Totally agree. :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
Plain and simple, God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function.
Printable View
Totally agree. :goodjob2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro
Plain and simple, God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
not even looking at this from the point of view as a christian or an athiest, but an outsider looking in on everyone's beliefs, I find it funny that athiests think God can't exist because he can't come from nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
yet athiests believe in the big bang theory
pretty much the theory that everything came from nothing :roll:
if you look at it logically, whether you're a christian or not, the Big Bang theory and the belief of God are both just as unlikely to be true as the other.
so while you ask "so god magically appears?" you can also ask "so our universe itself magically appears?"
God creating our universe and a Big Bang creating our universe are essentially the same concept when you look at how it came to be.
They both supposedly came out of nothing and both supposedly created our universe.
the reason athiests believe in the big bang theory is because... well...
it's not God who did it
but as far as how existence was created in the first place, who said it had to be created? A circle doesn't have a beginning, does it? if it doesn't sound logical for existence not to have a beginning, then please, logically explain how existence came to be, and how there could possibly be nothing
˛Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
Whatever helps you sleep at night. :roll: The wonderful thing about evidence is that it doesn't require 'belief'.Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
- The Big Bang Theory
- Cosmic microwave background radiation
- Expanding universe
- Redshifting of light due to velocity and perspective of observation
- Hubble's Law
Educate yourself. Please.
Quote:
If the general theory of the Big Bang and expansion of the universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter somehow suddenly created? If so, then how did that happen? In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods, created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question - where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step - and conclude that the Universe always existed, that there's no need for a creation because it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with questions that were once only treated with religion and myth.
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Eventho you're interested in science and probably are quit knowledgable, lagunagirl has a better understand of the universe than you imo. Besides, you fail to make a point.
The real question you are asking is 'Can something come from nothing?'
And the obvious answer is 'No.'
Therefor, the only conclusion is 'Everything always has existed'
This means, there is no beginning, there is no end. There are only cycles.
The Big Bang theory is a linear theory. But the universe is circular.
Obviously, everything goes in cycles and circles. If you haven't noticed this yet, look up in the sky and see it with your own eyes.
As above, so below.
If you want to know how God created the universe, then look into yourself, and see how you create your dreams inside your mind. Thats how God creates the universe inside his mind. But God is only mind, and nothing else. Everything is mind. The mind is nothing but energy, and we are much like dreamcharacters. Matter is an illusion. e=mc˛.
As within, so without.
The God theory of the universe implies two things.
Everything is energy.
Everything is connected.
These two things will be the greatest discoveries of science of all time, which will reveal all the secrets of the universe.
Actually, the Big Bang has been incorporated into both linear and cyclical cosmologies. The point of the Sagan quote is that neither approach requires or is improved by the assertion that someone 'did it.'Quote:
The Big Bang theory is a linear theory. But the universe is circular.
Obviously, everything goes in cycles and circles. If you haven't noticed this yet, look up in the sky and see it with your own eyes.
As above, so below.
Oh ok, I didn't get that point.
First off, I'm not Atheist. The big bang isn't the answer to the universe.. If you see any timelines with the big bang you get a "?" mark. No one knows what was before it, but logic says something can't come out of nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
I believe in a supernatural force, but I'am merely questioning what was before God. A circle doesn't have a begining.. WHO MADE THE CIRCLE? And how does "God" even come to play. It seems as if he came from nothing. This is what I think the biggest mystery in science. I don't know the answer.. But does that mean people are just going to give up on it? Seeing how the moon was once sought to be divine, science debunked it, and it has debunked a whole bunch of shit.
To ChaybaChayba, what are you talking about? We are saying that we don't know what came before the big bang, and that the universe is pretty much a whole mystery. Stopping at "God did it" is the most bullshit answer. Thousands of years ago what was the moon? "The heavens" The sun? "divine god", the center of the universe? Earth??... and when science takes the courage to really see whats happening you just stick with "God did it".
If the extent of her 'knowledge' about the universe is only so far as to say that atheists 'believe' in the Big Bang theory because it doesn't postulate the First Cause as a God (which it doesn't NOT say either, it's just not implied) as if it were an alternative 'creation myth' for 'the religion of atheism' - then no, she doesn't know more than I do. That's completely absurd and a little insulting.
I give creedance to the theory because the evidence at hand supports it. Not because it fits my godless view of the universe. Atheists (or any intellectually honest person) go where the evidence takes us, and build our world view on what we find. We don't invent evidence to support our predetermined world view - that's ass backwards. Whether the model is linear or cyclical we may never know, but I'm fine with slapping "I don't know" on it instead of inventing God into it's place so I can say "Phew, glad we got that sorted". That is intellectually dishonest.
To ignore the work of the thousands of men and women of science that have come before you is really to spit in their faces. They all deserve better than that, and you owe it to yourself to learn what they spent their lives discovering - knowledge.
Nice input. I totally agree, all of this definately shows that God was the source of the Big Bang, which as a christian myself, I believe that the Big Bang actually occurred and the Universe is finite and not infinite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
that's the thing with this though, how do scientists prove this? for one example, how they prove the universe is expanding? they give these reasons that make it sound logical, but can they actually see the universe expand? have they reached the edge of the universe, then gone back later to find it was further away? have they actually physically seen that the universe has expanded? no. not saying it isn't expanding, not saying it is, it's just that what the scientists are saying are only theories. They can't know for sure. we're too small and the universe is too big. all we can do is make logical assumptions when it comes to the creating of the universe, because we weren't there when it happened (if it was created at all)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
So this is about belief, whether you have evidence or not. You can believe the evidence of what a scientists assumes happened, or you can believe your own experiences telling you that God exists, but whichever it is, it's based on your belief. I dont know how you can think that belief doesn't come into this
it's RELIGION!
oh btw dreamworld, I know you're not an athiest, I'm sorry I implied it there though, I didn't really mean to. I was just taking a question and making a comment on it
Why don't you try reading the articles I listed instead of glazing your eyes over and quoting them? The answer to every question you just asked is right there in the links - stop being lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
Stop thinking like a layman. In science, theories are more powerful than facts because they group and explain a large number of facts and models. A theory in science is not a guess I had while looking through a telescope and scratching my ass.Quote:
scientists are saying are only theories. They can't know for sure. we're too small and the universe is too big. all we can do is make logical assumptions when it comes to the creating of the universe, because we weren't there when it happened (if it was created at all)
This is not about belief. You can go out and do these tests yourself if you have the right equipment. Belief denotes a requirement of faith. You don't need faith (belief without evidence) when you have evidence - because you have evidence to support your claim!Quote:
So this is about belief, whether you have evidence or not.
So sitting around having little thought experiments (I use the word thought loosely, because you don't seem to have put much into this post at all) in your armchair is worth more than actually studying the world and Universe around us in peer reviewed scientific scrutiny to better the understanding of the human race via the quest for knowledge?Quote:
You can believe the evidence of what a scientists assumes happened, or you can believe your own experiences telling you that God exists, but whichever it is, it's based on your belief. I dont know how you can think that belief doesn't come into this
it's RELIGION!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
Here they are again - Read them this time. I know they are very long articles but nothing worth doing in life is easy, get used to it.
- The Big Bang Theory
- Cosmic microwave background radiation
- Expanding universe
- Redshifting of light due to velocity and perspective of observation
- Hubble's Law
If you don't get it, don't criticize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lagunagirl
Also, stop it with this notion that acceptance of scientific fact immediately negates your belief in God. It's a false dichotomy (a false choice). Off the top of my head having read this recently, something like 70% of polled scientists of academia believe in a god in some way, form or another.
You don't have to stay ignorant for the sake of keeping your faith.
More like 7...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
Ironically, 7 is pretty spot on :p and that's 10 years ago in the USA. Here in Europe, you're dealing with figures around 1%.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Dude, look at yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
I'll pin it down to a brainfart on my part, cheers for setting it straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
I don't want to get into a debate. I'm just going to say that the Big Bang does not involve "something coming from nothing". Remember, before the Big Bang there was also no time, and because of that the matter and energy in the Universe does not need to have a beginning, just like God. Think of it like the very center of a black hole. All the energy and matter of the entire Universe was condensed into that one spot, and then it exploded into what we have today.
You seen that funky dude in the mirror? You should check him out.Quote:
Originally Posted by psychology student
Everyone is different and everyone comes to his/her own conclusion based off what they are willing to believe. The crazy thing about it all, is the fact that you have some Theist and Atheist that comes to common ground on certain events i.e., a Dynamic Universe, The Big Bang and the universe as finite. Then you also have some Theist and Atheist that believes the universe is Static, infinitly big. Either way in the end the only real difference is the fact that one believes in a creator where the other doesn't but the principles that are within could utimately support both areas and it does in some instances. I was arguing this same point in almost the same fashion as Alextanium to an Atheist in another thread. It's pretty amazing how the situation could be reveresed, but it is what it is my friends.
The problem is that with the creator view, one has to make extra (baseless) assumptions.
Occam's razor.
And Darwinians Evolution and Abiogenesis is not a baseless assumption? It would be wise to smell the Sh** that you're shoveling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
No, they are not.
Organisms change.
This is observable.
Those changes determine what organisms live.
This is observable as well.
The organisms who live then determine the gene pool that will be carried on.
This is just common sense.
Abiogenesis is proven through biochemistry.
"God", however, is in fact baseless speculation and is only ever "proven" through arguments from ignorance.
>< Yes, the evolutionary origin of species and abiogenesis are neither baseless nor assumptions. They are explanatory mechanisms, both logically consistent with a large body of facts and yielding new data via prediction and testable hypotheses. They have no existence other than the organization and generation of information--they are not a thing purported to be anywhere doing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
Is this the nature of your deity--an explanatory mechanism? A way of looking at things? I would say yes, and grant it some validity on that basis, but I don't think you agree with me there.
Yeah I could agree considering the nature of my God explains a lot of our nature as well especially in the information department. I'm curious what are these "facts" that determines the origin of life regarding abiogenesis?
Seismosaur: RNA as the basis for the origin of life is definately not observable. You may want to remember who you talking to buddy.