New Images Support 'Big Bang' Theory
-
Tim Carmichael wrote:
But, if proof is required, Jesus died and rose from the dead. Proof of God's existence
sorry. even if Jesus did come back to life, that would not necessarily prove anything about God. it might prove that zombies really happen, that Jesus wasn't actually dead, that some human or natural action caused him to start breathing again, etc.. only faith gets you from a story about a zombie to "Proof of God's existence" Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
only faith gets you from a story about a zombie to "Proof of God's existence"
And only with faith can you believe that the universe came into existence by chance.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
For since the creation
Gary, what verse is that? I think I recognize it, but I'm familiar with the KJ version of the bible, so I can't place it. Thanks for the quote though, it's right to the point.
Romans 1:20-25 Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Bassam, Great question. If the universe was the size of a marble, where was it located? This is where I think science falls down. The traditional Judeao Christian understanding of creation is that both time and space are part of the creation... which makes the question of what happened "before" the Big Bang... and "where" did the Big Bang take place... somewhat moot points. 100 years ago secularists were deriding believers about the idea of a instantaneous creation. It turns out that instantaneous creation was exactly the way it happened. Science studies matter situated in time and space... God, from the traditional viewpoint, stands outside of matter, time, and space... and is therefore transcendent. So the "secular" objection that science can't find God directly in space, matter, and time posses no issue for me... it would be a bigger issue if they did claim to find God. Of course Christians believe that God the Son (Jesus) did walk the earth. I believe that too... but not through science... through faith. But I do love this whole marble story... very, very cool. Chadlling
Chadlling wrote:
Great question.
Very, very well written. Thank you!
-
DarkElv wrote:
some god will just create the computer and internet for us.
Wasn't that Al Gore? Holy Cow! Are you saying he's a GOD??? LOL!:laugh::laugh:;P;P;P
-
digital man wrote:
scientists are examining an event
These scientists are not examining the Big Bang. They are examining microwave signals and interpreting them based on their pre-suppositions. They have a predisposition to the universe being billions of years old and have being created by a big explosion. Therefore, their "evidence" supports them. It's the difference between operational science and creation science. Operational science involves things that can be examined and reproduced according to the scientific method. Creation science is more based on your "religion" (Humanism, Christianity, etc.). These scientists obviously are humanist (atheist) who believe there is no external being controlling the universe; and that's fine as long as their results are taken within that context rather than as "proof" of anything. You can't tell me with a straight face that these guys can tell you what happened billions of years ago when the universe was a trillionth of a second old by looking at some microwave signals? :laugh: If you believe that, you have more faith than I do! Barry Etter
I'm pretty sure that you know what I meant and no, of course I can't but I find it somewhat more interesting and believable than an invisible being ruling our lives and at least they're making an attempt to understand existence without need to resort to an omnipotent being that conveniently negates the need to examine much of anything you don't really understand and whilst you may snort at their attempts to interpret the signals at least they are trying. I have absolute faith in myself. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Nope, not at all although I am enjoying the spirited to-and-fro. Jolly good fun for a friday don't you think? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
What's outside the marble?[^]
The marble bag :omg: Go watch Men in Black[^] if you don't believe me... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Found on Bash.org [erno] hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
-- modified at 9:05 Friday 17th March, 2006
-
Romans 1:20-25 Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Thanks
-
digital man wrote:
Where is the tangible, verifiable evidence of your god?
leaving that question alone for a second ( and I *can* answer it ), do you suppose the existence of a God excludes the existence of any evidence of His handywork ? Assuming there was a big bang ( and I have no trouble with that ), does that prove that no God was involved ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
leaving that question alone for a second ( and I *can* answer it ), do you suppose the existence of a God excludes the existence of any evidence of His handywork ? Assuming there was a big bang ( and I have no trouble with that ), does that prove that no God was involved ?
Nope, but neither does it prove there is a god. I find it far simpler to not believe than to think that there is some all-powerful, invisible being watching over us 24/7. It's nonsense to frighten little children with. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Lunch? We're having a nice curry for dinner in about an hour or so. My tummy can't wait. Mmmm. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comNice. My wife cooked some corned beef and baked red potatoes last night and I am having the leftovers for lunch. :)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
leaving that question alone for a second ( and I *can* answer it ), do you suppose the existence of a God excludes the existence of any evidence of His handywork ? Assuming there was a big bang ( and I have no trouble with that ), does that prove that no God was involved ?
Nope, but neither does it prove there is a god. I find it far simpler to not believe than to think that there is some all-powerful, invisible being watching over us 24/7. It's nonsense to frighten little children with. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comOK. So we agree that 1 - discussion of the big bang does not prove or disprove the existence of a god 2 - you have your own religion, and you're at least as bigoted about it as most people who believe in a god. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Sorry pal, this proves absolutely nothing. These are not eye-witness verifiable accounts. They would not stand up in a court of law, though I'd love to see you try. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
These are not eye-witness verifiable accounts
Perhaps not the Book of Mormon one, but the others I gave are exactly that.
digital man wrote:
They would not stand up in a court of law, though I'd love to see you try.
Actually they would and already have. The ball's in your court. (No pun intended.)
-
I agree with you. The big bang seems to be proof of Creation. I don't understand how athiests could say that happened by chance.
And I don't see how you can say it's proof of creation. And why can't it have happened by chance? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Gary Kirkham wrote:
When did I do that?
When you said: "I say and do things that are not in His perfect will for me".
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I have been trying to think of a reply
Try harder. You are avoiding the question with misdirection. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
When you said: "I say and do things that are not in His perfect will for me".
Dude, he's taking responsibility for his own actions by saying "I say and do things"
-
Bassam, Great question. If the universe was the size of a marble, where was it located? This is where I think science falls down. The traditional Judeao Christian understanding of creation is that both time and space are part of the creation... which makes the question of what happened "before" the Big Bang... and "where" did the Big Bang take place... somewhat moot points. 100 years ago secularists were deriding believers about the idea of a instantaneous creation. It turns out that instantaneous creation was exactly the way it happened. Science studies matter situated in time and space... God, from the traditional viewpoint, stands outside of matter, time, and space... and is therefore transcendent. So the "secular" objection that science can't find God directly in space, matter, and time posses no issue for me... it would be a bigger issue if they did claim to find God. Of course Christians believe that God the Son (Jesus) did walk the earth. I believe that too... but not through science... through faith. But I do love this whole marble story... very, very cool. Chadlling
Whereas Christianity teaches that God created the world in 6 days (without Arnold's help :) ), our religion believes in the "let there be light" approach. God created the world instantaneously. That brings up a lot of "impossible to answer through science or faith" questions like how or when did it happen. But since we're all here arguing about it, something did happen. Most atheists have a hard time accepting God and religion unfortunately pushes itself rather than God. Religion only explains God in its way and that's why a large majority of people are atheists. God is not defined to be an old man with a beard. God is just the reason for our existance. God could be a being, the universe (Big Bang) or even we could be living things in God. Any way you wish to explain it is equally plausible. We'll never know for sure. But to say there is no God when you accept the Big Bang blindly is self-denial. "If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
Drew Stainton wrote:
Kind of cracks me up.
yup. unfortunately for cosmology and biology, there are centuries of religious/faith-based stories to overcome. luckily, the bible didn't try to teach mathematics or chemistry - we'd never get anywhere. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
luckily, the bible didn't try to teach mathematics
It did. The bible claimed the ratio of the circumferance to the diameter was roughly three. Good estimate by the standards then, but bad for the "son of God". All they did was roll a wheel and see how many diameters it covered. "If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
I'm pretty sure that you know what I meant and no, of course I can't but I find it somewhat more interesting and believable than an invisible being ruling our lives and at least they're making an attempt to understand existence without need to resort to an omnipotent being that conveniently negates the need to examine much of anything you don't really understand and whilst you may snort at their attempts to interpret the signals at least they are trying. I have absolute faith in myself. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
at least they're making an attempt to understand existence without need to resort to an omnipotent being that conveniently negates the need to examine much of anything you don't really understand and whilst you may snort at their attempts to interpret the signals at least they are trying.
You may find it interesting that most men of science believe in God and believe it was put here for us to discover and explore. Even Albert Einstein said : "The more I examine the universe, the more I believe it was put here for us to discover." (Or something like that).
digital man wrote:
I have absolute faith in myself.
Then you are your own god and you have your own religion: the religion of self.
-
I think it might be possible, but I'm not optimistic. We're certainly capable of understanding nature beyond our direct observations, but it gets awfully weird. There is also no way to verify any of it.
If we do ever create an artificial black hole, we might be able to reproduce a mini-Big Bang or a Little Bang. That could be enough to explain creation. Or we could inadvertantly sink this universe into it and start the cycle for a whole new universe where some CPians are asking how it is or isn't possible. :) "If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
Which came first - the turtle or the egg?
The egg of course, but it was not a turtle that laid the egg. The layer of the egg was one evolutionary step away from a turtle. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?
-
espeir wrote:
Uh...It still is published...It's the most published book in history.
I think you know what I meant. Besides, is it really? I thought that there are books that have outsold specific versions of the bible?
espeir wrote:
Besides, there are plenty of other historical accounts that back up the story of Jesus. Ask any reputable history professor. He might not agree that Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead, but the history is completely consistent with all other historical contexts.
Not the point: the others are not talking about a historical figure: they're talking about a man they allege was the son of an entity and who dies and then, well, lived again. Different entirely. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
I thought that there are books that have outsold specific versions of the bible?
Nope. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=48276[^]
digital man wrote:
Not the point: the others are not talking about a historical figure: they're talking about a man they allege was the son of an entity and who dies and then, well, lived again. Different entirely.
We're talking about both. Jesus as a historical figure is not really something a reasonable person would debate. Whether or not he was the Son of God may be a matter of faith, but the New Testament is a history book gathered from eye witness accounts. You're free to discount the validity of those accounts, but historians typically view first-hand accounts as...well...gospel.