Romeo4real:

It is really a shame i came to this post so late.
I would have loved to teach Deep Shite and Mazeje or whatever his name is a thing or two regarding Einstein's Theory of relativity, the space-time continuum and Stephen Hawkins theories on quantum physics, black holes, cosmic inflation, string theories, muons, tauons, neutrinos - and how they all challenge/affect E=Mc2, and give meaning to the space-time conundrum.

Well rather than impress us with what you would have liked to do, why dont you go ahead and impress us with what you actually do?

The ball is in your court.

Romeo4real:

It is really a shame i came to this post so late.
I would have loved to teach Deep Shite and Mazeje or whatever his name is a thing or two regarding Einstein's Theory of relativity, the space-time continuum and Stephen Hawkins theories on  quantum physics, black holes, cosmic inflation, string theories, muons, tauons, neutrinos - and how they all challenge/affect E=Mc2, and give meaning to the space-time conundrum.

SHUT UP!!!. . . .You want to educate me eh? Have you finished educating yourself? . . . . .What has einstein's theory of relativity and stehpen hawkings theories of quantum physics, black holes, cosmic inflation, string theories etc have to do with the mythical jewish deity called Yahweh and the mythical creation account in the book of genesis whose authors do not even know what the stars are?. . . . .

I can see you two are trolling the threads. Thats OK. I'm following you.

@Mazeje - at least Deep Sight seems intelligent and erudite, which cannot be said for you. To answer your question, do ask the previous posters before i joined the thread. The discussion about the big bang, multiverses and space-time was well alive and advanced before i joined the thread. I simply stated that i would have liked to have joined earlier, so i can teach you guys a thing or two about it. No need to take offence on that - unless you are saying you have no need to learn anything.

@Deep Sight - As i said, i came to the thread too late to add anything worthwhile. If you want to start the same thread on another post, I'd be happy to contribute.

Well since you are a Theist, I am sure you may have no problems in terms of the core argument.

Mazaje had said that it is not contended that everything came out of nothing. He referred to the big bang as an expansion from a singularity.

I seized upon that because Atheists are always too happy to respond to the question - "where did everything come from?" - by responding - "a singularity."

They state this without having any understanding of what a singularity is or could be. I am firmly convinced that even the scientific exponents hardly grasp the term.

Would you care to comment on the question of singularities?

@ olaadegbu . . .

Bible commentary on Jeremiah 4:23

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. -- Jeremiah 4:23

the earth.

The word translated "earth" (Hebrew eretz) is commonly translated "land," depending upon context.  It is translated "land," in Jeremiah 4:5, for example (as well as in Jeremiah 4:7,20,27), obviously referring to the land of Judah.  It should be translated "land," in this verse also, in consistency with the whole context of the chapter.

without form, and void.

Because this phrase, "without form and void," is applied to the primeval earth in Genesis 1:2, many who advocate the "gap theory," hoping to accommodate the long evolutionary ages in Genesis between the first two verses of the Bible, have used this verse as a "proof text" for a hypothetical pre-Edenic cataclysm which destroyed the original creation of Genesis 1:1.  The gap theory, however, is indefensible both geologically and theologically.  The context here, both before and after (Jeremiah 4:16,31), make it clear that the whole chapter is describing the coming destruction of Judah, not some mysterious prehistoric cataclysm destroying the primeval world.

The "earth" in Gen 1:2 is also translated as "eretz" in hebrew. I read the gap thoery stuff on AiG and to be frank there was nothing but speculation there.

davidylan:

and what exactly is Mazaje himself trying to say here . . .

Because as at the time the vision is being described . . . it is assumed that NOTHING had ever existed before so how exactly can you declare the earth VOID if it had NEVER before contained anything? A cup is declared EMPTY because we know it has the capacity to contain something.

The earth was newly created and was empty because God had not yet created anything(plants and animals) to fill it yet. . . .Is that not what the genesis account is saying?. . . . .

Your problem is that you read the bible with a one-track mind, you give it YOUR OWN literal interpretation which more often than not cannot stand the test of scrutiny.

If the vision of Jeremiah was about the "gloom and doom" promised to Judah then the following would be FALSE . . . Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light

I notice you had no explanation for why Jeremiah would include this in his vision of doom for Judah. Is Judah the entire earth? Why is the ENTIRE EARTH without form and void if this vision is ONLY about the imminent invasion of Judah? Why did the heavens lose their light over Judah?

No, I am not reading it with a one track mind. . . .I believe that OLAADEGBU explained it to you as well but you discarded his explantions. . .Even the translators of the NKJV gave the heading as Sorrow for the doomed nation. . . . .Judah is not the whole earth but such statements have been used in other parts of the bible. . . When bible talks about the earth, it mostly refers to the earth as the land known to the writers of the bible as can be seen in Exodus 10:15 where the bible clearly reports that the locust  that plagued egypt covered "the whole earth". . .  When the satan allegedly took Jesus to the top of the mountains it was written that he showed him "all the kingdoms of the earth" and promised to give it to him if he would bow down and worship him. The earth there means the land of Judah. . . . .

All this makes no sense when you compare them side by side with VERSE 23 of Jer 4. In one breath the writer is discussion the desctruction of a "whole city" (as in verse 29). In verse 6 the writer is talking about invasion of Judah and then suddenly sees the earth without form and void? Who invaded the earth and destroyed it? 

The prophet saw a vision of the land that had already been destroyed by God based on the promised he made to destroy the land. . . . .The result of the destruction is what lead to the earth having no form and void. . . .

If Jeremiah is talking about a city then is Verse 23 ALSO describing a city?

The verse is talking about the land with the city is also a part of, no?. . . .

You indeed are being dishonest here . . . you have artfully dodged the verses in Jer 4 that do not fit your own narrative . . . for instance you seem to have skipped all these . . .

Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

This NEVER happened at any point in time. The only invasion that occured during Jeremiah's time was the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem . . . despite this disaster, the same bible still records that there were many jews who still DWELT in Jerusalem! We also do not read of all the birds disappearing off the face of the earth at any point in time.

The verse talked about God's judgment that was coming and the vision that the prophet saw. . . .Could it be one of the prophecies in the that did not happen? Or was not recorded in the book of Jeremiah?

What do you understand that Jeremiah was describing in verses 23 and 25?

I have already told you what I understand by the verse. . . .I repeat the subject heading from the NKJV reads "Sorrow for the doomed nation". . . . .I believe that subject heading is clear enough. . . .

mazaje:

The earth was newly created and was empty because God had not yet created anything(plants and animals) to fill it yet. . . .Is that not what the genesis account is saying?. . . . .

No, I am not reading it with a one track mind. . . .I believe that OLAADEGBU explained it to you as well but you discarded his explantions. . .Even the translators of the NKJV gave the heading as Sorrow for the doomed nation. . . . .Judah is not the whole earth but such statements have been used in other parts of the bible. . . When bible talks about the earth, it mostly refers to the earth as the land known to the writers of the bible as can be seen in Exodus 10:15 where the bible clearly reports that the locust  that plagued egypt covered "the whole earth". . .  When the satan allegedly took Jesus to the top of the mountains it was written that he showed him "all the kingdoms of the earth" and promised to give it to him if he would bow down and worship him. The earth there means the land of Judah. . . . .

The prophet saw a vision of the land that had already been destroyed by God based on the promised he made to destroy the land. . . . .The result of the destruction is what lead to the earth having no form and void. . . .

The verse is talking about the land with the city is also a part of, no?. . . .

The verse talked about God's judgment that was coming and the vision that the prophet saw. . . .Could it be one of the prophecies in the that did not happen? Or was not recorded in the book of Jeremiah?

I have already told you what I understand by the verse. . . .I repeat the subject heading from the NKJV reads "Sorrow for the doomed nation". . . . .I believe that subject heading is clear enough. . . .

Why is this entire postulation DEVOID of any direct explanation of verses 23 and 25? What exactly did olaadegbu explain? That the earth is 6000 yrs which you yourself DO NOT BUY?

davidylan:

Why is this entire postulation DEVOID of any direct explanation of verses 23 and 25? What exactly did olaadegbu explain? That the earth is 6000 yrs which you yourself DO NOT BUY?

The argument is not about weather the earth is 6000 years old since every body knows that the bible does not say so, The argument is about the direct relationship between the verse in Jeremiah and genesis. . . .

mazaje:

No, I am not reading it with a one track mind. . . .I believe that OLAADEGBU explained it to you as well but you discarded his explantions. . .Even the translators of the NKJV gave the heading as Sorrow for the doomed nation. . . . .Judah is not the whole earth but such statements have been used in other parts of the bible. . . When bible talks about the earth, it mostly refers to the earth as the land known to the writers of the bible as can be seen in Exodus 10:15 where the bible clearly reports that the locust  that plagued egypt covered "the whole earth". . .  When the satan allegedly took Jesus to the top of the mountains it was written that he showed him "all the kingdoms of the earth" and promised to give it to him if he would bow down and worship him. The earth there means the land of Judah. . . . .

This explanation does not cut it at all and AGAIN fails to completely analyse verses 23 and 25. I repeat . . . Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, i[b]t was without form, and void[/b]; and the heavens, and they had no light

when was the land of Judah ever WITHOUT FORM and VOID? Do the "heavens" mentioned here also refer to the skies above Judah? when did they lose their light?

Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

I noticed you also artfully dodged this. When did all the men of Judah run away?

mazaje:

The prophet saw a vision of the land that had already been destroyed by God based on the promised he made to destroy the land. . . . .The result of the destruction is what lead to the earth having no form and void. . . .

This has never occured and is not predicted ever to occur except at the end of the age (armaggedon) which is CLEARLY NOT what Jeremiah was describing because it would defy this verse - Jer 4:27 For thus says the LORD: "The whole land shall be desolate; Yet I will not make a full end.

mazaje:

The verse is talking about the land with the city is also a part of, no?. . . .

Careful analysis indicates it is not.

mazaje:

The verse talked about God's judgment that was coming and the vision that the prophet saw. . . .Could it be one of the prophecies in the that did not happen? Or was not recorded in the book of Jeremiah?

Jeremiah 4 has TWO prophecies encoded in it . . . 1 is the prophecy of Israel's destruction by the babylonian empire . . . 2 is the vision of the earth before the introduction of Adam. You need to read between the lines when it comes to the bible.

mazaje:

I have already told you what I understand by the verse. . . .I repeat the subject heading from the NKJV reads "Sorrow for the doomed nation". . . . .I believe that subject heading is clear enough. . . .

Its quite funny that you are basing your "understanding" of the verse based on the NKJV subject heading.

mazaje:

The argument is not about weather the earth is 6000 years old since every body knows that the bible does not say so, The argument is about the direct relationship between the verse in Jeremiah and genesis. . . .

olaadegbu tried to explain it away by claiming the "earth" in Jer 4:23 is translated from the hebrew word "eretz" meaning "land". He forgot though that the "earth" in Gen 1:2 is EXACTLY THE SAME translation.

Would you care to comment on the question of singularities?

The existence of Singularities, or rather, science’s agreement that everything traces back to a “Singularity” is one of the most powerful pointers to the existence of a Creator.
A Singularity is a point in space-time in which the normal laws of physics do not apply. It is the “beginning” of the beginning.  It is an infinitely small region of infinite density at which point the mechanics of gravity break down.
Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. The argument is simply a matter of how.

The argument is that prior to the Big Bang, there was nothing – but a Singularity (so this mean there was “something”). The next question was then where this “Singularity “came from. So far, no one has been able to answer that question.
Some say it came from a “Black Hole”. But where did the Black Hole come from? Also, it has been shown that black holes are not infinite, but have a finite boundary called an Event Horizon.  So again, we are back at the Singularity and the “beginning”.

Well, after the “Big Bang”, (not really an explosion), the universe expanded and cooled (still cooling and expanding). It gave rise to the universe we know, and we still continue to know today. However, the problem of where the Singularity came from has never really gone away. It is big elephant in the room today. To help explain, scientists came up with the concept of Space-Time.

In simple terms, this means Time and Space are not separate, but exist as one single entity and continuum. Time becomes the 4th dimension of our existence. Do note that our experience of time is based on memory. If we had zero memory, we could not detect time – as we would exist only for the moment. This is why we have the incorrect notion of time as being linear - always going forward. When you introduce the concept of space-time, it ceases to be linear, but becomes curved.

What does this all have to do with the Big Bang and Singularity, you ask? Well, a Singularity can only exist in a space time continuum.
According to astrophysicists, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. In other words, Space and Time began at the same time as Matter and Energy – At the moment of the Big Bang. Again, we are back to the Singularity and what was before it.

At the moment, all scientist agree, and all theories point to the fact that, everything came out of a Singularity – Time, Space, Matter, and Energy. This means there was “nothing” before the Singularity (which is not possible). The Singularity is therefore, infinite in its nature. It is also well established that for a Singularity to exist, it MUST transcend or suspend the Laws of Physics. These laws also state that - You cannot get something from nothing; that matter is neither created nor destroyed, but merely changed from one form to another.

The answer is clear. God the Creator is this Singularity.  The Bible states that - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The Bible also states - I have made the earth (Is 45:12), All things were created through Him and for Him(Col 1:16), For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible (Col 1:16), For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it (Is 45:18)

So far, (1)Scientists agree that the universe, or rather the Big Bang, started from a Singularity, and (2) It is a phenomenon that defies the known laws science and nature. Basically, what they are saying is that a Singularity is supernatural in origin, whilst at the very same time refusing to accept this very fact.

davidylan:

@ olaadegbu . . .

The "earth" in Gen 1:2 is also translated as "eretz" in hebrew. I read the gap thoery stuff on AiG and to be frank there was nothing but speculation there.

davidylan:

olaadegbu tried to explain it away by claiming the "earth" in Jer 4:23 is translated from the hebrew word "eretz" meaning "land". He forgot though that the "earth" in Gen 1:2 is EXACTLY THE SAME translation.

Bible commentary on Genesis 1:2

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. -- Gen. 1:2

"the earth."

In an attempt to accommodate the supposed evolutionary geological ages in Genesis, certain theologians postulated a long gap in time here between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, in which it was hoped these ages could be pigeon-holed and forgotten as far as Biblical exegesis was concerned.  This gap theory, however, requires a worldwide cataclysm at the end of the geological ages, in order to account for the globally inundated and darkened earth described in Genesis 1:2.  The cataclysm, in turn, is hypothetically connected with the fall of Lucifer in heaven (Isaiah 14:9-14) and his expulsion to the earth (Ezekiel 28:12-15), though such a cataclysm is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. However, in addition to its obvious contradictions with other important and clear Bible passages (e.g. Genesis 1:31; Exodus 20:11), the gap theory is self-defeating geologically.  The geological age system (which is the necessary framework for modern evolutionism) is based entirely on the principle of uniformitarianism, a premise which precludes any such worldwide cataclysm, and requires the interpreting of earth history by the extrapolation of present geological processes into the remote past.  The concept of geological ages is based entirely on a uniformitarian explanation of the fossil beds and sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust, which would all have been destroyed by the postulated pre-Adamic cataclysm. Thus, any attempt to ignore or explain away the supposed great age of the earth by appeal to the gap theory makes an unnecessary and abortive compromise with evolutionism, and displays a lack of understanding of the geological structures and processes to which evolutionists appeal in postulating their long ages.

The real answer to the geological ages is not an imaginary pre-Adamic cataclysm, but the very real cataclysm of the Noahic Deluge (see  Genesis 6–9), which provides a much better explanation of the fossil beds and sedimentary rocks, eliminating all evidence of geological ages and confirming the Biblical doctrine of recent creation.

"was without form, and void."

The verb "was" in Genesis 1:2 is the regular Hebrew verb of being (hayetha) and does not denote a change of state unless the context so requires.  It only rarely is translated “became,” as the gap theory postulates here.  Neither does the phrase tohu waw bohu need to mean “ruined and desolated,” as the gap theory requires. The King James translation "without form and void" is the proper meaning.

"was upon the face of the deep."

The universe as first called into existence by Elohim was in elemental existence, still "unformed" and unenergized, not yet ready for habitation, "void" (see Psalm 33:6-9; Proverbs 8:22-31; Isaiah 45:18; II Peter 3:5).  It would not be perfect (i.e., finished) until the end of creation week, when God would pronounce it "very good" and "finished" (Genesis 1:31–2:3).  The "earth" material was suspended in a matrix of water (the "deep") completely static and therefore in "darkness."

Further Reading:Adam and the Animals

That video, and the book it is adapted from, are, IMO just apologetic stuff. The guy is no neutral observer, or skeptic, or "investigative" journalist or whatever he calls himself. He's just, IMO, some guy sellin lots of books.

Romeo4real:

The existence of Singularities, or rather, science’s agreement that everything traces back to a “Singularity” is one of the most powerful pointers to the existence of a Creator.

Ok. . .A 'creator'' resolves nothing. If I were to ask the question what created the creator, the response will be that the creator requires no creation. So now we have two possibilities:

a) The Universe was created by Creator who requires no creation

b) The Universe requires no creation

A Singularity is a point in space-time in which the normal laws of physics do not apply. It is the “beginning” of the beginning.  It is an infinitely small region of infinite density at which point the mechanics of gravity break down.
Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. The argument is simply a matter of how.

False. . . .First the singularity is not a beginning in the normal sense, but rather places the limit on what we can deduce from observation.  The big bang does not establish that "the universe had a beginning". What it states is that the cosmos - our four-dimensional space-time, can be traced back to a cosmic singularity. One might thereby assume that said cosmic singularity represents "the beginning", but I would have to note here that this is an assumption on your part. . .  The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know if that really was the "beginning", or whether there exists some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism that generates cosmic singularities, some or all of which then go on to become "universes". . . .

The argument is that prior to the Big Bang, there was nothing – but a Singularity (so this mean there was “something”). The next question was then where this “Singularity “came from. So far, no one has been able to answer that question.
Some say it came from a “Black Hole”. But where did the Black Hole come from? Also, it has been shown that black holes are not infinite, but have a finite boundary called an Event Horizon.  So again, we are back at the Singularity and the “beginning”.

Where did the creator of the singularity come from?. . . . .

The answer is clear. God the Creator is this Singularity.  The Bible states that - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The Bible also states - I have made the earth (Is 45:12), All things were created through Him and for Him(Col 1:16),  For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible (Col 1:16), For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it (Is 45:18)

That is the problem with you guys, Science painstakingly tries to find answers on its own and you guys quickly claim victory and ascribe it to your god. . . .What has genesis 1:1 got to do with the big bang?. . . .the BBT is nowhere near the biblical "account" of creation. All we have of this so called ''account'' of the creation of the universe is in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Not exactly a lot of detail there, is there? It's one of those statements that can be presumed to be true by any monotheist irrespective of what the actual physical details might be  because it's a statement that is utterly devoid of any meaningful content.

The big bang, on the other hand, has a great deal to say on the time line of the cosmos, from cosmic inflation, to pair production, to first-generation stars, second generation stars, back ground radiation, formation of black holes and so forth. None of which you'll find in the bible. What you will find in the bible is a BOGUS claim of how some god from no where created the earth and the heavens in 6 days, He started out from creating the earth with plants in it before the sun and the other stars, Light was created without any light source, the spirit of the said god was flowing over the waters without stating how the waters were formed etc. . . .Just some empty assertions that are clearly bogus and explains NOTHING at all . . . .

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Where does the BBT say that the earth was created along with the "heavens" assuming this mean the universe?

Genesis claims that the heavens and earth were formed on the first day, but there was actually a vast amount of time between the Big Bang and the actual formation of the Earth. And then it goes on to claim that the sun was not created until after the plants . . . . .

"In the beginning" is not a scientific explanation any more than "Once upon a time".

So far, (1)Scientists agree that the universe, or rather the Big Bang, started from a Singularity, and (2) It is a phenomenon that defies the known laws science and nature. Basically, what they are saying is that a Singularity is supernatural in origin, whilst at the very same time refusing to accept this very fact.

Which scientist has said that the singularity has a supernatural origin?. . . .A supernatural creator could control and make happen every single thing that occurs in our universe today; every gravitational movement, every chemical reaction, etc. . . .But is there EVIDENCE for a supernatural creator controlling things? No. There's no evidence that a supernatural creator controls chemical reactions, and there's no evidence a supernatural creator generated the singularity. So there's no point in considering it. . . . . .

Unknown causes are simply unknown causes. Up until now, science has demonstrated itself the best method we have for elucidating previously unknown causes; so science will be what is used to investigate the causes of the singularity (which science itself discovered). . . . . .

The discovery of the Big Bang by science as all new scientific discoveries at once both answers many past questions, and presents new questions: gaps. Some religious people stand ever ready to insert their gods into all newly discovered gaps. It's the same game over and over. . . . . .If there is a creator, I believe it follows this creator has to be part of nature, if this creator is not part of nature, then it does not exist in a way that anyone could possibly detect it, not in dreams, visions, or through a fatally flawed book. If a law of nature is broken, how could you prove that the law was in fact broken?

Mazaje,

Thought you might be interested in these -

Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong - http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/darwin-half-right/

“If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists” - http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/prove-god-exists/

petres_007:

Mazaje,

Thought you might be interested in these -

Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong - http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/darwin-half-right/

“If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists” - http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/prove-god-exists/

DNA is now god right?. . . .I get the idea . . . .As for Perry Marshall his arguments were completely destroyed on the infidels website. . . .What is funny is the way modern day christians have now reduced their god and have almost stripped him of all his traditional powers and attributes. The god that is now talked about is the subtle god that seems to manifest himself in things that people do not know or things that look or sound mysterious. . . .

The god the bible talks about is no longer the image some christians are now portraying. . . .They are now portraying a picture of a completely detached, god who only evidence is "his creation". . . .The all powerful, all knowing, all good, omnipresent, o-mini what ever concept has now been dropped. . .The christian god is now the singularity, DNA, interpreter of dreams etc. . . .He has been completely stripped of his traditional attributes and has now been relegated to the status of the deist god. . . .God is no longer this mysterious being that heals the blind, heal amputees or performs wonders for all to "see and believe". . . .

@mazeje- You clearly dont have a clue about what you are talking about.

If I were to ask the question what created the creator, the response will be that the creator requires no creation. So now we have two possibilities: a) The Universe was created by Creator who requires no creation. b) The Universe requires no creation

A logical fallacy, if there ever was one. This statement does not make any sense. It is based on an argument that has a true premise, but reaches a false conclusion. To answer your question anyway, - the Bible says that God is the “uncreated creator”. Now, I choose to believe that, you choose not to. Thats fine.

False. . . .First the singularity is not a beginning in the normal sense, but rather places the limit on what we can deduce from observation.

A meaningless statement. You are clearly trying to talk your way out of a hole - and it shows. A Singularity is a theoretical construct. It is the only known way matter condensed to a finite particle can initiate the Big Bang that gave rise to the universe as we know it today. Without this theoretical construct, the theory of the Big Bang would collapse.

The big bang does not establish that "the universe had a beginning". What it states is that the cosmos - our four-dimensional space-time, can be traced back to a cosmic singularity. One might thereby assume that said cosmic singularity represents "the beginning", but I would have to note here that this is an assumption on your part.

LOL! (it actually isnt funny!) I guess I am assuming along with numerous eminent astrophysicists such as Prof Stephen Hawkins,, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, Arthur S. Eddington, Harlow Shapley, Jocelyn Bell, Charles Thomas Bolton, Georges-Henri Lemaitre, along with Prof Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, along with Radio Astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who discovered  Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), along with NASA, who recently confirmed faith in Einsteins theory, along with numerous educational and research centres – who ALL agree that that so far, the Big Bang is the only plausible explanation for our universe.
Please show me one scientist, or scientific publication, that disagree or contends that the Big Bang is not the origin of our universe.

The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know if that really was the "beginning", or whether there exists some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism that generates cosmic singularities, some or all of which then go on to become "universes". . . .

This is ridiculous. What are you saying here? Because YOU don’t know it is the beginning means all the scientific research, and accepted theories are wrong? Wow!! This is Argumentum ad ignorantiam - An argument from ignorance basically stating that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Scientists have accepted that for now, it is true, whilst you are basically flagellating yourself over invalid philosophical arguments.

That is the problem with you guys, Science painstakingly tries to find answers on its own and you guys quickly claim victory and ascribe it to your god. . . .What has genesis 1:1 got to do with the big bang?

This is quite a deeply myopic question. Genesis chronicles the creation of the Universe and Earth by God. The Big Bang attempts to explain the origin of the universe using scientific theories – Am I the only one who can see what they have to do with one another?

. . . .the BBT is nowhere near the biblical "account" of creation.

Nobody said it does. They are two competing theories

All we have of this so called ''account'' of the creation of the universe is in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Not exactly a lot of detail there, is there?

You patronise yourself in order to score cheap thrill. It does you no favours. I am sure you know that the account of creation does not end in Gen 1:1

The big bang, on the other hand, has a great deal to say on the time line of the cosmos, from cosmic inflation, to pair production, to first-generation stars, second generation stars, back ground radiation, formation of black holes and so forth. None of which you'll find in the bible. What you will find in the bible is a BOGUS claim of how some god from no where created the earth and the heavens in 6 days,

At least we have a book that says a God, Omnipotent and Omnipresent created the earth from NOTHING. And we choose to believe it. Please show me any scientific paper that explains what came before the Big Bang, or what came before the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Please, show me how it is explained that the Big Bang, or indeed the Singularity came from nothing? As you well know, that haven’t gotten to that stage yet, and they wont – because there is nothing more. As with Evolution (the Missing Link), it always seems to be explained to the point where they can go no further.

He started out from creating the earth with plants in it before the sun and the other stars

Please do try to argue intelligently. We need not waste our time on this trivia. There was Light in the Earth before any plants were created, and indeed, there was Day, and there was Night. No one is claiming to understand where this light came from, but it was enough to sustain plant life.

Light was created without any light source

Let us examine this in detail. With, or without a belief in God, is it to much to understand how a supernatural Being can create something from nothing? Have you asked yourself how the Sun was created? Oh Yes, it was from a Supernovae explosion. The rapidly cooling fragments/debris and gas clouds eventually formed our planets and also the sun under the sheer force of gravity. The ball of debris that was eventually going to become our Sun continued to contract and get hotter, until its central temperature rose high enough to ignite the fires of nuclear fusion. This is our Sun today.

Do you see anything wrong with this statement? There  seems to be a lot of assumptions and presuppositions here. Where did the light source of the Sun come from? Oh, Nuclear Fission. Where does Nuclear Fission come from? Oh, from the splitting of atoms. Where do these atoms come from? Oh, from the gases and chemical compounds in the gasses. Where do the gasses come from? Oh, from the Big Bang. Where does the Big Bang come from? Oh, from a Singularity. Where does the Singularity come from? Oh, I DO NOT KNOW!

Which scientist has said that the singularity has a supernatural origin?. . . .

Meaning of Supernatural – Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.(Wikipedia and Free online Dictionary). Hence, If it is agreed that something exists (as a singularity does), and that “thing” does not conform to any natural laws, or laws of physics (as a singularity does), then it is defined as “Supernatural” Do you get that?

If a law of nature is broken, how could you prove that the law was in fact broken?

LOL! You really cant be this thick?

Romeo4real:

@mazeje- You clearly dont have a clue about what you are talking about.

From what you have written so far its very clear that you have NO clue of what you are talking about. . . .

A logical fallacy, if there ever was one. This statement does not make any sense. It is based on an argument that has a true premise, but reaches a false conclusion. To answer your question anyway, - the Bible says that God is the “uncreated creator”. Now, I choose to believe that, you choose not to. Thats fine.

OK. . . .

A meaningless statement. You are clearly trying to talk your way out of a hole - and it shows. A Singularity is a theoretical construct. It is the only known way matter condensed to a finite particle can initiate the Big Bang that gave rise to the universe as we know it today. Without this theoretical construct, the theory of the Big Bang would collapse.
LOL! (it actually isnt funny!) I guess I am assuming along with numerous eminent astrophysicists such as Prof Stephen Hawkins,, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, Arthur S. Eddington, Harlow Shapley, Jocelyn Bell, Charles Thomas Bolton, Georges-Henri Lemaitre, along with Prof Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, along with Radio Astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who discovered  Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), along with NASA, who recently confirmed faith in Einsteins theory, along with numerous educational and research centres – who ALL agree that that so far, the Big Bang is the only plausible explanation for our universe.
Please show me one scientist, or scientific publication, that disagree or contends that the Big Bang is not the origin of our universe.

Here is what I said read it again. . . .First the singularity is not a beginning in the normal sense, but rather places the limit on what we can deduce from observation.  The big bang does not establish that "the universe had a beginning". What it states is that the cosmos - our four-dimensional space-time, can be traced back to a cosmic singularity. One might thereby assume that said cosmic singularity represents "the beginning", but I would have to note here that this is an assumption on your part. . .  The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know if that really was the "beginning" . . . .

You patronise yourself in order to score cheap thrill. It does you no favours. I am sure you know that the account of creation does not end in Gen 1:1

Yeah like the sun and the moon being created on the same day, no?. . .All the stars being created almost as an after thought on the same day no? . . . . .What does the OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE show? Any reason to believe that the sun and the moon were created on the same day? The observable evidence shows that they were NOT created at the same time. . . .But that is what the genesis "creation account" says. . . .It says that they were created on the same day. . .How so?

At least we have a book that says a God, Omnipotent and Omnipresent created the earth from NOTHING. And we choose to believe it. Please show me any scientific paper that explains what came before the Big Bang, or what came before the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Please, show me how it is explained that the Big Bang, or indeed the Singularity came from nothing? As you well know, that haven’t gotten to that stage yet, and they wont – because there is nothing more. As with Evolution (the Missing Link), it always seems to be explained to the point where they can go no further.

What exactly is it that you are trying to say?. . . .Who said that the singularity came from nothing?. . . .God created everything from nothing eh?. . . .Nice.

Please do try to argue intelligently. We need not waste our time on this trivia. There was Light in the Earth before any plants were created, and indeed, there was Day, and there was Night. No one is claiming to understand where this light came from, but it was enough to sustain plant life.

Observable evidence very clearly shows that the sun first had to come before the earth. . . . What was holding the earth and the other planets in orbit before the sun was created if we are to go by the genesis "creation account"? The sun had to come first according to observable evidence since the gravitational pull from the sun is what keeps the earth and other planets in orbit. . . .

Let us examine this in detail. With, or without a belief in God, is it to much to understand how a supernatural Being can create something from nothing? Have you asked yourself how the Sun was created? Oh Yes, it was from a Supernovae explosion. The rapidly cooling fragments/debris and gas clouds eventually formed our planets and also the sun under the sheer force of gravity. The ball of debris that was eventually going to become our Sun continued to contract and get hotter, until its central temperature rose high enough to ignite the fires of nuclear fusion. This is our Sun today.

Do you see anything wrong with this statement? There  seems to be a lot of assumptions and presuppositions here. Where did the light source of the Sun come from? Oh, Nuclear Fission. Where does Nuclear Fission come from? Oh, from the splitting of atoms. Where do these atoms come from? Oh, from the gases and chemical compounds in the gasses. Where do the gasses come from? Oh, from the Big Bang. Where does the Big Bang come from? Oh, from a Singularity. Where does the Singularity come from? Oh, I DO NOT KNOW!

Ohh there seems to be a lot of assumption there, but there isn't any assumption in a creation account that says that the earth was created before the sun, or that all the stars were created on the same day and at the same time?. . . The scientific explanation for star and planetary formation, best explains what we see around. . . .It also best explains the existence of things like asteroids, comets, cosmic dust and so forth. . . .Ohh so because we don't or have't found explanations yet,  that means God did it eh?. . . .When has God did it ever explain anything?. . . . What language did this god use in speaking all the birds we see around into existence as the genesis creation account puts it?. . . .

Meaning of Supernatural – Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.(Wikipedia and Free online Dictionary). Hence, If it is agreed that something exists (as a singularity does), and that “thing” does not conform to any natural laws, or laws of physics (as a singularity does), then it is defined as “Supernatural” Do you get that?

Can you show me any scientific paper that says that the singularity disobeys all natural laws or laws of physics?. . . .

LOL! You really cant be this thick?

Romeo4real:


Don't know what you are on about, but even scientists do not agree how the moon was created. There are 4 competing theories in this regard; and one of them says it was created the same way the planets and our Sun was created. The debris that all planetary and interplanetary bodies are formed from was ejected out at the same time in the supernovae explosion - thereby "created" at the same time

But Genesis also says the earth, planet earth, that is, was created on a different day from what u are calling a "supernovae explosion". So if genesis is going by what u are claiming it does (the day in which the debris was ejected), shouldn't genesis read that the earth, sun, moon, etc were created on the same day? why is the earth created on a separate day?

mazaje:

DNA is now god right?. . . .

And where did I say that??

mazaje:

As for Perry Marshall his arguments were completely destroyed on the infidels website. . . .

That is not true, sir. It is yet to be refuted after over 300 replies on that thread 

mazaje:

What is funny is the way modern day christians have now reduced their god and have almost stripped him of all his traditional powers and attributes. The god that is now talked about is the subtle god that seems to manifest himself in things that people do not know or things that look or sound mysterious. . . .

Dunno about others, but I started this thread to show that there are really are plenty of scientific pointers that indicate that there really is a creator.

mazaje:

The god the bible talks about is no longer the image some christians are now portraying. . . .They are now portraying a picture of a completely detached, god who only evidence is "his creation". . . .The all powerful, all knowing, all good, omnipresent, o-mini what ever concept has now been dropped. . .The christian god is now the singularity, DNA, interpreter of dreams etc. . . .He has been completely stripped of his traditional attributes and has now been relegated to the status of the deist god. . . .God is no longer this mysterious being that heals the blind, heal amputees or performs wonders for all to "see and believe". . . .   

Oh, don;t get us wrong.  .  . God still has all of his powers and attributes and I would've gone on to present some of them here for you to comment on refute but with all your responses so far, that would be a complete waste of time, as its clear you have your mind made up and will not even make the effort to see things objectively, even for a minute. And don;t get me wrong.  .  . I think thats cool 

mazaje:

. . .I know that no body will ever provide such evidence, but I wonder why people keep yapping that their own version of God alone must have been the one that created the universe. . . .

Whoever said atheists do not have faith!

mazaje:

Einstein and Hawkings both believe in a deist concept of God. . . .Of all the concept of God out there the deist  concept is the most rational and logical IMO. . . .Which is that the creator created and left, What the creator is nobody knows. . .That IMO is a reasonable assumption, even though there is NO evidence at all for it. . . . .If any body says that the universe was created by his/her God then the person better provides evidence to show that his God alone created the universe . . .I know that no body will ever provide such evidence, but I wonder why people keep yapping that their own version of God alone must have been the one that created the universe. . . .

Its funny but it seems to me that the MAJOR problem with the atheist is not that there is a God but that such a God is intimately interested in how we live our lives.

I really dont understand how belief in a God who created the earth and left is most "rational and logical". Does anyone have an idea?

^^^ Well David, I share your concern on the general idea many Deists have that God has "departed" after creation.

In my own view it is not so much a departure in that sense.

It is rather that the laws of God permeate and sustain creation and all its workings.

Accordingly there is nothing "more" for God to do. He has set the whole thing in motion already.

If mere man is able to create machines which can fly on auto-pilot, I am sure the least we can say for God is that being a perfect being, his craetion must perforce contain all the laws required to sustain it without the requirement for further interference.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Well David, I share your concern on the general idea many Deists have that God has "departed" after creation.

In my own view it is not so much a departure in that sense.

It is rather that the laws of God permeate and sustain creation and all its workings.

Accordingly there is nothing "more" for God to do. He has set the whole thing in motion already.

If mere man is able to create machines which can fly on auto-pilot, I am sure the least we can say for God is that being a perfect being, his craetion must perforce contain all the laws required to sustain it without the requirement for further interference.

I truly do not understand the idiocy you keep foistering around here. God has given you the freewill to reject Him or His interference in your life. What else is your problem? Is God stopping you from eating breakfast?

Na wa o.

You asked a simple and sensible question.

I stated clearly that I share your concern.

I gave my perspective - namely that God has set all laws in motion already.

And for this i receive this - ?

davidylan:

I truly do not understand the idiocy you keep foistering around here.

Well smile David. Life is beautiful.

davidylan:

Its funny but it seems to me that the MAJOR problem with the atheist is not that there is a God but that such a God is intimately interested in how we live our lives.

Yeah like a god that is "interested" in people lives by telling his "chosen people" to kill unbelievers and sacrifice them unto him as burnt offering no? A god that tell people to despoil unbelievers, and steal from them, A god that tells people to kill each other for NO reason at all sometimes? A god that tells men to tell women not to speak in public and be their subordinates eh? Take it or leave it. . Your god was INVENTED by men. . . .The idea came from ancient tribal Jews and their superstition. . . .Read the bible its all in there. . . .

I really dont understand how belief in a God who created the earth and left is most "rational and logical". Does anyone have an idea?

The idea is better than the myth of a god who allegedly goes around killing people, soaking his shirt with their blood and boasting that he did it alone as recorded in your bible. . . .Such a god is only able to do that in the pages of the bible a book that was written when men mostly believed in diverse superstitious beliefs and were without much knowledge of the laws of nature and how the operate. . . .Even the christians of now a days are constantly changing the traditional attributes to their god and stripped him of his allege "powers". They have now relegated his status to that of the deist

Can a non existant god create anything? Prove your god exists first and then we can discuss what he's capable of creating.

Can a non existent god create anything? Prove your god exists first and then we can discuss what he's capable of creating.

This statement is so typical of Atheist and Sceptics alike. It is not even a legitimate question, not well thought through, and essentially self defeating. Lack of proof that something exists, is not proof that it does not exist. Moreover, there is enough proof there is a God, but they choose to ignore it

Moreover, this kind of question opens them up to the same charge.

Can anyone prove why fingerprint patterns are so unique?
Can anyone prove why a recessive gene can suddenly become dominant?
Can anyone prove how the human eye evolved into the amazing organ it is today?
Can anyone prove the mechanism by which birds use the Sun, Star Constellations and the Earths magnetic field to navigate?

Romeo4real:

Can anyone prove why fingerprint patterns are so unique?
Can anyone prove why a recessive gene can suddenly become dominant?
Can anyone prove how the human eye evolved into the amazing organ it is today?
Can anyone prove the mechanism by which birds use the Sun, Star Constellations and the Earths magnetic field to navigate?

One does not prove "why", you offer explanations.
Neither do people prove mechanisms. Mechanisms are demonstrated.

The theists say theres a God&they ve tried to prove the existence of the God using various hypothesis,which the atheists always counter.
But till this day the atheist says no God&havent proven it yet.