Science isn’t always the answer.

[ding]

(O-1) I have not seen any evidence that is sufficient to satisfy an unprejudiced mind seeking the truth or fact.

If the universe popping into existence from nothing doesn't do that, I doubt anything will. For me it began with a notional belief, after that my experiences removed all doubt.

(O-2) How could we even possibly know what existed before space and time? (RHETORICAL) We do not even know if there is such a thing as "before space and time."

The argument goes that whatever existed before our space and time that was responsible for creating our space and time from nothing could not be matter and energy. So, through process of elimination no thing existed before space and time and created space and time. Spirit is no thing.

Is there such a thing as "nothing?"

Yes, consciousness, the laws of nature, truth, logic, love, music, science, math, etc. You can't put your hands on them. You can't touch them. You can only infer they exist.

IF there is such a condition of "nothing" THEN what could it create? Is "nothing" a state of being that can independently create something?"

Consciousness without form. Who are you to say it doesn't exist?

What is a "spirit?" Is a "spirit" an entity? Is a "spirit" a non-entity? Is a "spirit" in the category of the natural? - or - Is a "spirit" in the category of the supernatural?

Consciousness without form. Who are you to say it doesn't exist?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Yes, understanding starts with a commonality.

If you created something, could I use that as evidence?

(COMMENT)

Yes! I could testify on my behalf.

◈ I can stand before the observer. I am not an undetectable entity.​

◈ I can gather pre-existing materials.​

◈ I can demonstrate how materials are assembled to construct something.​

In no case can I or you create either the energy or matter necessary to create something new. An entity such as the Abrahamic Deity does not operate in that fashion. Humanity has not yet been able to explain the formation of the universe from time Zero.

No one has been able to capture the attention of a spirit, such that the spirit presents itself for the benefit of mankind.

Now, if a supernatural power presents itself sometime in the future, maybe man will be able to resolve questions about biblical history.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Yes, understanding starts with a commonality.

If you created something, could I use that as evidence?

(COMMENT)

Yes! I could testify on my behalf.

◈ I can stand before the observer. I am not an undetectable entity.​

◈ I can gather pre-existing materials.​

◈ I can demonstrate how materials are assembled to construct something.​

In no case can I or you create either the energy or matter necessary to create something new. An entity such as the Abrahamic Deity does not operate in that fashion. Humanity has not yet been able to explain the formation of the universe from time Zero.

No one has been able to capture the attention of a spirit, such that the spirit presents itself for the benefit of mankind.

Now, if a supernatural power presents itself sometime in the future, maybe man will be able to resolve questions about biblical history.

Most Respectfully,
R

A simple yes will suffice. So it is evidence and the weight of the evidence can be determined by each person hearing the evidence, right?

 

[BreezeWood]

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

I didn't realise that not knowing something required evidence. It's also completely irrelevant

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

The burden of proof is on the person who has the hypothesis, in this case, God created the universe. Not the person you have to convince. If you find a way to falsify (test) your hypothesis the burden would shift to me. And no, logical constructs do not count. Since it only accepts one starting premise and makes several simply unsupported assertions along the way. What you are doing is a trick people who believe in God employ constantly. Trying to shift the burden of proof. It's an appeal to ignorance.

Again I do NOT assert God doesn't exist. I assert that I have no reason to assume he does. Even IF you could convince me your hypothesis has merit, you would still be in exactly the same place of having to actually prove it.

Maybe this illustrates it. I believe in life outside Earth. I'm willing to accept some of this life has developed intelligence along the way. Unless we find evidence of this, whatever this evidence might be the assertion that we know life, let alone intelligent life exist outside Earth is false. It's not the responsibility of those who don't believe either of those things to disprove that aliens don't exist, it's the responsibility of those who do to prove that they do.

This conversation began with your position that believers never provide evidence for God's existence. I have provided evidence. You are the one who has no evidence.

The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

This conversation began with your position that believers never provide evidence for God's existence. I have provided evidence. You are the one who has no evidence.

.
you have provided no evidence of anything related to the 4th century christian bible or reflects as proof for their made up belief in a messiah.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

(O-1) I have not seen any evidence that is sufficient to satisfy an unprejudiced mind seeking the truth or fact.

If the universe popping into existence from nothing doesn't do that, I doubt anything will. For me it began with a notional belief, after that my experiences removed all doubt.

(COMMENT)

We do not know the source of energy that created the universe. We do not know where the point of origin for the universe.

We don't know if the Universe just "popped into Existence" of not. We do not know if the process by which the original material from which the Universe is made, has actually stopped generating more material; causing the universe to continue its expansion.

(O-2) How could we even possibly know what existed before space and time? (RHETORICAL) We do not even know if there is such a thing as "before space and time."

The argument goes that whatever existed before our space and time that was responsible for creating our space and time from nothing could not be matter and energy. So, through process of elimination no thing existed before space and time and created space and time. Spirit is no thing.

(COMMENT)

That is a good faith-based (non-scientific) argument (hypothesis). We do not know what existed before space and time. We do not know what nothingness actually is.

Is there such a thing as "nothing?"

Yes, consciousness, the laws of nature, truth, logic, love, music, science, math, etc. You can't put your hands on them. You can't touch them. You can only infer they exist.

(COMMENT)

All of these examples that you point out are detectable and have a bio-electrical signature of some sort. Bio-electric signatures are "not nothing." An electroencephalograph (EEG), is a test and measurement device that detect bio-electrical signals in living objects. IF the object has the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change, THEN these functions can be detected through the skillful use of a properly designed sensor/probe (AKA "detector"), and a very low noise amplifier. (simplified)

IF there is such a condition of "nothing" THEN what could it create? Is "nothing" a state of being that can independently create something?"

Consciousness without form. Who are you to say it doesn't exist?

(COMMENT)

I am but one voice that points-out (as an outside observer) that the presentation was not within the human ability to understand or demonstrate. It cannot be examined or tested. I suggest that the argument is beyond probability and represents a Cognitive Illusions, Fallacies, Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory.

What is a "spirit?" Is a "spirit" an entity? Is a "spirit" a non-entity? Is a "spirit" in the category of the natural? - or - Is a "spirit" in the category of the supernatural?

Consciousness without form. Who are you to say it doesn't exist?

(COMMENT)

This sounds like a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method. While we can detect when something alive - is also "aware" of itself and environment, in order to determine if some entity is consciously aware, it has to meet certain criteria. If it is a "Consciousness without form" it is unknown as to what sensory capacity it has. Both Consciousness and Sentience are problematic.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

We do not know the source of energy that created the universe. We do not know where the point of origin for the universe.

We don't know if the Universe just "popped into Existence" of not. We do not know if the process by which the original material from which the Universe is made, has actually stopped generating more material; causing the universe to continue its expansion.

We do know the universe was created from nothing. Do you even thermodynamics?

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

Do you really want to get into a science discussion where you will be arguing against science?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

A simple yes will suffice. So it is evidence and the weight of the evidence can be determined by each person hearing the evidence, right?

(COMMENT)

In as much as people make up their own minds, the presentation of evidence is viewed with a subjective eye within the limitation of the individual's capacity to understand that which is presented. This is true of any argument and the perception of evidence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

That is a good faith-based (non-scientific) argument (hypothesis). We do not know what existed before space and time. We do not know what nothingness actually is.

Actually it is a philosophical argument informed by science and logic.

It really freaks some people out to say the universe was created from nothing.

 

[ding]

All of these examples that you point out are detectable and have a bio-electrical signature of some sort. Bio-electric signatures are "not nothing." An electroencephalograph (EEG), is a test and measurement device that detect bio-electrical signals in living objects. IF the object has the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change, THEN these functions can be detected through the skillful use of a properly designed sensor/probe (AKA "detector"), and a very low noise amplifier. (simplified)

And yet are examples of the incorporeal. Which is really the debate after all. Did everything proceed from the incorporeal or not. I doubt you have ever seriously considered the proposition.

 

[ding]

This sounds like a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method. While we can detect when something alive - is also "aware" of itself and environment, in order to determine if some entity is consciously aware, it has to meet certain criteria. If it is a "Consciousness without form" it is unknown as to what sensory capacity it has. Both Consciousness and Sentience are problematic.

Actually, it was arrived at studying what was created and how it evolved.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

A simple yes will suffice. So it is evidence and the weight of the evidence can be determined by each person hearing the evidence, right?

(COMMENT)

In as much as people make up their own minds, the presentation of evidence is viewed with a subjective eye within the limitation of the individual's capacity to understand that which is presented. This is true of any argument and the perception of evidence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Great. My point here is that if you created something it can be used as evidence. Even if I didn't know that you created it or who created it, there would still be information that could be obtained from it. For instance, I could figure out the steps you took to create it, the level of intelligence or skill required to create it and why you created it; what it's purpose is etc.

So if God did create existence, why couldn't you use what he created as evidence for his existence?

 

[BreezeWood]

We do not know the source of energy that created the universe. We do not know where the point of origin for the universe.

We don't know if the Universe just "popped into Existence" of not. We do not know if the process by which the original material from which the Universe is made, has actually stopped generating more material; causing the universe to continue its expansion.

We do know the universe was created from nothing. Do you even thermodynamics?

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

Do you really want to get into a science discussion where you will be arguing against science?

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

.
as explained prior, singularity is a transitional moment for a cyclical event.

 

[ding]

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

I didn't realise that not knowing something required evidence. It's also completely irrelevant

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

So if the universe was created so that beings that know and create would what was created be evidence of a creator?

I find it quite odd that you don’t believe your belief is a hypothesis too. Where is your evidence?

The burden of proof is on the person who has the hypothesis, in this case, God created the universe. Not the person you have to convince. If you find a way to falsify (test) your hypothesis the burden would shift to me. And no, logical constructs do not count. Since it only accepts one starting premise and makes several simply unsupported assertions along the way. What you are doing is a trick people who believe in God employ constantly. Trying to shift the burden of proof. It's an appeal to ignorance.

Again I do NOT assert God doesn't exist. I assert that I have no reason to assume he does. Even IF you could convince me your hypothesis has merit, you would still be in exactly the same place of having to actually prove it.

Maybe this illustrates it. I believe in life outside Earth. I'm willing to accept some of this life has developed intelligence along the way. Unless we find evidence of this, whatever this evidence might be the assertion that we know life, let alone intelligent life exist outside Earth is false. It's not the responsibility of those who don't believe either of those things to disprove that aliens don't exist, it's the responsibility of those who do to prove that they do.

This conversation began with your position that believers never provide evidence for God's existence. I have provided evidence. You are the one who has no evidence.

The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

This conversation began with your position that believers never provide evidence for God's existence. I have provided evidence. You are the one who has no evidence.

.
you have provided no evidence of anything related to the 4th century christian bible or reflects as proof for their made up belief in a messiah.

I would have thought God choosing to be born into this world to testify to the truth would have been proof enough.

 

[ding]

We do not know the source of energy that created the universe. We do not know where the point of origin for the universe.

We don't know if the Universe just "popped into Existence" of not. We do not know if the process by which the original material from which the Universe is made, has actually stopped generating more material; causing the universe to continue its expansion.

We do know the universe was created from nothing. Do you even thermodynamics?

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

Do you really want to get into a science discussion where you will be arguing against science?

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

.
as explained prior, singularity is a transitional moment for a cyclical event.

SLoT says otherwise.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Science evolves (obviously over time). These evolutionary changes gradually alter our perception of the universe.

We do know the universe was created from nothing. Do you even thermodynamics?

(COMMENT)

Yes, I think I have a reasonable grasp of thermodynamics and entropy. But there is much more going on in this concept of the Big Bang (the theory that a near instantaneous expansion even occurred). And in contemporary cosmology - the difference between the SHOES (Supernovae) measurements in the search for Hubble constant and that of the (Plank methodology) in the calculations of the Hubble constant have cause some very important controversies among cosmologist. And no, I don't want to get into that minefield; besides, it takes us farther away from the issue of "[E]vidence for God's existence."

Now I say that knowing the exception of the subatomic ball (the energy in the Plank Epoch that formed the first particles) of the singularity (see BreezeWood supra Post) and the heat (energy) 'vs' unified (super) force (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravity) balance prior to expansion is important. Now that could generate the question on the source of the initial energy and the subatomic element that eventually formed into Quarks, Leptons and Bosons. That source - could be - "[E]vidence for God's existence." This observation is sometimes referred to as the "Theory of First Motion" (see Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Motion" ). [And there is even a question about "gravity" since there was no matter and no space-time fabric yet.]

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

(COMMENT)

No, we simply hold to the theory. Something happened 13.8 Billion years ago, that we can only hypothesize. We assume it was a dark release. This dark release (radiation) was pressured by something, we are not sure, but there was no light (photons) in the Plank Epoch.

Do you really want to get into a science discussion where you will be arguing against science?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure were you derived this. We are not sure about the shape of the Universe. We are not sure if the rapid release radiated in a certain direction, or if the release was omnidirectional. Is there a void at the point of origin shaping the Univers like a donut? IF not, THEN does that not imply that matter is still being created?

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Science evolves (obviously over time). These evolutionary changes gradually alter our perception of the universe.

We do know the universe was created from nothing. Do you even thermodynamics?

(COMMENT)

Yes, I think I have a reasonable grasp of thermodynamics and entropy. But there is much more going on in this concept of the Big Bang (the theory that a near instantaneous expansion even occurred). And in contemporary cosmology - the difference between the SHOES (Supernovae) measurements in the search for Hubble constant and that of the (Plank methodology) in the calculations of the Hubble constant have cause some very important controversies among cosmologist. And no, I don't want to get into that minefield; besides, it takes us farther away from the issue of "[E]vidence for God's existence."

Now I say that knowing the exception of the subatomic ball (the energy in the Plank Epoch that formed the first particles) of the singularity (see BreezeWood supra Post) and the heat (energy) 'vs' unified (super) force (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravity) balance prior to expansion is important. Now that could generate the question on the source of the initial energy and the subatomic element that eventually formed into Quarks, Leptons and Bosons. That source - could be - "[E]vidence for God's existence." This observation is sometimes referred to as the "Theory of First Motion" (see Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Motion" ). [And there is even a question about "gravity" since there was no matter and no space-time fabric yet.]

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

(COMMENT)

No, we simply hold to the theory. Something happened 13.8 Billion years ago, that we can only hypothesize. We assume it was a dark release. This dark release (radiation) was pressured by something, we are not sure, but there was no light (photons) in the Plank Epoch.

Do you really want to get into a science discussion where you will be arguing against science?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure were you derived this. We are not sure about the shape of the Universe. We are not sure if the rapid release radiated in a certain direction, or if the release was omnidirectional. Is there a void at the point of origin shaping the Univers like a donut? IF not, THEN does that not imply that matter is still being created?

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

Most Respectfully,
R

But I do want to get into it because entropy can be described a number of different ways. One way is disorder but this seems vague to me. Another way to describe it is that there are no perfectly efficient energy to mass or mass to energy transfers. Do you understand what this means for the fate of an infinite acting universe?

It means that as time approaches infinity all objects will equilibrate. So we know from the SLoT that the universe had a beginning.

We also know - for the same reason - that matter and energy cannot be an eternal source for creating universes.

Which leaves us knowing that the universe was created from nothing.

That energy materialized out of thin air so to speak.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm sure all you atheists walk in lock step, don't you?

You're very confused. Atheists don't share any commonality, save for not believing in any magical gods. Yours is not special. In fact, it's the opposite...just another childish myth.

Furthermore, the best thing about being an atheist is not wasting time on communal delusions and gatherings dedicated to them. Keep your magical dogma in your pocket, and you wouldn't even know someone was an atheist.

You guys totally crack me up. You don't believe in God and I do.
The atheists commonality is they don't believe in God.
The Christians commonality is they do.

Aren't we all so special though. lol

It used to be fun arguing the existence of god till one day a group swore he visited and gave them rules. One main rule is believe in me or die. and don’t believe in any other gods.

Nope, He didn't visit to give us rules. He died on the Cross to pay for the sins of the world. Those who reject Him are refusing that gift. Pretty simple really.

No it’s not. What you just said requires more questions than gives answers. Do you not get that?

He died on a cross? who did? For me? What gift? So I’m a god who will live forever if I just believe?

Honestly, big deal he died on a cross for me. He’s a god. What a show off. And the amount of suffering since he died on the cross makes dying on a cross seem like a stroll in the park.

An atheist blog spot. I'm so impressed with your research.

Haha..now this is irony. You don't seem too impressed with the research of the entire global scientific community, either. But reading a creationist blog full of laughable lies? Now THAT'S impressive!

The entire global scientific community is not refuting the Bible. You atheists are.

Not the entire scientific community just most of it.

So Hindu, muslims, jews, atheists, Buddhist and most scientists don't believe the virgin birth story.

Hindi, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and many atheists do believe Jesus actually existed. However, there is no safety in numbers if one doesn't have the Messiah on his side.

They don't deny he existed. Based on the information we have, I don't deny Jesus existed either. I have my doubts but I can't say a guy named Jesus wasn't born 2020 years ago.

But, no one who ever met Jesus ever wrote about him. If they did, none of their writings still exist today. We have people who heard about him write about him 10 or 100 years later but that's hearsay.

Plus, Muslim and Hindu don't want you guys to kill or attack them or discriminate against them because we all know how you christians can be if someone "attacks" your messiah so many of them just tell you that they believe he existed and he was a prophet.

And remember, they can't call bullshit on your story the way we do because they have their own bullshit stories. Imagine if Jews attacked your silly fairytale. They'd be calling bullshit on their own story. And just like you, they are waiting for a messiah to visit. He just hasn't yet, according to them.

So think about that. The people Jesus lived with were jews who were also told the messiah is coming but they say he hasn't come yet. They say the Jesus myth didn't happen, but you base your entire life on this myth because you were born into this bullshit? You sound just like a Muslim talking about Mohammad. Dumb.

Yes, you have many questions. Those questions have answers. The answers are right there in the Bible, but one has to understand the plot of the Bible. When Jesus came, He came to the lost sheep of Israel, just as the Prophets predicted. The Jews rejected Him, because they were expecting a conquering king, which was predicted, instead of a suffering servant, which was also predicted. They didn't understand that He came first as a suffering servant -- to die and then raise from the dead. When He returns as a conquering King, the Jews will finally realize their mistake.

Yes, too much information for this thread, I know. But that's basically the difference between Jews and Gentiles (non Jews). When Jesus was rejected by Jewish leaders, and crucified, He turned to the Gentiles, and they were offered the free gift of salvation. They didn't have to earn their salvation by keeping the Law, but could rest and trust in Jesus' work on the cross. His payment for sins. It's actually a beautiful plan.

I do know the story. Don’t talk down to me. And the more answers you give, the more questions come.

Because the answers can’t be in the Bible. First we are calling bs on the things said in that book.

and the things you can’t explain scientifically are the reason Christianity can’t even be categ as a scientific theory of fact.

Yes its a scientific theory that Jesus of Nazareth existed but no theory that his mom was a virgin or that he rose from the dead.

you want us to buy into your story but it’s too flawed. And you want to have faith that stuff is real? Sorry, our minds don’t work that way. It’s not evil to have common sense.

If there were a god he would reward our intelligence

GOD does reward intelligence by bestowing it (remember Solomon); however, intelligence isn't founded on secular values alone. Those that believe such are excluding the very GOD they maybe expecting a reward from...

 

[LittleNipper]

You are NOT open minded you are dogmatic at claiming guesses are facts.

What dogma?

I didn't claim guesses were facts, ya shameless little liar.

I don't have absolute faith in science. That's just you being a whiny baby and trying to drag down honorable evidence based thinking into the shitty muck where your magical faith resides...since that's the only way you could ever get them on the same level...

Scence is nothing more then guess and then assumptions. Very few things science claims are proven yet YOU BELIEVE with out facts, just admit it you lying loser.

Science says challenge anything that doesn’t make sense. This is why Islam squashed science when it took over that part of the world.

christianity still fights science today for its reasons. Not as bad as Islam but still.

All we believe is your religions are all lies. Not just all the others except yours. Yours too.

We miss the days before Moses said he met and talked to god. Then it was fun debating the existence of god. I’m even open minded to the idea. But don’t come to us with those holy books

Biblical Christianity doesn't fight against true science or true in-depth scientific methodology. Biblical Christianity challenges the SECULAR notion that SECULAR opinion is more valuable than spiritual reflection, and any attempt to eliminate its influence and consideration at all cost.

One thing about the Bible is that it is a prophetic book, unlike most other religious literature. All one needs to do is put its revelations to the test. However, one MUST study the Bible to consider its validity in that regard.

 

[sealybobo]

You are NOT open minded you are dogmatic at claiming guesses are facts.

What dogma?

I didn't claim guesses were facts, ya shameless little liar.

I don't have absolute faith in science. That's just you being a whiny baby and trying to drag down honorable evidence based thinking into the shitty muck where your magical faith resides...since that's the only way you could ever get them on the same level...

Scence is nothing more then guess and then assumptions. Very few things science claims are proven yet YOU BELIEVE with out facts, just admit it you lying loser.

Science says challenge anything that doesn’t make sense. This is why Islam squashed science when it took over that part of the world.

christianity still fights science today for its reasons. Not as bad as Islam but still.

All we believe is your religions are all lies. Not just all the others except yours. Yours too.

We miss the days before Moses said he met and talked to god. Then it was fun debating the existence of god. I’m even open minded to the idea. But don’t come to us with those holy books

Biblical Christianity doesn't fight against true science or true in-depth scientific methodology. Biblical Christianity challenges the SECULAR notion that SECULAR opinion is more valuable than spiritual reflection, and any attempt to eliminate its influence and consideration at all cost.

One thing about the Bible is that it is a prophetic book, unlike most other religious literature. All one needs to do is put its revelations to the test. However, one MUST study the Bible to consider its validity in that regard.

Unlike MOST other religious literature? Can you name one other holy book that is prophetic? If not then you meant to say is unlike all other religous literature.

No surprise you find your holy book to be the best one. Muslims and mormons do that too.

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Science evolves (obviously over time). These evolutionary changes gradually alter our perception of the universe.

We do know the universe was created from nothing. Do you even thermodynamics?

(COMMENT)

Yes, I think I have a reasonable grasp of thermodynamics and entropy. But there is much more going on in this concept of the Big Bang (the theory that a near instantaneous expansion even occurred). And in contemporary cosmology - the difference between the SHOES (Supernovae) measurements in the search for Hubble constant and that of the (Plank methodology) in the calculations of the Hubble constant have cause some very important controversies among cosmologist. And no, I don't want to get into that minefield; besides, it takes us farther away from the issue of "[E]vidence for God's existence."

Now I say that knowing the exception of the subatomic ball (the energy in the Plank Epoch that formed the first particles) of the singularity (see BreezeWood supra Post) and the heat (energy) 'vs' unified (super) force (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravity) balance prior to expansion is important. Now that could generate the question on the source of the initial energy and the subatomic element that eventually formed into Quarks, Leptons and Bosons. That source - could be - "[E]vidence for God's existence." This observation is sometimes referred to as the "Theory of First Motion" (see Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Motion" ). [And there is even a question about "gravity" since there was no matter and no space-time fabric yet.]

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.

(COMMENT)

No, we simply hold to the theory. Something happened 13.8 Billion years ago, that we can only hypothesize. We assume it was a dark release. This dark release (radiation) was pressured by something, we are not sure, but there was no light (photons) in the Plank Epoch.

Do you really want to get into a science discussion where you will be arguing against science?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure were you derived this. We are not sure about the shape of the Universe. We are not sure if the rapid release radiated in a certain direction, or if the release was omnidirectional. Is there a void at the point of origin shaping the Univers like a donut? IF not, THEN does that not imply that matter is still being created?

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

Most Respectfully,
R

But I do want to get into it because entropy can be described a number of different ways. One way is disorder but this seems vague to me. Another way to describe it is that there are no perfectly efficient energy to mass or mass to energy transfers. Do you understand what this means for the fate of an infinite acting universe?

It means that as time approaches infinity all objects will equilibrate. So we know from the SLoT that the universe had a beginning.

We also know - for the same reason - that matter and energy cannot be an eternal source for creating universes.

Which leaves us knowing that the universe was created from nothing.

That energy materialized out of thin air so to speak.

Another way to describe it is that there are no perfectly efficient energy to mass or mass to energy transfers. Do you understand what this means for the fate of an infinite acting universe?

.
your dismissal is in fact the proof for a cyclical event, equally reflective occurrences ... moment of singularity.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
why be the elephant in the room ...