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.
You are not following what I have said. Let's stay with god vs the big bang.
-On one side we have no evidence of god's existence but it's surrounded by all sort of myths. (I'll insert the definition of myth again because many times it is used interchangeably with meaning a false notion) Myth: an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts.
-On the other side you have a series of theories which are supposed to prove that the universe was created out ofnothing; known as the big bang.
You don't see the irony? God created the universe is considered myth, but the universe created out of nothing is considered scientific fact. Only materialists beliefs are considered valid. But beliefs they are.
That should be very simple for even a child to understand, it is astonishing I have to explain it. I am not going to go into evolution as that is a lot more complicated. Let's just say you think it is well founded, I said it is not at all.
When scientists talk about the Big Bang, they are not saying that the universe was created out of nothing. I've never heard it called a scientific fact, either.
Again, what does that have to do with whether God exists?
When scientists talk about the Big Bang, they are not saying that the universe was created out of nothing. I've never heard it called a scientific fact, either.
Again, what does that have to do with whether God exists?
That is exactly what they are saying:
Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.
To this day it is the most accepted theory and it is taught to children as the beginning of the universe all over the world.
I have already explained the relation between god and scientific theories. I'll say it in yet a different way, maybe this time you'll caught it.
-People have based their beliefs in god for millennia of tradition.
-New theories are based on materialistic observations.
By definition god is spiritual so there can't be materialistic evidence of it and yet people continue to ask for it. Our life consists to a large degree of intangible, imperceptible 'activity' [one of which we call god]. On the other side, the materialist 'evidence' that apparently support their own theories fall apart under careful examination.
I am not trying to prove god exists. I am saying if materialists can have their own set of beliefs [which happen to be either one-sided or plain wrong], then there shouldn't a problem people have their set of beliefs [at least these one have overstood the test of time, they just chance in name]. Unlike most theories which are discarded every few years.
You are not following what I have said. Let's stay with god vs the big bang.
-On one side we have no evidence of god's existence but it's surrounded by all sort of myths. (I'll insert the definition of myth again because many times it is used interchangeably with meaning a false notion) Myth: an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts.
-On the other side you have a series of theories which are supposed to prove that the universe was created out ofnothing; known as the big bang.
You don't see the irony? God created the universe is considered myth, but the universe created out of nothing is considered scientific fact. Only materialists beliefs are considered valid. But beliefs they are.
That should be very simple for even a child to understand, it is astonishing I have to explain it. I am not going to go into evolution as that is a lot more complicated. Let's just say you think it is well founded, I said it is not at all.
no, it really is not at all the way its done.
It goes more like this.
"how do sediments settle on the ocean floor?"
:How long until it is 30 feet deep?"
"how long before it is crushed in to rock?"
"is the lowest layer older or younger than the upper layer?"
"If you see only single cells in the lower what does that mean?"
"If you see multi celler life above it, what do you think that means?"
"if we see the lower layers with only single cells and the upper layers getting more complex as we move towrads the top, what does that mean?"
do you see the difference?
Its all based on what people know and understand. No "you need to have faith.'
would you like for me to explain how the questions lead to a big bang and we can compare that to how literal bible believers say their story went?
"how do sediments settle on the ocean floor?"
:How long until it is 30 feet deep?"
"how long before it is crushed in to rock?"
"is the lowest layer older or younger than the upper layer?"
"If you see only single cells in the lower what does that mean?"
"If you see multi celler life above it, what do you think that means?"
"if we see the lower layers with only single cells and the upper layers getting more complex as we move towrads the top, what does that mean?"
do you see the difference?
Its all based on what people know and understand. No "you need to have faith.'
would you like for me to explain how the questions lead to a big bang and we can compare that to how literal bible believers say their story went?
would ya? because I am in.
No need for that, I have said myself the bible is mainly mythological. That is how people wrote in the past. It doesn't prove god doesn't exist. Go over my comments again to understand what I'm saying. But I have sympathy for people who interpret the bible literally, when I was a child that is how it was taught to me. Nevertheless, scientifically oriented people's views on god are as good as blind people talking about colors.
No need for that, I have said myself the bible is mainly mythological. That is how people wrote in the past. It doesn't prove god doesn't exist. Go over my comments again to understand what I'm saying. But I have sympathy for people who interpret the bible literally, when I was a child that is how it was taught to me. Nevertheless, scientifically oriented people's views on god are as good as blind people talking about colors.
Calling the bible largely mythical, yet thinking a god-thing created the universe(s), and disbelieving science, results in me considering you as confused.
Calling the bible largely mythical, yet thinking a god-thing created the universe(s), and disbelieving science, results in me considering you as confused.
I tried and tried to see what connection there is between the Big Bang and whether a person believes God exists, but so far, all I've seen is an attempt to explain the Big Bang. I still see no correlation with the existence of God.
No need for that, I have said myself the bible is mainly mythological. That is how people wrote in the past. It doesn't prove god doesn't exist. Go over my comments again to understand what I'm saying. But I have sympathy for people who interpret the bible literally, when I was a child that is how it was taught to me. Nevertheless, scientifically oriented people's views on god are as good as blind people talking about colors.
You have no idea that "believers in something" out number deniers of everything do you? believers in something will always outnumber deniers of everything because science confirms what people with 1/2 a brain know already.
the big bang and evolution do not prove or disprove the existence of god. We merely say "if there is a god it looks like they did it "this way".
I tried and tried to see what connection there is between the Big Bang and whether a person believes God exists, but so far, all I've seen is an attempt to explain the Big Bang. I still see no correlation with the existence of God.
May I suggest you Google "what does the big bang have to do with believing in god". Lots of good articles there.
May I suggest you Google "what does the big bang have to do with believing in god". Lots of good articles there.
Yes, quite a few. But there does seem to be a lot of confusion about the Big Bang by theists, which is odd, as they have provided the answer themselves - what came before it? The concentration of compressed 'Potential' had to have amassed out of something, so where that came from is the Question of cosmic origins and not the Big Bang.
Whether one regards it as conflicting with any Holy Book or not is another matter, and perhaps is what really matters. Postulating a Creator doesn't justify the leap of Faith to Jesus or to any other religious figure.
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.
But there does seem to be a lot of confusion about the Big Bang by theists, which is odd, as they have provided the answer themselves - what came before it? The concentration of compressed 'Potential' had to have amassed out of something, so where that came from is the Question of cosmic origins and not the Big Bang. 
