Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Saturday, August 05, 2017, 22:35 (2666 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Reblak: It seems to me, not surprisingly perhaps, that atheism presents an unambiguous view of nature. Together with the extension of its logic in considering the state of ‘matter’ and other basic configurations, I suggest that following the path it sets will be the preferred choice for a rational thinker.
In this sense, a 'rational thinker' is one who seeks logical advances that employ no help from a 'superpower'.
“Right here, you lost me. By classifying a 'rational thinker' as only people who agree with you, you label anyone that disagrees with you as 'irrational', i.e. thinking without reason or rational thought. (No - I did not) Yet, as a theist, I have a rational, reasoned approach to my belief in God, and that belief is formed much like our belief in gravity. We cannot measure it directly, but we can measure the indirect evidence and follow the ...(continuation not displayed).

I am disappointed that you have interpreted my meaning in a manner so far from what I said, let alone what I meant. I have made it clear (repeatedly) that to have faith in an Almighty God is not irrational. My use of the term rational in this post means precisely what I said:

In this sense, a 'rational thinker' is one who seeks logical advances that employ no help from a 'superpower'.

What I personally choose to call rational thinking cannot include a religious explanation. This is because if I ‘believe’ I cannot question God’s decisions and I would be obliged by faith to unquestioningly accept them. This is not irrational, but is a door closed to atheists.

The logic I use places only known facts in a row to generate a conclusion. This is an open door. Whatever my conclusion may be, even though it may be fully rational, it might prove to be plain wrong. You may open this door and enter a wonderland. I cannot. You accept everything as the unquestionable will/act of God. I cannot. I want a full explanation in the language of physics. Both these views are rational. We must choose one or the other!

The expression ‘In this sense’, should tell you that I am asking for explanations that follow this premise as, from an atheist standpoint, I cannot agree with any religious solution. So, I cannot ask reasons from something I believe does not exist!

You go on ...
Your logic fails here. You talk about matter not 'disappearing', but ignore* the more fundamental question of how did it appear from nothing if it can neither be created nor destroyed?(*It is eternal If you fantasize that it comes from nowhere and from nothing, you only face more problems.
(...blah blah nothing can disappear and you are crazy irrational* if you think it does.. blah blah..)* (I most certainty did neither!)

I made no suggestion of craziness at all. I think all this sanctimonious, misuse of language (especially ‘irrational’) should be dropped unless unavoidable. As to Matter, even ancient Greeks knew that matter is indestructible. There being nowhere for matter to go to – or to come from - they concluded, as do all qualified scientists, that it is eternal.

It is a fundamental principle of science that matter is indestructible.

Everything ‘used’ is converted from one state of being into another, thus Matter is endlessly recycled and reconstituted. We have experiment endlessly, but no can do.

Matter is fundamental and eternal. Something cannot come from nothing. So, logically it must have been already there always. Matter doesn’t ‘come from’ anywhere. It is, very clearly, well and truly here. Taken to a ‘conversational’ extreme, neither its presence nor its origin have any need of explanation.
I have re-read my piece and find nothing beyond a clear statement of my beliefs. This amounts to the same thing I have just written. We just like to know! If this is difficult for you, just consider your God. The principle is the same.

For your better understanding, I would say, (were I religious) that God created the Universe just as it is, with its own logic and knew that humanity would eventually emerge.

Even were I a believer, I’d not necessarily assume that humanity is especially important in the scheme of things. Such a deity would not wish that puny humanity would demean either ‘Him’ or itself in silly attempts to ingratiate itself into some privileged state.

‘My’ Godhead would need no aid nor human toadying worship. For believers, a major downside to this is that an incredibly Almighty God is allowing monstrosities to be committed by humans in his name and permitting nonsenses such as freewill (a purely human invention) to be presented as an excuse to explain ‘His’ inaction. The reality is that all the above is simply us transferring some of our human, rather nasty behaviour, into the mind and behaviour of a being who, if he exists, is way, way, beyond our understanding.

An Almighty who does not know as much as I do of the nature of humanity (which ‘He’ ostensibly created!) falls a long way short of being Mighty, let alone ‘Almighty’!