Perhaps we should do that instead of making open and general statements that offer no benefits to the discussion, because that makes us look like we're spamming.
Precisely. You say God has been here forever. I say matter has been here forever. 1. Nothing made matter. The thing is that saying a being was here before matter does not fit in with the rest of the universe. 2. God would chose to create the universe. Matter cannot think, decide, or wait. Therefore, that question does not make since. It would be like asking a chair why it does not move. There is no answer because matter cannot recall past events or communicate. A god could.
Well that's it. I thought this was gonna be a good go this time but you just had to go and ruin it with your childish obsession with unicorns. Next we'll be talking about My Little Pony. Bye-Bye and to everyone else if you didn't like the god thread stay the **** out of here because it's populated by the same idiot. P.S. lol I might come back if one of you says what I think you'll say. But only to laugh.
Shrodinger's cat? There is a minor flaw in your statement. To sum it up, it must be a conscious observer, not just any.
Loyals can like their own threads but it does not give them the right to tout. Isn't the big bang a creation story? It has yet to be proven, but wait!!! You believe in it... Perfection has no "Real" Definition, my idea of a perfect artist might be diffrent from yours. This could be the perfect universe, or maybe it's not. Who made God? Hmm, let me go ask him when I die! If God has been here for ever, there has been an infinite amount of time since God exists to the creation of the earth; why would God wait so long? There could have been universes before ours maybe he already made millions of universes. That's a large number of time...
The Big Bang Theory has a lot of evidence supporting it, such as the rapid expansion of the universe, the black-body curve of cosmic background microwave radiation dissipated throughout the universe, the distribution of galaxies throughout the universe, etc. The God-Theory is that God created the universe. Because the Bible says so. The BBT is only an educated guess of what might be true, but so is Riemann's Hypothesis. And you know what? They're fast at being challenged. There are different scientific theories on the origin of the universe, and people are trying to both prove and disprove each theory. But this constant questioning helps us get closer to the truth to what actually happened.
Well the Big Bang Theory may have been true, but matter is a thing not a someone, And matter could have not existed because it can't just form out of no-where, And if the Big Bang Theory is true someone had to make the explosion. So therefore there must be a God.
Nope. I believe that the universe is eternal, constantly expanding and compressing then expanding again (the BBT applies to the beginning expansion) without a divine force. I just gave you another theory on the origin of the universe, prove me wrong, or prove that a divine being is a more likely theory than mine.
well as im no religeous, who created god, he coudnt create himself because how could he if he didnt exist on the time that he created himself, same with the big bang, evean though it could of been a universe collapsing on itself
first part: its tough to just classify the bible as right or wrong. the bible contains many different aspects, morals, lessons, and stories. some are obviously metaphorical. second part: it could. thats the most convienent part about religion
Still a theory, so people believe that we could be robots being watched by advanced life forms who are watching us on a different world. It just sounds convincing and true. Key Word: Convincing. Seriously just because something makes sense does not make it true. I can make it sound like we are all robots and provide theories on why this could be true, does it make it true? No it does not. Do you believe that the entire bible is fictional or metaphorical? I also find it ironic and very convenient how humans are one slab away from finding out there tree of evolution. But they can't, isn't it weird how we found almost every other animal besides are own.
More evidence for the Big Bang than you could ever possibly need. The big bang is fact. We may have no damn clue what caused the big bang to happen, but we definitely know it did.
People can believe whatever the hell they want to believe. You think that aliens are monitoring us for some science experiment? Go for it. You think that people will go to some ethereal spirit world after they are deceased? Be my guest. You think that Bigfoot is real? Knock yourself out. But for them to be true, they need to be tested. When they are, can they be completely disproven? If so, then they are invalidated. Gravity is a theory. The idea that germs cause diseases is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Global warming, the atomic model, general relativity, pretty much all of Newton's laws, the idea that temperature is decided by how fast particles are moving; those are all theories. Are they all untrue? Yes, they are theories. But they have something to subsist them. We can see in the world things that gave scientists the idea that these are the truest things. And to back it up, they tested them to make sure that they were. The weaker theories were discarded, forgotten; the best theories that stood up against test after test throughout time remain, still waiting to be tested. Interlaced with this is the very reason why I find it hard to accept religion to be the accurate one. Religion too is a theory. But how can one test this theory? They can't. Religion is too subversive in that it can bend and manipulate itself to fit against any argument that is true. If there are any weaknesses in it, they remain unpatched, because the faith demands itself to stay 'pure' and 'unchanged'. I don't really understand what you were saying; I'm guessing that you meant that humans have found the genealogical evolutionary trees for every species except for humans. That would be very ironic and convenient if that was true...but it's not. And I think you know that, so that's why I don't think you clarified it enough.
Maybe, you should try using a source that is more readable. I doubt you even read all of that. Tested? How the hell do you test gravity? An apple falls to the ground, how do you know that's not just a programming. Maybe Gravity does not exist? All theories are not tested, how do you test the big bang? Observations? Anyone can make an observation and assume. They are not 100% true, although chances are they are true. This just means that God can very much be true. Turning a blind eye on this theory is foolish. Evolution: Theory, Fact? I can look claim that evolution is not true and that most species of animals ironically have the same skeletal frame. Still a theory, still has flaws! How do we test gravity? How can we go against gravity? Stop looking at the bible as a non-fictional story and look at it as a metaphorical piece of context.
It doesn't matter does it? What argument I give. How much effort I put into it. How much time I waste in order to better the use of yours. How many times have I told creationists in the god debate that theories are not "just theories." How many times have I said that science isn't interested in truth? How many times have I said that science isn't out to convince but to discover? How many times have I displayed in these god debates how humans evolved from apes, who evolved from monkeys, who evolved from simpler basal mammals, who evolved from mammal-like reptiles, who evolved from reptiles from fish from chordates, from the domain of Eukaryotas. I'll give you a hint: 5 posts (plus 2 blogs), countless times, at least 12 posts (not exact verbiage), 20+ posts (5 in the god debate, 11 in the evolution debate, 4 in the "Is God the Devil" debate) (1 blog specifically dealing with primate evolution). -Respectively. What do you want me to do? You obviously don't want a response because I've already given it 3 fold. What would it take to get you to read my arguments, understand them or at least remember them for when you formulated your argument again you would learn from your mistakes.
This isn't an appropriate response. If it continues, from anyone in this thread, then it might well cause me to develop an interest in moderating here quite heavily. People coming into this board have a right to civilised and intelligent discussion - this delivers neither. Don't think that just because the debates section is largely left alone by the mods that you can get away with lowering your intellectual standards and attempt to engage in cheap point scoring. The video below may be of interest to you, regarding your apparent stance towards empiricism in general. In addition, the first sentence in your final paragraph I've quoted here is a contradiction. Since truth is an absolute, asserting that something is 'not 100% true' is at best a poor choice of words. Continuing by conceding that these assertions are likely to be correct is inconsistent with a definitive statement of partial truth. Finally, your second statement implies an ontological argument, which is fallacious. YouTube - The faith cake
FYI, the theory is not that apples fall to the ground, but that all matter is attracted to each other.
I think Nitrous brings up an interesting point, science is a tool of discovery. So far, as I have known, it can not determine morality or why the universe is here. Science can, however, determine the how. If you've ever seen the show 'How things work' (I believe that is its namesake) you're watching science in reverse, so to speak. On the show viewers watch how different everyday objects are made. This is in reverse though. If we look at a cell, for instance, we try and figure out how it works. Not unlike figuring out how an engine runs. Of course the difference between them, besides the obvious, is that in one instance the engine is the problem of 'how to make a car run' and the cell is the solution and we're figuring it out backwards. In this sense science is not too much unlike an equation. If we're looking for a solution, that's technology, if we've got the solution, then we're looking for the problem. Anyways, all of this is to say that the science behind engines and evolution are no different in their aims of discovering the how. I, will concede, that the argument of 'theories' is stupid. In fact its quite ridiculous and ignores the point of the whole debate, which is not the qualifier theory, but evolution. Comparing 'Laws' to 'Theories' won't debunk either in any case. Each apple must be analyzed on its own merit, not compared to an orange. Now on to this whole beginning business. In short, no one can know, because no one was there to record what happened. I believe the real business of what people do and don't accept comes through an examination of human nature. So, I propose a discussion of human nature. Of course, it could only amount to intelligent speculation, but I don think some good points could be made.