The Big Bang

[AllieBaba]

Nice little stray man. Some people may call theists names. Some people may call atheists names. If I recall a few posts, you even stoop to name-calling.

ANd it was very, very bad of me!

Lol.

In answer to the question if I believe every word in the Bible, I believe the Bible is holy and the word of God, and as such, perfect and true. Not because man is perfect, but because God is.

 

[Shogun]

I have not questioned whether or not the Big Bang contradicts God. My only comment on the topic is that the Big Bang is a theory, not a proven event. It requires belief just as a creator does.

There are those who claim the Big Bang is somehow more valid than creation simply because science says so. I have only one simple point to make in regard to THAT.

The Big Bang theory requires that from nothing, "something" was created. That, in and of itself, defies science. Nothing is absolute. Matter cannot be created from it.

uh, how is biblical creation any different in it's assumtions? Can YOU tell me where your god came from? Can RGS? You ASSUME that your god simply WAS and yet try to point a finger at science when it can't suggest a pre-big bang timeline?

Maybe you'll put your origin myth up to the same logical test, eh? If you ask what was before the big bang then let me ask, WHO created your god or where did he come from or come to be? You see, physical evidence in science doesnt get to backpeddle with "uh, it's gods plan derrr he was the alpha and omega, beginning and end".


Who says the the big bang CREATED anything? It's the farthest back in the SCIENTIFIC explanation of origin as evidence can support. Surely you must realize that SCIENCE will always be open to a pre-bang hypothesis if the EVIDENCE (not faith) supports such, eh? A big Bang does not insist that it is, of itself, the absolute beginning of anything... Merely the beginning according to the support of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. So, Im afraid that it's YOU who is proposing that some ghost in the sky created all of this out of thin air....


*poof*

 

[mattskramer]

ANd it was very, very bad of me!

Lol.

In answer to the question if I believe every word in the Bible, I believe the Bible is holy and the word of God, and as such, perfect and true. Not because man is perfect, but because God is.

The last time we debated inconsistencies and absurdities in the Bible, you basically gave up and quit. Do you want to try again?

 

[Shogun]

And yet your very argument is the same as mine. If you can believe that, why can it not be possible a GOD always existed?

YEA!

Gods noodly appendage was always here.. always knowing that, someday, a humanity made in his image will reach out and become one with him in Meatsauce heaven!


PRAISE be to the Alpha and Omega.. The Parmesan and Garlic.

READETH unto our carbohydrate lord and knoweth his gospel

Thou shall not have any gods before his saucy goodness.. be they golden calves or jewish dudes.

For he hath always been here... floating in the pre-bang void as an entity who created itself (by bringing the water to boil, browing the meat and draining the fat, adding the freshest tomato sauce and discovering magic)

Fall on your KNEES and worship as his holiness is manifested so that the scales from the eyes of non-believers may be lifted like Paul the former Saul!

 

[AllieBaba]

You're really annoying sometimes.

What you see as giving up and quitting, I see as pulling out of an argument that does nothing but allow the debasement God.

If you don't believe, you don't.

 

[mattskramer]

You're really annoying sometimes.

What you see as giving up and quitting, I see as pulling out of an argument that does nothing but allow the debasement God.

If you don't believe, you don't.

In other words, I don’t believe that the Bible is without error. You do believe that the Bible is without error. I’m perfectly willing to discuss and debate my position. You are not open to debate the subject. Is that pretty much accurate?

 

[Shogun]

Now Allie... I've stomped a mudhole on the dogma topic and seen you back peddle too. No offense, but dogma junkies are RARELY quick to support what they believe with anything beyond an appeal to faith.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's the way you see it and there's no arguing with it.

 

[Shogun]

well, you could always prove me wrong..


or maybe not run away the next time I start whipping out biblical scripture.


You are not a very good witness, Allie, if an atheist like myself.....

 

[AllieBaba]

Can't prove the existence of God any more than you can prove his non-existence. The same goes for the holiness of the bible.

 

[Shogun]

then the same goes for the holiness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodley appendage.

I;ll go ahead and stick with science and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE offered therein.

 

[AllieBaba]

Some physical evidence, some theory.

We're on different sides of the same faith boat.

 

[Shogun]

no, sorry.. the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of an expanding universe hardly requires the same faith that you latch onto when trying to force an equivalence between dogma and science.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can't prove the existence of God any more than you can prove his non-existence. The same goes for the holiness of the bible.

But non-theists use as their primary argument that it is rational to disbelieve in a deity or the holiness of the Bible because we cannot prove a deity's existence and we cannot prove that a deity had anything to do with the Bible. To Non-theists, observations and conclusions drawn re observations described by Theists are not considered rational or any form of evidence because they cannot be proved.

Non-theists do not apply the same standard to science or their own beliefs, however. To them, observations and conclusions drawn from those observations are sufficient reason to rationally accept theories re origins of the universe, behavior of the universe, natural selection, etc. even if they cannot be proved.

And then there are us theists who see little conflict between science and God and think people with truly open minds are quite rational in accepting both or at least the possibility of both.

But as you pointed out, all are simply on different sides of the same faith boat.

 

[Shogun]

the hell we dont.


When you can offer PHYSICAL EVIDENCE on par with scinetific observations instead of crying about faith this and belief that then science may consider what you have to offer. Until then, differentiating between the physical and the SUPER NATURAL is no more a hypocracy of science than is misunderstanding what the word SUPER NATURAL means. PHYSICAL is not SPIRITUAL. We don't need FAITH to know that GRAVITY occurs. I suggest reading a little bit about Francis Bacon.

 

[AllieBaba]

Like I said. Your mind is made up. There's no physical evidence that provides a definitive explanation of how the world came to be. So your insistence that it can't be God means absolutely nothing, because there's no way to prove it something OTHER than God.

When you know how the earth came to be then you'll be justified in your rants against faith. Until then you come across as a bigger zealot than any of the Christians on this site.

 

[Taomon]

Can't prove the existence of God any more than you can prove his non-existence. The same goes for the holiness of the bible.

Not true, there are more holes in the BIble than a pound of swiss cheese.

Who was recording events as God created the heavens and the earth? No one, it was made up. What proof is there that Jesus was a virgin birth? None, logically it doesn't add up.

The Bible is a bunch of stories, tailor made for oppression and ironically enough, that is what it was used for.

 

[Taomon]

Can't prove the existence of God any more than you can prove his non-existence. The same goes for the holiness of the bible.

How do dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

 

[mattskramer]

Can't prove the existence of God any more than you can prove his non-existence. The same goes for the holiness of the bible.

I probably would not go as far as some people would by confidently saying that there is no god. Yet, by applying logic and reasoning, it is easy to prove that the Bible is inconsistent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not true, there are more holes in the BIble than a pound of swiss cheese.

Who was recording events as God created the heavens and the earth? No one, it was made up. What proof is there that Jesus was a virgin birth? None, logically it doesn't add up.

The Bible is a bunch of stories, tailor made for oppression and ironically enough, that is what it was used for.

Wrong, the Bible is God's word filtered through man.