Do we need to fear God?

[Clyde 154]

Science has proven how the Universe came into existence ; it's called the "Big Bang Theory ". You must have missed it in class, the theory was first suggested in the 1920's. You are asking why and how ? Neither science nor religion can answer those questions. If a GOD exists, it isn't giving us any answers either.

FYI: YOU JUST LIED, either through ignorance or gullibility.

The "big bang"...........what? THEORY. Theories prove nothing....theories suggest or assume and speculate upon things that cannot be PROVEN to be a fact or a LAW. There is no BIG BANG LAW. Perhaps you should attempt to use reason and logic based upon truth. How can you use FACT and THEORY in the same sentence, they are 2 totally opposite conclusions of logic.

Speaking of missing something in class. When I was a student a few decades ago........I was taught (as truth in science class) that the earth was about 1 billion years old.......today our children are taught (as truth in science) that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Who was lied to........my generation or the latest generation? The earth could not have factually aged 3 billion years in less than half a century.

Big Bang theory: If the big bang was a fact based upon evidence as confirmed by the laws of physics....there would be no DEBATE, there would be a big bang law of physics.....just as there is no LAW OF EVOLUTION.

Top cosmologist's lonely battle against 'Big Bang' theory

James Peebles won this year's Nobel prize in physics for helping transform the field of cosmology into a respected science, but if there's one term he hates to hear, it's "Big Bang Theory."

phys.org

 

[Stann]

FYI: YOU JUST LIED, either through ignorance or gullibility.

The "big bang"...........what? THEORY. Theories prove nothing....theories suggest or assume and speculate upon things that cannot be PROVEN to be a fact or a LAW. There is no BIG BANG LAW. Perhaps you should attempt to use reason and logic based upon truth. How can you use FACT and THEORY in the same sentence, they are 2 totally opposite conclusions of logic.

Speaking of missing something in class. When I was a student a few decades ago........I was taught (as truth in science class) that the earth was about 1 billion years old.......today our children are taught (as truth in science) that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Who was lied to........my generation or the latest generation? The earth could not have factually aged 3 billion years in less than half a century.

Big Bang theory: If the big bang was a fact based upon evidence as confirmed by the laws of physics....there would be no DEBATE, there would be a big bang law of physics.....just as there is no LAW OF EVOLUTION.

Top cosmologist's lonely battle against 'Big Bang' theory

James Peebles won this year's Nobel prize in physics for helping transform the field of cosmology into a respected science, but if there's one term he hates to hear, it's "Big Bang Theory."

phys.org

You misunderstand the idea of scientific theory. It's not just a guess as you suggest. It is based on empirical evidence. After a century it is now accepted ( although I see you found the rare individual who argues your point ) as scientific fact. Just like gravity and every other fact that verifies the existence of the physical universe. Your opinion is just that an opinion.

 

[ding]

You misunderstand the idea of scientific theory. It's not just a guess as you suggest. It is based on empirical evidence. After a century it is now accepted ( although I see you found the rare individual who argues your point ) as scientific fact. Just like gravity and every other fact that verifies the existence of the physical universe. Your opinion is just that an opinion.

You don't know the first thing about science.

 

[Clyde 154]

You misunderstand the idea of scientific theory. It's not just a guess as you suggest. It is based on empirical evidence. After a century it is now accepted ( although I see you found the rare individual who argues your point ) as scientific fact. Just like gravity and every other fact that verifies the existence of the physical universe. Your opinion is just that an opinion.

Yeah.......IMPERIAL EVIDENCE that is not sufficient enough to be a FACT/TRUTH of science. Theories are ideas....regardless of what they are based upon, A theory is not a FACT of SCIENCE. Funny: You just presented an OPINION and charge someone else of engaging opinion. This is called psychological projection: Typical of a secular humanist, project your faults onto others, its a psychological defense mechanism whereby unenviable or unpleasant traits, impulses or ideas are attributed to others instead of SELF.

Science.........real science, APPLIED SCIENCE is defined by Websters College Dictionary as: Knowledge covering general TRUTHS or the operation of general LAWS. Again, a theory is not a law/fact of science.

One simple question will clear all this BIG BANG is FACT BS.........where did the energy come from that produced this COSMIC EGG that supposedly exploded? Are you attempting to sell the dogma that it created itself from nothing? There is a LAW OF PHYSICS called the Law of Causality....aka, the Law of Cause and Effect: This law of physics states that every material effect (such as the creation of the universe and your BIG BANG) MUST HAVE AN ADEQUATE ANTECEDENT (preceding) or simultaneous cause. In other words........the Universe or the Cosmic egg of energy that supposedly created everything ........................by the nature of the laws of physics, must have a superior CAUSE. It did not magically create itself.....it had a cause, and whatever that cause, ITS SUPERIOR TO THE NATURAL LAWS OF PHYSICS. aka, Supernatural

Easy Peasy as clearly you are superior in intelligence to that of Stephen Hawking.......who offered this conclusion: The universe created itself from NOTHING. Gravity caused it. Sad, but gravity is someone that is measurable and quantifiable in a factual manner via observing its potential, the first law of the Scientific Method......OBSERVATION. Physics prove if you begin with -0- NOTHING, nothing is all that you will have. NOW THIS IS NOT OPINION........Hawking was dealing with DOGMA not science to even suggest that something can be created from nothing void of a superior cause.

Logically.....If science cannot answer the question about the origins of the Universe...then that CAUSE was Super (superior) Natural (to nature).

Carl Sagan said it like this: "Science (theoretical science) IS A WAY OF THINKING (in other words its PHILOSOPHY), its a never ending error correcting process (yet you claim there is no error in theory?) by which we figure out (again figure out?) what's true and what's not." -- Carl Sagan. In other words......a theory will stand as truth for the scientific theorist until someone comes up with a better truth............ But........truth does not change or it was never truth in the beginning.

Truth is not debatable ...........the very fact that you are being challenged via the laws of physics proves that THERE IS NO TRUTH.....only speculation.....better known as YOUR OPINION

 

[Stann]

You can't even spell Empirical correctly. And no one is debating the Big Bang anymore. Just like Climate Change it is accepted as scientific fact. Good luck with your argument, it's literally you against the world. My only opinion about the Big Bang is I believe ( no way of proving ) it is cyclical, like most natural events

 

[ding]

...no one is debating the Big Bang anymore.

Ancient man knew 6,000 years before science knew that the universe was not created from pre-existing matter. Or did you not realize that all matter and energy was created at the Big Bang from nothing?

The account of Genesis is amazingly accurate in that it recorded that God created the universe and then light appeared. As in let there be light. Or were you not aware that the universe was opaque for the first 380,000 years until it cooled enough for radiation to decouple from matter? So the phrase let there be light after God created the heavens and earth is accurate.

And that everything that came after it did so as a process. Such that everything did not occur at once. And that man is a product of that creation. Man is made from dust so to speak... star dust.

 

[ding]

Just like Climate Change it is accepted as scientific fact.

No. It isn't.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

My only opinion about the Big Bang is I believe ( no way of proving ) it is cyclical, like most natural events

No one believes that except for you and breezewood. The cosmic background radiation could only be created through paired particle production. Atheists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You don't know anything about science.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I guess you missed the Book of Kings which mentions Asherah ( god's wife ) was worshipped alongside her husband Yahweh, in the temple. A plethora of other gods are mentioned in other books the Christians decided not to include in their Bible. Probably not consistent with the story line of one god ( in three ) ? they were attempting to spread.

You're very confused. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to debate Scripture.

 

[Stann]

You're very confused. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to debate Scripture.

Kings23.6

 

[ding]

Kings23.6

He’s right. You don’t know what you are talking about. The conversation from polytheism to monotheism was a process not an event.

Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess. Canaanites associated Asherah with sacred trees, an association also found in the Israelite tradition.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Kings23.6

I have no idea what you're implying. Because Israel had other gods (small g) these gods were living beings?

A "god" is anything you worship:
Biden
Pelosi
the government
money
Fame

 

[Stann]

I have no idea what you're implying. Because Israel had other gods (small g) these gods were living beings?

A "god" is anything you worship:
Biden
Pelosi
the government
money
Fame

Not worthy of any more replies. Ask historians about all the different gods Jews / Hebrews had throughout their history. I no longer remember but I believe the total nber was 37 or 38.

 

[ding]

I have no idea what you're implying. Because Israel had other gods (small g) these gods were living beings?

A "god" is anything you worship:
Biden
Pelosi
the government
money
Fame

…drugs, alcohol and most importantly themselves. It boils down to either worshipping the creator or the created. Of which only one will satisfy. But we are perfectly free to figure that out on our own because we were made for more.

 

[ding]

Not worthy of any more replies. Ask historians about all the different gods Jews / Hebrews had throughout their history. I no longer remember but I believe the total nber was 37 or 38.

Again… can’t be omitted since the account is about converting from polytheism to monotheism.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Not worthy of any more replies. Ask historians about all the different gods Jews / Hebrews had throughout their history. I no longer remember but I believe the total nber was 37 or 38.

You're confused.

On the one hand, as an Atheist, you want to tell us God doesn't exist, but in this thread you want to convince us that Apollo, Zeus, Mercury and Allah are real gods.

Why is it hard for you to understand that ancient Israel STRAYED from obeying the ONLY God that exists in favor of following the pagan cultures around them ?

You just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing, but you're looking ridiculous

AND....

You're using a book you claim is myth to make your arguments

Atheists are so confused

 

[Stann]

You're confused.

On the one hand, as an Atheist, you want to tell us God doesn't exist, but in this thread you want to convince us that Apollo, Zeus, Mercury and Allah are real gods.

Why is it hard for you to understand that ancient Israel STRAYED from obeying the ONLY God that exists in favor of following the pagan cultures around them ?

You just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing, but you're looking ridiculous

AND....

You're using a book you claim is myth to make your arguments

Atheists are so confused

Believe whatever you wish. But beliefs supported by the truth are the best ones to live by. Good luck with yours. By the way I am not an atheist. I know the natural entity you refer to as God exists.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Believe whatever you wish. But beliefs supported by the truth are the best ones to live by. Good luck with yours. By the way I am not an atheist. I know the natural entity you refer to as God exists.

Did He create you and the rest of the universe, or is He part of the Creation

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Believe whatever you wish. But beliefs supported by the truth are the best ones to live by. Good luck with yours. By the way I am not an atheist. I know the natural entity you refer to as God exists.

So, is the Bible a myth and full of lies, or is it true? It HAS to be one or the other. You can't straddle the fence on this

 

[Stann]

Did He create you and the rest of the universe, or is He part of the Creation

Actually the viewpoint of " human " beings is beguiled. The answer is yes and no. And if I attempt to explain it in any detail you will no doubt condemn the knowledge as not reliable. The primitive defense mechanism automatically kicks in.