₦airaland Forum

@huxley,

huxley:
I did ask, if you object to BB, on what grounds? Scientific or otherwise? Why don't you state your position now?

Did you read the point I made about THEOLOGY and TELEOLOGY? Or you rather skimmed that point?

Okay, huxley, let me try once again to make it simple for you by referring to the basic idea behind the recent effort at the E[/b]uropean [b]C[/b]enter of [b]N[/b]uclear [b]R[/b]esearch, or [b]CERN. The basic idea is that the scientists involved believe the Big Bang "to be the event that caused the beginning of the universe"; thus they hope to demonstrate this assumption by "crashing protons together at high speed".

Keyword now for us: protons.

Now huxley sir, as ignorant as we are, the basic question is this: where did those protons originate from?

That is the basic question. If we argue what they have not argued, we become the victims of an unnecessary argument rather than students who follow on to become thinkers! Who is going to be fooled by the assertion that the BB theory best explains the origin of the universe, and then come back to disengage from that same assertion by saying the BB does not explain the question of the origin of matter?!? If that is the case, ignorant as they want to make everyone else, we still ask: did the universe arive on its own without matter (or, the "protons" CERN hopes to crash at high speed)?

When people make assertions and have no answers to the basic questions, then it won't be very long before hubris and extremum begin to come into play. When queried a bit further, we find irrational statements being traded across fences as if such attitudes are supposed to be the answer to the basic question.

huxley:
I named Davidylan because he is right here with us at NL, but out there there are many. Check out the list at Answers In Genesis website. Others are people like Kent Hovind, Jonathan wells, etc, etc.

Please be specific and let's see where they used the BB as an explanation for thr origin of life. It's easy to make these accusations to fly in the face; but it would be helpful to see where you got that accusation from.

@huxley,

huxley:
I think you are absolutely right. My tone in this post must be difficult for most people coming fresh into the debate without some knowledge of science and the BB and its opposition by some for theological reasons. There was a reason for that. My inclinations are those of a polemicist and so am not averse to using shock methods sometimes.

The point was that the device you employed there was a very poor 'shock method'.

huxley:
I don't think you are ignorant as much as you are evasive or intellectually dishonest. You warn against taking extreme, a worthy caution, I might add. On my part, where am I being extreme. I have taken the position of the scientific consensus. Is this an extreme position.

This is quite an excuse, huxley. Are you so polarized as to assume that no theist is involved in science? What is this brashness as to taking a "scientific consensus" and making it a tool for your anti-theistic imbroglio?

huxley:
You are are asking question, but question that are not addressed by the Big Bang. This is what makes you look dishonest and ignorant. I have said and posted many times the scientifically accepted definition of BB, yet you keep asking the self-same questions that are not addressed by the BB.

You seriously are not interested in a discussion, I can see. If we want an understanding of the BB theory, we know where to go - and your fascination with this idea that others are ignorant is a most illiterate position to assume. Are you the only person so quite unaware that the BB does not answer to the ORIGIN of the universe?

This is why I asked very simple questions - and as I have said, you're not bound to answer them if you do want to do so. To turn round and use your flawed argument as a wager for your hubris of others are "ignorant" is a waste of material, I'm sorry to say. Rather than go round again and again, it has been established that while you are forcing this issue about the BB as the best explanation for the origin of the universe, you came back in answer saying the same BB does not answer that question! Even the theorists themselves would have to admit midway that their assertions are seriously flawed, because the basic premise is this: what is the origin of the matter that were responsible for the BB? They have no answer - so what is this miserly assertion of trying to force the BB as the "best explanation" for the ORIGIN of the UNIVERSE?

If you have no answers to the basic question, it were better to say "I don't know" and hold on to the BB theory - not as the best explanation for th ORIGIN of the universe as if the BB answers the question of the origin of matter itself! To go on accusing others just to demonstrate your hubris won't pass you as a thinker. More than anything, it just indicates to me that it is the same thing I have seen others do - which is: to duck behind the BB as a device for slurring and castigating other people. If that is all this effort is geered towards, we don't need to go any further, because then it would be better appreciated that the real issue here was not even the BB, but the drive to be more comical than coherent.

Dear huxley, when you are arguing a question as deep as the ORIGIN of the universe, the germane question would be this: what is the origin of the matter in the BB? If there's no answer to that basic question, what then is the excuse of using the BB as an explanation for the "Universe ORIGIN"?

huxley:
OK, what in your opinion is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe? I serious would like an answer and would also like to know why the BB is inadequate.

I think you already had answered that the BB does not provide answers to the ORIGIN - it just simply does not. Any other argument in protest is okay, but I shall not deny anyone their right to make such protests as best may suit them, even though they won't answer that same question. The BB is not equal to the ORIGIN of the universe.

olabowale:
[s]@Pilgrim.1: « #41 on: Yesterday at 08:17:21 PM »
Read your entry below about the Muslim who suggested to you that there is none of these types of phenomena, about the Christian "god!"


Is "God," in English, equating to "godhead or godheads of the Christians? Which one of them exactly; father or son or ghost?[/s]

Reminder:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=178839.msg2900499#msg2900499 date=1223292072]

olabowale:
You got to answer my "questions."

I don't need to - and that has been made clear so many times:
I'm not interested in any Islamic arguments on the forum.[/quote]

@huxley,

huxley:
I am not surprise that you would quote-mind and take my statements out of their context. If you take the universe to be the 3 + 1 dimensional space around us, then clearly it is the Big Bang (Cosmic Expansion) that created that space. Big Bang does not deal with things pre-Big Bang.

Please don't be surprised, as I did no such thing. I had called your attention to calm reason rather than being driven with your attitude because I noticed some very fundamental flaws in your submissions which I had wanted to highlight for your attention. But you went on and on about reserving the right to be rude as if that was helping anyone to see anything reasonable in your arguments. Since you were not inviting a discussion thereto, I simply left the thread for you to assume that we were as ignorant as you had pressumed.

The one thing that people like you should note is that there is nothing you want to tell the public here about the BB theory that we don't already know! It is not helping your discussion when you assume such an unwelcome attitude - because predictably it only leads the reader to wonder if there is any substance in the arguments of people who act the way you had reiterated was best suited to your style.

However, I would not have even replied your reposte for the simple reasons that you either still wrongly assume that others are ignorant, or that your style could be mistaken for rational dialogue. Whatever the case, I hinted that hubris and extremum were not ideal positions to assume when someone wants others to see him/her as an intelligent thinker.

Yet, don't you still get the basic flaw in your arguments? If you wanted to discuss the Big Bang theory, no one would bother you - we already know where to go for info about such. But my dear huxley, the serious flaw in your argument is to mistake the Big Bang theory as the best explanation for the "ORIGIN" of the Universe! That was why I started out first asking you not to be so driven with vituperations, and consequently proposed a simple question about "the origin of the matter". The universe did not just exist on its own by a BB - whatever are the underlying principles or working mechanisms for the BB, they still have one question to answer: that of the origin of matter itself.

As some scientists are too embarrassed to face up honestly to that basic question, they switch over to attack Christian theists with all sorts of accusations! I mean, just as you so widely alleged that Christians were saying that the BB explains the "origins of life", I asked you a direct question about that and you predictably and conveniently ducked that question. It is unreasonble for people to assume extremum positions just to make a point - often, it borders on dishonesty; and that is not going to help any discussions at all.

huxley:
Are you objections to the Big Bang scientific of theological.

Hmm, this is actually not helping you at all. In simple terms, I have not even stated any objections or affirmations about the BB. Nor was I so gullible to assume that the BB is a theological enquiry! Why do people have such narrow minds as to assume that THEOLOGY and TELEOLOGY are the same? This was why I shared with Chrisbenogor that when we fail to see the paradigm between both and either fields of enquiry, then we become the victims of the arguments and not the thinkers!

In simple terms, in my view, I do not see the BB as a theological question. The fundamental mistake people make is to quickly assume the hubris of mistaking theology for teleology - huxley, they are not the same!

huxley:
For examples of those who claim the Big Bang explains life, why not talk to your trusted friend Davidylan. He has litter NL with such nonsensical claims.

Oh c'mon, huxley. Why this weak exculpation? It is even illogical to make such assumptions. I am willing to be a disciple of my own ideas such that I will not assume any hubris or extremum here; but I am largely ignorant of the assertion that davidylan has made such a claim. If he has done so, then I don't see why he would come back here to fight against his own postulations. That is why I asked simply where Christians have been saying what you attributed to them.

1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us,
and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

@m_nwankwo,

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=173782.msg2853702#msg2853702 date=1222358731]@Pilgrim,

Thanks for your rebuttals. I have addressed your concerns. Justcool has also given you furhter clarifications. It seems our answers did not satisfy you. There is nothing I can do about that since that is your choice and the way you percieve things. I will try to recast them and maybe it may be clearer.[/quote]Thanks for the reposte. Like I noted in mine to justcool, it seems you guys are having such a difficult time validating the idea that there was nothing in the Grail Message that had to do with the Bible. This is just going round in circles; and I have offered that one reference with examples to demonstrate that it was not by coincidence that on would find the connection. This idea of "drawing from the TRUTH" and then finding it difficult to admit that the Bible is by same inference the TRUTH is sadly making a lot of motion without movement.

All the same, many thanks for sharing. Enjoy.

@justcool,

Just a few comments on yours, sorry for the delay:

justcool:
Dear pilgrim 1
Thanks again.
First of all, ABD-RU-SHIN did not write the Grail Message in English. He wrote it in German. The English version is only a translation which can only render an approximate meaning of the original German version.

You see, the one thing that is happening here is we are still on the same page. I was already aware of the background of the Grail Message in terms of its translations; but I'm sure whoever translated it using KJV diction did not close their eyes and just fathomed the precise quotes we have discussed without opening the Bible to read. That fact cannot be discounted - and it does not appear that anything more tangible has been said to undergird your explanations as totally divorced from any refernce to the Bible.

Cheers.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=169937.msg2902646#msg2902646 date=1223317855]Tithing is not required of us (Catholics) but we are encouraged to give 5% to the Church and the other 5% to Charities.[/quote]Nothing is required of anybody in the life of a Christian. I keep saying that we should watch our words - they are very powerful tools of convictions. God who has ordained this ministry does not require anyone to obey them as if He is forcing anyone to do so. Anything that one assumes on the basis of a mandate or compulsion is simply a misunderstanding of what the Word demonstrates for us.

ayinba1:
@PILGRIM

probably the CHHHEEEEEESSSIIIEEEST

Hey, nothing wrong with cheese!

@ayinba1, how body? Well, na your say - if nothing wrong with cheese, let's enjoy!

[quote author=davidylan* link=topic=179426.msg2902431#msg2902431 date=1223314634]this post wins the stupidity award of the yr.[/quote]This was why I simply left the thread jeje. When someone is determined to substitute irrationality for intelligence, what is left at the end of the day?

I was just wondering the gap in this wide berth:

(A)

huxley:
The best explanation of the state and origin of the universe is called "Big Bang".

(B)

huxley:
That is indeed a very good question. But it is not explained by the Big Bang.

On the one hand, (A) the "origin of the universe" is best explained by the Big Bang;
but on the other hand, (B) the same "origin of the universe" is not explained by the Big Bang!

The confusion may be best explained by this presumption:

huxley:
These ignorant Christians characteristically mispresent Big Bang, saying that it explain the origin of life.

In honest and very simple terms, where did Christians say what you have attributed to them?

@amaks,

Thank you for your prayers and very warm encouragements. May the Lord Jesus fill you with blessings far beyond your dreams and use you far more than what I have experienced since coming to know His love. It is well with you and your family forever - in Jesus Name. Shalom.

@anonimi,

How has your day been? I trust all's been great in all your endeavours.

anonimi:
how do you do the link wrap as above? Thanks.

Well, everyone does it, and I'm sure so many people will be able to give you the outline more concisely. Let me try anyhow.

If you want to link a webpage without writing it out in full, try this:

1. you can click on the 'Insert Hyperlink' above your reply page on Nairaland
or just manually create the hyperlink code by typing [ur[color=Black]l[/color]=[color=Black]][[/color]/url]

2. highlight the link and copy:
e.g., http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=136560

3. write your preferred title between the code boxes, such as ANONIMI'S QUERY - e.g.
[[color=Black]u[/color]rl]ANONIMI'S QUERY[/u[color=Black]rl[/color]]

4. insert the copied link after the "=" sign in the [url[color=Black]=][/color] part of your code, e.g:
[url=http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=136560]ANONIMI'S QUERY[/u[color=Black]rl[/color]]


By the time you get to this stage, you can then post it by clicking on the 'Reply' botton. When the page appears, it should give you the following:

ANONIMI'S QUERY

When any reader clicks on the link, it should take them to the page encoded in the hyperlink. If you colour the "ANONIMI'S QUERY" in the code, it will appear coloured and underlined, depending on the colour you applied. A few examples:

ANONIMI'S QUERY

ANONIMI'S QUERY

ANONIMI'S QUERY

ANONIMI'S QUERY

ANONIMI'S QUERY

You try it and see if it helps. I hope my assistnace has not misled you; but if you get stuck somewhere, give a shout back and I'll follow through . . . or better still, the code gurus in the house will come to our rescue.

Cheers.

olabowale:
You got to answer my "questions."

I don't need to - and that has been made clear so many times:
I'm not interested in any Islamic arguments on the forum.

brainbox1:
I am sure if personal efforts are made to read the bible, most of the religious lies that some pastors promote will be cleared up.

True - but the same goes for untrue ideas that some people hold in assertion as if they are based on Scripture.

@plus_Queen,

[quote author=plus_Queen link=topic=178839.msg2899202#msg2899202 date=1223255065]wow!
The word really works.[/quote]True, the Word works and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Jesus is Lord.

pussylover:
And you say i hate her1 Hate is putting it mildly

. . . Pray that a wicked demon like pilgrim should stop flip flopping on religious issues and stop embarassing her father.

Lol, again I thank you for all your thoughts about me. Blessings.

@reindeer,

reindeer:
nice heroics there!there's no limiting what can be achieved through selflessness.

Very true.

reindeer:
sister
you are now the obvious chemo-attractant for the people who feel a loss for islam with your salvation.

Lol, I would never have thought so in so many decades; although I should be grateful that the people who have become my friends have taught me more than I could ever realise. I learn everyday - and what is surprising to me is the experience of my being set free from a life I never imagined could let me breathe freedom and love. I am truly thankful.

reindeer:
please i think we can allow them to keep coming, at least we know all they'll say, nothing new,just the same rehashed lines.

You're right - as they keep coming, it is only the Lord Himself that is able to touch their lives.

reindeer:
look at it, 8 out of every 10 islamic posts here preach what jesus is not and not what islam has to offer,its my sincere belief that if these folks have anything for humans, they'll preach it.The continous reference to chritianity is an attestation of how many thoughts about jesus enters the heart of the posters daily,
jesus is indeed lord!!!

You are very observant - and it's true. If one doesn't need Jesus, can they resist mentioning Him at all (even when most mentions made about Him are derisive)? Jesus is Lord!

huxley:
Mark you, this thread was about Big Bang and the Christian response to it. I reserve the right to be rude, polite or not (as the case may be).

Nothing new.

huxley:
In the meantime, go and give testimonies, quote bible passage, preach and have equally ignorant fans fawning over you

Many thanks again. Cheers.

[size=14pt]My stomach was torn open. . .[/size]
[size=14pt]so I tucked my shirt in and kept shooting[/size]:
Amazing stories of the selfless heroes of Afghanistan

https://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_01/coleDM0603_228x652.jpg
[list]
They all made a pact before they went to war.
Whatever happened to them in Afghanistan no one - dead or alive - would be left behind.
One night in Helmand Province, that pledge was put to the test.

In a terrifying split second, the close-knit group from one of the Army's most battle-scarred units came under fire from a hail of Taliban bullets and rocket-powered grenades.

Four men were hit and several others temporarily blinded by phosphorus. Their screams of pain cut through the darkness as the ambushed platoon was pinned down by gunfire from two sides.

But the men of 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment knew precisely what they had to do.

And today the extraordinary heroism which allowed the young soldiers to keep to their pledge at any cost can be revealed as they are awarded some of the highest military honours.

The men repeatedly braved enemy fire to rescue their injured and fatally wounded comrades from the hands of the Taliban.

Private Luke Cole, 22, carried on fighting after half his thigh bone was blown away.
When another bullet ripped open his stomach, he simply tucked his shirt in tighter "to hold everything in" - and carried on keeping the enemy at bay until back-up arrived.

Sergeant Craig Brelsford, 25, continued to command his men long after he was critically wounded - and right up to the moment he died.

In a singularly selfless act, he ran to put his body between the enemy and his wounded comrades.
It protected them from Taliban gunfire, but cost him his life.

And the 25-year-old platoon commander, Lieutenant Simon Cupples, led a rescue party into the killing zone to carry the injured to safety and recover the dead - again and again and again.

Their astonishing courage - and that of scores of other British servicemen and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq - is marked today with a raft of 184 awards.

They include the biggest batch of medals since fighting began in Afghanistan nearly seven years ago - a reflection not just of the ferocity of the conflict, but of the conspicuous bravery of British troops
[/list]
source: Mail Online

huxley:
Ok, let me humour you. If you think rudeness amounts to irrationality, can you demonstrate that within the standardly accepted rules of logic?

You've already done so, thank you. See below:

huxley:
What the deuce is this?. Putting words together, however hifalutin they may be, may sometimes result in nonsense.

@reindeer,

reindeer:
Dear pilgrim
Its obvious your testimony more than shook some peeps,I pray they come to experience what christ did for you,keep on loving them sister,its your nature,i love overcomes all.

Thank you for your encouragements and prayers. Your cup of joy and steadfast love in Christ will never run dry, amen. Even when I had no clue what was going to happen, I am as amazed as several people are, that a simple sharing of my story would have this impact! I just had no clue. Yes, I was already aware through friends that if my testimony was real, it would bless some and stir others. It continues to happen on a daily basis even outside the forum; and those things which were directed at me negatively have only turned out to further both my faith and that of others - especially those who highlighted these things. My prayer, like yours, is that everyone would come to know this love we speak about in Jesus Christ.

Jesus is Lord.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Well maybe, I am fully aware that scenario would mean that there is a supernatural being but it would become obvious to us that maybe for instance this being does not care about us, maybe they would be able to build machines that will go to other galaxies to explore other Suns, maybe andromeda and then find life on a planet there. I am saying if there is a God and he doesn't care what we do that all but nullifies 90% of religions don't you think

You sound more inclined to the deistic worldview - which concisely does not rule out belief in the supernatural. The question you seem to be more focused on is about the way God relates with His creation, and not about His existence.

Anyhow, do have a wonderful evening.

@huxley,

huxley:
It is neither rational nor irrational. To be rude does not violate any known laws/rules of logic or reasoning.

I'm not that dilettantish as to be polarised at two extremes. It is either you expect me to be rational with you or otherwise [b]ir[/b]rational, rather than pretend it so abstractly. Like I said, you really don't have to answer the question; but at least don't pretend this issue with ideas of "logic". Logic or no logic, I already hinted that . . .
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=179426.msg2898480#msg2898480 date=1223238905]. . . it were better leaving you to your irrationality.[/quote]- if that is what best suits your ideology. So you can at least excuse me the prerogative to choose to be rational and not both at the same time.

Cheers.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:
@Pilgrim.1: It is a reality in Qur'an and ahadith that no muslim needs Muhammad (AS) to speak to Allah. Muhammad's role was the messenger and a warmer! And if I do not need Muhammad to talk to Allah, why in the world would you think that i will need Jesus, an earlier Prophet?

I should first say that your misgivings are becoming quite helplessly "orphic". And I have only two direct answers to your latest dilemma:

(a) "It is a reality in Qur'an and ahadith that no muslim needs Muhammad (AS) to speak to Allah."

All the same, no Muslim needs Muhammad - that is your confession, and I agree. Whether they need him for this, that or the other, is not my concern - nor do I need him. As a consequence, I don't need to discuss him here, nor would I be interested in discussing him anywhere.

(b) "why in the world would you think that i will need Jesus, an earlier Prophet"

If you don't need Jesus, you don't need to quote anything about Him.

Now you can rest your soul and let's see if you actually can do without refering to Jesus for the rest of your life. I can do without referring to Muhammad - because I don't need him, nor am I interested in him. But Jesus. . you can't resist the power of that Name. Keep following me around - you will have a testimony of leaving Islam very soon. Jesus loves you.

@huxley,

huxley:
The fact that science does not have answers to everything does not mean that there are things for which it has no answers.

Pilgrim, can your say what best explains the following;

1) The Cosmic Microwave Background. (In fact, on a good day, you common radio or TV set cam receive these signals

2) The observed expansion and acceleration of the universe.

These are facts for which there is no dispute amongst cosmologist. How would you explain this?

Actually, I had hoped you would answer the basic question that is still ignored by you:
___________________________________

Is it rational to be rude and impolite?
___________________________________

Of course, you don't have to answer that question if you choose not to - but I only wondered if you would like me to be rational or ir[/b]rational in my answers to you.

However, I haven't seen how you have addressed the other basic concerns in my direct enquiry. Rather, I only see an admission of the fact that science does not have answers to everything - one of which is the question of the Origin of the Universe (or Universe [b]Origin). I haven't claimed anything; and that is why I have often and again shared with Chrisbenogor that hubris and extremum are not quite the elements in my style of approaching issues.

Cheers.

@Chrisbenogor,

I should actually not want to make any further comments, but for some serious mishap in your reposte.

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim
Me I understand you sha, but I think you get what I am trying to say with words, lets be honest that's what I am for. Not to be partial but I think religious apologists are the ones who are most often found in a dishonest position, I do not know if there are any true scientists around here on nairaland but I like to believe we are all just analysing.

Hmm, I think it all depends on the exposure we have experienced: your part of the world depicts that religious apologists are the ones who are often found in a dishonest position; while mine says the direct opposite. Why is this so? I think for the simple reason that we have not looked these men square in the face and ask them to truly stand up and be men with convictions! On other side of the paradigm, we find so many of such dishonest minds and manipulators (and I'm not assuming you're new to frauds in science); but when the seiving has been done, we intelligently lay our chalk on our desks and simply be students and not victims of extremum.

Chrisbenogor:
Take evolution for instance I do not know the technical workings thoroughly but do they have a case yes I think they do, nature naturally seeks stability, is this evidence that there is no God not at all, it is evidence though (if they can finally tie up the loose ends) that God is not the way he has been potrayed in holy book. That would be the final nail in the cross for religion but until then we can only be honest and say we do not know, I mean how hard is that?

Lol, I think you're trying to say something but actually imploding your submissions. I wonder, if evolution or any other model of scientific enquiry wakes up to say that "God is not the way he has been portrayed in holy book", that is not saying that "God does not exists". If you're arguing that evolution would soon nail religion by declaring that it "found" that God does not exists (rather than being portrayed in a different way), then that would be the day indeed - to the dismay of the evolutionary theorists. Like I said, I would like to be a disciple of my own convictions by not assuming hubris or extremum: and I have the faith that someday soon we shall all have humble heads to reason . . . I mean, truly "reason".

Cheers.

@idupaul,

How are you today? I trust your Sunday was splendid.

idupaul:
@ pilgrim

I love this ufo story. please more orhic stories

Actually, I was going to do so, but I gather that you will have a feast of them by visiting the link of the last story posted.

There are other very intriguing, "orphic" phenomena in my archives I would like to share. Even as a Christian, I've often stated again and again that I have no answers and cannot pretend any. We just know that they exist, they happen - and we observe and appreciate our limited knowledge of the realities of our universe. No matter the intrigues, I know beyond ordinary understanding that Jesus loves me - and you. Enjoy.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Very valid question, and the honest answer is we don't know, we may never know,

Which was why I mentioned hubris and extremum in my penultimate reposte. Cheers.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Modern science has been one of the toughest kids growing up with religion, religion always tries to stifle science and only do this when issues come up that conflict with religion the origin of man being the biggest issue. Science at such a young age is already showing that very soon religion would be the least favourite kid.

Your view, and I respect whatever you believe.

However, there are players on both sides of the divide - both in the past and the present. As sadly as was the case that some religious men were opposed to scientific advancement, so it was that some scientific thinkers have been and are still opposed to religion. We see the example every single day in our present world. The point is that those of us who are hooting for either "religion over science" or "science over religion" are the victims of the paradigm and not the thinkers. Why? For the simple reason that we often fail to understand that there are issues which many people often make the serious mistake of considering, which is: science cannot and does not negate supernatural phenomenon and cannot indeed declare it false. For those who are still hellbent on such kinds of ideas, it is such a pity that they are still living in the past of assuming that science answers "everything". . . and as a necessary consequence, "religion" would become unpopular! This is no less the same lyrics that was song by men who declared at one time that "God" was dead! The sad reality is that such men died and "God" is still alive and well.

'Extremum' is not a wise position to adopt in questions about our existence and the realities of our world. Some people may have the overweening and self-congratulatory ideology that it is either their way or none else! But we have to realise that hubris is a sin - both in religion and science; and this attitude is what drives many to make over-stated assumptions when the basic questions are often ignored!

Now, please understand me - I'm not trying any measure of verbal karate on you; and I noticed what you stated later on in your reposte:

Chrisbenogor:
The attitude of people to science is shocking and appalling given the fact that even this means of communication was given birth to by science, I am trying to say why do we not all give this little guy a break. Science doesn't have all the answers at least it is honest about that, the answers science have are spot on and stem from methods that are strict, not loose hallucinations. Religion on the other hand is CERTAIN they have all the answers, and I personally think that is a dishonest position. Its no wonder why they are always forcing their beliefs to become reality.

In part I may agree with you; however, I think you're adopting a very extreme position that does not serve a balanced outlook on this issue. Neither science nor religion have all the answers to all of life's possible questions - they both have particular references of our experiences that they seek to provide answers for; and we know that many household names in science are actually deeply religious men! So for someone to assume that "religion" is so certain without looking the other way of the scientists who declare the same thing is to fail to realise the presumption of these men on the planet! When you ask these same scientists what they believe but cannot prove, one would have to be aghast at the hypocrisy of such men who have a disdain for religious honesty and yet relish their adventures on the same grounds! Who then is hallucinating?

@huxley,

huxley:
Miss, get your terminology right. On this occasion, the worst to can accuse me of is rudeness, impoliteness, etc. But not irrationality.

Is it rational to be rude and impolite?

huxley:
The theory does not fail. It has its scope within which it is applicably. It does not explain things at time zero. But some time later than that (circa 10 ^-20s or thereabouts).
Just as the scope of atomic theory is atoms, the scope of germ theory is germs, the scope of Big Bang is from time 10 ^-20 s to now and beyond. I hope this make it clearer.

Thanks for the lecture - as if I'm unaware of anything you're reckoning. I only noticed your topic about "Universe Origin" and have made my observation that you had no answers for the very thing you broached. What more is there to say beyond that?

Chrisbenogor:
what we should strive for is honesty in our answers, leave people alone,

@Chrisbenogor, thank you. Same point I've been making several times over.

Well, just browsing through and stumbled across this thread. So glad I found it and gained from the contributions so far, in terms of how people see issues from various perspectives. A friend of mine is facing a very tough situation in her life similar to this one. She's been married for a couple of years, but has only now confessed she had always been in love with someone other than her hubby. Perhaps she may gain something by reading other people's views here - if nothing else, than to gain the basic understanding that she's not alone in facing problems of this sort.