The Big Bang

[melchizedek22]

The Big bang theory is that the physical universe was created by the Big Bang,before the Big bang the universe had no matter,Nothing!
Than the Big bang must have been caused by a Spiritual happening!
Lucifer's attempt to over throw YHWH,going bad causing the Big Bang and the Spiritual world be divided into those that back YHWH, and those that back Lucifer now called Satan.

[sub_zer0]

The Big bang theory is that the physical universe was created by the Big Bang,before the Big bang the universe had no matter,Nothing!
Than the Big bang must have been caused by a Spiritual happening!
Lucifer's attempt to over throw YHWH,going bad causing the Big Bang and the Spiritual world be divided into those that back YHWH, and those that back Lucifer now called Satan.

The big bang NEVER happened, spiritually, physically or any other way. I guess you could say I believe in something like the big bang, "God said it... BANG! It happened."

But for the big bang to be considered even at the very lease plausible, evolutionary scientists need to get rid of the gross errors accompanying it.

[Strel]

You are both so colossally incorrect that it is difficult to know where to begin...


...but I know where it will end - in another futile effort by the educated posters of the board to educate the uneducatable.

[neo of the mind]

melchizedek22:

Since the brianwashed, uh, "educated" on this forum will tell you that science "explains" the how and religion can only explain the "why", even though they refuse to believe the answers religion gives, I don't see that your post is asking a question.

I would reply to your statement that the division is not limited to the spiritual world, but the physical as well. We all choose a side during our lifetime.

[mataj]

YHWH yelled "Allah akbar", lit the fuse, and took to His holy heels. That's how and why the Big Bang happened. It was a terrorist act of cosmic creation. :devil:

[sub_zer0]

Typical, me and neo are the only ones interested in a constructive dialogue.

[burntgorilla]

Typical, me and neo are the only ones interested in a constructive dialogue.

Hah! Is that what you call it? No one else wants to post because they know you'll not listen to what they say anyway. Come back when you can accept the Bible might be wrong, and then we'll talk.

[neo of the mind]

I guess we will never talk then, because the Bible is never wrong. I can however accept that you and I are wrong and Science is wrong, can you accept that?

[sub_zer0]

Hah! Is that what you call it? No one else wants to post because they know you'll not listen to what they say anyway. Come back when you can accept the Bible might be wrong, and then we'll talk.

Sorry, good try. I don't listen to you because simply saying that the Bible is wrong just won't cut it for me. Sorry you need convincing arguments, you know points or reasons why the Bible is wrong, if those aren't fallacious, perhaps then I will listen.

Now let me address your presupposition. How about you come back when you accept that naturalism/atheism/humanism could be wrong.

[Alvin T. Grey]

So do you walk around naked? live in a tree, and eat you're dinner while it's still wriggling?
Science has brought us a long way by being right.

[Dangerrmouse]

...
But for the big bang to be considered even at the very lease plausible, evolutionary scientists need to get rid of the gross errors accompanying it.

So which cosmology do you subscribe to ...Ptolemaic? ...Copernican? ...

[mataj]

I guess we will never talk then, because the Bible is never wrong. I can however accept that you and I are wrong and Science is wrong, can you accept that?Sure. Science is always presumed wrong, and proved right by observations & experiments.

Bible, on the other hand, is always presumed right, and proved right by repeating it a 1000 times.

[neo of the mind]

So do you walk around naked? live in a tree, and eat you're dinner while it's still wriggling?
Science has brought us a long way by being right.

I stated that I accept that Science is routinely proven wrong. That is a fact. I didn't say, implied by your exaggerated statements that it is always wrong. Science doesn't offer perfection of truth, that is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to help man improve upon things that already exist.

P.S. There are a lot of people in asian countries that eat some food that is still wriggling, that doesn't mean they are void of scientific means does it?

[burntgorilla]

I guess we will never talk then, because the Bible is never wrong. I can however accept that you and I are wrong and Science is wrong, can you accept that?

Accept that science is wrong? I'm assuming you mean wrong about specifics, not wrong in general. If so, of course.


Sorry, good try. I don't listen to you because simply saying that the Bible is wrong just won't cut it for me. Sorry you need convincing arguments, you know points or reasons why the Bible is wrong, if those aren't fallacious, perhaps then I will listen.


See, this is where I would have previously gone and found examples. But, as we all know, you'd ignore that, so I won't bother. If you want arguments, look back at any of the monolithic threads we have.


Now let me address your presupposition. How about you come back when you accept that naturalism/atheism/humanism could be wrong.

I do accept that naturalism/atheism/humanism could be wrong...


I must admit that I find it amusing how the religious fundies here are convinced that everyone else has equally rabid beliefs as they do. You regularly state "...when you can accept that science is wrong", yet everyone here accepts science can be wrong. Sorry, but my beliefs aren't as blind as yours.

[burntgorilla]

It's purpose is to help man improve upon things that already exist.


Nuclear fusion reactors haven't always existed.

[neo of the mind]

Sure. Science is always presumed wrong, and proved right by observations & experiments.

Bible, on the other hand, is always presumed right, and proved right by repeating it a 1000 times.

Like I stated in my last post. Science is always coming up with answers and explanations for the physical world. Has science perfected anything yet, no, and I am not saying anything is wrong with that. It's just that because it is never 100% right does not mean that there is nothing else in existence that can't be. That would include a God.

[neo of the mind]

I must admit that I find it amusing how the religious fundies here are convinced that everyone else has equally rabid beliefs as they do. You regularly state "...when you can accept that science is wrong", yet everyone here accepts science can be wrong. Sorry, but my beliefs aren't as blind as yours.

Oh how the "non-fundies" love to use the word "blind" in order to discredit a person's believe. "Blind" is your perspective, not mine.

[neo of the mind]

Nuclear fusion reactors haven't always existed.

Nuclear fusion has...just like airplanes at one time did not exist, but man studied the existing life that does fly and used that.

The artificial fabrication/copying of naturally occuring phenomenon is a big part of science is it not? Not starting with a new idea.

[burntgorilla]

Oh how the "non-fundies" love to use the word "blind" in order to discredit a person's believe. "Blind" is your perspective, not mine.

Well, thus far we have the knowledge that I can accept that my beliefs are wrong, yet you can't. Therefore, the onus is on you before you can enter into any proper debate.

Nuclear fusion has...just like airplanes at one time did not exist, but man studied the existing life that does fly and used that.

The artificial fabrication/copying of naturally occuring phenomenon is a big part of science is it not? Not starting with a new idea.

How can science improve nuclear fusion, then?

[Alvin T. Grey]

I stated that I accept that Science is routinely proven wrong. That is a fact. I didn't say, implied by your exaggerated statements that it is always wrong. Science doesn't offer perfection of truth, that is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to help man improve upon things that already exist.
Science is NOT "routinely proven wrong". Science changes it's tennets as new facts are discovered. - Yes, some theories are disproven. But that is why they are considered 'Theories' Not Laws.
And you are right; Science does not provide a perfection of truth. That's not what it is supposed to do. It's supposed to bring us closer to the truth. It's supposed to show us how the world works.

P.S. There are a lot of people in asian countries that eat some food that is still wriggling, that doesn't mean they are void of scientific means does it?
No. But if you want to give up on science, then I suggest that you go out and throttle your meal tomorrow. Because even a sharp stick is an application of science. Seeing as you don't believe in its validity, then that is what you want to return to.
Oh, and while you are at it, that thing you are hitting keys on? - I don't see that mentioned in Genisis. So you can give that up too.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Nuclear fusion has...just like airplanes at one time did not exist, but man studied the existing life that does fly and used that.
Er, no. Unless you have ever seen an airplane that flaps......I have, and none of them worked. What makes flight possible is an application of physics, not biology.

Sorry, try again.

The artificial fabrication/copying of naturally occuring phenomenon is a big part of science is it not? Not starting with a new idea.
In order to fabricate/copy, one must first understand. That is what science is all about.
Newton's third law. "For every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction".

A simple statement, an old idea. But understanding that idea (what science does) makes possible everything from a pool table to the space program. And I have yet to find a passage in the bible on Jesus 'racking 'em up'.

[mataj]

It's just that because it is never 100% right does not mean that there is nothing else in existence that can't be.In our, physical world, it can't.

[Nuke the Oil]

It is easy for a scientist to accept that our current scientific model is wrong. The inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics reveal as much. It is also easy for a reasonable person to accept that they are wrong about a great many things. But will the Christians ever accept that the Bible is wrong?

No. They are much happier living in a fantasy world of false certainty.

[sub_zer0]

So which cosmology do you subscribe to ...Ptolemaic? ...Copernican? ...

This goes to show me just how little you really know about creationism. But again, this is about the big bang and the errors with it, not creationism.

It is easy for a scientist to accept that our current scientific model is wrong. The inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics reveal as much. It is also easy for a reasonable person to accept that they are wrong about a great many things. But will the Christians ever accept that the Bible is wrong?

No, give me one convincing argument, you know points or reasons why the Bible is wrong, if those aren't fallacious, perhaps then I will listen.

[brainpan]

No, give me one convincing argument, you know points or reasons why the Bible is wrong, if those aren't fallacious, perhaps then I will listen.Mr. Nuke's point is that the Bible is correct, no matter what, to certain Christians, and that is not an intellectually honest worldview. No amount of contradictory evidence can have an effect on that kind of false certainty.

[brainpan]

Apologies to Nuke the Oil for borrowing the term "false certainty," I liked it too much to not use it myself.

[Art of War]

Typical, me and neo are the only ones interested in a constructive dialogue.

It is hard to develop a constructive dialogue on such a flawed foundation. We must first break down the foundation to build studier reason.

The fact is melchizedek22 is flat out wrong in his assertations.

The Big bang theory is that the physical universe was created by the Big Bang,before the Big bang the universe had no matter,Nothing!

That is not a correct interpretation of the theory. The Big Bang did not create all of the matter in the universe it just caused that matter to expand. The matter and energy present in our universe, according to modern physics, (I wouldn't be surprised if it changed sometime soon) has always been there and was present and in fact was the cause of the Big Bang. Of course stating that the matter of the universe was the real cause of the big bang is grossly oversimplifying it.

Naturally his argument could then be switched to the question of how did that matter get there? and of course his answer would be it must have been God. However, that statement is easily countered with the question of how God came to be. If one were to state that God has always existed then one must be willing to concede the same of matter.

So as I said in order to construct many times we must first break down. When an assertation is so obscenely incorrect you will find the vast majority of people are quick to break it down and build a new foundation. Those who continue to build their arguments on the flawed foundation of an argument are the people not interested in constructive dialouge. In fact often time they are more interested in closing their mind and hiding behind an air of self-righteousness.

[neo of the mind]

Well, thus far we have the knowledge that I can accept that my beliefs are wrong, yet you can't. Therefore, the onus is on you before you can enter into any proper debate.



How can science improve nuclear fusion, then?


I didn't say that science could improve nuclear fusion, just that science enables us to utilize it. My statement was not meant to encompass the total scope of science, just one aspect of it and that aspect I mentioned was the fabrication/copying of what already exists.

Your right, I am unable to accept that my belief in Jesus is wrong.

[Ethos]

I fail to see how one can facilitate reasoned and functional debate if they are unwilling to admit their beliefs may be faulty.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

Science is NOT "routinely proven wrong". Science changes it's tennets as new facts are discovered. - Yes, some theories are disproven. But that is why they are considered 'Theories' Not Laws.
And you are right; Science does not provide a perfection of truth. That's not what it is supposed to do. It's supposed to bring us closer to the truth. It's supposed to show us how the world works.


No. But if you want to give up on science, then I suggest that you go out and throttle your meal tomorrow. Because even a sharp stick is an application of science. Seeing as you don't believe in its validity, then that is what you want to return to.
Oh, and while you are at it, that thing you are hitting keys on? - I don't see that mentioned in Genisis. So you can give that up too.


"changes it's tennets" and "disproven" = "routinely proven wrong" in my book.
Don't understand how you can argue that science is not routinely proving itself wrong by stating that some theories are disproven. I don't think we understand the same definition of "wrong".

Nowhere have I ever stated in any forum post that I have given up on science or do not believe in it's validity. The fact that I am communicating via a computer and internet proves that, so I would end that line of argument.

[neo of the mind]

Er, no. Unless you have ever seen an airplane that flaps......I have, and none of them worked. What makes flight possible is an application of physics, not biology.

Sorry, try again.


In order to fabricate/copy, one must first understand. That is what science is all about.
Newton's third law. "For every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction".

A simple statement, an old idea. But understanding that idea (what science does) makes possible everything from a pool table to the space program. And I have yet to find a passage in the bible on Jesus 'racking 'em up'.


Er, yes. Science studied a BIRDS wing and the wing of a plane, which gives it lift, is the most important aspect. Sorry, try again.

I don't have any comment for the rest of your statments, since they don't pertain to anything.

[Dangerrmouse]

This goes to show me just how little you really know about creationism. But again, this is about the big bang and the errors with it, not creationism.

Precisely. We are NOT discussing creationism, but the Big Bang. What alternative cosmology do you subscribe to?

[neo of the mind]

In our, physical world, it can't.

If you can't prove it then you are wrong, said the scientist. So, can you prove it?

[burntgorilla]

Your right, I am unable to accept that my belief in Jesus is wrong.

Well, since one of the central tenants of having a debate is being prepared to accept that your position is wrong, you and sub have no place here. If neither person can accept that they could be wrong, all you have is two groups shouting at each other.

[burntgorilla]

If you can't prove it then you are wrong, said the scientist. So, can you prove it?

Define perfect.

[neo of the mind]

It is easy for a scientist to accept that our current scientific model is wrong. The inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum physics reveal as much. It is also easy for a reasonable person to accept that they are wrong about a great many things. But will the Christians ever accept that the Bible is wrong?

No. They are much happier living in a fantasy world of false certainty.

It is impossible for a person to have belief in who Jesus is AND the belief that it is possible that Jesus is not who he is at the same time. Why can't you people understand that?

You, think we live in a fantasy world, that's your opinion, not a fact.

[neo of the mind]

Well, since one of the central tenants of having a debate is being prepared to accept that your position is wrong, you and sub have no place here. If neither person can accept that they could be wrong, all you have is two groups shouting at each other.

Read my comment to nuke the oil.

[neo of the mind]

Define perfect.

100% correct. Do I need to define correct for you?

[burntgorilla]

Read my comment to nuke the oil.

Believing that the Bible is 100% correct, or perfect, if you prefer, does not really reflect on Jesus. The Gospels could be completely factual for all I care.


However, you've admitted that you have no place in any debates where you use the Bible as your basis. Bye.

[burntgorilla]

100% correct. Do I need to define correct for you?

To be 100% correct it would need to be all things to all people. For me, a 100% correct being would have cool wings and a large subwoofer. I don't know if your ideal would be similar. This means that the being would have no fixed form, or indeed any position in space, if more than one person viewed it. This means that it would be impossible to objectively observe it, with a camera and a telescope, for example. It would also need to be infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time, because that's what a 100% correct being would be like for me, so I'm not sure how you'd manage that.

[neo of the mind]

Believing that the Bible is 100% correct, or perfect, if you prefer, does not really reflect on Jesus. The Gospels could be completely factual for all I care.


However, you've admitted that you have no place in any debates where you use the Bible as your basis. Bye.

Bye? So how many post#40s will there be then? LOL.

Your statement above makes no sense whatsoever.

[neo of the mind]

To be 100% correct it would need to be all things to all people. For me, a 100% correct being would have cool wings and a large subwoofer. I don't know if your ideal would be similar. This means that the being would have no fixed form, or indeed any position in space, if more than one person viewed it. This means that it would be impossible to objectively observe it, with a camera and a telescope, for example. It would also need to be infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time, because that's what a 100% correct being would be like for me, so I'm not sure how you'd manage that.


"To be 100% correct it would need to be all things to all people."

That's a warped definition of perfection, that perfection has to "be all things to all people". That is absurd.

[melchizedek22]

The big bang NEVER happened, spiritually, physically or any other way. I guess you could say I believe in something like the big bang, "God said it... BANG! It happened."

But for the big bang to be considered even at the very lease plausible, evolutionary scientists need to get rid of the gross errors accompanying it.
Satan was already Satan in the Garden of Eden,so his fall was before the fall of man,what happened in the spirit world for YhWH to creat a imperfect physical world,where he would have to send his only son to save us from ourselves?

[burntgorilla]

Believing that the Bible is 100% correct, or perfect, if you prefer, does not really reflect on Jesus. The Gospels could be completely factual for all I care.


However, you've admitted that you have no place in any debates where you use the Bible as your basis. Bye.Bye? So how many post#40s will there be then? LOL.

Your statement above makes no sense whatsoever.

How does debating the definition of "perfect" require an un-mitigated belief in the Bible? :rolleyes:

[melchizedek22]

It is hard to develop a constructive dialogue on such a flawed foundation. We must first break down the foundation to build studier reason.

The fact is melchizedek22 is flat out wrong in his assertations.



That is not a correct interpretation of the theory. The Big Bang did not create all of the matter in the universe it just caused that matter to expand. The matter and energy present in our universe, according to modern physics, (I wouldn't be surprised if it changed sometime soon) has always been there and was present and in fact was the cause of the Big Bang. Of course stating that the matter of the universe was the real cause of the big bang is grossly oversimplifying it.

Naturally his argument could then be switched to the question of how did that matter get there? and of course his answer would be it must have been God. However, that statement is easily countered with the question of how God came to be. If one were to state that God has always existed then one must be willing to concede the same of matter.

So as I said in order to construct many times we must first break down. When an assertation is so obscenely incorrect you will find the vast majority of people are quick to break it down and build a new foundation. Those who continue to build their arguments on the flawed foundation of an argument are the people not interested in constructive dialouge. In fact often time they are more interested in closing their mind and hiding behind an air of self-righteousness.

As I was taught matter was created by energy moving at the speed of light,slowing down and collecting against itself creating matter,after the big bang

[burntgorilla]

"To be 100% correct it would need to be all things to all people."

That's a warped definition of perfection, that perfection has to "be all things to all people". That is absurd.

There we go. We both have different concepts of perfection. Clearly something cannot be two different things at once. After all, your definition of a perfect being is different to what I imagine. So, what is it?

[melchizedek22]

The problem with those who want to only use the Bible to explain the goings
on ,on the spinning rock we live on,out in the middle of nowhere,is YHWH didn't write the Bible to explain how it all happened,he could of ,but didn't.
Do I believe the Bible ,yes I do,but YHWH gave me a mind to think
about how this all has happened.
This is a pretty crazy place we live in,we are in physical bodys made up of spirit and flesh,sometimes the flesh controls the spirit,sometimes the spirit controls the flesh! We are on a rock,where as for as we can see,there is nothing out there like here just empty rocks as for as we can tell.
2000 ys ago,YHWH sent his only son to save us from death,now we can live forever in the spirit if we accept him as our savior,live forever where?Here
in the spirit world?Is this planet Hell,purgatory?Where are we and what the F-- is going on?

[burntgorilla]

How does spirit control flesh? How can something non physical move something physical? You'll be into telekinesis next.

[melchizedek22]

How does spirit control flesh? How can something non physical move something physical? You'll be into telekinesis next.

Spirit controls flesh when you do whats right,when your flesh is screaming to do whats wrong!Like not screwing your buddys girlfriend when shes drunk and willing,your flesh says,I want to,but your spirit says,don't ,its your buddys girlfriend!

[melchizedek22]

How does spirit control flesh? How can something non physical move something physical? You'll be into telekinesis next.

Spirit controls flesh when you do whats right,when your flesh is screaming to do whats wrong!Like not screwing your buddys girlfriend when shes drunk and willing,your flesh says,I want to,but your spirit says,don't ,its your buddys girlfriend!

Its Snowdens secret in Catch22,"Without the Spirit,man is garbage"

[burntgorilla]

No, that's electrical signals in your mind. But how does the spirit cause these electrical signals? Last time I checked the laws of physics non-physical things can't affect the physical world.

I really need to re-read Catch-22, I've forgotten so much of it.

[Ethos]

Spirit controls flesh when you do whats right,when your flesh is screaming to do whats wrong!Like not screwing your buddys girlfriend when shes drunk and willing,your flesh says,I want to,but your spirit says,don't ,its your buddys girlfriend!

Its Snowdens secret in Catch22,"Without the Spirit,man is garbage"

Technically speaking it is not spirit or flesh which restricts our actions in the example above. Very easy to understand conceptions of situation and consequence are employed to make determinations in this regard, as are culturally instilled psychological inhibitions. In some societies, or even segments of our own, there is little quandary in sharing another person's sexual partner, drunk or otherwise.

Ethos

[mataj]

If you can't prove it then you are wrong, said the scientist. So, can you prove it?It was already proven. Alas, proof involves some quantum mechanics in which I'm not very good at, and, -- horror of all horrors -- logic.

[neo of the mind]

It was already proven. Alas, proof involves some quantum mechanics in which I'm not very good at, and, -- horror of all horrors -- logic.


Thanks for showing some proof. Rather vague, but since you say so, I'll have to go along with it. :rolleyes:

[neo of the mind]

Technically speaking it is not spirit or flesh which restricts our actions in the example above. Very easy to understand conceptions of situation and consequence are employed to make determinations in this regard, as are culturally instilled psychological inhibitions. In some societies, or even segments of our own, there is little quandary in sharing another person's sexual partner, drunk or otherwise.

Ethos


Oh, and science has already proven that there is no such thing as the concept of love either....it's just chemical interactions. So everyone's "love" for everyone else, mother, father, wife, children...science has proven it to be fake. Sorry for breaking the news.... :)

That would go for every other emotion as well.

[burntgorilla]

Oh, and science has already proven that there is no such thing as the concept of love either....it's just chemical interactions. So everyone's "love" for everyone else, mother, father, wife, children...science has proven it to be fake. Sorry for breaking the news.... :)

That would go for every other emotion as well.

Don't be idiotic. A painting is just an arrangement of coloured pigments, but that doesn't stop it being beautiful art. The fact that emotions are caused by chemicals changes nothing.

[neo of the mind]

Don't be idiotic. A painting is just an arrangement of coloured pigments, but that doesn't stop it being beautiful art. The fact that emotions are caused by chemicals changes nothing.

Don't be moronic...yes it does.

[Strel]

Don't be idiotic. A painting is just an arrangement of coloured pigments, but that doesn't stop it being beautiful art. The fact that emotions are caused by chemicals changes nothing.


Except for those that persist in the irrational belief that for any such concept to have value its source must be supernatural - as if that makes it "real" for them.

[neo of the mind]

Except for those that persist in the irrational belief that for any such concept to have value its source must be supernatural - as if that makes it "real" for them.

Don't be idiotic. You can't prove that. If you can't prove that, then it's not a fact.

[sub_zer0]

The fact is melchizedek22 is flat out wrong in his assertations.

I know.

Naturally his argument could then be switched to the question of how did that matter get there? and of course his answer would be it must have been God. However, that statement is easily countered with the question of how God came to be. If one were to state that God has always existed then one must be willing to concede the same of matter.

Sounds to me that matter was God, lol.

[sub_zer0]

Well, since one of the central tenants of having a debate is being prepared to accept that your position is wrong, you and sub have no place here. If neither person can accept that they could be wrong, all you have is two groups shouting at each other.

The tenants of this debate are actually cosmologies, not Jesus or the Bible, just as evolutionists claim that there is only naturalistic/huaministic processes that brought about life, creationists claim supernaturlastic.

Creationism relies on the Bible.

Evolution relies on what man says.

That is the difference, but again not in disucssion nor does it have to be.

[steveksux]

Don't be moronic...yes it does.Actually it changes nothing. Just because we don't understand the mechanism doesn't mean there aren't physical/chemical/processes going on.

THere were no great implications regarding love when we found out that love resides in the brain rather than the heart.

Randy

[Ethos]

Oh, and science has already proven that there is no such thing as the concept of love either....it's just chemical interactions. So everyone's "love" for everyone else, mother, father, wife, children...science has proven it to be fake. Sorry for breaking the news.... :)

That would go for every other emotion as well.

Science has indeed proven love to be chemical in nature, which makes the emotion we feel no less intense or important. That human emotion is biological in nature does not make it "fake."

Ethos

[brainpan]

Your statement above makes no sense whatsoever.It does. It is impossible to have a logical discussion with a participant that holds to a false certainty. Eventually, false certainty leads to an illogical conclusion.

[steveksux]

Science has indeed proven love to be chemical in nature, which makes the emotion we feel no less intense or important. That human emotion is biological in nature does not make it "fake."

EthosCertainly that does not make love more fake than assuming it is supernatural in nature... :lol:

Randy

[burntgorilla]

The tenants of this debate are actually cosmologies, not Jesus or the Bible, just as evolutionists claim that there is only naturalistic/huaministic processes that brought about life, creationists claim supernaturlastic.

Creationism relies on the Bible.

Evolution relies on what man says.

That is the difference, but again not in disucssion nor does it have to be.

Right, you've two mistakes here. Both of which you repeatedly make, so I'm probably wasting my time writing this. Your cosmological views are based on what the Bible says, mine on what science/man says. I can accept that my views could be wrong, yet you cannot do this, because that would mean accepting that the Bible can be wrong. Since you cannot accept that you're ever wrong, there's no point debating with you, and at most you are simply prosthelyzing here. Since this thread is about cosmology, and you can't accept that your views on cosmology could be wrong, why are you posting in it? To try and convert everyone?

Second mistake: "just as evolutionists claim that there is only naturalistic/huaministic processes that brought about life..." For the umpteenth time, evolution doesn't state how life came about, it merely states how it developed into the myriad species we have today. For all anyone knows, God could have created a few basic cells and sat back and watched. It's irrelevant to evolution. This has been pointed out to you so many times that it's blatantly obvious that you just filter out whatever you don't want to hear.

[neo of the mind]

Actually it changes nothing. Just because we don't understand the mechanism doesn't mean there aren't physical/chemical/processes going on.

THere were no great implications regarding love when we found out that love resides in the brain rather than the heart.

Randy


I am not disputing that there are physiological aspects of love, what I dispute is "science" that suggests that they are the origin of the love rather than the by-product of love.

[burntgorilla]

I am not disputing that there are physiological aspects of love, what I dispute is "science" that suggests that they are the origin of the love rather than the by-product of love.

Why the quote marks? Is science that you disagree with not real science? How does this love create chemicals?

[sub_zer0]

Right, you've two mistakes here. Both of which you repeatedly make, so I'm probably wasting my time writing this. Your cosmological views are based on what the Bible says, mine on what science/man says.

Wrong. Creationism and its cosmological views is what science/God says. All the difference is between creationism and evolution is that creationists use Gods word while you use mans.

I can accept that my views could be wrong, yet you cannot do this, because that would mean accepting that the Bible can be wrong.

Wrong, the science based on the Bible is wrong, I can accept that, but Gods word is always truth, there is never error in what He says, just what we think He says.

Since you cannot accept that you're ever wrong, there's no point debating with you, and at most you are simply prosthelyzing here. Since this thread is about cosmology, and you can't accept that your views on cosmology could be wrong, why are you posting in it? To try and convert everyone?

We aren't even talking about my cosmology, your are switching the point of this whole thread around. This is about the big bang.

Second mistake: "just as evolutionists claim that there is only naturalistic/huaministic processes that brought about life..." For the umpteenth time, evolution doesn't state how life came about, it merely states how it developed into the myriad species we have today.

OK, through naturalistic/humanistic processes. The cosmology of evolution (big bang) is also naturalistic.

Evolution isn't merely a statement of where the species came from, that is speciation and creationism supports that as well.

For all anyone knows, God could have created a few basic cells and sat back and watched. It's irrelevant to evolution. This has been pointed out to you so many times that it's blatantly obvious that you just filter out whatever you don't want to hear.

You are actually wrong, God created Adam and Eve, you act like nobody has ever read or heard of the Bible. If you want to know how God did it, read the darn thing!

[mataj]

Thanks for showing some proof. Rather vague, but since you say so, I'll have to go along with it. :rolleyes:OK, OK, OK! I know, you won't look into into it, and I don't know why I bother at all, but since you insist, I'll give you a couple of starting points.

Stuff like Russell's Paradox, and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem could serve as a proof, that logic and mathematics can't describe everything.

Quantum mechanics limits the complexity of the universe. There is a limited set of quantum states universe can be in. Computer, or any similar mechanism or organism capable of exactly modelling entire universe, therefore can't exist in the same universe, because it can't model itself and it's influence on the universe it's in.

It goes even to the more fundamental level than quantum mechanics. It follows from the General System Theory, that everything is inherently chaotic.

That's 3 proofs.

[sub_zer0]

OK, OK, OK! I know, you won't look into into it, and I don't know why I bother at all, but since you insist, I'll give you a couple of starting points.

Stuff like Russell's Paradox, and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem could serve as a proof, that logic and mathematics can't describe everything.

Quantum mechanics limits the complexity of the universe. There is a limited set of quantum states universe can be in. Computer, or any similar mechanism or organism capable of exactly modelling entire universe, therefore can't exist in the same universe, because it can't model itself and it's influence on the universe it's in.

It goes even to the more fundamental level than quantum mechanics. It follows from the General System Theory, that everything is inherently chaotic.

That's 3 proofs.

Yet not one for the big bang, lol.

[mataj]

Yet not one for the big bang, lol.What proof did you asked for anyway?

[sub_zer0]

What proof did you asked for anyway?

I'm sorry have you observed it?

[neo of the mind]

Why the quote marks? Is science that you disagree with not real science? How does this love create chemicals?

I am putting quote marks to highlight the irony. The "science" that was used to formulate this opinion was based on a "study", hey more irony, of 17 people.

http://www.forbes.com/maserati/singles2004/cx_mh_0624love_04single.html

I didn't say that the emotion of love created chemicals.

[mataj]

I'm sorry have you observed it?Observed what? You asked for a proof, that something that is always 100% right can't exist in our universe.

[neo of the mind]

OK, OK, OK! I know, you won't look into into it, and I don't know why I bother at all, but since you insist, I'll give you a couple of starting points.

Stuff like Russell's Paradox, and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem could serve as a proof, that logic and mathematics can't describe everything.

Quantum mechanics limits the complexity of the universe. There is a limited set of quantum states universe can be in. Computer, or any similar mechanism or organism capable of exactly modelling entire universe, therefore can't exist in the same universe, because it can't model itself and it's influence on the universe it's in.

It goes even to the more fundamental level than quantum mechanics. It follows from the General System Theory, that everything is inherently chaotic.

That's 3 proofs.

I didn't say that logic and mathematics could be 100% correct, ie. Perfect. What I said was that nobody can prove that there is something that is not perfect. I would contend that God is perfect and nobody can disprove that.

[sub_zer0]

I didn't say that logic and mathematics could be 100% correct, ie. Perfect. What I said was that nobody can prove that there is something that is not perfect. I would contend that God is perfect and nobody can disprove that.

I love how they say you can falsify God, that seems like a blatent disregard for what is true!

[neo of the mind]

They have no examples of perfection, so therefore they conclude, there are none. That is not the case for the Christian.

[burntgorilla]

They have no examples of perfection, so therefore they conclude, there are none. That is not the case for the Christian.

You have no examples either.

[burntgorilla]

Wrong. Creationism and its cosmological views is what science/God says. All the difference is between creationism and evolution is that creationists use Gods word while you use mans.

Wrong, the science based on the Bible is wrong, I can accept that, but Gods word is always truth, there is never error in what He says, just what we think He says.

We aren't even talking about my cosmology, your are switching the point of this whole thread around. This is about the big bang.

OK, through naturalistic/humanistic processes. The cosmology of evolution (big bang) is also naturalistic.

Evolution isn't merely a statement of where the species came from, that is speciation and creationism supports that as well.

You are actually wrong, God created Adam and Eve, you act like nobody has ever read or heard of the Bible. If you want to know how God did it, read the darn thing!

Does anyone else feel like answering this? I've gotten sick of banging my head against a brick wall.

[mataj]

I didn't say that logic and mathematics could be 100% correct, ie. Perfect. What I said was that nobody can prove that there is something that is not perfect. I would contend that God is perfect and nobody can disprove that.Nothing perfect, more specifically, nothing that is 100% right can exist in our physical universe. That was proven many times, in many ways, by many different people.

I'd rather not dwell into the contents of other universes, spiritual worlds, and such.

[neo of the mind]

You have no examples either.

Let me see....an example...hmmm..I know..JESUS. You knew what my example was but of course you and others will deny him. No big surprise there.

[neo of the mind]

Nothing perfect, more specifically, nothing that is 100% right can exist in our physical universe. That was proven many times, in many ways, by many different people.

I'd rather not dwell into the contents of other universes, spiritual worlds, and such.


"That was proven many times, in many ways, by many different people."
Wrong.

[JoeR]

I would contend that God is perfect and nobody can disprove that.

I contend that the invisible space unicorn is perfect and running everything in the universe, disprove that.

[mataj]

"That was proven many times, in many ways, by many different people."
Wrong.See a couple of posts back.

[brainpan]

I love how they say you can falsify God, that seems like a blatent disregard for what is true!Hoo Boy! No, the God concept cannot be falsified, that is why it lies squarely outside the realm of logic. :rolleyes:

[brainpan]

Does anyone else feel like answering this? I've gotten sick of banging my head against a brick wall.I sympathize with you, but no. You've got to be kidding me.

The best I have to offer is some advice. At a certain point, it is probably prudent to go ahead and start reporting posts that represent pure sophistry.

[brainpan]

I didn't say that logic and mathematics could be 100% correct, ie. Perfect. What I said was that nobody can prove that there is something that is not perfect. I would contend that God is perfect and nobody can disprove that.But you have to understand that is a meaningless statement. It does not inform the discussion. No negative proposition can be proven, as Joe pointed out with his invisible unicorn example.

[Nuke the Oil]

No, give me one convincing argument, you know points or reasons why the Bible is wrong, if those aren't fallacious, perhaps then I will listen.

The Bible said the entire world was flooded. Where did all the water go? Fairyland? What should we talk about next, the giants? How about that rainbows are a magical promise from God? Any you think the big bang sounds ridiculous. :lol:

[Nuke the Oil]

Apologies to Nuke the Oil for borrowing the term "false certainty," I liked it too much to not use it myself.

Don't apologise! I probably stole it from someone else as well!

[Nuke the Oil]

If you can't prove it then you are wrong, said the scientist. So, can you prove it?

A scientist says no such thing. A scientist accepts a theory that

(1) Can be tested
(2) Isn't contradicted by any observations
(3) Is as simple as practisable (Occam's Razor)

When an observation is found that contradicts the theory, the theory is changed.

Religious belief, on the other hand, is independent of testing or observations, and is stagnant.

[Nuke the Oil]

It is impossible for a person to have belief in who Jesus is AND the belief that it is possible that Jesus is not who he is at the same time. Why can't you people understand that?

You, think we live in a fantasy world, that's your opinion, not a fact.

It is you who can't understand how this is VASTLY different from science. We know that some parts of science must be in error and accept that. Religionists can't accept the same about their particular religion. You can have a much more open mind in science than you are allowed in religion.

For example I can admit it is possible (though astronomically unlikely) that everything in the Bible may be true. However, you can't admit that anything in the Bible is false.

[Nuke the Oil]

Creationism relies on the Bible.

Evolution relies on what man says.

That is the difference, but again not in disucssion nor does it have to be.

The Bible is a book written in human language by humans, thus Creationism also relies on what man says. Except the "man" in question happens to be a bunch of ignorant agrarians who had just learnt writing.

[Nuke the Oil]

Let me see....an example...hmmm..I know..JESUS. You knew what my example was but of course you and others will deny him. No big surprise there.

Perhaps you can present this Jesus fellow for scientific study. (I'd guess if you were able to get him you would be sorely disappointed.) Seriously, you can't even present any compelling evidence as to his existence.

[burntgorilla]

Let me see....an example...hmmm..I know..JESUS. You knew what my example was but of course you and others will deny him. No big surprise there.

You don't have an example, you think/believe that you have one. There's a rather big difference. Since nobody can be absolutely sure about Jesus' existence (they can merely believe in it, however fervently), it's not a proof that perfection is possible.

It's a good thing that you usually stay out of science.

[Strel]

Does anyone else feel like answering this? I've gotten sick of banging my head against a brick wall.


Give it up man. You are Sisyphus and they are the rock. :lol:

[melchizedek22]

I see no contradiction in believing the creation story,and evolution are both true.I don't believe the 6 days in Genesis were 6 24hr days thou.

[Dangerrmouse]

The tenants of this debate are actually cosmologies, not Jesus or the Bible,

Then you can tell us, since you dismiss the Big Bang, what alternative cosmology you subscribe to. (3rd time of asking.....)

Reading you do this without mentioning Jesus or the Bible will be entertaining.

Tenants occupy rented accommodation.

[neo of the mind]

I contend that the invisible space unicorn is perfect and running everything in the universe, disprove that.

According to you and your ilk, you need to have scientific observation of everything for it to be real, so if you contend that there is a space unicorn then your lying. That goes for any other made up crap arguments that you people bring out.

[neo of the mind]

But you have to understand that is a meaningless statement. It does not inform the discussion. No negative proposition can be proven, as Joe pointed out with his invisible unicorn example.

meaningless? If it is, then you people need to stop using it as proof there is no God.

[neo of the mind]

Perhaps you can present this Jesus fellow for scientific study. (I'd guess if you were able to get him you would be sorely disappointed.) Seriously, you can't even present any compelling evidence as to his existence.

Nuke, you will be facing Jesus at some point in the future. At that time you can ask him if you can do some scientific studies on him. LOL.

[neo of the mind]

You don't have an example, you think/believe that you have one. There's a rather big difference. Since nobody can be absolutely sure about Jesus' existence (they can merely believe in it, however fervently), it's not a proof that perfection is possible.

It's a good thing that you usually stay out of science.

No, YOU think and believe that I don't have one. The Bible describes who Jesus was and what he did and that description is of perfection. My putting up Jesus as an example of perfection is valid.

[mataj]

. . . blatent disregard for what is true!True is everything that is repeated at least a 1000 times.

Blatant disregard is the most proper attitude towards truth. As a matter of fact, it's the only way humanity can survive in this hostile world of ours.

[melchizedek22]

people who need to see something to believe it exist,I always tell ask them if wind is real!You can't see the wind but you see what the reaction to wind is!

[burntgorilla]

No, YOU think and believe that I don't have one. The Bible describes who Jesus was and what he did and that description is of perfection. My putting up Jesus as an example of perfection is valid.

How many times? You have no other proof outside the Bible that Jesus did what he did. I don't doubt that he existed, and that some believed him, but you have no actual proof. All you can do is believe that the Bible is correct. Basically, your line of thinking is that you think that two thousand years ago there was a perfect person and so perfection is possible. This would be perfectly valid, if it were not for the inconvenient fact that you don't know for a fact that Jesus was perfect.

Anyway, in my opinion Jesus wasn't perfect because he didn't have those cool wings. And if he's not perfect to one person, then he isn't perfect.

people who need to see something to believe it exist,I always tell ask them if wind is real!You can't see the wind but you see what the reaction to wind is!

But wind is observable. It doesn't require any beliefs to observe wind.

[steveksux]

The Bible is a book written in human language by humans, thus Creationism also relies on what man says. Except the "man" in question happens to be a bunch of ignorant agrarians who had just learnt writing.Game. Set. Match.

Who are you gonna believe? The people that thought the earth was flat and thought "the wheel" and "writing" was high technology? Or modern scientists? :lol:

Oh, I forgot, the guys who thought the world was flat were inspired by God whenever they picked up a pen to write the Gospels... Its only everything else they believed that is verifiable that has been proven wrong in the meantime. So since they're batting 0 out of 1000000000000 on the verifiable things, why should we take their word on unverifiable things again? Having some trouble assuming their infallibility at face value....

Randy

[neo of the mind]

How many times? You have no other proof outside the Bible that Jesus did what he did. I don't doubt that he existed, and that some believed him, but you have no actual proof. All you can do is believe that the Bible is correct. Basically, your line of thinking is that you think that two thousand years ago there was a perfect person and so perfection is possible. This would be perfectly valid, if it were not for the inconvenient fact that you don't know for a fact that Jesus was perfect.

Anyway, in my opinion Jesus wasn't perfect because he didn't have those cool wings. And if he's not perfect to one person, then he isn't perfect.



But wind is observable. It doesn't require any beliefs to observe wind.

So, you are the person on the earth that determines what is adequate proof for everyone else about everything? Thanks for informing us, I will talk to you about a whole bunch of stuff so that you can personally tell me what is sufficient for me. Thanks.

Like I said before, I think your definition of perfection is wrong.

[neo of the mind]

Game. Set. Match.

Who are you gonna believe? The people that thought the earth was flat and thought "the wheel" and "writing" was high technology? Or modern scientists? :lol:

Oh, I forgot, the guys who thought the world was flat were inspired by God whenever they picked up a pen to write the Gospels... Its only everything else they believed that is verifiable that has been proven wrong in the meantime. So since they're batting 0 out of 1000000000000 on the verifiable things, why should we take their word on unverifiable things again? Having some trouble assuming their infallibility at face value....

Randy

Despite what you think, the game is not over for everyone. Where exactly did anyone state the earth was flat in the Bible?

[Dangerrmouse]

Show us a mountain where you can see an entire globe from, for example ..

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

[Strel]

HEhehehehe

The game was over before you guys even got here. Didn't anyone tell you?

[neo of the mind]

Show us a mountain where you can see an entire globe from, for example ..

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Sorry, but the Bible was not written by people in the 1970s. Robert J. Schadewald and "flat-earthers" interpretations of scripture are in error.

[neo of the mind]

HEhehehehe

The game was over before you guys even got here. Didn't anyone tell you?

You and your ilk are the majority on this forum, so in that aspect, you are right and will always be until or if the majority changes. I doubt that it will change. Hey, I thought you were not going to reply to me anymore. Be careful or you will be forced to call yourself a liar. LOL.

[Strel]

You and your ilk are the majority on this forum, so in that aspect, you are right and will always be until or if the majority changes. I doubt that it will change. Hey, I thought you were not going to reply to me anymore. Be careful or you will be forced to call yourself a liar. LOL.


I got news for you bub, we are the majority in the Universe, not just this forum. Not that this is a matter of "majority opinion". 2+2=4 is not subject to referendum.

I had thought about simply ignoring you but it is too much fun to watch you blunder through what passes as logic in your world.

[burntgorilla]

So, you are the person on the earth that determines what is adequate proof for everyone else about everything? Thanks for informing us, I will talk to you about a whole bunch of stuff so that you can personally tell me what is sufficient for me. Thanks.

Like I said before, I think your definition of perfection is wrong.

Actually, very few people consider thinking something being so adequate proof that it actually is. Just because I believe myself to be wonderful doesn't mean I am, for example. It's a bit odd that you consider thinking something to be true valid proof for it. Hear that, folks? You don't need to mathematically proof your new branch of theoretical physics, just saying it's so is enough!

[sub_zer0]

Actually, very few people consider thinking something being so adequate proof that it actually is. Just because I believe myself to be wonderful doesn't mean I am, for example. It's a bit odd that you consider thinking something to be true valid proof for it. Hear that, folks? You don't need to mathematically proof your new branch of theoretical physics, just saying it's so is enough!

This is hilarious... Let me say something... Hear that, folks? You don't need to mathmatically prove your theory of mutations = evolution, just saying it is enough.. lol

[sub_zer0]

Game. Set. Match.

Who are you gonna believe? The people that thought the earth was flat and thought "the wheel" and "writing" was high technology? Or modern scientists? :lol:

Oh, I forgot, the guys who thought the world was flat were inspired by God whenever they picked up a pen to write the Gospels... Its only everything else they believed that is verifiable that has been proven wrong in the meantime. So since they're batting 0 out of 1000000000000 on the verifiable things, why should we take their word on unverifiable things again? Having some trouble assuming their infallibility at face value....

Randy

Sorry buddy, no Biblical teaching perscribes to a flat earth.

[neo of the mind]

Actually, very few people consider thinking something being so adequate proof that it actually is. Just because I believe myself to be wonderful doesn't mean I am, for example. It's a bit odd that you consider thinking something to be true valid proof for it. Hear that, folks? You don't need to mathematically proof your new branch of theoretical physics, just saying it's so is enough!


You continue to distort what people post.

The Bible gives a description of the life and purpose of Jesus and who he was. That description is a description of perfection to ME. You may disagree, but you have no right, morally or intellectually to decide what I must consider as proof to be valid. It is valid to me and BILLIONS of other people so if you care about numbers, YOU are in the minority on this.

[neo of the mind]

I got news for you bub, we are the majority in the Universe, not just this forum. Not that this is a matter of "majority opinion". 2+2=4 is not subject to referendum.

I had thought about simply ignoring you but it is too much fun to watch you blunder through what passes as logic in your world.


Uh, no your not. Athesist are not the majority of people on this earth, posting on this forum currently, but not the earth.

[Strel]

Uh, no your not. Athesist are not the majority of people on this earth, posting on this forum currently, but not the earth.


But neo, you are again assuming facts not in evidence. It really is a chronic problem with you.

First of all, I wasn't talking about atheists. Secondly, I'm not an atheist.

I think the above mistakes and others illustrate a more general problem with your cognitive functioning.

[burntgorilla]

You continue to distort what people post.

The Bible gives a description of the life and purpose of Jesus and who he was. That description is a description of perfection to ME. You may disagree, but you have no right, morally or intellectually to decide what I must consider as proof to be valid. It is valid to me and BILLIONS of other people so if you care about numbers, YOU are in the minority on this.

Continue to? When did I start? Anyone else but sub and neo think that I've been distorting people's posts?

Jesus is an example of perfection to you, yes. That doesn't affect whether or not perfection is possible, don't you see? I may have been arguing at cross-purposes here. Jesus is a good character to base yourself upon, but Jesus is not proof that perfection is possible, because you cannot prove that Jesus was what the Bible says. Only believe.


Regarding perfection, let's look at it in a philosophical way. If something is perfect to you, but not to me (assuming you can imagine something that is perfect), then surely that particular being is not perfect? A perfect being would have to be truly perfect, that is, no one could find fault with it. Since the state of perfection is being without fault, then if people have differing ideas of perfection, someone will always be able to find fault with someone else's idea of perfection. Therefore, for something to be truly perfect, it would have to be everything at once to everyone, which I think is impossible. You might disagree, but it's a logical progression.

[burntgorilla]

This is hilarious... Let me say something... Hear that, folks? You don't need to mathmatically prove your theory of mutations = evolution, just saying it is enough.. lol

For a theory, yes it is. And secondly theoretical physics is incredibly mathematical, hence the needs to mathematically prove concepts. Since evolution isn't so mathematical, you wouldn't need to mathematically prove it to make it viable, just as you don't need to mathematically prove a hypothesis in chemistry. But really there was no point in my typing any of this, was there?

[brainpan]

meaningless? If it is, then you people need to stop using it as proof there is no God.Yes, meaningless. Appealing to a negative proposition yields no new information. If you don't agree, step right up and explain yourself.

Lack of any valid evidence for the existence of God is not proof of His non-existence, fair enough. But logically, the same applies to EVERY negative proposition that can be imagined, including Joe's invisible unicorn. It is not for sceptics to prove there is no God, but for the believers to show that there is, and they haven't.

In the end, we cant say a lack of knowledge is evidence, as you say. The correct position for an atheist is to simply state that reason does not support the existence of God.

[neo of the mind]

Continue to? When did I start? Anyone else but sub and neo think that I've been distorting people's posts?

Jesus is an example of perfection to you, yes. That doesn't affect whether or not perfection is possible, don't you see? I may have been arguing at cross-purposes here. Jesus is a good character to base yourself upon, but Jesus is not proof that perfection is possible, because you cannot prove that Jesus was what the Bible says. Only believe.


Regarding perfection, let's look at it in a philosophical way. If something is perfect to you, but not to me (assuming you can imagine something that is perfect), then surely that particular being is not perfect? A perfect being would have to be truly perfect, that is, no one could find fault with it. Since the state of perfection is being without fault, then if people have differing ideas of perfection, someone will always be able to find fault with someone else's idea of perfection. Therefore, for something to be truly perfect, it would have to be everything at once to everyone, which I think is impossible. You might disagree, but it's a logical progression.

Your not making any sense. How can an example of perfection, which you agree is for me, not go hand in hand with the possibility of perfection? If I can give you an example of perfection, then it is more than a possibility it is a reality. Again, your definition of perfection is wrong to me in your application. Perfection is something that does not need addition or subtraction to be complete. A person, such as yourself, that doesn't accept that God is complete can not find perfection in him. You take your imperfections and try to apply them to God and then use that as a measure.

[Strel]

Your not making any sense. How can an example of perfection, which you agree is for me, not go hand in hand with the possibility of perfection? If I can give you an example of perfection, then it is more than a possibility it is a reality. Again, your definition of perfection is wrong to me in your application. Perfection is something that does not need addition or subtraction to be complete. A person, such as yourself, that doesn't accept that God is complete can not find perfection in him. You take your imperfections and try to apply them to God and then use that as a measure.


He's making perfect sense. You just fail to understand it.

Nice fallacious bootstrap argument, BTW. I bolded it for you.

[neo of the mind]

Yes, meaningless. Appealing to a negative proposition yields no new information. If you don't agree, step right up and explain yourself.

Lack of any valid evidence for the existence of God is not proof of His non-existence, fair enough. But logically, the same applies to EVERY negative proposition that can be imagined, including Joe's invisible unicorn. It is not for sceptics to prove there is no God, but for the believers to show that there is, and they haven't.

In the end, we cant say a lack of knowledge is evidence, as you say. The correct position for an atheist is to simply state that reason does not support the existence of God.

but YOUR reasoning is soley based on a lack of evidence, which you say is not justifiable.

I say that evidence of a God is the creation itself and your existence...look out the freakin window. You say that is not evidence because I can't emperically show that God created it. I say, no I can't, it's impossible for me to do that. The fact is, I don't need to have emperical data for everything in order for it to be a reality.

[JoeR]

I say that evidence of a God is the creation itself and your existence...look out the freakin window. You say that is not evidence because I can't emperically show that God created it.

That's EXACTLY why it isn't evidence. There's absolutely zero reason to jump to a supernatural explanation of things. If you want to, by all means go ahead.

[brainpan]

but YOUR reasoning is soley based on a lack of evidence, which you say is not justifiable.You need to explain these kinds of pronouncements. I have drawn no positive conclusion from a lack of evidence.I say that evidence of a God is the creation itself and your existence...look out the freakin window. [looking out window] Yep, it appears that existence exists, and that says exactly ZERO about God's existence.

Perhaps existence is proof of universe-creating invisible unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, or wizards. All of which are just as unverifiable as your god construct. So again we come full circle to the starting point. Shall we pull the lever again and take another spin on the god construct tilt-a-whirl? :D

[neo of the mind]

That's EXACTLY why it isn't evidence. There's absolutely zero reason to jump to a supernatural explanation of things. If you want to, by all means go ahead.

zero reason? How about the only reason. Nobody yet has given a logical explanation for the existence of everything that is the alternative to a Creator. When you do, I expect to hear about it with emperical evidence, since by emperical evidence would you only accept it.

[neo of the mind]

You need to explain these kinds of pronouncements. I have drawn no positive conclusion from a lack of evidence. [looking out window] Yep, it appears that existence exists, and that says exactly ZERO about God's existence.

Perhaps existence is proof of universe-creating invisible unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, or wizards. All of which are just as unverifiable as your god construct. So again we come full circle to the starting point. Shall we pull the lever again and take another spin on the god construct tilt-a-whirl? :D

My last post applies to this as well.

I'm waiting....

[sub_zer0]

For a theory, yes it is. And secondly theoretical physics is incredibly mathematical, hence the needs to mathematically prove concepts. Since evolution isn't so mathematical, you wouldn't need to mathematically prove it to make it viable, just as you don't need to mathematically prove a hypothesis in chemistry. But really there was no point in my typing any of this, was there?

No there isn't any point for you to post this because it is baseless, you have no foundation to stand on in regards to theorical evolution and math, which is probably why you claim evolution, "isn't so mathmatical".

As I have pointed out and gone unchallenged in doing so the math of evolutionary changes via mutations shows that it cannot happen.

[JoeR]

Nobody yet has given a logical explanation for the existence of everything that is the alternative to a Creator.

I'm not familiar enough with origin theories to give you a complete alternative, but that doesn't mean that I need to leap to conclusions. People used to think lightning was the wrath of God, to the point that lightning rods were called "devil sticks" because some thought that they circumvented God's wrath. Lo and behold, a supernatural explanation was eventually not needed.

I think that will apply to everything eventually. Of course this doesn't prove that God doesn't exist - from what I've gleaned the Judeo-Christian version doesn't intend to have a way to prove his existence. It just seems to me that this is an empty way to try to argue for God's existence.

[neo of the mind]

I'm not familiar enough with origin theories to give you a complete alternative, but that doesn't mean that I need to leap to conclusions. People used to think lightning was the wrath of God, to the point that lightning rods were called "devil sticks" because some thought that they circumvented God's wrath. Lo and behold, a supernatural explanation was eventually not needed.

I think that will apply to everything eventually. Of course this doesn't prove that God doesn't exist - from what I've gleaned the Judeo-Christian version doesn't intend to have a way to prove his existence. It just seems to me that this is an empty way to try to argue for God's existence.

You do realize that, if you gleaned enough Judeo-Christianity, that God does utilize lightning and other physcial means for his purposes and therefore those people that consider lightning the wrath of God are not totally wrong. They are only wrong in the majority of cases of lightnings application since lightning hits nothing of importance most of the time versus something of importance, including people.

That being said, I don't think your example is appropriate. If you said people thought lightning WAS God then it would make more sense, in regards to leaping to conclusions.

[Alvin T. Grey]

As I have pointed out and gone unchallenged in doing so the math of evolutionary changes via mutations shows that it cannot happen.
You really have no concept of applied mathematics do you?

I'll put it to you like this.
What are the odds of any one person in the US winning the Powerball Lottery?
It's really, really, REALLY small.

But it happens, and happens regularly. If you enter enough times, you will win.
And that is probability mathematics in action. It never says anything is impossible, it only says in any one instance it's less likely.

[sub_zer0]

You really have no concept of applied mathematics do you?

I'll put it to you like this.
What are the odds of any one person in the US winning the Powerball Lottery?
It's really, really, REALLY small.

But it happens, and happens regularly. If you enter enough times, you will win.
And that is probability mathematics in action. It never says anything is impossible, it only says in any one instance it's less likely.

But you do realize with mutations that, these need to be related, they need to producee the MASSIVE changes needed for evolution.

The point is, at just four related mutations the math is 10^28. Suddenly there is not enough room on earth to hold all the organisms needed for this chance, and it keeps getting worse from there.

Mutations producing evolutionary changes doesn't happen and has not been observed to happen by science.

[steveksux]

If I can give you an example of perfection, then it is more than a possibility it is a reality. .Hitler thought perfection would be a world without Jews. One persons idea of perfection is not a universal definition of perfection. If your definition of perfection is not considered perfection by others, why should your definition of perfection be correct and their's isn't? Anything truly perfect would be impossible to find fault with. Nobody would consider that imperfect.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

Your not making any sense. How can an example of perfection, which you agree is for me, not go hand in hand with the possibility of perfection? If I can give you an example of perfection, then it is more than a possibility it is a reality. Again, your definition of perfection is wrong to me in your application. Perfection is something that does not need addition or subtraction to be complete. A person, such as yourself, that doesn't accept that God is complete can not find perfection in him. You take your imperfections and try to apply them to God and then use that as a measure.

Huh? If I give you the (fictional) character of Prince Myshkin in The Idiot as an idea of perfection, does that mean that there is "more than a possibility it is a reality"? That makes no sense. Regarding my logical reasoning showing that a perfect being must be everything, show me exactly where I went wrong.

As I have pointed out and gone unchallenged in doing so the math of evolutionary changes via mutations shows that it cannot happen.

The point is, at just four related mutations the math is 10^28. Suddenly there is not enough room on earth to hold all the organisms needed for this chance, and it keeps getting worse from there.

Yet more proof that you don't actually read what people say. Your "mathmatics", as you insist on calling it, was slaughtered by several people. I guess you just don't check back on threads once they're not going your way.

[steveksux]

Sorry buddy, no Biblical teaching perscribes to a flat earth.Sorry buddy, inability to understand something is not the same as refuting it.

The point is the same people that wrote the bible thought the earth was flat.

Randy

[steveksux]

I say that evidence of a God is the creation itself and your existence...look out the freakin window. You say that is not evidence because I can't emperically show that God created it. I say, no I can't, it's impossible for me to do that. The fact is, I don't need to have emperical data for everything in order for it to be a belief.
Fixed it for you... :flowers: Belief is not reality. Belief in the Sun God RA by the ancient Egyptians didn't make Ra real.

Randy

[steveksux]

The Big bang theory is that the physical universe was created by the Big Bang,before the Big bang the universe had no matter,Nothing!Just to correct, my apologies if it was already pointed out in the previous 10 pages....

There was no "before" the big bang, as time didn't exist until the big bang. And you can't say before the big bang the universe had no matter, because the universe didn't exist yet either. Space and time started at the big bang. No space and no time means no universe.

You may all now continue with the name calling and fallacious arguments.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Hitler thought perfection would be a world without Jews. One persons idea of perfection is not a universal definition of perfection. If your definition of perfection is not considered perfection by others, why should your definition of perfection be correct and their's isn't? Anything truly perfect would be impossible to find fault with. Nobody would consider that imperfect.

Randy

Can anyone on this board find fault with God? And don't give some stupid answer like he doesn't have a 5 disk CD changer embedded in his hand for you to listen to Depeche Mode songs on at your whim. That is asinine and not a fault.

Read the book of Job and find out that you are in no position, intellectually or otherwise to find fault in God in regards to anything. Since you can not find fault, you are in no position to determine that God is not perfect.

[neo of the mind]

Sorry buddy, inability to understand something is not the same as refuting it.

The point is the same people that wrote the bible thought the earth was flat.

Randy

So other than having the ability to understand what they wrote, you can go further and tell us what they thought? What am I thinking now or does that only work for you on dead people?

[neo of the mind]

Fixed it for you... :flowers: Belief is not reality. Belief in the Sun God RA by the ancient Egyptians didn't make Ra real.

Randy


My belief in Jesus is real to me, you are in no position to state otherwise.

[neo of the mind]

Just to correct, my apologies if it was already pointed out in the previous 10 pages....

There was no "before" the big bang, as time didn't exist until the big bang. And you can't say before the big bang the universe had no matter, because the universe didn't exist yet either. Space and time started at the big bang. No space and no time means no universe.

You may all now continue with the name calling and fallacious arguments.

Randy

It's amazing that you require empirical evidence for every Christian belief, but not for the determination that time or matter didn't exist before an event.
Unless you have that empirically observed evidence that you can present to us. You do have that right?

[sub_zer0]

Can anyone on this board find fault with God? And don't give some stupid answer like he doesn't have a 5 disk CD changer embedded in his hand for you to listen to Depeche Mode songs on at your whim. That is asinine and not a fault.

HAHAHA! That was the funniest thing I read on this board yet, given the sarcasm right back at em', well done.

Read the book of Job and find out that you are in no position, intellectually or otherwise to find fault in God in regards to anything. Since you can not find fault, you are in no position to determine that God is not perfect.

You are indeed correct, the funny thing is for atheist's, can they find faults in themselves in which it isn't based on their fallible morality?

[sub_zer0]

Yet more proof that you don't actually read what people say. Your "mathmatics", as you insist on calling it, was slaughtered by several people. I guess you just don't check back on threads once they're not going your way.

First mistake, it isn't my mathmatics, but probabilities derived from mutations in regards to the impossibility of them producing evolutionary changes. The ones who did the math were mathmaticians and biologists were present.

The only thing that has challenged it, was the nit-picking of the peoples beliefs, or at first it was attempted that there were no biologists present and mathmaticians wouldn't know a evolutionary change if it hit em in the head.

Got any others? I am sure your attempt at describing evolutionary changes will negate all impossible logical steps it takes and/or will rely on science that has never been observed but interpreted by the evidence through evolutionary bias.

[melchizedek22]

I know.



Sounds to me that matter was God, lol.

The matter that made up the physical body of Jesus Christ was God AKA YHWH!

[melchizedek22]

Just to correct, my apologies if it was already pointed out in the previous 10 pages....

There was no "before" the big bang, as time didn't exist until the big bang. And you can't say before the big bang the universe had no matter, because the universe didn't exist yet either. Space and time started at the big bang. No space and no time means no universe.

You may all now continue with the name calling and fallacious arguments.

Randy
Your post assumes there is no Spirit world that predates the Big Boom and the creation of matter in the universe!

[melchizedek22]

My belief in Jesus is real to me, you are in no position to state otherwise.

Its impossible for someone who doesn't have the Holy Spirit living in them
to understand that it does live in you.
But they are in a better situation than someone who calls them self
Catholic or some other denomination,because their family was,they go to a church,which is really a social club,and they never thought about their
religion a second in their life.
At least an athiest admits there is no God,because they haven't incountered
God yet. Pray that they will!

[brainpan]

My last post applies to this as well.I don't know what you mean by "it applies." You certainly have not supported your assertions. Lets review:

1. "(brainpan's) reasoning is solely based on a lack of evidence."
Let me invite you, for the second time, to support that assertion.

2. " I say that evidence of a God is the creation itself and your existence..."
Again, existence does not serve as evidence for a creater. Existence only tells us that it exists. No known test has been devised that allows us to dust for God's fingerprints.

[Dangerrmouse]

Your post assumes there is no Spirit world that predates the Big Boom and the creation of matter in the universe!

You misunderstand. When the singularity expanded in the Big Bang, all the matter was already contained inside it.

A singularity is a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time become infinitely distorted.

[sub_zer0]

You misunderstand. When the singularity expanded in the Big Bang, all the matter was already contained inside it.

A singularity is a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time become infinitely distorted.

And this is where the big bang gets into trouble, right from the start.

The matter that made up the physical body of Jesus Christ was God AKA YHWH!

Scriptural proof of this?

[neo of the mind]

I don't know what you mean by "it applies." You certainly have not supported your assertions. Lets review:

1. "(brainpan's) reasoning is solely based on a lack of evidence."
Let me invite you, for the second time, to support that assertion.

2. " I say that evidence of a God is the creation itself and your existence..."
Again, existence does not serve as evidence for a creater. Existence only tells us that it exists. No known test has been devised that allows us to dust for God's fingerprints.

Read post #129, which is in reference to the "it applies" comment. If you have an answer then let's hear it.

[Dangerrmouse]

And this is where the big bang gets into trouble, right from the start.


In what way?

[neo of the mind]

You misunderstand. When the singularity expanded in the Big Bang, all the matter was already contained inside it.

A singularity is a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time become infinitely distorted.


That's right, you guys think everything that is was condensed down to a pinpoint, but in Dangermouse's perspective, even smaller than that apparently. This same gravitational force that could do this also somehow stepped aside and the Big Bang occured.

[Dangerrmouse]

That's right, you guys think everything that is was condensed down to a pinpoint, but in Dangermouse's perspective, even smaller than that apparently. This same gravitational force that could do this also somehow stepped aside and the Big Bang occured.

Not my perspective. The theory is the dominant explanation for how the universe is the way it is, and has been so for the last 40 years or more.

[neo of the mind]

Not my perspective. The theory is the dominant explanation for how the universe is the way it is, and has been so for the last 40 years or more.

I was being facetious in that the term pin point is used regulary when discussing this subject because it's easier to comprehend then an infinetly small mass.

[brainpan]

Read post #129, which is in reference to the "it applies" comment. If you have an answer then let's hear it.Post #129 is the one to which I responded. After two failed attempts to provoke you into supporting the following arguments, I accept your forfeiture of them:

1. "(brainpan's) reasoning is solely based on a lack of evidence."
2. "...evidence of a God is the creation itself and your existence..."

However, you have offered me more than just those two arguments to crush underfoot, so I will move on. In post #128, a response to Joe, you wrote the following: "How about the only reason. Nobody yet has given a logical explanation for the existence of everything that is the alternative to a Creator."

This represents a classic Argument from Ignorance. It also presents us with a False Dilema, but I'll concentrate on the former. Stated in the most simple terms, lack of omniscience, on the part of mankind, does not equal proof of God.

[sub_zer0]

In what way?

I would think if you were doing your research, you would know... lol

[Dangerrmouse]

I would think if you were doing your research, you would know... lol

I thought you might have a clue what you meant by your statement.

[brainpan]

I would think if you were doing your research, you would know... lolAnswer the question or move on, sub.

[neo of the mind]

Post #129 is the one to which I responded. After two failed attempts to provoke you into supporting the following arguments, I accept your forfeiture of them:

1. "(brainpan's) reasoning is solely based on a lack of evidence."
2. "...evidence of a God is the creation itself and your existence..."

However, you have offered me more than just those two arguments to crush underfoot, so I will move on. In post #128, a response to Joe, you wrote the following: "How about the only reason. Nobody yet has given a logical explanation for the existence of everything that is the alternative to a Creator."

This represents a classic Argument from Ignorance. It also presents us with a False Dilema, but I'll concentrate on the former. Stated in the most simple terms, lack of omniscience, on the part of mankind, does not equal proof of God.

forfeiture? LOL, Whatever..you think that if you want, I don't care.

In regards to your last statement, that's just a fancy way of saying you don't have a logical alternative and you lose.

[brainpan]

forfeiture?Absolutely. You made an unsupported assertion which I challenged. Since that time you refused to defend it. That is a forfeit.
In regards to your last statement, that's just a fancy way of saying you don't have a logical alternative and you lose.It's basic logic, and there's nothing fancy about it. Lack of knowledge does not equal proof of God.

[sub_zer0]

I thought you might have a clue what you meant by your statement.

That is what I thought about you, lol, I guess not. Anti-matter ring a bell?

Answer the question or move on, sub.

How about you stay on topic or move out, brain! I find it shocking that neither of you know.

[Dangerrmouse]

Yet more evasion. Nailing jello to the wall would be more productive, but then you do not visit to debate.

[Nuke the Oil]

Nuke, you will be facing Jesus at some point in the future. At that time you can ask him if you can do some scientific studies on him. LOL.

So you say. Who knows, it might be fun!

[neo of the mind]

Absolutely. You made an unsupported assertion which I challenged. Since that time you refused to defend it. That is a forfeit.
It's basic logic, and there's nothing fancy about it. Lack of knowledge does not equal proof of God.

My challenge was for somebody to state a logical alternative to God as the creator of everything in existence. You have yet to offer anything, so I don't think it to be a forfeiture on my part.

Lack of knowledge does not equal proof of no God.

[neo of the mind]

So you say. Who knows, it might be fun!

Allrighty then, but I am hopeful something in your life will occur that will make you revaluate.

[brainpan]

My challenge was for somebody to state a logical alternative to God as the creator of everything in existence. You have yet to offer anything, so I don't think it to be a forfeiture on my part.You forfeited on proposition #1 and #2 as described in post #157.

[sub_zer0]

Yet more evasion. Nailing jello to the wall would be more productive, but then you do not visit to debate.

I think you are having trouble reading...

[brainpan]

My challenge was for somebody to state a logical alternative to God as the creator of everything in existence. You have yet to offer anything, so I don't think it to be a forfeiture on my part.I offered quite a bit, but it's impossible to successfully answer your challenge as written because it isn't valid. It implies that the god construct is a logical alternative to a natural explanation. Obviously, it is not.

If the wording of your challenge was to be put into more acceptable terms, you would still find no person able to give an honest answer to it. An understanding of the cause of everything (assuming such a thing exists) would be the virtual equivalent of omniscience.
Since your challenge cannot be met, the next step is to decide what that fact tells us. I could go on all day what it doesn't tell us, but I'll be charitable and allow you to go first. The floor is yours.
Lack of knowledge does not equal proof of no God.True enough. So allow me to repeat: "The correct position for an atheist is to simply state that reason does not support the existence of God."

Again, no negative proposition can be proven, but that tells us nothing about the existence of god(s), invisible unicorns, leprechauns, or even flying spaghetti monsters.

[sub_zer0]

I offered quite a bit, but it's impossible to successfully answer your challenge as written because it isn't valid. It implies that the god construct is a logical alternative to a natural explanation. Obviously, it is not.

Yes it is.

[Dangerrmouse]

I think you are having trouble reading...

I read perfectly well. Your tenous grasp of the conventions of debate, and the paucity of content in your posts, are the problem here. :lol:

[burntgorilla]

There's absolutely no point posting in this thread, really, so I'm not going to bother. Someone else can respond to sub_zer0's claim that the "mathmatics" weren't shown to be wrong, if they feel like it.

[neo of the mind]

I offered quite a bit, but it's impossible to successfully answer your challenge as written because it isn't valid. It implies that the god construct is a logical alternative to a natural explanation. Obviously, it is not.

If the wording of your challenge was to be put into more acceptable terms, you would still find no person able to give an honest answer to it. An understanding of the cause of everything (assuming such a thing exists) would be the virtual equivalent of omniscience.
Since your challenge cannot be met, the next step is to decide what that fact tells us. I could go on all day what it doesn't tell us, but I'll be charitable and allow you to go first. The floor is yours.
True enough. So allow me to repeat: "The correct position for an atheist is to simply state that reason does not support the existence of God."

Again, no negative proposition can be proven, but that tells us nothing about the existence of god(s), invisible unicorns, leprechauns, or even flying spaghetti monsters.


YOU can't answer the question, not because it isn't valid, but because science is unable to answer it, plain and simple. Christians have their answer and accept the answer. The problem is with you, not us. There really is no point is discussing this from this angle.

Instead I will try to go back to the original topic of the poster, if possible.

If there was a big bang, Satan's attempted overthrow and his subsequent casting down would be AFTER the earth was created not before. Read Revelations chapter 12, especially verse 9. There are other places as well that speak of this event.

[Alvin T. Grey]

Er, yes. Science studied a BIRDS wing and the wing of a plane, which gives it lift, is the most important aspect. Sorry, try again.

I don't have any comment for the rest of your statments, since they don't pertain to anything.
Er, again no. A birds wing is designed to work using the direct application of mechanical power - Or flapping like buggery, if you will. An aircraft's wing is designed to provide lift by dint of differing air preassures between the upper, and lower surface of the wing.

And the rest of the post is an idiots example of the application of a theory in action.

[neo of the mind]

Er, again no. A birds wing is designed to work using the direct application of mechanical power - Or flapping like buggery, if you will. An aircraft's wing is designed to provide lift by dint of differing air preassures between the upper, and lower surface of the wing.

And the rest of the post is an idiots example of the application of a theory in action.


I can't believe there is actually somebody out there that doesn't know the basic history of airplane development, in that the designers and inventors of early aircraft and even today, STUDIED birds, specifically, their wings.

A fixed wing aircraft would not have been developed were it not for the study of a birds wing. Here are some links for you, scan the internet, pick up a book, something.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_wright_brothers.htm
http://www.hesston.edu/academic/FACULTY/NELSONK/PhysicsResearch/WingDesign/research.htm
http://petcaretips.net/how-bird-fly.html
http://www.nhm.org/birds/guide/pg018.html
http://www.roman-hartmann.de/html/flying_like_the_birds.html
http://faqhow.t35.com/airplanes.html

p.s. Calling me an idiot is against forum rules, but I can understand you stooping to that level.

[melchizedek22]

And this is where the big bang gets into trouble, right from the start.



Scriptural proof of this?

"When you've seen the Son,you've seen the Father"

John 14 vs 8 thru 11

[Alvin T. Grey]

I can't believe there is actually somebody out there that doesn't know the basic history of airplane development, in that the designers and inventors of early aircraft and even today, STUDIED birds, specifically, their wings.
While correct, the application of physics is what makes the aircraft possible. Just as the application of physics makes a birds wing work.
The modern airfoil shape is an adaption of the physical principals of flight as observed in nature, and theorized in science, then implemented by engineers into something that actually works.

Hence the lack of flapping aeroplanes, or helicoptering birds.

It was not, and is not a straight copy, all of those designs never got off the ground (Pun Intended). But then again nature had millions of years of evolution to thank for the perfect shape. Mankind has had about a century.



p.s. Calling me an idiot is against forum rules, but I can understand you stooping to that level.
PS. The term 'Idiots Guide' is a phrase. If you chose to take offence, then please by all means report the post. However if I were to insult you, then I would most likely insert the word 'Bloody' or 'Blithering' before the word 'Idiot' to avoid confusion.

[neo of the mind]

While correct, the application of physics is what makes the aircraft possible. Just as the application of physics makes a birds wing work.
The modern airfoil shape is an adaption of the physical principals of flight as observed in nature, and theorized in science, then implemented by engineers into something that actually works.

Hence the lack of flapping aeroplanes, or helicoptering birds.

It was not, and is not a straight copy, all of those designs never got off the ground (Pun Intended). But then again nature had millions of years of evolution to thank for the perfect shape. Mankind has had about a century.


PS. The term 'Idiots Guide' is a phrase. If you chose to take offence, then please by all means report the post. However if I were to insult you, then I would most likely insert the word 'Bloody' or 'Bl