mkmyers45: The universe shares so many characters of defined gods so we can say that the complexity of the universe makes it a god...You can't just dismiss the possibility..the Cosmos is an all encompassing unity. If you still disagree then i want you to describe your god and how he manifested.

philip0906:
ur running faster than urself. . .kindly show me where in my post I said, its not a natural law or that it is Bible specific? Now answer. . .Is the law of sowing and reaping found in the Bible? yes or no?
Good definition of Faith, but it is only a part and not the Whole of Christianity? True or false?

philip0906:
Good point. . .
Now,do these points I raised now make science illogical? So therefore, picking out some things from the Bible which we feel "defies" logic, is not enough to term Christianity and the Bible illogical. There are loads of "Logical" concepts in the Bible and on which the Christian belief is founded on e.g The law of "sowing and reaping" which is a part and parcel of the christian belief is a very logical concept.

wiegraf:

*louder deep sigh*
Science does not have a problem with that, you do. Even if it did, science wouldn't turn to unverifiable claims, else anything goes. If that gives you some existential issues, turn to philosophy, religion, spirituality etc like you've indicated you do. Science is only corncerned with the objective.

You think the historicity of the Bible is accurate? You think the world was created 6,000 years ago?

It was helpful as far as getting into the mind or a religionist is, thank you. Well, not really. Most atheists already know what's there due to indoctrination as kids, but I appreciate the effort. Don't let 'grandiose intellectualism' fault your style also, and try it out sometime.

mollie12:

If you have an issue with anything I believe you could use verifiable facts rather than endless questioning to make the air clear.

plaetton:

Flavious jesephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. In his book, Josephus made a rather brief mention of a set of people called christians who were said to be followers of a man named Jesus. That was all he said. He never mentioned jesus birth, teachings, trail, crucifiction and resurrection(things that would have been a great deal and worhty of mention at such a time).

It is believed by many historians that the brief mention of jesus in the book of Josephus may have been fraudulently inserted in subsequent centuries to give jesus a the badly needed historicity.

Secondly, if we have to scramble and struggle just to define what god is, then I my point is already proven that god is just an abstract notion, an idea, a mental creation.

Do we struggle to define gravity or gravitational constants? no.
Even the elusive higgs-Bosson had a concensu definition and theoretically defined qualities before we started searching for it.

If we cannot even define god, then god exists as an idea,perhaps a good and cosy idea, but nevertheless, an idea.

wiegraf:

Two questions = endless questions?
Not to mention you're the one making the claim
Oops, I'll be on my way then

philip0906:
Were u there? Did you see it? How did it happen? Is there any video evidence to that effect?Kindly provide visible proofs,no big grammars and theories. . .
Moreover, there's a monkey in my grandma's compound, yet 2 change to a human. . .so i'll also love to know-with visible proofs- how u changed 4rm a monkey to human.
Thank you

Observational evidence


The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the relative abundances of light elements produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies[54] predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory. These are sometimes called "the four pillars of the Big Bang theory".

Hubble's law and the expansion of space


Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. These redshifts are uniformly isotropic, distributed evenly among the observed objects in all directions. If the redshift is interpreted as a Doppler shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calculated. For some galaxies, it is possible to estimate distances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the recessional velocities are plotted against these distances, a linear relationship known as Hubble's law is observed:
v = H0D,
where
v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object,
D is the comoving distance to the object, and
H0 is Hubble's constant, measured to be 70.4 +1.3
−1.4 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe.
Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican principle—or the Universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 and Georges Lemaître in 1927, well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker.
The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at all times, where D is the comoving distance, v is the recessional velocity, and v, H, and D vary as the Universe expands (hence we write H0 to denote the present-day Hubble "constant". For distances much smaller than the size of the observable Universe, the Hubble redshift can be thought of as the Doppler shift corresponding to the recession velocity v. However, the redshift is not a true Doppler shift, but rather the result of the expansion of the Universe between the time the light was emitted and the time that it was detected.That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological principle and the Copernican principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous, supporting the Cosmological principle that the Universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions.
Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican principle, that, on a cosmological scale, the Earth is not in a central position.[57] Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the Universe. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the Universe is experiencing a metric expansion, and excludes the possibility that we are near the unique center of an explosion.

Cosmic microwave background radiation

WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000.[58]
In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band.Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions: the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions; this spectrum has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to approximately 2.725 K. This tipped the balance of evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, and Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978.
The surface of last scattering corresponding to emission of the CMB occurs shortly after recombination, the epoch when neutral hydrogen becomes stable. Prior to this, the universe comprised a hot dense photon-baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles. Peaking at around 372±14 ka,[22] the mean free path for a photon becomes long enough to reach the present day and the universe becomes transparent.


The cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE satellite is the most-precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.The data points and error bars on this graph are obscured by the theoretical curve.
In 1989 NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE). Its findings were consistent with predictions regarding the CMB, finding a residual temperature of 2.726 K (more recent measurements have revised this figure down slightly to 2.725 K) and providing the first evidence for fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB, at a level of about one part in 105.John C. Mather and George Smoot were awarded the Nobel Prize for their leadership in this work. During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. In 2000–2001 several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG, found the shape of the Universe to be spatially almost flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies.
In early 2003 the first results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) were released, yielding what were at the time the most accurate values for some of the cosmological parameters. The results disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but are consistent with the inflation theory in general. The Planck space probe was launched in May 2009. Other ground and balloon based cosmic microwave background experiments are ongoing.

Abundance of primordial elements

Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen. The relative abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. This value can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10−3 for 2H/H, about 10−4 for 3He/H and about 10−9 for 7Li/H.
The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and off by a factor of two 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium. Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young Universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.

Galactic evolution and distribution


This panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky reveals the distribution of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. The galaxies are color coded by redshift.
Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early Universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.
Primordial gas cloud.
In 2011 astronomers have found pristine clouds of the primordial gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. The composition of the gas matches theoretical predictions, providing direct evidence in support of the modern cosmological explanation for the origins of elements in the universe. The researchers discovered the two clouds of pristine gas by analyzing the light from distant quasars, using the HIRES spectrometer on the Keck I Telescope at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii. They saw absorption lines in the spectrum where the light was absorbed by the gas, and that allows them to measure the composition of the gas.

Other lines of evidence

The age of Universe as estimated from the Hubble expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with other estimates using the ages of the oldest stars, both as measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to globular clusters and through radiometric dating of individual Population II stars.
The prediction that the CMB temperature was higher in the past has been experimentally supported by observations of very low temperature absorption lines in gas clouds at high redshift.This prediction also implies that the amplitude of the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect in clusters of galaxies does not depend directly on redshift. Observations have found this to be roughly true, but this effect depends on cluster properties that do change with cosmic time, making precise measurements difficult.

philip0906:
Good point. . .
Now,do these points I raised now make science illogical? So therefore, picking out some things from the Bible which we feel "defies" logic, is not enough to term Christianity and the Bible illogical. There are loads of "Logical" concepts in the Bible and on which the Christian belief is founded on e.g The law of "sowing and reaping" which is a part and parcel of the christian belief is a very logical concept.

mollie12:

Well what can I say? You seem to have finally carved out a new religion for yourself, with a new god - the universe. Don't understand this train of LOGIC of yours at all.


If you make the universe a god based on complexity and encompassing unity you can also make me - or any other human around you - a god based on the same qualities. Heck, you could do the same to the ocean, the mountains, and practically any other entity. In other words, even you will have to admit this is a descent into foolishness.

As humans, we ascribe glory - and godhood - to what is ultimately, indisputably, unshakably higher than ourselves. And Yahweh fulfils those qualifications - and more. I can't ascribe godhood to the universe - which man can and is finding even more and more ways to control.

Ubenedictus: simply put d soul is d fundamental principle of life. Materialism has fail to explain man, d complexities his thought, feeling, desires conciousness and rationality. A material man will be a computer program but man has shown that greater than a computer, man is a living and learning being who excercise a reasoning ability so complex that he believes himself to be d pinacle of his immediate world. Man hardly seems to be a puppet and science has failed to explain the 'substance' of life.

that is because im not a computer, there is an immaterial subconcious in man. And each man precieve thing in different ways. To believe in a soul as a principle of life and reason is necessary for me because there is no material or scientific explaination of the 'substance' of life. Just try and give me a scientific definition of life.

when i say transcends i mean faith extend reason it widens and broaden its scope i dont mean it is oppose to or fight with or triumphing over it.

who said spiritual matters can never be understood? You need d broadener called faith to understand religious matters. It can be understood but some religious matter cant be fully grasped by d intellect.
ur arguement suggest it but you can inform me otherwise. I hope to hear from u soon.
Peace.

philip0906:
oh dear Mr cyrexx. . .those links are full of 2 much grammars, theories and no proofs(tangible/visible facts).It doesn't prove anything. AS simple as that.
I could bring my graandma's monkey over and those theories and the likes exerted on it, I could be proven otherwise,else. . .

plaetton:

Eeew!
This is a greatly embarrassing display of ignorance. Why mock something you simply dont understand?.
You have to first educate yourself about the subject before you come out to embarrass yourself.Were you dozing in class during your biology lessons in secondary school?
When someone displays this kind of ignorance, it is just pointless going further trying to engage in any debate.

musKeeto:
Hopeless. They'd prefer it if the information was divided into chapters and verses...

O.D.B.:

no. I believe I am to infinitesimal in his presence

Proactive-corp:



The pope was a man of faith, so we cannot trust him to be completely objective about issues of faith and reason

But when did pope john paul become a christian! i thought he was a catholic! Is christianity and catholicism the same!

Many many christians distance themslves from catholicism.

The fact the catholic faith is at variance with evangelical faith speaks volumes about the inconsistency, the fluidity and the non-reliability of faith, compared to the universality of reason.

mkmyers45:

@First Bolded:Please define 'soul' and 'substance of life'

@Second Bolded: Please answer bolded one first...

@Third Bolded: Ok, you have your own definition of transcend? hmm...the dictionary thinks otherwise

@Fourth Bolded: Are you insinuating that indeed religion is faith and not logic?

Ubenedictus: it is d concept scientist cant explain, what is life, what makes man and other living thing alive? Biology has studied living and non living ting but can tell u what life is.

the were over 3 definition of transcend in d dictionary u provided i simply adopted the definition that says "extend, goes beyond" it was in ur dictionary.

im saying that there are set logic as regards religion and reason is used even in matters of faith.
Peace

mkmyers45:

I will attempt to oversee the fact that you clearly avoided my question....Please how do you define soul and substance of life?

Let's take it from there sir

Ubenedictus: it said earlier, d soul is d fundamental principle of life. Substance of life is a colloqual term i use to describe the soul, by substance of life i mean 'that with gives living things live'. I also noticed that you had no comment to d views presented by john paul.
Peace.

mkmyers45:

Fundamental principal of all life is a soul? Plants have souls?

Ubenedictus: this is a slimer definition by aristotle "the soul is that fundamental principle of our life, of movement, of nutrition, of sensation, of understand and of willing" the last phase cut plants out of d picture.
Peace

Ubenedictus: this is a slimer definition by aristotle "the soul is that fundamental principle of our life, of movement, of nutrition, of sensation, of understand and of willing" the last phase cut plants out of d picture.
Peace

mkmyers45:

Unto what logical premise is this definition based or is it because its Aristotle?

mkmyers45:

Unto what logical premise is this definition based or is it because its Aristotle?

Ubenedictus: not necessary because it is aristotle, but it is worth looking into since science cant answer d question 'what is life?'. Where one standard fail another is used..
Peace

mkmyers45:

Ok, miss dont go faster than your shadow ok?

@First Bolded: I didn't carve anything out but we are logically looking at a complexity which fits the term 'god' as defined by many.

@Second Bolded: Please how is a human an encompassing unity? Is he in isolation or part of a universe?

@Third Bolded: Please can you fully list out the properties?

@Fourth Bolded: lol at man controlling the universe...sorry miss but can you elaborate your point of control because that seems far-fetched

mkmyers45:

Ok, miss dont go faster than your shadow ok?

@First Bolded: I didn't carve anything out but we are logically looking at a complexity which fits the term 'god' as defined by many.

@Second Bolded: Please how is a human an encompassing unity? Is he in isolation or part of a universe?

@Third Bolded: Please can you fully list out the properties?

@Fourth Bolded: lol at man controlling the universe...sorry miss but can you elaborate your point of control because that seems far-fetched

Ubenedictus: not necessary because it is aristotle, but it is worth looking into since science cant answer d question 'what is life?'. Where one standard fail another is used..
Peace

mollie12:

Apparently, your ideas of 'complexity' and 'encompassing unity' are subjective because they very much apply to man, yes they do.

Controlling the universe? You mean you really need examples from me about how man has conquered nature through technology?

I've actually been wondering what this your post is actually about, and your answer to philip @ 11.04am pretty sums it up. If this is about discrediting God through some scientific mish-mash of high-sounding babbles and the like, well - its a free world. (Because let's face it, even you can not explain the gist of what you posted). But if you are really willing to follow a rational, logic train of thought, and not just bash a thing because you are not willing to agree with it or don't understand it, you'll realise the truth is, God is.

I'm out.