23 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe singularity at the start of the universe is hardly nothing. There are other theories that sidestep the whole singularity issue and are in effect cyclic. Unfortunately none involve deities of any variety.
The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment [b]there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big ...[text shortened]... l physical things actually came from God. That includes the universe, in case you didn't know.[/b]
23 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsLies and misinformation eh? From my point of view it is you who is spreading lies and misinformation and it is my duty as a scientist to challenge that. I have no problem with you exhibiting your ignorance in the Science Forum, it is very easy to ignore your rubbish. Maybe you should try the same with my rubbish in here?
I believe it is my duty as a Christian to challenge the misinformation and lies you present on this forum. I'll make a deal with you, if you will just present all your scientism views on the science forum, then I will just present all my Christian views on the Spirituality Forum. Do we have an agreement?
Just in case you are in any doubt, that's NOT an agreement.
24 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KeplerUh oh. This sounds like spiritual warfare. Prepare yourself for Hellfire!
Lies and misinformation eh? From my point of view it is you who is spreading lies and misinformation and it is my duty as a scientist to challenge that. I have no problem with you exhibiting your ignorance in the Science Forum, it is very easy to ignore your rubbish. Maybe you should try the same with my rubbish in here?
Just in case you are in any doubt, that's NOT an agreement.
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsCorrect. This is a debate forum in case you hadn't noticed. I also have good reason for criticising those who believe things without evidence. They tend to end up doing stupid things like blowing themselves up or trying stop children from learning science in schools.
So it appears that you are only interested in the criticism of other who have beliefs. Is that your main reason for posting on the Spirituality Forum, since it appears obvious that you do not believe in spiritual things?
24 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNot all does not imply all. Some.
So you believe everything came some version of itself out of what where?
Kelly
That I come from my mother simply shows that I don't believe "everything" (your word) came from "nothing" (again your word). Something (me) came from something else (mother). I don't think I said anything about where everything came from or whether or not the universe had a mother.
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by KeplerSo you are refusing to answer for some reason?
Not all does not imply all. Some.
That I come from my mother simply shows that I don't believe "everything" (your word) came from "nothing" (again your word). Something (me) came from something else (mother). I don't think I said anything about where everything came from or whether or not the universe had a mother.
Kelly
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by KellyJayhow is this going one better?!?!? i make no claims of our origins other than what is known, which begins a few moments after the big bang. everything before that is unknown. there is no theory i know of that say something was created from nothing, there are some that suggest something appears in nothing, but where that something comes from is unknown.
I believe I can do better than that, you cannot show me anything that you
don't believe came from something else! It seems all science does is look
backwards as to what came before what we see now, we date the whole
universe with a period of time which I'd point out declares a start for
everything! The trouble you have is that by doing that a major hole ...[text shortened]... ? A change requires a cause or reason, a static state does nothing but
remain static.
Kelly
you say 'it seems all science does is look backwards' this is a strange claim, obviously science looks at everything it can find evidence for and is within our current ability to understand. its actually pretty amazing that science can look so far back into the past, yet you seem to diminish it with your use of the word 'all'. you could argue that the first brave men to sail to the edge of the horizon into the unknown, were just sailing. but somebody has to be the first to do it. we are living in an age where we know what we know, obviously this isnt good enough for you and you think if science is correct then we should know more. would you be the person on the shore saying of the sailors "pah, all they will find over the horizon is more things and beyond those things more things, whats the point'
there is a possibility that there are a billion layers to peel away to find the secrets of the universe and we are at layer 2 or 3. there maybe no logical answer that we can comprehend at the end, we may get to a point where there is nothing else to discover and not have the answers, we may find a god or evidence of a god........who knows, but its exciting searching. are you going to invoke the god of gaps and say because we dont know it must be a god, would you invoke the god of gaps when we set off for the horizon??