Unfortuanately your reply answers nothing, and yes I am aware that Religion doesn't automaticaly become right if the big bang theory is proven wrong

You say the first things were Most likely subatomic particles. Energy fluctuations., then what created this particles, a previous Big Bang maybe, or were they just there since the begining of time just for the sake of being there and no the Big Bang or a Big Bang Most Definitely and absolutely did not create Time, due to the fact that nothing can exist or function without time then how could a rection create it if it couldn't function without time, Time was here before there was anything and my answer to what may have created time is God and God is Time becuase he is everywhere in everytime and in Everyplace.

dblock:

Unfortuanately your reply answers nothing,

Then you didn't read them.

and yes I am aware that Religion doesn't automaticaly become right if the big bang theory is proven wrong

And vice versa. In any case, the dichotomy was more or less contained within your post.

You say the first things were Most likely subatomic particles. Energy fluctuations., then what created this particles, a previous Big Bang maybe, or were they just there since the begining of time just for the sake of being there

No, and energy fluctuations was for "how was it created?"

and no the Big Bang or a Big Bang Most Definitely and absolutely did not create Time, due to the fact that nothing can exist or function without time then how could a rection create it if it couldn't function without time, Time was here before there was anything

No.

and my answer to what may have created time is God and God is Time becuase he is everywhere in everytime and in Everyplace.

This will be the part where, rather than resorting to ad hoc, you actually bring some evidence.

Mu theory isn't based on complicated formulas or what not
It is simply, I believe you are right but what came first, oh so that cam first but what created that, if those simple questions cannot be answered without coming up with drastic and qustionable theories "Big Bang", then i think i shall rest ma case.

dblock:

Mu theory isn't based on complicated formulas or what not

You have a theory? Share.

It is simply, I believe you are right but what came first, oh so that cam first but what created that, if those simple questions cannot be answered without coming up with drastic and qustionable theories "Big Bang", then i think i shall rest ma case.

What are you trying to say? In any case, the Big Bang theory happens to be based on evidence, so it's hardly drastic, etc.

A lot of Scientists are disguised Stand up comedians, they say things such as we evloved from apes but the reason why we aren't evolving now or why evolution isn't all too clear is because it happens over millions of years, that's comedy channel material, anyways. My theory is;

Big Bang nucleosynthesis is explained to be the process that began shotly after the Big Bang theory and is said to be what made the expansion of space possible, considering that Space is indeed expanding, then the process would have to be true.

Sub-atomic paticles or particles smaller in mass than atoms-----------------Multipies and reacts---creates Gases and other particles and creates senser energy-------------This energy because of the enormous pressure supposedly starts of the "Big Bang Theory--------Then Big Bang nucleosynthesis-------Okay Good all makes sense

But----What created the Sub-atomic particles, was it demi-sub-atomic particles, what created the demi-sub-atomic particles, was it micro-demi-sub-atomic particles? hmmmmm, do you see where I am going with this. scientists are only simplfying entities or elements that exists today to explain their theories but they fail to explan the upmost begining, The Big Bang is the begining of the Universe and not the begining of anything befor it

dblock:

A lot of Scientists are disguised Stand up comedians, they say things such as we evloved from apes but the reason why we aren't evolving now or why evolution isn't all too clear is because it happens over millions of years, that's comedy channel material, anyways.

The trouble with internet forums and religion is that it gives ignorant laymen the chance to denegrate a field of which they evidently know next to nothing.

My theory is;

Big Bang nucleosynthesis is explained to be the process that began shotly after the Big Bang theory and is said to be what made the expansion of space possible, considering that Space is indeed expanding, then the process would have to be true.

Er, nucleosynthesis isn't the reason for the expansion of Space.

Sub-atomic paticles or particles smaller in mass than atoms-----------------Multipies and reacts---creates Gases and other particles and creates senser energy-------------This energy because of the enormous pressure supposedly starts of the "Big Bang Theory--------Then Big Bang nucleosynthesis-------Okay Good all makes sense

Energy should before sub-atomic particles, and sub-atomic paricles came after the Big Bang, not before.

But----What created the Sub-atomic particles, was it demi-sub-atomic particles, what created the demi-sub-atomic particles, was it micro-demi-sub-atomic particles? hmmmmm, do you see where I am going with this.

You really aren't paying attention, energy fluctuations cause(d) sub-atomic particles.

scientists are only simplfying entities or elements that exists today to explain their theories but they fail to explan the upmost begining, The Big Bang is the begining of the Universe and not the begining of anything befor it

Well, it may be senseless to call it the "beginning" of the Universe; and yes, the Big Bang is not the beginning of anything before it, nobody has said it was (except you).

By the way, where's your theory? You still haven't presented it.

Er, nucleosynthesis isn't the reason for the expansion of Space.

It is actually, acoording to my research

By the way, where's your theory? You still haven't presented it.

My theory is;

Supreme Being(God)=Time
____________________ = Creation of everything nessecary for life and life itself
Time

Regadless of the order of the activities and reactions etc. God would have to come first because it seems to me that it is the only logical explanation to explain what created energy or what created atomic particles, because they couldn't just create them selves.

God--------------Infinite Number of Prerequsite reaction-------Life as we know it

regardless of the order you put the reactions or the theories scientists may come up with, it'll still lead to the same question, what came before that and that's where God comes in. Things do not exist for the sake of existing, everything is created by something and for a reason.

dblock:

regardless of the order you put the reactions or the theories scientists may come up with, it'll still lead to the same question, what came before that and that's where God comes in. Things do not exist for the sake of existing, everything is created by something and for a reason.

Anthropocentric feeble mindedness disguised as profound reasoning. You're looking for holes in scientific explantions where you can fit your god in.
1. Your holes (what came before time, aka the first cause) are only necessary in your limited understanding of realty. You may as well ask what's north of the north pole
2. Your (and my) linear, temporal perception of reality does not equal reality itself. The wiring of our brain and the senses we have help us to survive in our 'middle ' world. We cannot perceive how the subatomic world functions, nor can we truly understand the meaning of deep time and space, yet we continuously try to make reality fit our limited perceptive and cognitive framework.
Your God is a God of the Gaps and - if you would follow your reasoning to it's conclusion - it would say absolutely nothing about the nature of your God, but would rather falsify the specific nature of that God as professed in the scriptures of the monotheistic religions (I'm assuming here you're either a Christian, a Muslim or a Jew)

@nferyn,

nferyn:

Anthropocentric feeble mindedness disguised as profound reasoning. You're looking for holes in scientific explantions where you can fit your god in.

To a surficial reader, it would look like you had "profound reasoning" - the problem, however, is that yours is as "disguised" as anyone else's that you accuse in just the same manner.

nferyn:

1. Your holes (what came before time, aka the first cause) are only necessary in your limited understanding of realty. You may as well ask what's north of the north pole
2. Your (and my) linear, temporal perception of reality does not equal reality itself. The wiring of our brain and the senses we have help us to survive in our 'middle ' world. We cannot perceive how the subatomic world functions, nor can we truly understand the meaning of deep time and space, yet we continuously try to make reality fit our limited perceptive and cognitive framework.

Isn't it obvious in your admission here that you simply do not know what you are talking about? You admit, at least, that your "linear, temporal perception of reality does not equal reality itself", and I'm grateful to read that. And yet, in being accusative of others about the "God of the Gaps", you have actually manufactured your own "Gaps" in your double admission that "we" (which would include you) "continuously try to make reality fit our limited perceptive and cognitive framework." Already, nferyn, following this disguised and overblown idea of yours is simply falsifying the specific nature of your premise - and you have cleverly arrived at "absolutely nothing" in just the same way that you only see about the reasoning of others!

dblock:

It is actually, acoording to my research

Do you have the names of and/or links for the sources you used for your research?

My theory is;

Supreme Being(God)=Time
____________________ = Creation of everything nessecary for life and life itself
Time

That's not a theory, that's just putting undefined terms with mathematical symbols.

First, what exactly is the Supreme Being and what is the evidence for the Supreme Being you've multiplied by God (that or you're calling the supreme being God - another undefined term). Also, why is it Supreme Being and not Supreme Beings.

Second, why is the Supreme Being equal to Time? Not only isn't there any reason for that, it also means the Supreme Being had a beginning. That leads to the next question, what caused the Supreme Being or how did it come to be?

Finally, how and why is Time divided by Time equal to "Creation of everything nessecary for life and life itself"?

Regadless of the order of the activities and reactions etc. God would have to come first because it seems to me that it is the only logical explanation to explain what created energy or what created atomic particles, because they couldn't just create them selves.

Except it isn't. If you want to talk logic, then, parsimoniously speaking, Gods are unnecessary. Furthermore, since particles, sub-atomic particles etc have being observed "creating" themselves, your objection is a moot one.

God--------------Infinite Number of Prerequsite reaction-------Life as we know it

regardless of the order you put the reactions or the theories scientists may come up with, it'll still lead to the same question, what came before that and that's where God comes in.

The tactic of plugging deities into the little gaps in knowledge (or perceived gaps) has been employed for milliennia. You can probably guess how that's worked out in the long run. Anyway, nothing necessarily needs to have come "before" the Big Bang

Things do not exist for the sake of existing, everything is created by something and for a reason.

Unfounded assumption, unreasonable conclusion.

Anthropocentric feeble mindedness disguised as profound reasoning. You're looking for holes in scientific explantions where you can fit your god in.

And your reasoning differs?
Let us not make this a i'm a  religious stooge situation, I study science my dad studies science my step mum studies science Gawd Doe, science runs thoriugh my blood. Yes I am indeed creating holes in science, but if I'm am just a feeble minded idiot why don't you prove me wrong by not going in circles and explaining abosolutely and practically nothing. I am not saying that christianity is more credible than the Big Bang Theory but i think it is just as credible and i may even be able to prove it to be mor credible . "In the begining was void, " That seems to make more sense than energy fluctuations, awwww that just ahhh awww were in ahhh space started a ahhhhh chain reaction which ahhhh, started a  ahhhhh "Big Bang" yeah. Let's make this debate based on reasoning and not on the immunity of scientists saying that science is paramount and Religion is fables. I have given questions that were answered quite well, but don't you see, it's the same thing, it will lead to; nothing but an infinite number of scientifically unanswerable questions.

Look, I don't know why I exist today and I don't know why there is such a thing as energy, or dark matter or the universe, but what I do know is that things just don't exist for the sake of existence, they had to be created by something or somebody, my argument isn't extremely plaudible, but I believe it makes a lot more sense that what sientists are leading us to believe.

Do you have the names of and/or links for the sources you used for your research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

It doesn't say that space expansion was directly created by Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but the process begasn almost instantly, therefore, there must have been some connection

That's not a theory, that's just putting undefined terms with mathematical symbols.

Thatis because Science makes it impossible to interleave anything religious, my theory would have to be backed up by reasoning of the highest level which I am still working on.

S

econd, why is the Supreme Being equal to Time? Not only isn't there any reason for that, it also means the Supreme Being had a beginning. That leads to the next question, what caused the Supreme Being or how did it come to be?

The reason why, I said the Supreme Being is equal to time was due to the fact that the supreme one couldn't possibly have existed before time and time couldn't have existed befor the supreme being hence they would have to be the same and religious documents do back this up, although it is not clear and it is a little circumstantial

The supreme being wasn't created by anyone because nothing existed before him. It seems to me that you are attacking me with my own evidence , that's understandable but I do believe that the reason why scientists can stand around saying things like what you are saying and obviosly implying, is due to the presence and existence of the suprem being. I cannot explani to you today or tommorow why the supreme one came to existence or how, becaue I have no such knowledege but I long for such knowledege

4get_me:

@nferyn,

Anthropocentric feeble mindedness disguised as profound reasoning. You're looking for holes in scientific explantions where you can fit your god in.

To a surficial reader, it would look like you had "profound reasoning" - the problem, however, is that yours is as "disguised" as anyone else's that you accuse in just the same manner.

How so? I didn't put forward any claims and my position is pretty straightforward. Anyway, I was a bit irritated at that time, so I shouldn't have been so harsh.

4get_me:

1. Your holes (what came before time, aka the first cause) are only necessary in your limited understanding of realty. You may as well ask what's north of the north pole
2. Your (and my) linear, temporal perception of reality does not equal reality itself. The wiring of our brain and the senses we have help us to survive in our 'middle ' world. We cannot perceive how the subatomic world functions, nor can we truly understand the meaning of deep time and space, yet we continuously try to make reality fit our limited perceptive and cognitive framework.

Isn't it obvious in your admission here that you simply do not know what you are talking about?

I don't make any claims that reality should fit my limited understanding.

4get_me:

You admit, at least, that your "linear, temporal perception of reality does not equal reality itself", and I'm grateful to read that.

But once again, I do not make any claims about reality that contradict our (the current state of knowledge) scientific understanding of reality (which is very much counter-intuitive).

4get_me:

And yet, in being accusative of others about the "God of the Gaps", you have actually manufactured your own "Gaps" in your double admission that "we" (which would include you) "continuously try to make reality fit our limited perceptive and cognitive framework."

I make no claims here regarding the nature of reality, only point out the obvious, namely that the God of the Gaps [/i]is unnecessary and unparsimonious.

4get_me:

Already, nferyn, following this [i]disguised and overblown idea of yours is simply falsifying the specific nature of your premise - and you have cleverly arrived at "absolutely nothing" in just the same way that you only see about the reasoning of others!

Either your thinking is a few steps ahead of me, you're leaving out some crucial steps in your reasoning or you're picking some rhetorical tricks out your big hat. Anyway, I'm not following.

dblock:

Anthropocentric feeble mindedness disguised as profound reasoning. You're looking for holes in scientific explantions where you can fit your god in.

And your reasoning differs?

Yes, but I shouldn't have been so condescending of yours. My appologies.

dblock:

Let us not make this a i'm a religious stooge situation, I study science my dad studies science my step mum studies science Gawd Doe, science runs thoriugh my blood.

Then you must be familiar with Occam's Razor.

dblock:

Yes I am indeed creating holes in science, but if I'm am just a feeble minded idiot why don't you prove me wrong by not going in circles and explaining abosolutely and practically nothing.

Ok. What exactly makes God necessary in the origin of the universe? Personal incredulity doesn't count.
What explanative powers does God [/i]have and what makes [i]God [/i]falsifiable? What predictions does the [i]God [/i]hypothesis make and what would be a falsification of the hypothesis?
Labeling [i]"I can't understand how that works/is" [/i]by the catch-all container [i]God explains exactly nothing.

dblock:

I am not saying that christianity is more credible than the Big Bang Theory but i think it is just as credible and i may even be able to prove it to be mor credible . "In the begining was void, " That seems to make more sense than energy fluctuations, awwww that just ahhh awww were in ahhh space started a ahhhhh chain reaction which ahhhh, started a ahhhhh "Big Bang" yeah.

Contrary to the [i]God [/i]hypothesis, the Big Bang theory makes specific predictions and is in principle falsifiable, whether it makes sense to you or not. The limitations of your (and most definitely mine when it comes to cosmology) intellect does not mean that a specific theory is false. Quantum Mechanics is profoundly counter-intuitive, yet all the predictions that follow from that theory are confirmed by experiments to such a degree that it's really scary.

dblock:

Let's make this debate based on reasoning and not on the immunity of scientists saying that science is paramount and Religion is fables.

The moment religion makes specific claims about reality, it is open for falsification and Jahweh, as described in the Bible, has been falsified many times over, not only on an evidentiary basis, but also by basis contradictions in his properties.
When you take a generic deistic or pantheistic god, of course that god cannot be falsified. But then again, that god is totally inconsequential and could just as well not exist.

dblock:

I have given questions that were answered quite well, but don't you see, it's the same thing, it will lead to; nothing but an infinite number of scientifically unanswerable questions.

There are certain questions that cannot be answered by science in principle. Unfortunately for the concerned theists, Jahweh doesn't fit in that gap.

dblock:

Look, I don't know why I exist today and I don't know why there is such a thing as energy, or dark matter or the universe, but what I do know is that things just don't exist for the sake of existence, they had to be created by something or somebody,

You say so, but why is there any necessity here? I think that necessity exists in your head mainly because your conceptual framework is that of a human. There is no logical or ontological necessity though.

dblock:

my argument isn't extremely plaudible, but I believe it makes a lot more sense that what sientists are leading us to believe.

Maybe it does make more sense to you. Have you ever asked yourself why it makes more sense? Could it be that we are neurologically predisposed to see intent and purpose in everything, because that faculty helped us survive in our ancestral environment?

@nferyn

Hmnnnnn ive been following this discussion and i saw where you said that God (and probably the bible too) have been falsified over and over again.

Can you give me an example or some examples?

@nferyn

U failed to give me any examples of what i asked about. I really thought u had some examples

hmm. . . all interesting.

Let me start.

I believe in God. My belief is not dependent on any religious text. While my introduction to the concept is invariably tied to one, my belief is not predicated on a specific book.

I find that my belief in God is self consistent and without contradiction.

It is easy to argue that my human limitation keeps me from being able to comprehend the true realities of life, origins of the universe, etc. Unfortunately, that would render any other person susceptible to the same problems. As a result, I cannot tell someone that what they believe in is wrong and I do not attempt to say what I believe is the one "right" way.

dblock:

And your reasoning differs?
Let us not make this a i'm a religious stooge situation, I study science my dad studies science my step mum studies science Gawd Doe, science runs thoriugh my blood. Yes I am indeed creating holes in science, but if I'm am just a feeble minded idiot why don't you prove me wrong by not going in circles and explaining abosolutely and practically nothing. I am not saying that christianity is more credible than the Big Bang Theory but i think it is just as credible and i may even be able to prove it to be mor credible .

You're not doing a very good job of showing its credibility, then.

"In the begining was void, " That seems to make more sense than energy fluctuations, awwww that just ahhh awww were in ahhh space started a ahhhhh chain reaction which ahhhh, started a ahhhhh "Big Bang" yeah.

The major difference is one is ad hoc, the other is based on evidence.

Let's make this debate based on reasoning and not on the immunity of scientists saying that science is paramount and Religion is fables. I have given questions that were answered quite well, but don't you see, it's the same thing, it will lead to; nothing but an infinite number of scientifically unanswerable questions.

Look, I don't know why I exist today and I don't know why there is such a thing as energy, or dark matter or the universe, but what I do know is that things just don't exist for the sake of existence, they had to be created by something or somebody, my argument isn't extremely plaudible, but I believe it makes a lot more sense that what sientists are leading us to believe.

I disagree. First, things don't necessarily have to exist for a reason. Not only haven't you given a reason for the assumption that things have to exist for reasons other than just existence, it could be argued by showing things like: radioactive decay, the billions and billons of stars and bodies in space, etc, that things just exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

It doesn't say that space expansion was directly created by Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but the process begasn almost instantly, therefore, there must have been some connection

Basically, you've made a connection for no other reason than probable misunderstanding.

Thatis because Science makes it impossible to interleave anything religious, my theory would have to be backed up by reasoning of the highest level which I am still working on.

It doesn't make it impossible, it just discourages it - what with its insitence on trivial silliness like evidence, repeatbility, peer-review and other silly things designed to weed out illogic, hoaxes and pointless ad hoc.

S
The reason why, I said the Supreme Being is equal to time was due to the fact that the supreme one couldn't possibly have existed before time and time couldn't have existed befor the supreme being hence they would have to be the same and religious documents do back this up, although it is not clear and it is a little circumstantial

A little circumstantial? In any case, I guess since the supreme being is equal to time it would suggest the supreme being is changeable, testable and came into existence from either "previous" non-existence, or a causation.

The supreme being wasn't created by anyone because nothing existed before him.

Except Space. By the way, why and how is the supreme being a he?

It seems to me that you are attacking me with my own evidence , that's understandable but I do believe that the reason why scientists can stand around saying things like what you are saying and obviosly implying, is due to the presence and existence of the suprem being.

I doubt that.

I cannot explani to you today or tommorow why the supreme one came to existence or how, becaue I have no such knowledege but I long for such knowledege

so making up stuff is the next best thing?

sage:

@nferyn

U failed to give me any examples of what i asked about. I really thought u had some examples

You really should be a little more patient. I'm not spending all my waking days here on nairaland, you know

Anyway, here are 3 types of examples that can count as falsification of the specific Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Obviously I can easily bring a multitude of evidence that falsifies this specific God, but I'll be very brief for clarity

1. Falsification on logical grounds:
The omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God is self contradictory: omnipotence and omniscience contradict the fact that God, in his holy books, has needs, wants and desires: an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot have needs and wants because reality cannot be anything but the emmanation of God's mere being. As reality is not the emmanation of God's wants (God having negative feelings about his creation: sorrow, sadness, anger, etc), he cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.
Omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and the problem of evil in the world: with an omnimax God evil cannot exist in this world, because everything God wants, just is. If God doesn't want evil to exist, it wouldn't, as God is omnipotent and omniscient. Evil exists, thus God is either not omnibenevolent or he isn't omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. The classical apologetical anwser to this contradiction is the existence of free will, but that's only a weak defense, as free will logically implies choice, choice implies an indeterminate future, an indeterminate future contradicts God's omniscience. Even if you would assume that intentional evil (as being carried out by independent agents, such as humans) could be explained away by waving the free will card - which it can't on logical grounds - the problem of natural evil (earthquakes, droughts, tsunami's, etc) still remains

2. Falsification on historical grounds:
The exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt to Palestine should have left distinct archaeological evidence on the ground (e.g. the climate in that region does not allow the logistics of such an exodus to take place) as well as records in Egyptian sources (the plagues, all firstborn sons dead etc) which it didn't. This is just an example from the top of my head, I can source it if you would dispute this evidence. Also with a quick search I can bring far more historical sources testifying to the impossibility of what is portryed in the Bible.

3. falsification on scientific grounds:
I will be brief here:
a. Genesis contradicts all astrophysical, geological and biological evidence known to mankind
b. The Noachian Flood and Ark are in clear contradiction to all known geological, physical andbiological evidence. This event is physically impossible to have happened. Moreover, the repeopling of the earth after this deluge would lead to very specific genetical patterns in all human populations, which it doesn't show and would require fertility rates far above what is physiologically possible for women.

nferyn:

1. Falsification on logical grounds:
The omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God is self contradictory: omnipotence and omniscience contradict the fact that God, in his holy books, has needs, wants and desires: an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot have needs and wants because reality cannot be anything but the emmanation of God's mere being. As reality is not the emmanation of God's wants (God having negative feelings about his creation: sorrow, sadness, anger, etc), he cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.
Omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and the problem of evil in the world: with an omnimax God evil cannot exist in this world, because everything God wants, just is. If God doesn't want evil to exist, it wouldn't, as God is omnipotent and omniscient. Evil exists, thus God is either not omnibenevolent or he isn't omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. The classical apologetical anwser to this contradiction is the existence of free will, but that's only a weak defense, as free will logically implies choice, choice implies an indeterminate future, an indeterminate future contradicts God's omniscience. Even if you would assume that intentional evil (as being carried out by independent agents, such as humans) could be explained away by waving the free will card - which it can't on logical grounds - the problem of natural evil (earthquakes, droughts, tsunami's, etc) still remains

Well. . the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence create contradictions even when couple with free will because it is our logical (maybe) assertation that if God is omnipotent, then whatever he wants will occur and since he is omniscience, free will doesn't really make sense since God already knows everything that would happen. However, if you think about it, omniscience and free will can co-exist, it would just imply that God creating humans was an exercise in futility, and I'm not quite sure if the three omni categories necessarily imply that God does not engage in futile actions.

This also goes against the omnibenevolent attribute of God, because since God is omniscient, God would know that giving humans free will would not turn out good for humans and for God to still continue along this course of action would make God capricious.

I think the contradictions can be resolved if one of them was incorrect. IE God is either not omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent. If you base your postulates about the nature of God on the Christian bible, the best one to scratch off the list is omnibenevolence. While humans would like to think that God is omnibenevolent, the actions taken by God do not necessarily construe the meaning we ascribe to the word.

nferyn:

2. Falsification on historical grounds:
The exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt to Palestine should have left distinct archaeological evidence on the ground (e.g. the climate in that region does not allow the logistics of such an exodus to take place) as well as records in Egyptian sources (the plagues, all firstborn sons dead etc) which it didn't. This is just an example from the top of my head, I can source it if you would dispute this evidence. Also with a quick search I can bring far more historical sources testifying to the impossibility of what is portryed in the Bible.

Well, to be fair, while we may expect there to be some distinct evidence of all this, there does exist a very very very remote possibility that this evidence could somehow have been erased over time (or some of it simply lie undiscovered - think about all the furor going on NOW over the excavation work going on in Jerusalem - Israel has a national rule that they don't undergo any major architectural work without doing some archaelogical excavation - to aid them in finding the evidence of which we are speaking). Anyhoo. . .yeah and to spin your head some more, the bible says "all things are possible with God" so assuming the bible is correct, the disappearance of all such evidence in that region is indeed possible. . . hehehe

nferyn:

3. falsification on scientific grounds:
I will be brief here:
a. Genesis contradicts all astrophysical, geological and biological evidence known to mankind
b. The Noachian Flood and Ark are in clear contradiction to all known geological, physical andbiological evidence. This event is physically impossible to have happened. Moreover, the repeopling of the earth after this deluge would lead to very specific genetical patterns in all human populations, which it doesn't show and would require fertility rates far above what is physiologically possible for women.

Ahh, the fun stuff. The easy counterargument to this is "you cannot take those sections of the Bible literally". There is really no way to argue against that statement. It pretty much serves as a catchall for any arguments on scientific grounds relating to creation up through the flood. That is not to say it is right or wrong, just there is no way to satisfactorily win against this argument.

@nferyn

You still did not provide any example. Saying that lack of archaeological evidence is equal to falsification is baseless. Evidence does not exist for every event in the past and i dont see how that equals falsification. That evidence of what occured 4000 to 5000 years ago can not be dug up does not mean it did not happen. And i wonder on what you base ur argument that its impossible for the world to be repopulated in 5000 years to what it is currently.

You also mention evil, sufferings and natural disasters as proving that there is no God, but the bible has all the answers as to why current conditions in the world are the way it is? do you care to know?


So i am still waiting for concrete proof of falsification. Something that the bible says that science has proved wrong or known historical facts have proved wrong not clutching at straws like saying because they havent dug up any evidence, then its false.

On the other hand the bible provides genuine facts and prophecies which their fufilment indicates it definately was not the work of man. It clearly reflects the wisdom from above. It also had scientific facts that long preceded that known at the time of its writing. Evidences of inspiration abound.

First though, give me evidence of what i asked. Im still waiting

The Big Bang Theory is not empirical or pragmatic, infact it is a bold statement and a questionable one; to say that is even a fact or based on facts, for a fact is a piece of information or information that is conclusive and leaves no space of any sort for possibilities. The Big Bang theory is adamant to inconclusive and substantial information.

Looking at Christianity, which I am representing. Well I think this argument is pointless if the experiences of  “limit situations” aren’t mentioned. As most of us know, Limit situations are happenings or experiences that seem to strike against the limits of one’s own being, in so doing the person becomes aware of the existence of a being that transcends their own. They become aware of “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” a term suggested by German Protestant theologian Rudolf Otto to explain the awe and fascination created by a “limit situation”.

Further points to prove the existence of God and thus the credibility of Christianity and the falsification of the “Big Bang Theory” and other preposterous theories.

(1)The fact of change requires an agent of change;
(2)The chain of causation needs to be grounded in a first cause that is itself uncaused;
(3)The contingent facts of the world (facts that might not have been as they are) presuppose a necessary being;
(4)One can observe a gradation of things as higher and lower, and this points to a perfect reality at the top of              the hierarchy;
(5)The order and design of nature demand as their source a being possessing the highest wisdom.

How can a chain of caustion such as the Big Bang occur systematically if there wasn't something or someone in the begining to start of the reaction. My argument is not Christianity Vs Science, because science itself and all other knowledge is the will of God, because he is omniscience(He has all knowledge).

@Allonym the contradictions between the attributes of the attributes of "omnipotence" "omniscience" and "omnibenevolence" are only spurred by the lack of knowledge, simply becuase a mortal being like yourself has no the potential or capability to judge the work of a divine being like God.

so making up stuff is the next best thing?

I have made up no information whatsoever

A little circumstantial? In any case, I guess since the supreme being is equal to time it would suggest the supreme being is changeable, testable and came into existence from either "previous" non-existence, or a causation.

If the supreme being is equal to time, that certainly doesn't mean that the being is testable, as he is ominpotent, but he can be changed if it is by his will, for only he can determine what happens in our universe or in the rhealm of this or future time.

I disagree. First, things don't necessarily have to exist for a reason. Not only haven't you given a reason for the assumption that things have to exist for reasons other than just existence, it could be argued by showing things like: radioactive decay, the billions and billons of stars and bodies in space, etc, that things just exist.

I believe they do, The billions and billions of stars in the universe exist because they are created by a collapsing cloud of material that is composed primarily of hydrogen along with some helium and heavier trace elements to kickstart a reaction. The elements that start this reaction were created scientifically but by the wil of God, for purposes such as Navagating(people use stars to navigate). The biggest star in our galaxy, the sun was purposely created for the effect of heating, photosythesis, evapotranspiration etc. for our Biosphere.

God is a reality, accept it

dblock:

The Big Bang Theory is not empirical or pragmatic, infact it is a bold statement and a questionable one; to say that is even a fact or based on facts, for a fact is a piece of information or information that is conclusive and leaves no space of any sort for possibilities. The Big Bang theory is adamant to inconclusive and substantial information.

Actually, the Big Bang theory is based on facts, follows the scientific method and the evidence for it are empirical.

Further points to prove the existence of God and thus the credibility of Christianity and the falsification of the “Big Bang Theory” and other preposterous theories.

(1)The fact of change requires an agent of change;

Radioactive decay; Virtual particles. They don't need an "agent of change".

(2)The chain of causation needs to be grounded in a first cause that is itself uncaused;
(3)The contingent facts of the world (facts that might not have been as they are) presuppose a necessary being;

[/quote]

Begging the question.

[quote](4)One can observe a gradation of things as higher and lower, and this points to a perfect reality at the top of the hierarchy;

Can one? Is a whale higher than a shark? Why? Is Mars higher than Saturn? Why? You're still begging the question.

(5)The order and design of nature demand as their source a being possessing the highest wisdom.

Bete]

Not necessarily.

Can such as the Big Bang occur systematically if there wasn't something or someone in the begining to start of the reaction.

Yes.

I have made up no information whatsoever

"Big Bang nucleosynthesis is explained to be the process that began shotly after the Big Bang theory and is said to be what made the expansion of space possible"

"Supreme Being(God)=Time
____________________ = Creation of everything nessecary for life and life itself
Time

If the supreme being is equal to time, that certainly doesn't mean that the being is testable,

Actually, that's what it means. It also means your Supreme being had a starting point. Do you know what "equal" means?

as he is ominpotent, but he can be changed if it is by his will, for only he can determine what happens in our universe or in the rhealm of this or future time.

So your Supreme being is changeable? Just to be clear.

I believe they do, The billions and billions of stars in the universe exist because they are created by a collapsing cloud of material that is composed primarily of hydrogen along with some helium and heavier trace elements to kickstart a reaction. The elements that start this reaction were created scientifically but by the wil of God, for purposes such as Navagating(people use stars to navigate). The biggest star in our galaxy, the sun was purposely created for the effect of heating, photosythesis, evapotranspiration etc. for our Biosphere.

And the Earth is the immovable center of the Universe and everything revolves around it.

God is a reality, accept it

There is no God, accept it. This is fun!

Not necessarily.

So basically you're saying that all the bits and pieces that came together to start the infinite reactions that occur in our universe were created by no one for no reason. It was just a boom out of nowhere

Nothing, No one-----Then-------------Boom-------particles form out of nowhere from nothing---------------

Wow, how reaviling, i'm going to convert to athiesm right away

And the Earth is the immovable center of the Universe and everything revolves around it.

Wow does science sayt that?, I never new that

Actually, that's what it means. It also means your Supreme being had a starting point. Do you know what "equal" means?

The supreme being definitely had a starting point, but he came to been the same second as time came to been, He came to been so that life could be created and void would be non existent.

Begging the question.

Is that a scientifical phrase commonly used by Athiests, please rephrase, I'm not begging anything

Actually, the Big Bang theory is based on facts, follows the scientific method and the evidence for it are empirical.

I am not denying that the sages that occured after the Big Bang occured, but i am saying that the Big Bang is definitely not an alternative to christianity, as it may even have being the way that God created Earth(I doubt it though). Me and a mate of mine are positive of a way to produce an Authentic video of the Begining of our planet, 100% exactly as it happened, not a bit different. Well what i am saying ad you keep answering in a odd fashion, is thatsuch an event as the Big Bang would have to have being created by someone, wheter it be Buddha or Ganeesh

I find it impossible to believe that this world which we live in was created for no reason bu no one and if destroyed could possibly be the end of life anywhere in the universe, maybe forever. That is extremely hard to believe, and I am a flexible person

I trust you will answer appropriately and not with the usual "Yes It can"

dblock:

So basically you're saying that all the bits and pieces that came together to start the infinite reactions that occur in our universe were created by no one for no reason.

Yes.

It was just a boom out of nowhere

No.

Nothing, No one-----Then-------------Boom-------particles form out of nowhere from nothing---------------

Wow, how reaviling, i'm going to convert to athiesm right away

You can convert to whatever you want to, but yes particles do form out of nothing: virtual particles. It certainly isn't impossible in light of the evidence we have.

Wow does science sayt that?, I never new that

No, but your religion (along with many old philosophies) did. That would explain the opinion you expressed in the part of your post I responded to sarcastically.

The supreme being definitely had a starting point, but he came to been the same second as time came to been, He came to been so that life could be created and void would be non existent.

And how did the Supreme Being come to be? You've claimed that "the fact of change requires an agent of change", so what agent of change caused your Supreme Being?

Is that a scientifical phrase commonly used by Athiests, please rephrase, I'm not begging anything

Begging the question: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

I am not denying that the sages that occured after the Big Bang occured, but i am saying that the Big Bang is definitely not an alternative to christianity, as it may even have being the way that God created Earth(I doubt it though).

I didn't say it was. nd it would be the Universe, not the Earth - I doubt it too.

Me and a mate of mine are positive of a way to produce an Authentic video of the Begining of our planet, 100% exactly as it happened, not a bit different.

When you've produced the video, be sure to share it with the science community. By the way, may I ask how you intend on achieving the phenomenal feat?

Well what i am saying ad you keep answering in a odd fashion, is thatsuch an event as the Big Bang would have to have being created by someone, wheter it be Buddha or Ganeesh

Why would the Big Bang have to have been produce by someone? Also, if you tell me what's odd about the way I'm answering, I'll try to change my future mode of answering to suit you.

I find it impossible to believe that this world which we live in was created for no reason bu no one and if destroyed could possibly be the end of life anywhere in the universe, maybe forever. That is extremely hard to believe, and I am a flexible person

Okay. So?

I trust you will answer appropriately and not with the usual "Yes It can"

To what?

If particles can indeed get created for no reason for no apparent reason, then science must be so fascinating
I never knew this part of science before, countering religion with unexpained pieces of information

And just to level the playing field, God appeared out of no where for no reason, It happens that's how Ganeesh appeared, he appeared for no reason, created from nothing, just like you subatomic particles

dblock:

If particles can indeed get created for no reason for no apparent reason, then science must be so fascinating
I never knew this part of science before, countering religion with unexpained pieces of information

And just to level the playing field, God appeared out of no where for no reason, It happens that's how Ganeesh appeared, he appeared for no reason, created from nothing, just like you subatomic particles

Hmm, one is observed evidence, the other is, clearly, ad-hoc. I just can't decide which to go with. Maybe Ockham's razor can help?

Ocham's Razor won't jelp you. Because mine has just as much assumptions and uncertainty as yours

I'm sort of new to this forum and I've found some of the posts here quite interesting. My own views on the matters.

First off the question of whether God exists is always a very difficult one. I believe that in our minds we form an idea of God based on our upbringing, experiences in life, culture etc. Secondly the human brain is not perfect, we form our views based on what we can percieve. Stuff we "know" now may
be modified or even rubbished ten years from now. Based on that premise you cannot ask someone if he believes in God without defining what God means to you. Even two members of the same religion may have widely different concepts of God.

The human brain conceptualizes God because we cannot fathom order in the universe within a creator. I do believe however that over time our understanding of life, creation, our existence and purpose become clearer. Sort of like an evolution of the mind.

The other factor discussed a lot here is faith. I think faith is less of choice and more of need. In a country like Nigeria with all its problems people may find a "need" to have faith in God. It's helps to get people through the stress of everyday life. Notice the big drop in church going in developed countries with good welfare systems, good educational systems, acceptable governance etc.

Anyway this is just my view on some of the issues I've read about here. Interested in hearing what others think about this views.

Depravity is the state of moral corruption or degradation. By God's standards, this is exactly what atheism/liberalism represent. Having made that clarification, I make it a point never to accuse anyone personally of this since I do not know any of you on that level. I can only evaluate a person's conscience based on what is written and said. . . . .

We are a modern society in moral conflict with powerful forces trying to dictate how we will define ourselves for the future. . . .In the past, liberalism and atheism were merely terms used to define a certain radical fringe. However, today they represent a growing seed of moral cancer that has gained an increasingly more influential foothold in a government and legal system to the degree that they can no longer be ignored and are dangerously threatening our traditional values, redefining our Christian heritage and ripping apart our moral fabric. . . . .

We are at a critical crossroads in our history as a nation & every decision and election has greater significance then it has ever had. This is why God has called people like me and many others to speak on His behalf. If we are to continue to survive and prosper, humans w/ a moral and righteous conscience had better listen. . . . .

sharetroll:

Depravity is the state of moral corruption or degradation. By God's standards, this is exactly what atheism/liberalism represent. Having made that clarification, I make it a point never to accuse anyone personally of this since I do not know any of you on that level. I can only evaluate a person's conscience based on what is written and said. . . . .

We are a modern society in moral conflict with powerful forces trying to dictate how we will define ourselves for the future. . . .In the past, liberalism and atheism were merely terms used to define a certain radical fringe. However, today they represent a growing seed of moral cancer that has gained an increasingly more influential foothold in a government and legal system to the degree that they can no longer be ignored and are dangerously threatening our traditional values, redefining our Christian heritage and ripping apart our moral fabric. . . . .

Interestingly, atheists are usually highly moral and are less likely, statistically, to be imprisoned for a crime; however, if atheism is ripping apart your moral fabric, then maybe you weren't so moral to begin with.

We are at a critical crossroads in our history as a nation & every decision and election has greater significance then it has ever had. This is why God has called people like me and many others to speak on His behalf. If we are to continue to survive and prosper, humans w/ a moral and righteous conscience had better listen. . . . .

I'm sure.

My question about the big bang.

1. Did it create the universe?

2. Did the big bang occur after the universe existed?

3. How extensive was the big bang relative to the size of the universe? Did it occur in a smaller section of the universe?

4. If the big bang was an explosion why is it that the universe is so orderly? Why aren't bodies crashing over each other? I am under the impression that explosions tend to lead to chaos, and not order. I mean if one wwere to blow up a building, or a junk yard would you expect to see something being formed automatically from the chaos?

5. Was the big bang the only one of its kind? If there was one why haven't we heard about another since? Do the same forces exist today in the universe that once supposedly caused the big bang?

Just one more question. How do you explain the origin of atoms and the extensive force which they possess. Did they just happen to be like that, or were they created?

@ nferyn

I will believe in God if you show me some solid evidence of his existence. There is none.

How can you be asking and concluding that there is no evidence all at once? It only goes to show your bias towards not believing nferyn.

The very evidence is you. Look how highly developed you are? Would you rather attribute such a marvellously constructed life form to the chance of bio-molecules coming together in some cosmic soup? Come on!

The bible says we were made in the image of God, the Creator of the universe. The story of creation lies in the divine words of God spoken through His chosen prophets, and these divine words hold true no matter what.

Long before science achieved such attention, or fame the bible stood the test of time. For example long before science discovered that the earth was round, the bible declared it was through divine inspiration. "He . . . sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22. The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man found out. How did the prophet come to such knowledge if he weren't inspired?

"By Him [Jesus] all things consist." Colossians 1:17. The word "consist" here literally means "hold together" or "cohere." Many Bible translations put it "hold together." This is the answer to the nuclear physicists' worrisome question about the atom. The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather, "Why doesn't the atom fly apart?" The Creator of the universe has been holding this universe together, and He has put laws there in to govern the universe so that it doesn't collapse on itself.


The Bible says, "I the Lord speak the truth, I declare what is right." Isaiah 45:19, RSV.*
Ancient artifacts unearthed by archaeologists repeatedly confirm the accuracy and truth of the Bible. Bible historical statements are accurate. What God says in His book is true. Sometimes, temporarily, evidence may not be found to substantiate certain historical facts from the Bible, but in time the evidence surfaces. Note the following:

For years skeptics said the Bible was unreliable because it mentions the Hittite nation (Deuteronomy 7:1) and cities like Nineveh (Jonah 1:1, 2) and Sodom (Genesis 19:1), which they denied ever existed. But now modern archaeology has confirmed that all three did, indeed, exist.

Critics also said that Bible-mentioned kings Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1) and Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) never existed. Once again, it has now been confirmed they did exist.

Skeptics also said the Bible record of Moses was not reliable because it mentions writing (Exodus 24:4) and wheeled vehicles (Exodus 14:25), neither of which they said existed at the time. They, of course, know better today.

At one time the 39 kings of ancient Israel and Judah who reigned during the divided kingdom were authenticated only from the Bible record, so critics charged fabrication. But then archaeologists found cuneiform records that mentioned many of these kings and, once again, the Bible record was proved accurate. Critics have repeatedly been proved wrong as new discoveries confirm biblical people, places, and events. It will always be so.


The evidence of Bible inspiration is found in the lives of people? If nothing else this proves the bible true. Accepting Christ and obeying Scripture changes a drunken, immoral, profane sinner into a loving, sober, pure Christian. Skeptics cannot explain this fact. The Bible says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." 2 Corinthians 5:17.

The changed lives of those who follow Jesus and obey Scripture constitute the most heartwarming proof of Bible inspiration. The drunkard becomes sober; the immoral, pure; the addicted, free; the profane, reverent; the fearful, courageous; and the rude, kind.

An American skeptic was visiting an island whose natives were originally cannibals. When he spotted an old man reading the Bible, he ridiculed him for reading a book "full of myths which had already been exposed." The native smiled at him and said, "My friend, be grateful we do believe this book. Otherwise, we would be serving you for dinner." The Bible really does change people, and this amazing fact confirms its inspiration.


What great advantage does a person have who accepts the Bible as God's inspired word? The Bible teaches that the earth was created in six literal days. The Bible says, "I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts." Psalms 119:100. "Thou . . . hast made me wiser than mine enemies." Psalms 119:98. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are . . . my thoughts [higher] than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9.

A person who accepts the Word of God will soon know the answers to many complex challenges that secular scholars will never figure out. For example, the Bible teaches:

A. God created the earth and all living organisms in six literal, 24-hour days (Exodus 20:11; Psalms 33:6, 9).
B. A worldwide flood destroyed every living thing except the sea life and what was inside Noah's ark (Genesis chapters 6, 7, .
C. The different languages of the world began at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9).

The Bible's account of the Flood provides the answers secular scholars are searching for. God, who has always existed and knows everything, shares the above three truths with us, recognizing that we could never figure them out on our own. We know only "in part" now (1 Corinthians 13:9). And God's knowledge is "past finding out." Romans 11:33.

Evolutionists will never know the age of the earth because it was created with apparent age, as were Adam and Eve. The couple were only one day old on their second day of life, but they appeared to be mature. Man's measuring instruments cannot allow for apparent age. In such cases, they are not trustworthy. Believe the Bible, and you will always be ahead of the speculation of secular scholars and the worldly-wise.

Robert Gentry's book Creation's Tiny Mystery has unsettled many evolutionists with its apparent, clear evidence of instant creation. (Mystery in the Rocks, an easy-to-understand book based on his research) Is it any wonder Jesus said the "rocks will cry out if we don't?"

For all those interested in viewing a streaming video online about proof that the earth was created instantly, then you can view this video at the following page. The evidence is astounding and you will be blessed by it.

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm