Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 104

Thread: The Big Bang Theory and God

  1. #41
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, July 2nd, 2004 @ 11:58 AM
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Location
    Serbia
    Gender
    Politics
    neutral
    Religion
    atheist
    Posts
    4
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Stríbog
    LOL

    God in the Semitic sense cannot be proven or disproven. Asking people to prove God does not exist is asking them to prove a negative. The evidence is not on the side of Christians, though. There is little or no evidence for the Christian-Jewish God.

    The definition of God is however highly subjective. Are we referring to the Aristotelian prime mover? Are we talking about Leibniz and all the garbage about perfection, monadology and the best of all possible Universes? Or what? Plato's cave metaphor and Leibniz' perfectionism are misguided and irrelevant because nothing is static and furthermore perfection is an entirely subjective definition.

    I respect Loki admitting that he was a Christian and came to his senses, as I did the same thing myself a few years ago. There is little or nothing of moral value in the Bible. It does however at least serve as a record, and in some cases an exposé, of Jewish behavior.

    I believe there are forces that are beyond current human comprehension, and I believe in what some would call the 'occult' or 'paranormal' and I am inclined to believe in a human soul but there is no reason to believe in God(s) as a corollary. Buddhism is a good example of a complete spiritual theory without any need for God(s). I assume that you operate under the assumption that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Such a God cannot exist. There is evil and suffering in the world and always has been. God supposedly created the world. Therefore God created evil and suffering. Even if mankind "sinned" to create this, God necessarily created man knowing that man would sin, since God is omnipotent and omniscient. God willingly created a flawed man who had no control over his own nature, watched him sin, and then punished him. Furthermore, people who have done little or nothing wrong often suffer greatly while evil, corrupt and tyrannical men thrive. God allows the suffering and inequity to continue. If God were all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, he would stop the suffering, create a perfect universe, etc. Either God (a) is all-good but not all-powerful and thus can do nothing and is not the primary force in the universe (and thus not "God" by popular definition, (b) is all-powerful but not all-good, i.e. a cruel and sick tyrant reminiscent of a Jonathan Edwards sermon, or (c) does not exist at all.
    I entertain the possibility of (a) but the preponderance of evidence and cosmological probabilities suggest (c) to an open mind.

    Therefore the traditional Christian God cannot exist QVOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDVM
    Your reasoning is sound, but consider this. If God would have made us all good, and made all things in the world wonderful, what then? If there werent any bad people and awfull things that could happen to you, you would just walk through life with out having to think at all. If anything bad couldnt happen to you, what is the point of worrying or doing something with your life. You just live and know you'll be O.K. So, my problem isnt that he created evil, but how can he have a heart to watch us suffer?

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, November 4th, 2004 @ 10:18 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Location
    U.S.
    Gender
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    none
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    79
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    how is Holoucaust a myth

  3. #43
    Senior Member Boerncian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Friday, November 11th, 2005 @ 01:44 AM
    Subrace
    Brunn Neo Danubian
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Confederate States of Shambala
    Gender
    Occupation
    writer/part time berserker
    Politics
    libertarian
    Religion
    Zennist
    Posts
    43
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    I do not adhere to the Big bang theory, there are several reasons, it has not been proven that universe is finite, dark matter has never been found, and the origional basis for was Einstein's calculations during an eclipse which may have been faulty. There are many theories that were believed to be mathematically proven until some phenomenon or observation came up that made the theory fail. Once the scientific community invests a certain amount of energy into a theory it's simply isn't going to abandon that, or even take a look at other alternatives. The issue of dark matter alone is enough to give one huge doubts, and the patchwork of theories to explain the failing in the theories really is Baroque and bizarre. Scientific community is extraordinarily close minded, funding is all that is important. If someone threatened that in any way they will be burned as a heretic.

    As for Christianity it is so ilogical as to be absurd. To be a Christian unless you're a mystical Christian requires it to abandon all critical thinking and believe in the absurd. In fact an early Christian theologian Tertullian once said I believe because it is absurd.

    Most of the myths of Genesis you can find in earlier writings of the Assyrians, there's absolutely no evidence of a mass slavery of Jews in Egypt much less any history of the so-called miracles Moses performed. Now tthe Egyptians record everything that happened and certainly would have recorded such events. Besides that the scholar can clearly see the evolution of Judism of from tribal gods the adonai, to a mountain God El Sahddai. The idea of a son of God born to a virgin whose death and sacrifice brought blessings to man existed in the Middle East for at least 600 years prior to Christianity. Dionysius,Apis,Osiris all fit that model. When you take into account that St. Paul had been a member of the Eleusyian mystery cults, which were based on those paradigms' you can easily see how he transformed Jesus death into a religion that both Jews and non Jews could follow. Another myth is the earthquake at Jesus' death, the Romans were the very superstitious about such things and would have recorded it with or without assigning it to the crucifixion of a Jewish rabbi heretic.

    Most of the tenents of Christianity did not exist in its original form. Christology,marainism, the tripartite nature of God, the afterlife and many other major tenants of the faith, were bargained over in the back rooms of the various church councils. I have read extensively into the history of Christianity including plowing through Adolf Harnacks History of the dogma. Likewise I have read many of the church fathers early writings. Christianity conquered with the sword in almost every place it went with the notable exceptions of Armenia and Ireland. The Christians those who believe the Bible is literally true are irational beyond belief. I will give you an example ,if the entire world were covered with water(Noah) the would need to be about 20 times as much water as there is currently on earth, also the air would be so filled with water you would drown breathing it. there's also no evidence of 1000's or hundreds of thousands of people ever living in the Sinai desert, Jews or not this is a place so dry archaeologists can find the remnants of a Bedouin campfire from 2,000 years ago. You have so many schools of Christianity because a scholar can exegete many different interpretations from one piece of scripture. One person will say a scripture is an analogy, someone else will say something completely different. For instance ithe word for Virgin in Aramaic is also the word for an unmarried woman, having nothing to do with sex.

    In my humble view, both monotheism and the reductionism of the big bang don't stand up to logical scrutiny. There are more than enough anomalous events to point to a reality that is greater than the mechanical reductionist model of the universe. There is in fact a substantial body of evidence that suggests the survival of human consciousness. I suggest if you're interested read the Journal for Scientific Exploration. an Ancient Zen master once said " if you wish to know the truth cease to cherish your won opinions." the great cosmos is vast and wide, the more we learn the more we know we don't know. Wisdom is not the accumulation of knowledge but the systematic process of extricating ourselves from our own ignorance. Cosmological theories are like rich chocolate cake, very tasty but if your diet subsist solely of that it will make you very ill.Ontologicaly constipated. The Buddha taught his disciples the following " you should except nothing merely because it is tradition, or that your brethren hold it to be true, but rather only if it is logical, consistent, and in holding such a view does not cause you hatred or enmity towards another human being." good clear thinking from Aryan philosopher

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    [Interestingly, not all reputable scientists support the 'Big Bang' theory. Some seem to feel the hypothesis that the universe is 'without beginning or end' is less inconsistent with the available evidence. That sounds rather like what the Bhuddists think, if I'm not mistaken]

    An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

    cosmologystatement.org

    (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

    The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

    In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

    But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

    Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

    What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

    Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

    Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

    Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

    Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

    Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

    Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

    Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

    Signed:

    (Institutions for identification only)

    Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

    Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
    Earthtech.org

    www.earthtech.org

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

    http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

    John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
    Technology (USA)

    James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

    Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

    Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

    Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
    (Russia)

    Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

    Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

    Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

    Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

    Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

    Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

    Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

    Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

    Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

    Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

    Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

    Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
    Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

    Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

    Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

    Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

    Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

    Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

    R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

    Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

    Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

    Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

    Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

    David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

    Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

    Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

    Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

    Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

    http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

  5. #45
    Member Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    What about the black holes?
    AFAIK, they suck in all the matter there is, even light... so, maybe they gather all the matter in the universe into just one point, and also suck in eachother into just one point...thus increasing the gravity pull they produce, and that one point gathers so much gravity and density that it becomes the only place with matter... and then it explodes, and the universe again spreads, and then, after a while the black holes appear, and then they suck all the matter into one place... and then again this one place explodes and the universe spreads... and...

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak
    If the Christian God does not Exist, then what God does. I would think that the World's leading religion would be more likely to exist than another. And I think that God is more logical than Something being created out of nothing. That is not possible unless it is made that way by a supreme being. It just makes more sense. btw. I am a christian if you haven't looked.
    You really should read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine (1794). Here is a link:

    http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html

    His views are summed up in the introduction as follows:

    I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

    I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

    But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

    I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
    On revelation as the basis for religious belief:

    No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

    It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication- after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

    When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.

    When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

    When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this- for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so- it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.
    On the career and resurrection of Jesus:

    Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before; by the Quakers since; and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.

    Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or any thing else; not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his own writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.

    The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told exceeds every thing that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was told could prove it himself.

    But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.
    On the Christian deification of Satan:

    Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is. In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan, a power equally as great, if not greater than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterward to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.

    Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating, by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.

    Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross, in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd- less contradictory. But instead of this, they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.
    On the Jewish 'prophets':

    There is not, throughout the whole book called the Bible, any word that describes to us what we call a poet, nor any word that describes what we call poetry. The case is, that the word prophet, to which latter times have affixed a new idea, was the Bible word for poet, and the word prophesying meant the art of making poetry. It also meant the art of playing poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music.

    We read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns- of prophesying with harps, with psalteries, with cymbals, and with every other instrument of music then in fashion. Were we now to speak of prophesying with a fiddle, or with a pipe and tabor, the expression would have no meaning or would appear ridiculous, and to some people contemptuous, because we have changed the meaning of the word.

    We are told of Saul being among the prophets, and also that he prophesied; but we are not told what they prophesied, nor what he prophesied. The case is, there was nothing to tell; for these prophets were a company of musicians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert, and this was called prophesying.

    The account given of this affair in the book called Samuel is, that Saul met a company of prophets; a whole company of them! coming down with a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe and a harp, and that they prophesied, and that he prophesied with them. But it appears afterward, that Saul prophesied badly; that is, he performed his part badly; for it is said, that an "evil spirit from God" came upon Saul, and he prophesied.
    And on the Old Testament:

    Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

    We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a great deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than many other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time as since.

    The Proverbs which are said to be Solomon's, though most probably a collection (because they discover a knowledge of life which his situation excluded him from knowing), are an instructive table of ethics. They are inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards, and not more wise and economical than those of the American Franklin.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Waarnemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 11th, 2009 @ 07:42 PM
    Subrace
    keltic nordid - trønder
    Gender
    Politics
    fascism
    Posts
    571
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak
    If the Christian God does not Exist, then what God does. I would think that the World's leading religion would be more likely to exist than another.
    Ah that is logical... :huh You know my friend, truth has nothing to do with the number of people who know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak
    And I think that God is more logical than Something being created out of nothing. That is not possible unless it is made that way by a supreme being. It just makes more sense.
    Indeed, the chance that there is no supernatural "spirit" or "god" is small.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Carl_Rylander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 2nd, 2006 @ 01:25 PM
    Subrace
    Hallstatt/East Baltid
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    Reactionary
    Religion
    Eastern Orthodox
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Stríbog
    I assume that you operate under the assumption that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Such a God cannot exist. There is evil and suffering in the world and always has been. God supposedly created the world. Therefore God created evil and suffering. Even if mankind "sinned" to create this, God necessarily created man knowing that man would sin, since God is omnipotent and omniscient.
    What does God's foreknowledge have to do with man's free actions?

  9. #49
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: The Big Bang Theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl_Rylander
    What does God's foreknowledge have to do with man's free actions?
    If man has truly free will, then God is not omnipotent. God's foreknowledge of the actions of something he created specifically is tantamount to predestination.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Phlegethon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, April 4th, 2016 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Posts
    2,867
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: The Big Bang Theory

    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak
    Who here believes the Big Bang Theory and Why? This is religion Related
    Looking at the world today I have come to believe in the Big Bong theory:


    And all my youth passed by sad-hearted,
    the joy of Spring was never mine;
    Autumn blows through me dread of parting,
    and my heart dreams and longs to die.

    - Nikolaus Lenau (1802-1850)

    Real misanthropes are not found in solitude, but in the world; since it is experience of life, and not philosophy, which produces real hatred of mankind.

    - Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837)

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 07:00 PM
  2. Soundwaves and the Big Bang in the Poetic Edda
    By Paradigm in forum Heathen Texts
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 14th, 2010, 06:55 PM
  3. Five years after 'big bang,' EU hesitates over new members
    By Verðandi in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 29th, 2009, 10:17 AM
  4. Your Opinion on Hawking's Big Bang Theory?
    By Elenor in forum Research & Technology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 28th, 2007, 09:22 PM
  5. Scientists plan to recreate 'Big Bang'
    By Blutwölfin in forum Research & Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 28th, 2006, 08:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •