BIGGER BANG-I need your oppinuin

[danyopizzle]

Ive been studying science and theorys that have to do with physics this summer, now the Universe and everything that exists is finally beginning to open up to me a little more. Religion is a different story. <br />The bible is all symbolism, the storys to me never actually happend, like the ark. I say and believe this cause we know cave men existed and have evidence. So where's the evidence of Noahs Ark? The Ten Commandment Stones? etc. Christianity came after cave men according to science timeline, science doesnt prove what i just stated, it makes sense that thats what is true to me, and i respect religion just as much as i respect science, i only need proof, if i believe in jesus right now, than I would have to believe in Santa just because people say Santa exists. <br />At the age of 5 through about 9, I was a hardcore christian, God was there for me, he truly did give me joy till I jumped, but i was raised to be christian, so it doesnt make sense now, I got so gosh dang fixed on joy, god, and hell, that it made me happy, i knew i was going to heaven, this made me JOYFUL. My believe is that its all mental, uncontrollable subconcious state of mind to be joyful whenever "God forgives your sins, Hes there for you" <br />Why does God hide from us? Is he to dang pretty for us? Theorys say that the world is how God is showing himself...So he must not be perfect than... But why is he hiding from us? This comes back to believeing in Santa, i dont see him, but everyone says hes real so i must believe in him cause every other little kid does, why not? So Why not believe in God? <br />I dont have anything against religion, this is just what i learned.<br /><br />I havent lost all hopes of the possibility of there being god or christianity, theres a cause and effect for everything, scientists dont know where the energy came from to ignite the big bang, the most i can say in my oppinun that its god or something else that has dissappered.<br />

 

[harmonicaman]

I would submit that the universe came into existence when God lit a match to look for a gas leak... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[alkalin]

How can we find the gas leak? Or better yet, find God’s match. Oh wait, why not find God himself? Are we in science anymore? I don’t think so, but I do understand certain religious institutional views such as that they insist they have all the answers, and they do for the children, but that is about as far as it goes. My view is we should take ourselves out of religious institutions if we want answers that are more mature, but we need to try very hard to look at the alternatives and decide if indeed those are better.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I don't think this is the correct forum for this subject. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

The phrase "Heavens and the earth" does not mean universe. Calling the heavens and the earth the universe is corruption of the actual message (this corruption can be found in the beginning of newer translations of the Bible). The stories of the Bible have touched many human hands, and thus many parts of the stories change with time, spoiled with additions, subtractions, etc.<br /><br />If interpreted correctly the first line of Genesis refer to stars, or rather, the worlds that exist among those stars (i.e. planets).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Listen, a noise on the mountains like that of a great multitude! An uproar among kingdoms like nations amassing together! Yahweh is mustering an <b>army</b> for war. They come from far away <b>lands</b> from the ends of <b>heaven</b>. Yahweh and his instruments of wrath to destroy the land. Isaiah 13: 4-5.</font><br /><br />Obviously in no way a "creator of the big bang" can set up an army from far away of lands at the ends of "heaven". That kind of capacity is reserved for extraterrestrials - basically societies that can possess <b>armies</b> and come from above the surface of the earth.<br /><br />Reread your bible if you have to, you see a lot of things that suggest something closer to the gods in other religions (which are called "angels" in the Bible).<br /><br />I advise you to not mix the Bible with cosmology.<br /><br />As for the comparision to Santa Claus, we're better off learning to supporting ourselves, which is probably why we don't see him. If he exists but doesn't come it's probably for our own good. Too many people are being dependent on an external savior, when the savior is in them.<br /><br />Meanwhile, God is material entity. Evidence for this is seen in the following Bible quote:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">This gate is to remain shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it; because Yahweh, God of Israel, has entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. Ezekiel 44: 2.</font>

 

[qso1]

danyopizzle:<br />The bible is all symbolism, the storys to me never actually happend, like the ark.<br /><br />Me:<br />I tend to agree that a lot of biblical stories are symbolic but there may be cases where actual events are portrayed and Noahs ark may be such a case.<br /><br />There is evidence for something on or near the top of Mount Ararat in Turkey. It may be evidence of something we are as yet unaware, or it may be evidence of the ark.<br /><br />Even if the ark existed, it does not necessarily mean its the work of God himself. Based on what I recall of the arks dimensions, it was a stretch to build to be sure, but probably within the very edge of human capability although I'm not really certain of this.<br /><br />In religion, ultimate proof has not been possible. This is why religion is faith based. You have to believe in the religion, what it supposes regardless of evidence of lack thereof.<br /><br />Science cannot answer the question whether there is a God or not. That's not the intent of science. Athiesm is the way people who do not beleive in God deal with the whole thing. But athiesm is also a belief system. One cannot prove the non-existence of God.<br /><br />If I had to guess, the big bang is but one of endless big bangs throughout an eternal void. Collections of galaxies we call Universes banging in, fading out of existence. If God exists, he/she occupies a dimension simultaneously occuring with our physical existence. Some people will say God does not hide from them, they feel his presence etc. But again, is that belief on their part? We cannot prove what someone says one way or the other where their religious/personal experiences are concerned.<br /><br />BTW, I'm not a scientist or cosmologist so my take on the Universe is purely speculative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Athiesm is the way people who do not beleive in God deal with the whole thing. But athiesm is also a belief system. One cannot prove the non-existence of God.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />you don't have to prove negative, the weight (onus) of proof lies with him who proposes that God exists.<br />Ergo atheism is not a belief system. I for one refuse to be labeled a believer if I reject someobody's notion of whatever he can come up with, like Martians or God or whatever. How on earth could I ever prove non-existence of something for which there is no evidence, just assertion that it exist?? I say again, let him who comes up with something first prove his claims and I will deal with those proofs if there are any and then either accept that something or reject it as nonsense.<br /><br />It is true that atheistic scientist cannot explain everything and never will, like what existed before existence came to existence LOL<br />you notice that what I said there is nonsense, thing is if you posit God as the origin of existence, then where did God come from, who made him and for that matter who made that maker of the God and so on regressing ad infinitum<br />Bottom line is, the concept of God also doesn't explain anything, you still have to accept Him as unexplained phenomenon in the first place, so why not just plain accept the 'existence' being here as is directly evidenced by our senses and that's that and go on from there discovering how it works to understand it and harness it to our advantage, in short lets adopt the rational, that is scientific approach<br /><br />rational man simply accepts that existence exists and he starts his inquiries from there, never asking who or what made the existence or how did it come to exist because asking such questions embroils one necessarily in contradictions, that is in invalid thinking (existence is what is called an axiomatic concept which means that any attempt to go beyond it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">you don't have to prove negative, the weight (onus) of proof lies with him who proposes that God exists.<br />Ergo atheism is not a belief system. I for one refuse to be labeled a believer if I reject someobody's notion of whatever he can come up with, like Martians or God or whatever. How on earth could I ever prove non-existence of something for which there is no evidence, just assertion that it exist?? I say again, let him who comes up with something first prove his claims and I will deal with those proofs if there are any and then either accept that something or reject it as nonsense</font><br /><br />If atheism is not a belief system, that would make atheism the same as agnosticism. So your an agnostic.

 

[tom_hobbes]

What is a lapsed agnostic then? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

<font color="yellow">you don't have to prove negative, the weight (onus) of proof lies with him who proposes that God exists....</font><br /><br />I think your discussion here sums things up quite nicely. <br /><br />In reference to kmarinas' point re. atheism vs. agnosticism. While I would agree that to take an objective rational point of view would not be to say "I know with absolute and utter certainty that God does not exist," at the same time I think we can have very good confidence that there is no God in the same way that I can have very high confidence that I don't have $500 million in unmarked bills lining the walls of my apartment. I think the term agnostic usually implies something that is a little too wishy-washy - i.e. someone who doesn't have a strong feeling either way. I, for one, can't say with certainty that god does not exist, but I would lean heavily in that direction and am willing to bet my putative eternal soul on it. In that sense I would not mind calling myself atheist, though agnostic is probably the better term technically. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

vanDivX:<br />It is true that atheistic scientist cannot explain everything and never will, like what existed before existence came to existence LOL <br /><br />Me:<br />I don't propose that God exists...or does not exist. I'm pretty much an agnostic myself but the reason I mentioned athiesm as a belief system is that one would have to go to every corner of the Universe, every planet, evry speck of dust, every dimension to prove or disprove God...and proving or disproving is the essence of science.<br /><br />When one states "I am an athiest". They have just stated they know God does not exist despite the fact they have never been off planet. For those who say they do not believe in God, the word believe makes it known up front its a belief.<br /><br />It should also be noted that there is nothing wrong with what a person believes if thats what makes life a little easier to deal with. There is also nothing wrong in people exchanging their beliefs or ideas in voluntary discussion. Its when it seems to be forced that it becomes a problem.<br /><br />vanDivX:<br />you notice that what I said there is nonsense, thing is if you posit God as the origin of existence, then where did God come from, who made him and for that matter who made that maker of the God and so on regressing ad<br />infinitum...<br /><br />Me:<br />The answer is...we simply don't know. We don't know what God really is IMO if he does exist. Just because we can reason the idea of what came before God does not necessarily make it the only explanation.<br /><br />We just don't know.<br /><br />And yet, science says this Universe began as a singularity that banged into existence. Time didn't exist nor did space before the BB...does that really make any sense? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I think the term agnostic usually implies something that is a little too wishy-washy - i.e. someone who doesn't have a strong feeling either way."</font><br /><br />There is some basis to the opinion that agnostics are fence-sitters, so to speak, but it derives from the rational point of view that the existence of God (or god, gods, whatever) can neither be proven nor disproven. Therefore, the only rational position to take is that it's an open question. It's possible to take this rational point of view very strongly...IOW, not so wishy-washy.<br /><br />It's kinda like being a Libertarian in a Democrat-Republican World <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />...if that makes any sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[phi_gazer]

"I dont have anything against religion, this is just what i learned."<br /><br /><br />Unlearn everything and start fresh for yourself......and remember that anything can be possible, but something's are most improbable.