Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And where did the material for the big bang come from?
Things get weird around singularities. Your question presupposes a "before" the Big Bang. As far as we can tell, the question is meaningless - like asking what's North of the North Pole. The math breaks down.
Things get weird around singularities. Your question presupposes a "before" the Big Bang. As far as we can tell, the question is meaningless - like asking what's North of the North Pole. The math breaks down.
It really is rather like that. No doubt this seems a perfectly reasonable and unanswerable (1) question but it is beginning to look rather like those who argued that the world couldn't be round otherwise those on the 'underneath' would fall off. It was outside their comprehension that up and down is meaningless in cosmic terms and so 'where did...' is also looking more and more like a lack of comprehension than a valid question.
And the gaps for God close even more.
(1) other than I don't know and neither do the theists, but I admit I don't know, and theists say they do.
(1) other than I don't know and neither do the theists, but I admit I don't know, and theists say they do.
Nonsense! You do not admit you don't know . . . you posit and accept an alternate Creator of life and intelligence . . . that is neither alive nor intelligent . . . as the basis for your usurpation of all existing evidence as evidence for your posited "Non-God" Creator. Perhaps you can provide support for that preposterous claim?
tiget, i gave it my best shot because it looks like i will be on this stuff for awhile and i didn't want to make you wait forever. let me know if there's anything i missed.
isn't attaching oneself to christianity already exercising some degree of dogmatic entanglement? the second you identify with one holy text in particular (in this case the bible) you're already committing yourself to one side of the argument. now if you say any genuine person honestly seeking truth, that makes more sense, because that person has yet to attach themselves to the notion of christianity.
i don't attach myself to any religion in particular, but i also don't attach myself to atheism. i think that's the only position one can be in to truly, without bias, examine all possibilities.
Please reread Post #82 where you concede that it's possible for those committed to a world view to remain open minded.
IMO dogmatism would be a refusal to entertain opposing arguments. Where have I demonstrated such reluctance?
You know, you're really approaching thin ice with respect to a demonstrated lack of intellectual honesty.
Fortunately for you, I don't have time to respond to the remainder of your post right now. Judging from my initial quick scan, I see nothing at all earth shattering about any of your assertions.
i don't see how it's dishonest. it's a matter of degree. notice how i said 'some degree' of dogmatic entanglement. someone who commits themselves entirely to christianity isn't the same as someone who believes christianity is likely the right answer, or who practices christianity because they figure if they're right they have everything to gain (please god, ticket to heaven) and if they're wrong they have nothing to lose (no god to offend, no heaven or hell to begin with). anyone who calls themselves christian is at least somewhat entangled in dogma but not necessarily completely. some christians do leave some room for other possibilities, such as those who believe in god and the bible to play it safe but don't declare they know it for sure. so yes i think it's possible for an individual to be somewhat attached yet still have room to be somewhat open-minded. the world is not black and white.
... or who practices christianity because they figure if they're right they have everything to gain (please god, ticket to heaven) and if they're wrong they have nothing to lose (no god to offend, no heaven or hell to begin with).
Except that the worship of a man, Jesus of Nazareth, violates the prohibition against false worship (idolatry).
Nonsense! You do not admit you don't know . . . you posit and accept an alternate Creator of life and intelligence . . . that is neither alive nor intelligent . . . as the basis for your usurpation of all existing evidence as evidence for your posited "Non-God" Creator. Perhaps you can provide support for that preposterous claim?
You're so predictably and tediously closed-minded. Yes, we're laughing AT you, not with you.
Things get weird around singularities. Your question presupposes a "before" the Big Bang. As far as we can tell, the question is meaningless - like asking what's North of the North Pole. The math breaks down.
Is the question meaningless, because it is a rational question? To believe that the entire universe came from nothing, is what some would have us believe in. Kind of like the easter bunny. Yet, this is a perfect example of the kind of voodoo science that some would have us accept. And this is nothing like what is north of the north pole. It is more like a belief, that the north pole just appeared out of nothing. The math only breaks down, if you believe in magic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
