If God doesn't exist...

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[IsaacNewton]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.

I see... So out of the chaos your God Of Science established order, and the laws of physics, when he created the universe.....

.....How come this sounds very familiar?.....

.....Was there a 'firmament' present when the current laws of physics didn't apply back then?

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

Yours is a Mobius strip where you need a daddy. Buh bye.

 

[zaangalewa]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.

Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.

If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.

Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it.

I haven't seen any evidence of 'gods'. But there is voluminous evidence of humans needing to believe in 'gods' to explain that which they don't understand and are afraid of.

LOL And 'indocrination' to many means the same as college education, knowledge, and a life time of study of something.

Show evidence of any god that can be tested or correlated.

 

[amrchaos]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

I guess this thread is under the implied assumption that
1)the Universe had a start
2) that there is only one scientific theory to explain that start(false)
3) that theory is the Big Bang
4) that there is only one Big Bang theory.(false)

Whew, a lot of assumptions! I might have missed some other assumptions.

Anyway, this thread is dead. Turns out the op claims to be a pantheist.

Remember, we started out with "If there is no GOD" yada yada yada "Then what kicked started the Universe?"

If we are given the Pantheist GOD as not existing, then isn't the answer nothing?

 

[IsaacNewton]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.

Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?

I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.

 

[zaangalewa]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

It expands.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.

I see... So out of the chaos your God Of Science established order, and the laws of physics, when he created the universe.....

.....How come this sounds very familiar?.....

.....Was there a 'firmament' present when the current laws of physics didn't apply back then?

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

Yours is a Mobius strip where you need a daddy. Buh bye.

So when logic fails the best you can come up with is a personal insult... It belies the name and avatar you chose.

Perhaps we'll discuss some theology after I've caught up on some of the discussions in that area.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Carla_Danger]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

 

[frigidweirdo]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

It expands.

So? A balloon can expand, doesn't mean it started at the point where it started to expand.

I could give a million theories why it might expand. For example it could be a tube shape which is wider in places and narrower in others. When it narrows to a point then something happens, lots of energy together and then as it moves away from the narrow point it expands, then after a whole it narrows again.

Just a continual action that goes on and on and on forever. It never started, it'll never finish, it just is.

 

[zaangalewa]

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.

Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?

I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.

Never heard from him. Are you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first planksecond of the existance of our universe?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

It expands.

So? A balloon can expand, doesn't mean it started at the point where it started to expand.

I could give a million theories why it might expand. For example it could be a tube shape which is wider in places and narrower in others. When it narrows to a point then something happens, lots of energy together and then as it moves away from the narrow point it expands, then after a whole it narrows again.

Just a continual action that goes on and on and on forever. It never started, it'll never finish, it just is.

That is a bad analogy. Another closer but still not great analogy using a balloon would be you have a balloon that is already inflated and is still expanding in all directions equally. It is very easy to deduce that if you reverse time it collapses from all directions equally until you come to a point far enough back that is where it started expanding. Again, a balloon is a mediocre analogy but it gives a rudimentary idea of the process.

And that point has been measured to be about 13.72. billion years ago.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.

If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.

Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it.

I haven't seen any evidence of 'gods'. But there is voluminous evidence of humans needing to believe in 'gods' to explain that which they don't understand and are afraid of.

LOL And 'indocrination' to many means the same as college education, knowledge, and a life time of study of something.

Show evidence of any god that can be tested or correlated.

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

I guess this thread is under the implied assumption that
1)the Universe had a start
2) that there is only one scientific theory to explain that start(false)
3) that theory is the Big Bang
4) that there is only one Big Bang theory.(false)

Whew, a lot of assumptions! I might have missed some other assumptions.

Anyway, this thread is dead. Turns out the op claims to be a pantheist.

Remember, we started out with "If there is no GOD" yada yada yada "Then what kicked started the Universe?"

If we are given the Pantheist GOD as not existing, then isn't the answer nothing?

Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.

Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?

Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...

Even in your current post.

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[IsaacNewton]

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.

Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?

I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.

Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?

I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline. LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.

Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.
Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?
Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...
Even in your current post.
*****ROFLMAO*****

Fine, you are the all knowing guru of the universe. A 'god' in your own mind it appears. Run along now Newman.

 

[zaangalewa]

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.

If you would be an agnostics then you would say: "100% I don't know wether god exists or not". You are just simple an atheist - that's your belief. And you are without a big idea about when and how to use probability calculations. You just simple have some wrong ideas about other people who are not atheists (= a-atheists=theists). And in your self-created world - no: in the world of your indcotrinating ideology - you are thinking you are living in the noble world of science. But indeed believers of all religions - and not only atheists - are able to be scientists.

Yes there are scientists that are religious. Seems quite contrarian and they have to construct massive mental scaffolding in their heads to accommodate that but some do it. ...

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

It expands.

So? A balloon can expand ...

No - a balloon can not expand. Someone is able to fill a balloon with gas, or to lower the pressure around a balloon. This process is not comparable with the acclerating expansion of the space of the universe.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

What you say is without logic. If the universe had a beginning then existed a first cause - but a first cause is uncaused. So nothing started the universe.

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

It expands.

So? A balloon can expand, doesn't mean it started at the point where it started to expand.

I could give a million theories why it might expand. For example it could be a tube shape which is wider in places and narrower in others. When it narrows to a point then something happens, lots of energy together and then as it moves away from the narrow point it expands, then after a whole it narrows again.

Just a continual action that goes on and on and on forever. It never started, it'll never finish, it just is.

That is a bad analogy. Another closer but still not great analogy using a balloon would be you have a balloon that is already inflated and is still expanding in all directions equally. It is very easy to deduce that if you reverse time it collapses from all directions equally until you come to a point far enough back that is where it started expanding. Again, a balloon is a mediocre analogy but it gives a rudimentary idea of the process.

And that point has been measured to be about 13.72. billion years ago.

If the current laws of physics did not exist when the big bang occurred then the time when it happened could just as well be described as infinite. After all you yourself stated earlier that the current laws didn't apply at that time.

On the other hand if one subscribes to the steady state theory of the universe we once again we reach the conclusion of infinite.

I'm easy pick and choose. Which theory do you prefer?

Either way doesn't bother my theological beliefs.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[sealybobo]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Every argument for God comes with a fatal flaw. Yours is obvious. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Some answers we may never know. This doesn't prove a God exists. It proves your belief is based on ignorance.

Get it? Your thought only proves sciences position is correct. We don't know, and we will keep looking.

And if an old established belief doesn't stand up to the scientific method, throw it out. Don't accept it just because it makes you feel comfortable.

I suggest you put down the bible and rent the cosmos.

 

[zaangalewa]

So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****

No, physicists already know the current laws of physics did not reign during the big bang. And before that if there is nothing there are no laws.

Do you like to say natural laws were not existing in (and since) the second planksecond of the universe? Who says so? What's your source?

I'm not a physicist but there are plenty out there who know a lot more about this than either of us. Try googling Lawrence Krauss.

Never heard from him. A you sure he said our natural laws were not existing latest after the first plank-second of the existence of our universe?

I don't know the exact 'planck-seconds' of the timeline.

1,2,3,4,5 ... and so on.

LOL Better to buy a couple books of the leading physicists on the planet and see what they say rather than get that info from an internet message board. All the physicists that I've seen interviewed said the current laws of physics were not active at the big bang. They of course developed after the big bang but again you'll have to go to the experts to get the exact 'planck-second timeline'.

Lawrence Krauss' latest book is A Universe From Nothing. Well worth the read and though it is written for the public it is goes into quite complex issues.

But you did not read this books so you are not able to explain what you say on what reason. Why said you what you said if you don't understand it on your own?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Finally went back and spent some time reading and doing some research I see.
Having difficulties accepting that theology and theory might be one for some?
Oh by the way... Your answers were all FAILS ON YOUR PART...
Even in your current post.
*****ROFLMAO*****

Fine, you are the all knowing guru of the universe. A 'god' in your own mind it appears. Run along now Newman.

Why should I do that? I started this thread and am still waiting for an answer from the scienti..... Oh wait! You just admitted you don't know much about it even though you use a name and avatar that indicates otherwise........ from some atheist that thinks they understand scientific theory on what started the big bang.

If you want to nit pick Genesis or some other religions theology start your own thread about it. This ones for picking on the scientific creation theory/theology.

So far all I've seen is a lot of gibberish about how their beliefs are so much better, and personal insults on the matter, from those who don't believe it was a miracle.

Looks like a big FAIL on all your parts.

I'm still waiting.

*****CHUCKLE*****