Science and God (One and the same?)

By on April 11, 2009 11:18:21 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Gh0st_Note-

Join Date 01/2007
+17

Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.

But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.

And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.

Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?

It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.

Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.

Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?

Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.

I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.

Locked Post 1151 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 3, 2009 3:38:30 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I don't think they produce it at all, I think the fruit is from China and was just named after the bird so that people in the west would buy it, thinking it was from New Zealand.

well, if wikipedia means anything to anyone, which it doesn't to colleges,

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

 

and i am glad there are 3 rules about "no poofters"

 

clears it up for everyone i think.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 3, 2009 3:39:00 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

 but you are not a follower of Biblical Judaism as it doesn't exist...there is no Temple , no Altar, no sacrifice, no ephod or terephim, etc. etc. and thus you can't physically keep the Torah.

You are prone to ignoring the first exile when there also wasn't a Temple. Did Judaism "not exist" then either?

Heck, Judaism didn't even have a Temple when it started. Solomon built the Temple hundreds of years after the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 3, 2009 6:14:39 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Leauki, the big problem with lula (and many other religious people btw.) is that she states her beliefs as fact.

i.e."Jesus died at the cross." Or "Judaism is like this and that." when it should read:"I believe that ..."

Granted, I don't always write i.e.:"IIRC String theory goes like this." instead of "String theory goes like this." but when someone who obviously has more knowledge of the facts, I accept that and review the facts to asses whether or not my initial statement was correct or not.

In the case of "J. died at the cross:" There is obviously no irrefutable evidence to back this story up or to disprove it atm. So to be honest one should always make statements concerning this story in the form of "I believe that..." or "I think that...".

Like I stated before: A grave was found not long ago that seems to hold the remnants of Jesus's whole family incuding his own, Mary Magdalene's and his son's. But since there is no irrefutable proof that it is really the grave of THIS Jesus, I say:"I think the whole story in the bible is a phoney."

Obviously there can be no doubt about that there was a highly inspirational philosophical and spiritual leader by his name at this time. But i.e. the phrase "He made a blind man see:" can also be interpreted in a way that he gave him knowledge. Because in a metaphorical sense giving someone knowledge is making him see.

Also turning water into wine can also easily be explained. Even at the end of a christian service the priest says something like:"This is my blood." when he reaches the goblet to the believers to drink.

When you bleed into a goblet of water the water turns red and looks like wine. So there is also a logical explanation of this phenomenon too.

I don't say that this is the ultimate truth but I do THINK that this could be what explains the corresponding parts of his story.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 3, 2009 8:39:51 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Leauki, the big problem with lula (and many other religious people btw.) is that she states her beliefs as fact.

There are facts in religion and there are beliefs.

I am not religious. I am what is considered "traditional" or "conservative" in Judaism. I go to a Reform synagogue. But I do believe in G-d and certain things about Him.

It is an undeniable fact that the Jewish people exist and have a law called the Torah (first of the three books of the Hebrew Bible) and a holy book called the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) that records Jewish history as seen by Jewish authorities at the time. It is a fact that Jewish law commands Jews to observe the Shabbat, to keep kosher (i.e. not eat pork etc.), and to love the country of Israel.

But it is faith or belief that those things are G-d's will. In truth they could just be laws made up by secular Jewish leaders.

That's one problem. I believe G-d inspired Jewish leaders to write the Torah and the Tanakh but I don't know that this is indeed so. I can live with that.

The other problem is that some religions, especially Christianity, claim universal truth for themselves. In Judaism it doesn't matter what other (non-Jewish) people believe. For all Judaism cares G-d might have sent other prophets to other people (some such are recorded in the Bible). I personally regard Zoroastrianism as true because it is mentioned in the Bible as such. For all I care G-d could also have sent a prophet named Muhammed to the Arabs. It doesn't matter to me whether He did with regards to my own faith.

And I can also accept that Christians have a Messiah named Jesus who was a Jew.

What I cannot accept is that my G-d has a literal "son" with a virgin. I don't care if other people believe it though.

But I have a problem with those same people telling me what my beliefs are, have to be, or that I have to accept their Messiah as mine (even though my beliefs are my Messiah are quite different from their beliefs about everybody's Messiah).

The point is that I can live with the fact that there are Hindus, Muslims, and Christians out there without worrying about them being "wrong". The son of G-d thing is a bit worrying (because they took my G-d for that). But maybe G-d wanted Indians to see Him in the form of Hindu gods or whatever. It doesn't matter to me. I find the history fascinating but it doesn't affect my beliefs.

And then there are the different Jewish tribes and their different versions of Jewish history.

The Jews (tribes of Juda, Benjamin, and Simeon) believe that the Temple is supposed to be in Jerusalem and that holy scripture consists of Torah (Instruction), Nevi'im (Prohets), and Ketuvim (Writings).

The Samaritans (tribes of Menasseh and Ephraim) believe that the Temple is supposed to be further north, in Samaria and that's where their Temple stood after the one kingdom split up. Their holy scripture is just the Torah with somewhat different text.

Ethiopian Jews (tribe of Dan) accept as holy the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) plus a few texts missing in the text non-Ethiopian Jews use.

It's not easy.

Plus the hole thing is written in ancient languages few Christians understand. So they often take the English translations as the literal word of G-d. Grand...

The Samaritan Torah is written in Samaritan Hebrew. The Tanakh is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Ethiopian Tanakh is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ge'ez (the liturgical language of Ethiopian Jews). I think it's utterly fascinating and the more I learn the more I find there is to learn. That's why I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have arrived at the truth. It seems to me that those people are still at the very early stages of learning scripture, in the early stages it still looks like it could all be understood.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 3, 2009 10:58:54 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Plus the hole thing is written in ancient languages few Christians understand. So they often take the English translations as the literal word of G-d. Grand...

The Samaritan Torah is written in Samaritan Hebrew. The Tanakh is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Ethiopian Tanakh is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ge'ez (the liturgical language of Ethiopian Jews). I think it's utterly fascinating and the more I learn the more I find there is to learn. That's why I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have arrived at the truth. It seems to me that those people are still at the very early stages of learning scripture, in the early stages it still looks like it could all be understood.

My sentaments exactly! There are radical Christians out there just like there are radicals of other religions. Just don't put us all under one blanket.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 3, 2009 10:25:09 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

So my friend just saw Atheist on my Facebook profile and we had a huge conversation about it on AIM and I think she doesn't want to be my friend anymore....

That's low...and quite pathetic...on her part...

-Phal

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 3, 2009 10:35:37 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Phalnax811,
So my friend just saw Atheist on my Facebook profile and we had a huge conversation about it on AIM and I think she doesn't want to be my friend anymore....

That's low...and quite pathetic...on her part...

-Phal

I will say her loss.  But who knows she might come around, but I really doubt it.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 3, 2009 11:01:54 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

I will say her loss. But who knows she might come around, but I really doubt it.

Haha thanks....yeah I'm gonna give her time....I won't see her for three months....SUMMER 09!!!!! so she'll have plenty of time to think...

Oh and +1!!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 3:06:51 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting mommie4life,
Just a quick question. I didn't read all this thread, so please excuse me if someone's already talked about this, but I was just wondering the answer would be of the people posting here.

Question: You say that you can't prove that God exists because if there was nothing when God created everything then there wouldn't have been God. If this is so then how come you can say that science says that there was a primordial goop that the universe exploded from today and that this is fact yet you can't prove where that came from either? Either way we're stuck with the same unanswerable question, it's just how people choose to answer it. I'm just wondering how anyone can discredit one side or the other, since it's the same question, and why they can't coexist.

I just wanted to respond to this, and to the other person who said the "liberal blob of nothingness".  Science doesn't say that the universe came from a primordial goop, nor from a blob.  It didn't come from any sort of slime-like substance, or anything at all.  First, there was nothing - not "an amorphous blob of nothing".  No blob.  Just nothing.  Basically, you can say there was no actual space or time.  There was no "place" for something to be in, and no "time" for it to be at.  Just nothing.

Then, the big bang happened, and we had space, time, matter, energy, and all that great stuff.  (side note: I hesitate to even use the word "Then", because there actually wasn't any time before the big bang - the clock didn't start until the universe started.)

I think that's an important thing to understand.  Science doesn't replace God as a creator with a weird blob as a creator.  There was no creator.  Nothing existed before the big bang happened - no blob, no "nothingness", there was nothing there that came from anywhere, and there wasn't even anywhere for anything to be.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 4:05:08 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Man achieves sentience. Man cannot explain his surroundings or circumstance. So Man creates God to explain away all the things he doesn't understand.

So, God is not the creator of Man - Man is the creator of God.

An intelligent/knowledgeable Man would simply state he is not intelligent/knowledgeable enough to know why things are the way they are. Once Man accepts his own knowledge is limited, the search for further knowledge can begin.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 5:27:35 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

what's funny is that you guys are debating things that don't even matter.

we can not even prove that we exist, let alone anything else. who knows, you could even be dreaming this right now. you would have no way to prove it otherwise. what's best about this argument is that you can not prove that you do, in fact, exist. because everything you would use to prove it is predicated on the idea that you do exist.

that would be like defining a word using said word.

 

give up on pointless posts. except that nothing truly matters.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 5:48:06 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

@Leauki:

This kind of approach to "God", religion, history n stuff that you have is the way I would very much like ALL people to have.

Because I could not more wholeheartedly agree to this statement:

I have a problem with ... people telling me what my beliefs are, have to be, or that I have to accept their Messiah as mine. ... I can live with the fact that there are Hindus, Muslims, and Christians out there without worrying about them being "wrong".

 

Man achieves sentience. Man cannot explain his surroundings or circumstance. So Man creates God to explain away all the things he doesn't understand.

So, God is not the creator of Man - Man is the creator of God.

An intelligent/knowledgeable Man would simply state he is not intelligent/knowledgeable enough to know why things are the way they are. Once Man accepts his own knowledge is limited, the search for further knowledge can begin.

 

You nailed it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 10:16:17 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Leauki posts #215
"Religion is a smart man’s admission that he cannot know everything. Religious fundamentalism is a stupid man’s admission that he thinks he knows enough." -- Moshe Wilkinson

LULA POSTS #230

Actually, religion is a term derived from the Latin word, religare---meaning to bind. Religion in the widest sense is the union of man with God. religion is true when its doctrines and precepts are either dictated by right reason or revealed by God. If the former, it's called natural religion, if the latter, it's called supernatural religion. Religion is false if when claiming to be revealed, it is unable to show a divine guarantee or when its dogmas and practices sin against right reason and conscience.
As religion binds man to his Creator, the term properly used expresses the principle which holds man responsble to the one to whom he is bound. When one is bound by the basic natural law to all human beings, when the obligation is necessarily a moral one, one is bound to a Supreme Being, God and there is no possibility of escape.
Since the one who is bound is a rational creature, which implies that he has free will, the law that binds may be obeyed more or less adequately, it may be denied or it may be flouted. But the law itself will not budge, it is there just the same (written in our heart) so that the consequences of obedience or of disobedience is for each one of us to choose freely.
It is this recognition of the law each and all to worship God that lies at the foundation of every system of worship under the sun. As supernatural religion (Old Testament Judaism which ended in 70AD) demands that man honor, obey and worship Almighty God it follows that a true revelation of God's will demands a divine guarantee of authenticity. This has been given to mankind by Jesus Christ in the Church universal, which He established.

The discussion with Leauki has been regarding my statement that OT Judaism ended in 70AD when the Jewish Temple and Altar was destroyed. I'm talking about the Judaism that Almighty God gave the world through Moses. As the coming of the Messias was the primary hope of Isreal at the time when Judaism was the one and the only religion of ALmighty God, Moses himself just before he died told the Isrealites "to hear" the PROPHET, Jesus Christ.

Leauki posts 240

We are still waiting for the Messiah who will rebuild the Temple.

Yet, you fail to realize that the Messianic Son of David during the present age or in any future age is an impossibility as there is no House of David, or tribe of Judah, in which a Messias or any other person could be born of. This is providential, as the Messias arrived in Bethlehem in the city of David as predicted by Micheas 5:2 in the exact time predicted by Daniel 9 and in the manner foretold by Isaias 7. 

Judaism of the Old Testament no longer exists. It fulfilled its mission when Isreal brought forth the Blessed Virgin Mary, her Divine Messianic Son, Jesus, the twelve Apostles and the thousands upon thousands of converts who formed the membership of the infant Catholic Church. It is an indisuptable fact that the conversion of Jews is based upon love of not denial of the religious faith of their fathers of old in Isreal. My point all along is that faith no longer exists or rather has blossomed forth into the "new covenant made with the house of Judah" as predicted by Jeremias 13:31.

Some call modern Jewry a debating society and if you would like to continue this discussion, Leauki then I would offer this...

The Judaism of Moses, the only genuine Judaism, is based upon eternal unchangeable, God-given principles...therefore, they cannot rightly be "added thereto, nor diminshed" according to Deut. 13:1 to fit the Judaism that you claim to follow.

Those principles are set forth in the Torah (Pentateuch). The Torah makes plain the fact that the Judaism of God is of an authoritative, priestly, sacrificial character. The Book of Leviticus deals with the God -instituted priesthood of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi. 7 chapters deal with the various kinds of sacrifices followed by 3 chapters that deal with the solemn consecration of Aaron by his brother Moses. Leviticus tells in detail of the duties of the Aaronic priesthood, the sacrifices they were to make to God for the people of Isreal (and I'm not referring to the modern state of Isreal!).

It's the Jews of old who were God's chosen people, keepers of GOd's laws and determiners of of their application that atonement comes through blood which is the life of the flesh. Lev. 7:11. No one, but no one speaks with Torah authority today in either the Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, or Reconstructionist divisions of present day Jewry. The Jews of today have Rabbis, not priests. Period. The priesthood ended with the Temple.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 10:28:22 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

*get's a bowl of popcorn*

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 6:24:54 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting makeshiftwings,

I just wanted to respond to this, and to the other person who said the "liberal blob of nothingness".  Science doesn't say that the universe came from a primordial goop, nor from a blob.  It didn't come from any sort of slime-like substance, or anything at all.  First, there was nothing - not "an amorphous blob of nothing".  No blob.  Just nothing.  Basically, you can say there was no actual space or time.  There was no "place" for something to be in, and no "time" for it to be at.  Just nothing.

Then, the big bang happened, and we had space, time, matter, energy, and all that great stuff.  (side note: I hesitate to even use the word "Then", because there actually wasn't any time before the big bang - the clock didn't start until the universe started.)

I think that's an important thing to understand.  Science doesn't replace God as a creator with a weird blob as a creator.  There was no creator.  Nothing existed before the big bang happened - no blob, no "nothingness", there was nothing there that came from anywhere, and there wasn't even anywhere for anything to be.

I was responding to his point of view. If there was nothing, then where did everything come from. If there was a "primordial soup" or whatever you want to call it, then where did that come from? The question is still there no matter which way you look at it. It's just something that people refuse to think about or think is unimportant. It's up to them, believe what they will, just saying there's always that question and we dont' have an answer for it yet.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 8:08:39 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting mommie4life,
I was responding to his point of view. If there was nothing, then where did everything come from. If there was a "primordial soup" or whatever you want to call it, then where did that come from? The question is still there no matter which way you look at it. It's just something that people refuse to think about or think is unimportant. It's up to them, believe what they will, just saying there's always that question and we dont' have an answer for it yet.

From my own point of view (which is more or less the current scientific one), it didn't come from anything.  If you had a video tape of the history of the universe, and you were watching it on high speed reverse, when you got to the very beginning of the big bang, the tape just stops: you've hit the beginning of the tape.  You wouldn't be able to keep rewinding before that point, and you wouldn't see a scene where someone or something is standing somewhere and creating the big bang.  There is no time to create anything before the beginning of time, and there is no space to create it in before the beginning of space.  Everything that exists started in that first instant of time in that first point of space.

There's also a similar theory in science that also sounds reasonable to me, though it's a little harder to explain if you haven't studied relativity.  Some scientists instead think of it in terms of time dilation, which would mean if you were watching the tape in high speed reverse, as you got closer and closer to the very beginning of the Big Bang, where everything is just starting to explode outward from the center, the video would keep getting slower and slower, and you'd just end up watching the tape forever as it became slower and slower, without ever reaching the beginning of the tape, or ever seeing the exact beginning of the Big Bang... you'd only keep getting closer and closer to the beginning of the explosion by tinier and tinier fractions of time.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 8:24:46 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Yep. Time is an attribute of the universe, and as such does not exist before the universe.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 8:27:13 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Yet, you fail to realize that the Messianic Son of David during the present age or in any future age is an impossibility as there is no House of David, or tribe of Judah, in which a Messias or any other person could be born of. 

And there you go again, telling me what my beliefs must be.

Why on earth would it be an impossibility? There is a House of David. Why do you think that family would have ended? Heck, there are thousands of Jews who track their ancestry back to King David. And while that is not proof that they are indeed from David's family, neither is your belief that they are not. Their word is as good as yours; better, actually, since at least they COULD have the correct information whereas everything you say about Judaism including the House of David is just made up completely.

And now there is no tribe of Judah either? Now isn't that surprising... I am of that tribe. My tribe doesn't exist? Really? What do you even know about the tribes of Israel? (And I mean _know_, not _capable of making up_.)

 

It's the Jews of old who were God's chosen people, keepers of GOd's laws and determiners of of their application that atonement comes through blood which is the life of the flesh. Lev. 7:11. No one, but no one speaks with Torah authority today in either the Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, or Reconstructionist divisions of present day Jewry. The Jews of today have Rabbis, not priests. Period. The priesthood ended with the Temple.

Again, since your ignorance on this subject still won't stop you from making stuff up and since truth is so important to you and hence I don't want others to live with the untruths you tell them about Judaism.

Rabbis have the same authority to speak about Torah as priests, or as anybody. You are confusing Israelite priests with Catholic priests. Jewish priests do not and did not interpret Torah.

I see you are also fairly resistant to learning about the divisions of Judaism as you still list Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist as "divisions" of Judaism despite the fact that for the purpose of the validity of scripture, those are quite irrelevant as the correct divisions are, as I said, Rabbinical, Karaite, Samaritan, and Ethiopian. But I don't think I will ever see you even mention those since you seem never to learn and instead simply keep repeating what you already "know" or what you can make up as you go along.

Rabbis are not replacements for priests. They have different jobs. I don't expect you to understand their relation to each other. But I do expect you not to tell others about them when you clearly have no idea what either status entails.

Meet the Samaritan High Priest, Mr Elazar ben Tsedaka ben Yitzaq:

http://shomron0.tripod.com/2004/feb26.html

He became High Priest in 2004. I think you can reach him by mail in either Nablus or Holon (near Tel Aviv) in case you are interested in informing him that he doesn't exist or that the Israelite priesthood has been "replaced" by rabbis or something like that.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 8:53:14 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS #284

I just wanted to respond to this, and to the other person who said the "liberal blob of nothingness". Science doesn't say that the universe came from a primordial goop, nor from a blob. It didn't come from any sort of slime-like substance, or anything at all. First, there was nothing - not "an amorphous blob of nothing". No blob. Just nothing. Basically, you can say there was no actual space or time. There was no "place" for something to be in, and no "time" for it to be at. Just nothing.

Then, the big bang happened, and we had space, time, matter, energy, and all that great stuff. (side note: I hesitate to even use the word "Then", because there actually wasn't any time before the big bang - the clock didn't start until the universe started.)

I think that's an important thing to understand. Science doesn't replace God as a creator with a weird blob as a creator. There was no creator. Nothing existed before the big bang happened - no blob, no "nothingness", there was nothing there that came from anywhere, and there wasn't even anywhere for anything to be.

Someone else on another thread described it as:

the only way I believe in the Big Bang is .........God said it, and Bang it happened!   

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 9:10:44 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,

the only way I believe in the Big Bang is .........God said it, and Bang it happened!   

 

I usually say that "I believe in the Big Bang, I just believe that it was God that said Bang!" or something along those lines, but there was someone else that came up with that particular quote... KFC maybe....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 9:12:41 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

MOMMIE4LIFE POSTS

If there was nothing, then where did everything come from?...... The question is still there no matter which way you look at it. It's just something that people refuse to think about or think is unimportant.

The Big Bang theory is pure imaginative bunk....it violates physical laws and common sense.   

And yet, we've seen that it isn't something that people refuse to think about....as a majority of scientists today have accepted that nothing packed together tightly, condensed somehow into a single tiny spot and then it decided to explode producing neutrons, protons and electrons that somehow hurled themselves ourward at incredible speed and formed themselves into atomic structures of hydrogen and helium atoms.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 9:15:25 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

The Big Bang theory is pure imaginative bunk....it violates physical laws and common sense.   

On the contrary, the theory holds up so far and correctly predicted several phenomena now confirmed.

Again and again I find that you know little about religion or physics.

As for "common sense", is it really common sense to assume that if G-d created the world, the act of creation would not have looked like an awesome gigantic explosion in which the world comes into existence from nothing?

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 9:24:33 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,

The Big Bang theory is pure imaginative bunk....it violates physical laws and common sense.   

And yet, we've seen that it isn't something that people refuse to think about....as a majority of scientists today have accepted that nothing packed together tightly, condensed somehow into a single tiny spot and then it decided to explode producing neutrons, protons and electrons that somehow hurled themselves ourward at incredible speed and formed themselves into atomic structures of hydrogen and helium atoms.

 

Well, now you've got me confused. I guess it must have been KFC then. Genesis follows the Big Bang theory as long as you see that the "day" designation is a period of time instead of 24 hours. After all how long is a day to a being that doesn't die or before there is day and night? It was put down using a system that the people of that time could comprehend. Kind of like explaining it to a child.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 9:57:27 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting lulapilgrim,

The Big Bang theory is pure imaginative bunk....it violates physical laws and common sense.   

And yet, we've seen that it isn't something that people refuse to think about....as a majority of scientists today have accepted that nothing packed together tightly, condensed somehow into a single tiny spot and then it decided to explode producing neutrons, protons and electrons that somehow hurled themselves ourward at incredible speed and formed themselves into atomic structures of hydrogen and helium atoms.

 

 

No, the Big Bang is scientific fact.  We can see the echoes of it still in the universe; we can measure when it happened; we can observe the effects of it in the expanding space around us.  No one in physics today denies the Big Bang, so saying it violates physical law is a little ridiculous.  Whose physical laws are you referring to?

The only matter of contention is how and why it happened.  No one thinks that it DIDN'T happen.  If you want to find a place to stick God into the mix, then the only place it really makes sense is as mommie4life said, that God made the Big Bang happen.

Even then you'd run into some trouble scientifically speaking, since there wasn't actually a space for god to be in or a time for him to be at, but you'd have an easier time being taken seriously by just saying God can sidestep those problems because he's a god, than you would by claiming the Big Bang didn't happen.

 

And as a side note... if you think the Big Bang violates common sense, just wait until you start reading about general relativity and quantum physics.  That's when most people's common sense gets torn to shreds 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
May 4, 2009 10:47:30 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

I don't think any argument can be made or supported claiming that any particular scientific theory violates common sense - I know people claim many things violate common sense, to the point that common sense is a relatively nonsensical phrase. When I have had people tell me that my own experiences (I'm not talking supernatural stuff, just day-to-day social interactions) violate common sense I have to question whether the phrase common sense is even a coherent concept, or simply a way for some people to dismiss experiences they have no personal connection to.

As for violating physical laws - one wonders which physical laws you have in mind? This is a pretty heady claim, and it virtually requires citation. Read up on it first if you think you've got the chops to discredit it completely.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #101114  walnut1   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0004172   Page Render Time:

Stardock Magazine | Register | Online Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Copyright © 2016 Stardock Entertainment and Gas Powered Games. Demigod is a trademark of Gas Powered Games. All rights reserved. All other trademarks and copyrights are the properties of their respective owners. Windows, the Windows Vista Start button and Xbox 360 are trademarks of the Microsoft group of companies, and 'Games for Windows' and the Windows Vista Start button logo are used under license from Microsoft. © 2012 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. AMD, the AMD Arrow logo and combinations thereof are trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.