Does God Exist?

[esalla]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.

The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.

I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.

Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.

The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.

Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!

“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”

That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.

The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.

Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.

Nobody can tell us:

What was here before the BB?

Where did the energy for BB come from?

What initiated the BB?

The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.

I'm not so sure any scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable. What scientists have you asked?

To "explain the unexplainable" is an oxymoron. What you're missing is that science provides a mechanism to explore the expansion of the universe and what caused that event to happen. You might not have noticed but it wasn't the religious institutions that placed the Hubble in orbit, built radio telescopes or sent the Explorer spacecraft to distant planets.


Lets pose your questions differently, shall we?

What was here before the BB Gods?

Where did the energy for BB The Gods come from?

What initiated the BB Gods?

You have furthered the common misconception that the BB was a point in space, with all matter on the head of a pin. That's not accurate. Further, the BB was not the beginning of the universe but what came after.

So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?

To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.

To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?

The universe beginning from a singularity with no dimensions is not something scientists agree with.

If you presume the universe came into existence as a result of the supernatural hands of the gods, there is no science involved.

And your reference to support this?

According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?

www.scientificamerican.com

"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?...

In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see. (A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)"

Of course, there are other theories besides the Big Bang, and other models of the Big Bang. Which theory/model do you prefer?

Oh, and God is the greatest scientist that ever existed - he actually created the laws and properties of our universe:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

So how do you think those laws and properties were created/formed/formulated - e.g. E=Mc^2?

Black holes do not exist. If you really know science you will recognize the black hole idea as ridiculous.

Actually this is the first supposed photograph of a black hole

Did you see the gyrations everybody went through to explain why it looked like a donut?

The center of that is not the black hole.

All kinds of speculation in that photo.

Tell us how you know what the photo is or is not?

How Scientists Captured the First Image of a Black Hole - Teachable Moments | NASA/JPL Edu

Find out how scientists created a virtual telescope as large as Earth itself to capture the first image of a black hole's silhouette.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

It is an image of some energy in space. The cosmos is full of energy.

That is not even a picture of a black hole but the shadow of what they think is one.

And all you have expressed is what you think. That said who are you to even propose a thought on this?

 

[esalla]

However, if you look the light coming to you from the past, then you must understand the past light is not traveling from you but is ARRIVING to you.

My intent was to have ding answer my questions and have a discussion, but his was to make snide remarks for my being a fundamentalist Christian vs. his deism. He says he is Catholic, but doesn't use the Bible nor attend church.

The way I have used the map I posted is if we were are able to travel at c to some point on the cone such as the someplace beyond our galaxy. Then we would have to calculate the coordinates carefully and realize where we want to go may not be there at present. If not correct, then we could just overshoot or undershoot our destination by far and screw up our fuel that we have to make the trip there and back.

Tell us James, where did you get your physics degree?

Actually I know

Wikipedia

Most of us don't have a physics degree. The example I posted I got if we had an extensive space map, could travel at the speed of light, and we had to map out our trip on how to get there. Some things would be easy like SF to NYC. No need to change the map, but our watches would say we got there instantaneously. However, if the location where we want to visit is light years away, maybe over 100 light years away, then it would be more difficult to calculate. We also would have to be in suspended animation in order to be alive at the end of our trip.

You copy nonsense that you do not even understand from wiki and actually you have told us that you have scientific information under review.

Simplified you are a mental patient, and you and every person who knows you is aware of this

 

[esalla]

However, if you look the light coming to you from the past, then you must understand the past light is not traveling from you but is ARRIVING to you.

My intent was to have ding answer my questions and have a discussion, but his was to make snide remarks for my being a fundamentalist Christian vs. his deism. He says he is Catholic, but doesn't use the Bible nor attend church.

The way I have used the map I posted is if we were are able to travel at c to some point on the cone such as the someplace beyond our galaxy. Then we would have to calculate the coordinates carefully and realize where we want to go may not be there at present. If not correct, then we could just overshoot or undershoot our destination by far and screw up our fuel that we have to make the trip there and back.

Tell us James, where did you get your physics degree?

Actually I know

Wikipedia

Most of us don't have a physics degree. The example I posted I got if we had an extensive space map, could travel at the speed of light, and we had to map out our trip on how to get there. Some things would be easy like SF to NYC. No need to change the map, but our watches would say we got there instantaneously. However, if the location where we want to visit is light years away, maybe over 100 light years away, then it would be more difficult to calculate. We also would have to be in suspended animation in order to be alive at the end of our trip.

True/

There are no truths about light speed travel, just babbles

 

[esalla]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

However in order to be born dna had to be written as codes do not write themselves. Thus god is a scientific requirement

Based on what? Your assumption?

Actually the assumption is that a code with the immense complexity of dna could write itself out of nothing in a lifeless sterile pond is the assumption. Stating that codes do not write themselves is a scientifically accepted fact as there is no known example of sterile ponds writing code as Darwin speculated in his letter to Hooker

 

[Hollie]

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

It seems you need to have a discussion of Biblical references to what a day means with James Bond. Per post 859, one (or both) of you are wrong.

What a shame the Gods didn't bother to make things clear. That's quite a paradox. Your eternal soul is at stake here and the Gods neglected to make their message understandable.

It seems to me that you need to read the dictionaries. The context and cross references make the definitions in Genesis clear - you clearly do not care to research this.

I do not have an eternal soul, btw. See Ezekiel 18:4,20. Why do you think I have an immortal soul????

Definitions are apparently not clear. There are several pages in this thread which make that clear.

Notwithstanding religionists confusing definitions, lets first look at the bigger picture of supernatural gods who supernaturally created all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago.

I have no idea what a "soul", is. It is undemonstrated and undefined. I believe you are confusing this "soul" thing with personality. That resides wholly in the brain.

 

[esalla]

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

It seems you need to have a discussion of Biblical references to what a day means with James Bond. Per post 859, one (or both) of you are wrong.

What a shame the Gods didn't bother to make things clear. That's quite a paradox. Your eternal soul is at stake here and the Gods neglected to make their message understandable.

It seems to me that you need to read the dictionaries. The context and cross references make the definitions in Genesis clear - you clearly do not care to research this.

I do not have an eternal soul, btw. See Ezekiel 18:4,20. Why do you think I have an immortal soul????

Definitions are apparently not clear. There are several pages in this thread which make that clear.

Notwithstanding religionists confusing definitions, lets first look at the bigger picture of supernatural gods who supernaturally created all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago.

I have no idea what a "soul", is. It is undemonstrated and undefined. I believe you are confusing this "soul" thing with personality. That resides wholly in the brain.

Soul is one of the created aspects of a running mind, if and when computers ever become self aware they will have a soul for as long as they run.

 

[Hollie]

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

Thank you Meriweather for confirming what I posted about variant Scriptural definitions of Yom/day. I was thinking of Abraham Lincoln's day! The Bible uses this definition of day here:

Genesis 2:4
This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah* God made earth and heaven.

[Note: this is the first of nearly 7,000 occurrences of the Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures.]

Note that history/ generations, time when and "day" are used interchangeably. Hebrew-English interlinear here:

Genesis 2:4 Interlinear: These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;

biblehub.com

Note that "when" is implied by the form of the Hebrew word for created (bara). As a sidepoint, Genesis 1:16 uses a different word for "make" because the stars had already been created but were only then made visible in the sky/atmosphere/expanse between the upper and lower waters. NW ref. footnote on "make" also shows the imperfect Hebrew verb state is being used - the footnote:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·yaʹʽas (from ʽa·sahʹ). Different from “create” (ba·raʼʹ) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state. See App 3C."

On topic - the accuracy of the Biblical account of creation is another evidence the Bible is God's Word.

Bara is to create something from...non-existence.
Asay is to create a prototype using what has been created; one or more elements.
Y'tzar is to refine.
The unknown Pristine created "The Power of Multiplicity" over the physical and the metaphysical.
That's one way to interpret these words.

Of course, "Hashahmyim" and "Ha'eretz" are actually a bit more complex to explain and each of these words is an acrostic contains the actual elements that were created.

Where are you getting your definitions from?

For example:

Genesis 2:4 [
(KJV+) TheseH428 are the generationsH8435 of the heavensH8064 and of the earthH776 when they were created,H1254 in the dayH3117 that the LORDH3068 GodH430 madeH6213 the earthH776 and the heavens,H8064

H1254/created from Strong's Hebrew dictionary:

H1254
בָּרָא
bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create;....[other definitions and translations]

From Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew definitions:

H1254
בּרא
bârâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root

=======

From Genesis 1:16 [Greek LXX poieo/to make or do]
(KJV+) And GodH430 madeH6213 (H853) twoH8147 greatH1419 lights;H3974 (H853) the greaterH1419 lightH3974 to ruleH4475 the day,H3117 and the lesserH6996 lightH3974 to ruleH4475 the night:H3915 he made the starsH3556 also.

Strong's dictionary:
H6213
עָשָׂה
‛âśâh
aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make,...

BDB:
H6213
עשׂה
‛âśâh
BDB Definition:
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to do, work, make, produce
1a1a) to do
1a1b) to work
1a1c) to deal (with)
1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect
1a2) to make
1a2a) to make
1a2b) to produce
1a2c) to prepare
1a2d) to make (an offering)
1a2e) to attend to, put in order
1a2f) to observe, celebrate
1a2g) to acquire (property)
1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute
1a2i) to bring about
1a2j) to use
1a2k) to spend, pass
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be done
1b2) to be made
1b3) to be produced
1b4) to be offered
1b5) to be observed
1b6) to be used
1c) (Pual) to be made
2) (Piel) to press, squeeze
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root

You failed to cite the Scriptures concerning the other Hebrew words you are referring to - I'll wait for you to do that before I respond further.

My main point is the same as Meriweather's point concerning variant definitions of the Hebrew word for "day" - from Strong's Hebrew dictionary with translations of Yom in KJV:

H3117
יוֹם
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
Total KJV occurrences: 2295

The definition in Scripture is determined by the context and cross references - for example "day" in Psalms 90:4. Scientific research also helps determine the definition in Genesis chapter 1.

What scientific research was performed regarding definitions in Genesis?

 

[Hollie]

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

It seems you need to have a discussion of Biblical references to what a day means with James Bond. Per post 859, one (or both) of you are wrong.

What a shame the Gods didn't bother to make things clear. That's quite a paradox. Your eternal soul is at stake here and the Gods neglected to make their message understandable.

It seems to me that you need to read the dictionaries. The context and cross references make the definitions in Genesis clear - you clearly do not care to research this.

I do not have an eternal soul, btw. See Ezekiel 18:4,20. Why do you think I have an immortal soul????

Definitions are apparently not clear. There are several pages in this thread which make that clear.

Notwithstanding religionists confusing definitions, lets first look at the bigger picture of supernatural gods who supernaturally created all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago.

I have no idea what a "soul", is. It is undemonstrated and undefined. I believe you are confusing this "soul" thing with personality. That resides wholly in the brain.

Soul is one of the created aspects of a running mind, if and when computers ever become self aware they will have a soul for as long as they run.

A "running mind" explains nothing. How is a "soul" created?

 

[Meriweather]

It seems you need to have a discussion of Biblical references to what a day means with James Bond. Per post 859, one (or both) of you are wrong.

What a shame the Gods didn't bother to make things clear. That's quite a paradox. Your eternal soul is at stake here and the Gods neglected to make their message understandable.

The fact James Bond and I disagree requires no discussion. He is open to no other possibility than a 24 hour period...despite the fact the Bible uses the word for longer periods elsewhere. 'Day' has a beginning and an end. A portion of creation also has a beginning and an end. Hebrew is a picturesque language, unlike English which is subjective.

No one's eternal soul is in danger over what they believe--or do not believe--the Genesis account of creation. For some reason, some people believe it important that God magicked the earth into creation in less than a week. Another passage in the Bible alerts us to the reality that our reckoning of time is not how God reckons time. And finally, as someone once noted, if it takes God thirty days to bring a radish to maturity and a hundred years to bring an oak tree to its maturity, it appears God takes time and care in his creations. A radish in thirty days, but an entire planet and everything on it in six days?

 

[esalla]

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

It seems you need to have a discussion of Biblical references to what a day means with James Bond. Per post 859, one (or both) of you are wrong.

What a shame the Gods didn't bother to make things clear. That's quite a paradox. Your eternal soul is at stake here and the Gods neglected to make their message understandable.

It seems to me that you need to read the dictionaries. The context and cross references make the definitions in Genesis clear - you clearly do not care to research this.

I do not have an eternal soul, btw. See Ezekiel 18:4,20. Why do you think I have an immortal soul????

Definitions are apparently not clear. There are several pages in this thread which make that clear.

Notwithstanding religionists confusing definitions, lets first look at the bigger picture of supernatural gods who supernaturally created all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago.

I have no idea what a "soul", is. It is undemonstrated and undefined. I believe you are confusing this "soul" thing with personality. That resides wholly in the brain.

Soul is one of the created aspects of a running mind, if and when computers ever become self aware they will have a soul for as long as they run.

A "running mind" explains nothing. How is a "soul" created?

The soul is created by electrical activity in the mind

 

[alang1216]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

You're not going to like this answer: This seems to admit to an expanding universe: "stretching out the heavens".

 

[alang1216]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

So the universe is expanding. Got it. <nitpick>Isaiah was wrong about "not one of them is missing" when he talked about stars but of course he didn't know about supernova.</nitpick>

 

[Hollie]

It seems you need to have a discussion of Biblical references to what a day means with James Bond. Per post 859, one (or both) of you are wrong.

What a shame the Gods didn't bother to make things clear. That's quite a paradox. Your eternal soul is at stake here and the Gods neglected to make their message understandable.

The fact James Bond and I disagree requires no discussion. He is open to no other possibility than a 24 hour period...despite the fact the Bible uses the word for longer periods elsewhere. 'Day' has a beginning and an end. A portion of creation also has a beginning and an end. Hebrew is a picturesque language, unlike English which is subjective.

No one's eternal soul is in danger over what they believe--or do not believe--the Genesis account of creation. For some reason, some people believe it important that God magicked the earth into creation in less than a week. Another passage in the Bible alerts us to the reality that our reckoning of time is not how God reckons time. And finally, as someone once noted, if it takes God thirty days to bring a radish to maturity and a hundred years to bring an oak tree to its maturity, it appears God takes time and care in his creations. A radish in thirty days, but an entire planet and everything on it in six days?

I can’t help but note that disagreements over some very basic elements such as the length of a day seem inconsistent with an alleged infallible text such as the Bible. Within the Genesis fable, neither the natural world nor "Gods" are defined in any differentiable, testable fashion. I've seen the resident apologists take really spectacular liberties with allegorical interpretations of the Bible in this thread and others, while entirely dodging the fundamental problem that no demonstrably accurate version of the scripture is available.

I'd be the last one to see a spiritual work as a pathway to science and I certainly would never suggest that a religious text should be viewed as a science curriculum. But it's true that those who already wish to restrain knowledge for reasons of pride or willful miscalculation often grasp upon their holy books for an excuse.

The fault doesn't lie with the holy book, but with the reader.



I think the Bible contradicts your comment about one’s eternal “soul”. According to the very blueprint that introduces you to the very idea of the theism at all -- the only way to get to paradise according to the Bible is you gotta’ accept Jesus. Everything else is revisionism and wishful thinking.

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:7 - Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 Peter 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

John 6:35 - And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 8:12 - Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 9:5 - As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

John 10:7 - Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

And finally:

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Of course, we can wash away what is in the Bible simply with “Ahhh, but you have interpreted it incorrectly”

 

[esalla]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

You're not going to like this answer: This seems to admit to an expanding universe: "stretching out the heavens".

Please do not feed the patients

 

[alang1216]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

You're not going to like this answer: This seems to admit to an expanding universe: "stretching out the heavens".

Please do not feed the patients

Why go to a petting zoo if you don't want to feed the animals?

 

[Meriweather]

I can’t help but note that disagreements over some very basic elements such as the length of a day seem inconsistent with an alleged infallible text such as the Bible. Within the Genesis fable, neither the natural world nor "Gods" are defined in any differentiable, testable fashion. I've seen the resident apologists take really spectacular liberties with allegorical interpretations of the Bible in this thread and others, while entirely dodging the fundamental problem that no demonstrably accurate version of the scripture is available.

Fifteen hundred years after Christ, some Christians who broke away from the original Church decided to improve things. In the fifteen hundreds they introduced the concept of Sola Scriptura--Scripture alone. Three hundred years later, in the late 1800s, they introduced the concept of Biblical inerrency and infallibility. A hundred years after that some Evangelicals made a big push for believing everything in the Bible should be taken literally. Remember, it was Anglican Bishop in the 1600s who came up with the thought the earth was six thousand years old by incorrectly calculating genealogies.

Being a traditional Catholic, sticking to Apostolic tradition of the first century, none of the above really concerned me, or even bothered me. They were all just other ways some Protestants (the minority) differed from Catholics (the majority). In fact, the only thing that bothered me is that people interested in science came up with their own bright idea that what Protestants loudly proclaimed was believed by all. Even today, while the majority of Christians (60-40) are with scientists in physical matters, we certainly don't see enough of this awareness by scientists! As far as I am concerned both scientists and the 40-percenters need to knock it off.

Catholics believe scripture was inspired by God, written by man. While there are certain things in the Bible that are naturally believed by people of faith (namely God exists and we are to love God and one another) even more so there is an entire host of Biblical accounts that can have equally acceptable differences. That is why I could not care less if some people want to say the earth was created in six days. That doesn't stop me from teaching science correctly or interfere in my life in any way. It is their belief, and more power to them.

 

[Meriweather]

I think the Bible contradicts your comment about one’s eternal “soul”. According to the very blueprint that introduces you to the very idea of the theism at all -- the only way to get to paradise according to the Bible is you gotta’ accept Jesus. Everything else is revisionism and wishful thinking.

Of course, we can wash away what is in the Bible simply with “Ahhh, but you have interpreted it incorrectly”

Context is vital. It is also vital to keep in mind other passages where Jesus flat out says that those who are well have no need of him...he came for the lost. I am numbered among the lost.

 

[james bond]

Wow. Methinks thou doest protest too much. I don't know anything about all the chemistry involved, but I'd rather believe in chemistry than in some supernatural being.

Sure, creation science is about chemistry, too. This chemistry doesn't reflect the volcanic gases that were present in the primordial atmosphere, i.e. Miller-Urey was rigged.

You can try it for yourself online here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

I figured it out. Can you?

I bet you a cyber beer you will cause it to explode .

 

[Hollie]

I think the Bible contradicts your comment about one’s eternal “soul”. According to the very blueprint that introduces you to the very idea of the theism at all -- the only way to get to paradise according to the Bible is you gotta’ accept Jesus. Everything else is revisionism and wishful thinking.

Of course, we can wash away what is in the Bible simply with “Ahhh, but you have interpreted it incorrectly”

Context is vital. It is also vital to keep in mind other passages where Jesus flat out says that those who are well have no need of him...he came for the lost. I am numbered among the lost.

Its a bit of a stretch to suggest with any certainty that accounts of "Jesus said" are in any way accurate. Other than the fable if Paul passing Jesus and the road to Damascus, thing, the writers of the various portions of Bible never met Jesus.

 

[Indeependent]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

You're not going to like this answer: This seems to admit to an expanding universe: "stretching out the heavens".

You're not going to like this answer: Stretching something doesn't make it grow.
Take a folder table cloth and stretch it...you're not making it grow.