^As I stated, does anybody else believe this? It's just a question.
January 26th, 2012 at 01:47am
I believe he is taking the Mickey.
- ciao bella.:
- ^As I stated, does anybody else believe this? It's just a question.
Go back a few pages, the debating on this thread is usually much more sophisticated.
- Nik0:
- ......Fascinating.
I thought people here suppose to be more mature and "not stupid" ? Was I wrong or something?
I'll provide proof for my religion, when you provide proof for yours.
- ciao bella.:
- ^Please provide some proof of this. Maybe you can start your own cult religion.
No one is stupid, there's just a lot of people in the world that are misinformed.
- Nik0:
- ......Fascinating.
I thought people here suppose to be more mature and "not stupid" ? Was I wrong or something?
The thing is your a real person claiming to be God. We're less inclined to take you seriously and more likely to demand proof from you, than to demand proof for a God we can't see.
- Airon:
- I'll provide proof for my religion, when you provide proof for yours.
My religion insists, ladies first.
This seems to me like a bit of a circular argument. If you're already relying on the premise that god created the whole universe, then I don't understand what you mean by "the least I can do is believe that he exists". Because surely that's already assumed by what you said first.
- Going with the tide:
- Looking at this photo, too me it shows that if God created the heavens and the earth, the whole universe, the planets and the stars, and he stopped to create me and if he did that, then the least I can do is believe that he exists.
The "Big Bang" wasn't actually a bang, nor was it an explosion of any kind; its name is a misnomer. "The Big Bang" was a nickname given to the theory when it first came to be known, in order to belittle it.
- Quote
- My personal theory is that God used a large bang to create the earth.
Actually, an explosion is a pretty accurate description of how the extremely hot and compressed early universe expanded violently/at a very rapid rate. Although, of course, there weren't any loud noises involved.
- Alex; subterfuge.:
- The "Big Bang" wasn't actually a bang, nor was it an explosion of any kind; its name is a misnomer. "The Big Bang" was a nickname given to the theory when it first came to be known, in order to belittle it.
Also, explosions don't come out of nothing,
- Alex; subterfuge.:
- ^ I genuinely don't know why I said "of any kind", when an explosion actually means something's contents expanding outwards. I suppose in an everyday sense, explosions on the whole are considered to be pyrotechnical things.
The Big Bang theory doesn't say they do. It says that the singularity exploded/expanded.
- The Pies Endure:
- Also, explosions don't come out of nothing,
The Big Theory postulates that the universe started from nothing [This is the majority view, as it is, where did the singularity come from, and explosions have causes]. Explosions don't come from nothing.
- Alex; subterfuge.:
- The Big Bang theory doesn't say they do. It says that the singularity exploded/expanded.
You're mistaking the big bang theory for a creation story. The big bang theory doesn't seek to explain where the universe came from in the most initial sense of creation, but why it is the way it is today, and it quite thoroughly explains the rapid expansion, red shifts of galaxies, quantities of elements, etc. The explosion didn't come from "nothing," it was caused by the incredibly hot and dense nature of the singularity.
- The Pies Endure:
- The Big Theory postulates that the universe started from nothing [This is the majority view, as it is, where did the singularity come from, and explosions have causes]. Explosions don't come from nothing.
There are numerous scientific theories other than the Big Bang theory which are creation theories and try to explain why the universe exists at all and where it came from e.g. string and superstring theories or the Big Bounce theory. Most of them are highly theoretical and untested (if at all testable). There's just too much we don't know about the universe to be able to formulate an accurate theory about its origin.
- Kurtni:
- This is why I get so irritated when religious people take up arms against science, because neither the big bang nor evolution necessarily eliminate the existence of God. Obviously, things didn't happen as Genesis explained, but I doubt most people interpret that to have literal meaning anyways.
I'm not mistaking the Big Bang Theory for anything. I actually learned about the BBT before I really understood what the Creation story was about, so please don't assume what I'm thinking when I'm referring to the BBT.
- Kurtni:
- You're mistaking the big bang theory for a creation story. The big bang theory doesn't seek to explain where the universe came from in the most initial sense of creation, but why it is the way it is today, and it quite thoroughly explains the rapid expansion, red shifts of galaxies, quantities of elements, etc. The explosion didn't come from "nothing," it was caused by the incredibly hot and dense nature of the singularity.
Some people believe the big bang was the beginning of time, but others do not, and neither idea is supported more or less by the theory. It terms of the theory, it's accurate to say the universe began as we know it with the big bang, but that isn't a statement about the creation of the singularity or time before that. This is why I get so irritated when religious people take up arms against science, because neither the big bang nor evolution necessarily eliminate the existence of God. Obviously, things didn't happen as Genesis explained, but I doubt most people interpret that to have literal meaning anyways.