dire consequences if you fail fulfilling even the least of them.

Maybe you meant "that atheists will never know tough love"?

[KarenBravo]

Love from an imaginary friend up in the sky?

Rather have love from someone I can cuddle in bed.

[RedNIvar]

Just watched "Lucy", she ended up being omnipresent. That would make her God, right? Luc Besson might have all the answers.

Sorry could not help myself. I had to throw in a movie reference when discussing a fictional topic like God.

[partington]

Just watched "Lucy", she ended up being omnipresent. That would make her God, right? Luc Besson might have all the answers.

Sorry could not help myself. I had to throw in a movie reference when discussing a fictional topic like God.

Pity you didn't have more sense than to reveal the end of a movie that many won't have seen, with no warning, and so spoil it.

Sometimes I wish there was a hell...

Edited September 11, 2014 by partington

[csabo]

What's really a shame is that atheists will never know real love.

Love and belief in omnipresent men in the sky are both just creations of the brain that release pleasing chemicals related to security. But loving a family member, friend or your spouse or even your dog and displaying that love in tangible ways is of value to you and them and society as a whole. Loving your invisible all knowing ghosts is just a complete waste of intellect, time, money and resources that could be put to far better use then controlling government and society by proxy.

[Tongdee]

Well, no that's not true at all. I know plenty of muslims and none of them think or act that way. They're just normal folk- my best mate is a muslim and I'd struggle to name a smarter person I know, able to debate cheerfully and see both sides of the argument.

Dunno, maybe moslims are something different that I've never come across. Moslims who hate jews and catholics but hate intelligent people even more. Like intelligent people who spell good.

I would totally agree that on a whole Muslims are the one's who dislike atheists the most. I spend lot of time in middle-east.

Seems they take it very personally and would rather have a christian or even a Jew.

I would have a lot of trouble calling anyone smart who really believes totally in whatever religion they subscribe too.

Educated maybe-smart , no.

If for example a Muslim/Christian truly and utterly believes in what is written in the Qur'an/bible they cannot be called "smart'.

They have opted,usually because they have been brain washed at young age ( Muslims are very guilty of this) to suspend all forms of rational logic to belief in things we all know is absurdly wrong-and yet they cling to it.

Smart people do not cling like that.

They see the evidence and go where it leads. They do not cling using the weakest/lamest forms of excuses/logic/rational

They get angry quickly because that is all they can do.

As for locals, well, there is no religion here really,its a bare resemblance of what Buddhism is really all about.A philosophy that because a religion to suit the agenda of those who stil use it today to control the masses.

I am very close to being an athiest. God--- extremely improbable 99.999% no. The fraction of possible is just enough to allow myself to believe that I am open minded. However I do believe there are smart "Believers". I personally think they are deluded not stupid. To say they have reached their faith through the scientific method,,,, aaahhhhh no. Science works when everone questions it. Religion only works when no one questions it. Faith is not evidence based.

[Tongdee]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

I don't see any problem with Pascal's wager.

His words were primarily directed at the church, at a time when being an atheist could cost one his life.

"acting as if" = make believe.

Your example about the wire is flawed. Let's say the wire is connected to a switch.

The Atheist will see the switch in the "off" position and touch the wire.

It's rather the Agnostic who will test the wire for current, because he doesn't know the switch, maybe it has been wired wrong inside, or the "on" and "off" labels are swapped.

The Agnostic will also have tested the wire tester on live current before and after the test to make sure it tests correctly.

The Agnostic knows something is not there when it has been proven that it is not there.

The Atheist will jump to conclusions.

For example, let's say the wire is not connected to anything - the atheist will trust his knowledge and touch the wire. Maybe static electricity will kill him.

My soulution (pun intended) would be to find a good religious person and throw them onto the wire knowing their invisible freind in the sky will save them from the laws of physics....55555

[orosee]

The problem with agnosticism is that it leads to Pascal's Wager. If you don't know whether or not (a) God exists, would it not be wiser to act as if there were one, considering the consequences (none if one doesn't exist, eternal damnation or bliss if there is one and you picked the right/wrong one)?

I imagine being agnostic as standing in front of a naked electric wire, not knowing if it is live or not. Now you can say "I don't know if touching this wire will kill me or not", but unless you're taping for "Jackass 4", you're not going to touch that wire.

Faith would mean trusting your 25 years younger Thai wife or her brother to flip the breaker.

An atheist of course uses an instrument of science to test for a live current.

But seriously, how does someone who labels himself "agnostic" manage not to be either atheist of believer?

I don't see any problem with Pascal's wager.

His words were primarily directed at the church, at a time when being an atheist could cost one his life.

"acting as if" = make believe.

Your example about the wire is flawed. Let's say the wire is connected to a switch.

The Atheist will see the switch in the "off" position and touch the wire.

It's rather the Agnostic who will test the wire for current, because he doesn't know the switch, maybe it has been wired wrong inside, or the "on" and "off" labels are swapped.

The Agnostic will also have tested the wire tester on live current before and after the test to make sure it tests correctly.

The Agnostic knows something is not there when it has been proven that it is not there.

The Atheist will jump to conclusions.

For example, let's say the wire is not connected to anything - the atheist will trust his knowledge and touch the wire. Maybe static electricity will kill him.

My soulution (pun intended) would be to find a good religious person and throw them onto the wire knowing their invisible freind in the sky will save them from the laws of physics....55555

555... The problem is, you'll never hear the end of it how that person was saved by divine intervention! The church was one step ahead, throw the with in the water, if she drowns she's innocent. The house always wins.

Oh also, god will turn the power back on once your test subject has been saved. Working in mysterious ways etc.

Edited September 12, 2014 by orosee

[csabo]

Firstly, you can't prove a negative.

It is not incumbent for non-believers to prove there isn't a God.

The onus lies with the believers to prove God exists.

So far, they have failed miserably.

I want to walk into a church a pronounce "I can fly". All the parishioners appropriately would say "Prove it!". I would reply "You first".

[teatree]

Firstly, you can't prove a negative.

It is not incumbent for non-believers to prove there isn't a God.

The onus lies with the believers to prove God exists.

So far, they have failed miserably.

I want to walk into a church a pronounce "I can fly". All the parishioners appropriately would say "Prove it!". I would reply "You first".

Nobody is asking you to prove a negative.

Only to prove you're beliefs on the origin of the universe...i.e.to prove that the universe sprang into existance out of nothing by random chance.

Can you prove this?

[attrayant]

Nobody is asking you to prove a negative.

Only to prove you're beliefs on the origin of the universe...i.e.to prove that the universe sprang into existance out of nothing by random chance.

Can you prove this?

The answers that usually follow such a request are often met by replies of "I don't believe that", or "that doesn't count". So before we go down that particular rabbit hole, let me ask you: what kind of evidence would be acceptable as proof to you? Does something have to be proved with 100% certainty or would an extremely high probability (say 95 or 98% likely) be acceptable?

Secondly, if a hypothesis can't be proved with metaphysical certainty, does that mean another position automatically becomes true by default, without itself facing the same burden of proof?

[KarenBravo]

Firstly, you can't prove a negative.

It is not incumbent for non-believers to prove there isn't a God.

The onus lies with the believers to prove God exists.

So far, they have failed miserably.

I want to walk into a church a pronounce "I can fly". All the parishioners appropriately would say "Prove it!". I would reply "You first".

An invitation to the parishioners to throw you from the bell-tower.

[teatree]

Nobody is asking you to prove a negative.

Only to prove you're beliefs on the origin of the universe...i.e.to prove that the universe sprang into existance out of nothing by random chance.

Can you prove this?

The answers that usually follow such a request are often met by replies of "I don't believe that", or "that doesn't count". So before we go down that particular rabbit hole, let me ask you: what kind of evidence would be acceptable as proof to you? Does something have to be proved with 100% certainty or would an extremely high probability (say 95 or 98% likely) be acceptable?

Secondly, if a hypothesis can't be proved with metaphysical certainty, does that mean another position automatically becomes true by default, without itself facing the same burden of proof?

Firstly, the degree of certainty should be the same degree of certainty that the earth is a globe, or that the earth orbits the sun....something along those lines.

Secondly, if one thing cannot be proved, of course it does not mean that 'another' thing is correct by default.

[attrayant]

Firstly, the degree of certainty should be the same degree of certainty that the earth is a globe, or that the earth orbits the sun....something along those lines.

Those are not really good comparisons since they are both presently (and very easily) observable phenomena, whereas the universe came into existence just under 14 billion years ago. Since nobody was there to snap some photos, proof of past events requires a willingness to accept deductive reasoning and a solid grasp of the laws of nature: classical mechanics, thermodynamics (esp. entropy), Newtonian gravitation and general relativity.

For example, if today we observe three bodies in space racing away from each other, we can apply our understanding of mechanics and physical laws to deduce the starting point of these bodies. We can also measure their speed and mass to calculate the amount of force that was required to motivate them. If their trajectory indicates that they all originated from the same point in space, then we can deduce that some force was present at that time to cause such expansion. If they are moving really fast, we can use the doppler effect to determine the speed at which stars or whole galaxies are moving away from us or toward us.

The certainty is quite high, and while it's not 100%, it is 99.x%, where x is a very large number of nines.

It turns out that when we observe the doppler shift of nearby galaxies, they all seem to be running away from us. Plotting the movements of galaxies on three-dimensional grid results in something like an expanding balloon, with all the galaxies being points on the balloon's surface. As the balloon inflates, all points on its surface move farther and farther away from all other points. Run the sequence backwards and we get a good picture of most matter originating from a common point, and under a sudden tremendous, incomprehensible amount of force and energy.

That's about as far as I'm prepared to go on a forum that doesn't have large contingent of scientists and mathematicians. In fact I'm sure a lot of eyes glazed-over while reading this.

So if you find yourself not coming to the same conclusions as cosmologists and astrophysicists about the present set of observations of our universe, then you need to dig down into the science and math and explain exactly where they've all gone wrong, and use the tools we have at hand (physical laws of nature) to produce a better explanation. There's a nobel prize waiting for anyone who can do that.

[tw25rw]

Nobody is asking you to prove a negative.

Only to prove you're beliefs on the origin of the universe...i.e.to prove that the universe sprang into existance out of nothing by random chance.

Can you prove this?

I've never seen anyone, as in a scientist rather than forum philosopher, state that "the universe sprang into existance out of nothing by random chance.".

There would have to be forces that bring it into existence, even if not conscious ones. But these would be outside of what I can comprehend.

[teatree]

Firstly, the degree of certainty should be the same degree of certainty that the earth is a globe, or that the earth orbits the sun....something along those lines.

Those are not really good comparisons since they are both presently (and very easily) observable phenomena, whereas the universe came into existence just under 14 billion years ago. Since nobody was there to snap some photos, proof of past events requires a willingness to accept deductive reasoning and a solid grasp of the laws of nature: classical mechanics, thermodynamics (esp. entropy), Newtonian gravitation and general relativity.

For example, if today we observe three bodies in space racing away from each other, we can apply our understanding of mechanics and physical laws to deduce the starting point of these bodies. We can also measure their speed and mass to calculate the amount of force that was required to motivate them. If their trajectory indicates that they all originated from the same point in space, then we can deduce that some force was present at that time to cause such expansion. If they are moving really fast, we can use the doppler effect to determine the speed at which stars or whole galaxies are moving away from us or toward us.

The certainty is quite high, and while it's not 100%, it is 99.x%, where x is a very large number of nines.

It turns out that when we observe the doppler shift of nearby galaxies, they all seem to be running away from us. Plotting the movements of galaxies on three-dimensional grid results in something like an expanding balloon, with all the galaxies being points on the balloon's surface. As the balloon inflates, all points on its surface move farther and farther away from all other points. Run the sequence backwards and we get a good picture of most matter originating from a common point, and under a sudden tremendous, incomprehensible amount of force and energy.

That's about as far as I'm prepared to go on a forum that doesn't have large contingent of scientists and mathematicians. In fact I'm sure a lot of eyes glazed-over while reading this.

So if you find yourself not coming to the same conclusions as cosmologists and astrophysicists about the present set of observations of our universe, then you need to dig down into the science and math and explain exactly where they've all gone wrong, and use the tools we have at hand (physical laws of nature) to produce a better explanation. There's a nobel prize waiting for anyone who can do that.

I was using those examples to illustrate the degree of CERTAINTY I would deem acceptble rather than using them as a model for the method of proof. Truth is I don't really think there is a way to prove it (which is kind of my whole point) and I don't think there ever will be. Maybe if someone can provide some empirical evidence by conjuring up some matter into existence and expanding it into a universe. If you can do that, there is your Nobel Prize for you.

As for the expanding universe theory, who am I to argue against the astrophysicists and cosmologists you talk of? As far as I'm concerned their theories that the universe started from an infinitesimally small point is supported by logic.

But so what? How is that proof that the universe was created by 'chemical chance'? Someone could be totally theistic in their beliefs and still totally accept the big bang thoery.

The key point is what force was the force of creation. Random chance or a conscious entitiy?

You have 'proved' that the universe most likely started from a single point. Fine. Now where is the proof that the spark of creation came about by 'happy coincidence'?

Proof please.

[orosee]

Well if you can accept that a conscious entity (a god) always existed, how can't you accept that unconscious matter/energy always existed? For me, the former is so much less likely than the latter. Some religions gave creation myths for their deities but not the Abrahamic ones.

If you only wonder how matter (something) could come from "nothing", the answer gas been printed on millions of t-shirts, posters and Web sites. Maybe in the beginning there was no matter, but there was not nothing.

Now origins of life and consciousness, those are really big questions begging for better answers.