New Images Support 'Big Bang' Theory
-
Using your logic, I can't go into a library and find various books that support an idea, because they are in the same place. The Bible is a compilation of numerous books; the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts all support that Jesus rose from the dead. Five seperate accounts, bound together into a single volume.
Which Bible do you mean? Have you read it? All of it? Did you kill your goat today and sprinkle blood on both sides of the altar? Did you correctly remove the entrails before burning its head on the altar? No? Better go read up so you can get things right. Matt Gerrans
-
I didn't vote you down, but weren't those galaxies?
Yes.
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.
-
The pre-big bang universe was not necessarily a black hole. Nor did it necessarily have any properties similar at all to a black hole.
espeir wrote:
The pre-big bang universe was not necessarily a black hole.
Actually no one knows for sure if there really was a big bang - leave alone what was present in a pre-big bang universe. To know for sure if there was indeed a big bang would be the same as answering all the unknowns in our universe.
-
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.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
And only with faith can you believe that the universe came into existence by chance.
true. that's part of why i don't believe chance had anything to do with it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
To expound a little on digital man's response, what evidence do you have that "sprituality" (or more aptly, mysticism) is "actually one of the highest functions of the human mind?" What are the other functions of the human mind and how do they rate? Is this based on your neurological research, or is this just a fluffy meaningless statement of your opinion? Matt Gerrans
mysticism != sprituality. The former implies union with God while the latter implies awareness of Him. For starters sprituality is uniquely human. No animal has that ability (or the innate desire) to understand divinity. While most of our other thought processes are shared with one or more of our brothers in the animal kingdom, the fact that we alone have this quircky nature shows that it is a uniquely higher function.
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
And only with faith can you believe that the universe came into existence by chance.
true. that's part of why i don't believe chance had anything to do with it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Then is your explanation simply a refusal of all other proposed explanations?
-
What kind of proof are you looking for? An early follower of Jesus put it this way: the evidence of God is all around us; we don't need a miraculous, supernatural "God was here!" kind of event to prove him, do we? Is that what you're looking for? If it is, you might be disappointed, because you are not the first to ask for such proof of God:
Later a few scholars and teachers got on him. "Teacher, we want to see your credentials. Give us some hard evidence that God is in this. How about a miracle?" Jesus said, "You're looking for proof, but you're looking for the wrong kind. All you want is something to titillate your curiosity, satisfy your lust for miracles. Because of this, the only proof you're going to get is what looks like the absence of proof.
What I am convinced of is that people who are looking for this kind of proof are out to disprove the existence of God. They aren't really looking for miracles, they're just out to disprove God's existence by the absence of miracles. If that is you, then there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise; in fact, Jesus performed miracles himself witnessed by not only his followers, but also by people who were out to disprove his existence such as secular historians and the Judaic scribes, both groups of people saw the miracles, yet refused to believe anyways because they already had their made up their minds, there was no convincing them. I am convinced that if you do not have an open mind to God--if you are only out there to disprove his existence--then even miracles will not convince you, as it did not convince people with closed minds and hard hearts in the past. You've got to have an open mind to the existence of God before you will find proof either way.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Here's a question for the creationists. Let's say we hypothetically accept the "intelligent design" argument that if something is intricate, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (automobiles didn't evolve and all that). So, humans (animals, et al) are complicated and therefore must have been designed by an even more complicated being (God, Allah, etc.). Hmm... I guess we cannot simply abandon our model now, so naturally, that entity must have been designed and created by an even more complex being, who must have been created by an even more complex being, who... Do you see the flaw? Or do you just shout "rutabega!" now? We need to explain the existence of the universe with the construction of God, but don't need to explain the existence of God? If so, why even bother trying to explain the existence of the universe, or anything else, if you are eventually are going to get to the end of the line and punt? Matt Gerrans
-
What happens when you keep adjusting your path to keep going straight. For example, two people start out in opposite directions and reach the same point, they then restart moving closer down the road and end up at the same initial position. However, what happens if they repeat this an infinite number of times each time moving closer and closer? :) "If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
Bassam, My original analogy was a bit incomplete. Going around the universe is *kinda* like walking over the surface of the earth, with one crucial difference: You can actually travel around the earth, but traveling around the universe to end up where you started requires that you travel faster than light - which is not practically possible. I don't remember or even know why, though - I read it in Hawking's A Brief History of Time. I'm only very interested in the stuff, not a scientist. Perhaps you could ask John Theal. :) Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
Here's a question for the creationists. Let's say we hypothetically accept the "intelligent design" argument that if something is intricate, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (automobiles didn't evolve and all that). So, humans (animals, et al) are complicated and therefore must have been designed by an even more complicated being (God, Allah, etc.). Hmm... I guess we cannot simply abandon our model now, so naturally, that entity must have been designed and created by an even more complex being, who must have been created by an even more complex being, who... Do you see the flaw? Or do you just shout "rutabega!" now? We need to explain the existence of the universe with the construction of God, but don't need to explain the existence of God? If so, why even bother trying to explain the existence of the universe, or anything else, if you are eventually are going to get to the end of the line and punt? Matt Gerrans
2 things... 1) What does ID have to do with the big bang? 2) The notion of causality (which is required in science) denotes the same logic you just summarized.
-
Here's a question for the creationists. Let's say we hypothetically accept the "intelligent design" argument that if something is intricate, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (automobiles didn't evolve and all that). So, humans (animals, et al) are complicated and therefore must have been designed by an even more complicated being (God, Allah, etc.). Hmm... I guess we cannot simply abandon our model now, so naturally, that entity must have been designed and created by an even more complex being, who must have been created by an even more complex being, who... Do you see the flaw? Or do you just shout "rutabega!" now? We need to explain the existence of the universe with the construction of God, but don't need to explain the existence of God? If so, why even bother trying to explain the existence of the universe, or anything else, if you are eventually are going to get to the end of the line and punt? Matt Gerrans
So, from your logic, where did the material for the 'big bang' come from?
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The bible claimed the ratio of the circumferance to the diameter was roughly three
huh? where?
1 Kings 7:23 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 Abdul-Baki wrote:
The bible claimed the ratio of the circumferance to the diameter was roughly three
huh? where?
It is not however, a mathematics lesson. It is a description of the measurements of what is essentially a vase. The brim was ten cubits across. The verse then said it was 30 cubits in circumference and 5 cubits high. It did not say, however, that the brim was 30 cubits in circumference. The next verse implies that the brim was wider than the rest of the vase. May have looked like the right side of this picture.[^] 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 -- modified at 13:48 Friday 17th March, 2006
-
Pursuing the big bang theory is a futile attempt. I think the universe was never meant to be understood. Maybe the universe represents all that cannot be explained - the ultimate truth. No matter how many books or articles I read on this subject, it all sounds like a fantasy tale which always ends with "well we could be completely wrong here"
-
Here's a question for the creationists. Let's say we hypothetically accept the "intelligent design" argument that if something is intricate, it must have been designed by an intelligent being (automobiles didn't evolve and all that). So, humans (animals, et al) are complicated and therefore must have been designed by an even more complicated being (God, Allah, etc.). Hmm... I guess we cannot simply abandon our model now, so naturally, that entity must have been designed and created by an even more complex being, who must have been created by an even more complex being, who... Do you see the flaw? Or do you just shout "rutabega!" now? We need to explain the existence of the universe with the construction of God, but don't need to explain the existence of God? If so, why even bother trying to explain the existence of the universe, or anything else, if you are eventually are going to get to the end of the line and punt? Matt Gerrans
The very question of how or when God was created contains a logical flaw. See http://thecodeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1412296#xx1412296xx[^] I might also add, if God were to do some act, we might call it supernatural; that is, it is not natural, it doesn't follow the laws of nature. Your question imposes natural laws on something extra-natural, something not from nature.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
1 Kings 7:23 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
That's merely a description of a big tub. And I'm sure the measurements are approximate. Further, it's probable the tub was not exactly circular. No direct instruction is given here (nor can any direct conclusion be correctly drawn) of the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference.
-
Tim Carmichael wrote:
The essence of faith is to believe without requiring proof. But, for proof, I look at the marvel that is creation; I see the flowers in their infinite beauty; I see the stars that light the night sky.
Could this part of the discussion be taken to the soapbox before it degrades into a verbal brawl?
dan neely wrote:
discussion be taken
no
-
That's merely a description of a big tub. And I'm sure the measurements are approximate. Further, it's probable the tub was not exactly circular. No direct instruction is given here (nor can any direct conclusion be correctly drawn) of the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference.
ahz wrote:
That's merely a description of a big tub
As I stated in my follow-up reply :) 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
-
Then is your explanation simply a refusal of all other proposed explanations?
i don't have an explanation. but i don't much believe in 'chance', either. chance is just shorthand for 'i don't have time to figure out all the things that contributed to this event'. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
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
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
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.
that bit sounds a lot like Deism. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
i don't have an explanation. but i don't much believe in 'chance', either. chance is just shorthand for 'i don't have time to figure out all the things that contributed to this event'. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
In which case, I would think you should just say that you don't know one way or the other (which is the case for everybody here). Could be chance...Could be God, but you just don't know....And never will.
