Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2008, 04:35 PM
 
Location: A Pirate Ship.
93 posts, read 182,823 times
Reputation: 32

Advertisements

Stole my thunder coosjoa...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2008, 05:50 PM
 
655 posts, read 918,784 times
Reputation: 240
Accept if folks, God had a hand in it all. It is the only true explanation. All scientists say there was no time, no mass before the big bang, so therefore we don't have to explain pre-big bang, they ask us to just believe and have faith. But just believe and have faith in what? I say in God. This does not mean you have to be some sort of bible thumper, get it? But you should recognize that at the beginnings of the universe matter and time were started by intelligent force. There is no other viable explanation to it all.

I believe we are part of the universe, God, time, energy, mass, creation, "black matter (God particles) all that is, are all part of God, created by God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2008, 07:22 PM
 
2,630 posts, read 4,944,986 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
Accept if folks, God had a hand in it all.
Kinda hard seeing she aint real

Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
It is the only true explanation.
Correction, it is the only explanation acceptable to you

Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
All scientists say there was no time, no mass before the big bang, so therefore we don't have to explain pre-big bang
now this isn't true, scientists didn't just go one day "lets make some concept up to explain the big bang" Einstein came up with his theories of relativity in 1905 and 1915 respectivelly while it wasn't until 1927 that a catholic priest called George Lemaître put all the evidence together and came up with the theory of the big bang

Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
they ask us to just believe and have faith.
nope, they just ask people to do their own research before making these claims

Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
But just believe and have faith in what? I say in God. This does not mean you have to be some sort of bible thumper, get it?
Well duh! In order not to have some logical massacre we can't assume its the christian god that did this. Heck why would a deity do this? could be some supernatural robot in a production factory making small universes to sell in extra-galactic souvernir shops. It could be that a million deities are at a party and one of them is inflating the universe like a ballon to see if it pops. To us its been 15 billion years but to them its been 15 seconds

Or it could be that its nothing of the sort in which case ill keep my skepticism thank you

Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
But you should recognize that at the beginnings of the universe matter and time were started by intelligent force. There is no other viable explanation to it all.
I wont because nothing that we see in the universe points to intelligent force having a hand in it. Perhaps if you could show me something instead of giving me an argument from incredulity


Quote:
Originally Posted by travelmate38 View Post
I believe we are part of the universe, God, time, energy, mass, creation, "black matter (God particles) all that is, are all part of God, created by God.
And what made god? Cause if she has always been then i'll say the same about the universe which might turn out to be cyclic thus not having a begining or an end
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2008, 07:24 PM
 
2,630 posts, read 4,944,986 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panda god View Post
Stole my thunder coosjoa...
hehe sorry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2008, 08:42 PM
 
Location: A Pirate Ship.
93 posts, read 182,823 times
Reputation: 32
Tis quite fine! I enjoy reading one's post on science when it is knowledgeable. Gets quite redundant explaining it time and time again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2010, 12:35 PM
 
1 posts, read 1,045 times
Reputation: 10
Default I'm Just going to post this real fast.

I'm keeping no track on the above posts, I just wanted to put this somewhere.

Basic stuff

Non-Existence = nullity
Existence is the opposite of not existence...
Therefore Existence = wholeness
Perfection =
"1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
3. which has attained its purpose." -quote from Aristotles book Delta of the Metaphysics.
The first definition is the one I'm talking about.
Existence = Perfection

God is real?

God in christianity is described as being omnipotent, omnipresent and omnipowerful.
This definition of God fills out all of the definitions of perfection.
We can reassuringly now say that Christianty is speaking of a god that is Existence itself.

Existence is real therefore God is real.
If existence is perfect, does it reach perfection by also having the highest order of mindset? Is Existence a person?

Other point.
If I point to a desk and tell someone that it does not exist, they'd probably think I'm crazy.
The desk is right in front of them and they can see it clearly.
Contrary to what that person believes about the desks existence, it does not exist.
Since the universe does not constitute the desk, it does not exist because existence = wholeness and entirety or, the universe.
Note: the universe should not be confused with the cosmos!

Other Note:I probably didn't prove much though, there may be flaws in my thinking.

Other Other Note: First post in about 2 years?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2010, 02:40 PM
 
63,977 posts, read 40,253,710 times
Reputation: 7891
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin View Post
now this isn't true, scientists didn't just go one day "lets make some concept up to explain the big bang" Einstein came up with his theories of relativity in 1905 and 1915 respectivelly while it wasn't until 1927 that a catholic priest called George Lemaître put all the evidence together and came up with the theory of the big bang.
Actually Sir Fred Hoyle coined the term Big Bang in mockery of it. His Steady State (or Continuous Creation) theory preceded the Big Bang and mathematically explained it perfectly . . . as long as one could accept that it is continuously being created . . . a concept that is anathema to materialist scientists. Hence the various inflation, expansion/contraction, dark energy/dark matter attempts to reconcile their "finite" universe preferences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 11:05 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,943 posts, read 6,082,278 times
Reputation: 1359
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Actually Sir Fred Hoyle coined the term Big Bang in mockery of it. His Steady State (or Continuous Creation) theory preceded the Big Bang and mathematically explained it perfectly . . . as long as one could accept that it is continuously being created . . . a concept that is anathema to materialist scientists. Hence the various inflation, expansion/contraction, dark energy/dark matter attempts to reconcile their "finite" universe preferences.
Science will not accept the inconceivable, and inapplicable. Hoyle's Steady State theory would actually point to "continuous manifestation" which would explain almost nothing (panentheism), bringing up more questions than answers. Lemaitre's Theory of Universal expansion (Big Bang Theory) from a timeless singularity (pantheism), explains things with more ease and less assumption. Continuous manifestation would destroy the 1st axiom of thermodynamics and doesn't have evidence (where is this "manifestation" happening?), while universal expansion would not (expansion is observable). That is why science is what it is today. Steven Hawking's current hypothesis about time/energy manifestation as an explanation for the existence of the ancient universal singularity is a bit less contradictory of the 1st law and agrees more with quantum observations, as well as the second axiom of thermodynamics.

*as a note, I know nothing first hand about Hoyle's or Lemaitre's or Hawking's papers... nor do I know anything about the history of universal explanations. What I put forth are my conjectures on their theories from what was posted previously and the implications I see stemming from those conjectures, which may only be my own...as I do not wish to ardently misrepresent their hypothesis.

Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-05-2011 at 11:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 11:31 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,943 posts, read 6,082,278 times
Reputation: 1359
Quote:
Originally Posted by chambana View Post
Personally I can't see that...Big Bang...then time? There may have been an infinte # of big bangs in myriad universes resulting in untold # of beings/events.

What science knows of space and consciousness is next to nothing.
possibilities are endless
Actually, it would be more like "equations, equations... then time... then Universal expansion..." (A.k.a Big Bang.) I think. Just because religions pretend to know things doesn't mean they actually explain anything, they usually use red-herrings. What religions know about space and consciousness is actually nothing... they usually don't even bother to think about it...

and if there was a person who "knew" more about space and consciousness than science he should present such information immediately, if at least philosophically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 11:35 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,943 posts, read 6,082,278 times
Reputation: 1359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakback View Post
Hard to imagine, but not difficult to believe.
how can one believe something he can't imagine (picture in his mind)? One could pretend to believe, that would be easy, yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top