Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...

[jem]

1. you are so full of shit stu.. once a troll always a troll.
you are willing to misrepresent anything and everything when it comes to science.

so I will start with wikipedia and I will explain that at first many atheists resisted the idea of the big bang... because the big bang indicates that our universe had a beginning. However, pretty much only trolls like stu get into arguments about the concept of the big bang meaning our universe had a beginning.

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

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[14] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[15][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.[17] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe. In 2013 new Planck data corrected this age to 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[2]

2. that is why I said essentially.

That's fine, except neither is true.
The only one to mention steady state or suggest the idea, is you.
Science as you put it, that is to say big bang cosmological model, is about the beginning of the expansion of the Universe, not the beginning of the Universe.
Also an eternal Universe does not require steady state.

Or a God for that matter.

 

[jem]

oh what a surprise, tweedle dum showed up to cheerlead geppetto again.

That is the whole point... "before" is speculation... it takes faith to say Creator or Random Chance.
(random chance looks far less likely)

Exactly. We are no closer to saying there was a beginning then we were before. Only that there was a big bang. Before that the universe may not have existed or it existed in another state. We will likely never know for sure.

 

[futurecurrents]

oh what a surprise, tweedle dum showed up to cheerlead geppetto again.

Oh what a surprise, jerm once again forcing and faking science to attempt to support his intellectually bankrupt ideology.

 

[jem]

nothing I said was incorrect troll. if you understood the following when I posted it on the last page... you would know that...
this means a beginning --- you science ignorant trolls.


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

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[14] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[15][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.[17] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe. In 2013 new Planck data corrected this age to 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[2]

Oh what a surprise, jerm once again forcing and faking science to attempt to support his intellectually bankrupt ideology.

 

[Ricter]

Well done, Joe. You got jem and stu going again, with futurecurrents in for good measure!

All in good fun.

 

[futurecurrents]

nothing I said was incorrect troll. if you understood the following when I posted it on the last page... you would know that...
this means a beginning --- you science ignorant trolls.


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

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[14] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[15][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.[17] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe. In 2013 new Planck data corrected this age to 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[2]

No it doesn't. We are no closer to saying there was a beginning than we ever were. We know more about the early state of the current iteration of the universe is all. We have no idea what, if anything, preceded it. To try to invent a "beginning" so you can insert your God there may be convenient to your theology but is simply a fabrication.

 

[stu]

Well done, Joe. You got jem and stu going again, with futurecurrents in for good measure!

All in good fun.

.. don't leave out yourself dude, and first in

 

[stu]

it takes faith to say Creator or Random Chance.
(random chance looks far less likely)

False dichotomy.
Also, neither are known to exist in the Universe.
A-causal quantum events with inevitable outcome do, therefore look most likely.

To try to invent a "beginning" so you can insert your God there may be convenient to your theology but is simply a fabrication.

in a nutshell !

 

[CaptainObvious]

Yes there are. I am one. I am as certain that there is no God as any fact I know.

Oh, you know it to be fact do ya'? Einstein didn't believe it to be fact. Darwin didn't believe it to be fact. There are no credible scientists that believe the evidence proves that there is absolutely no creator. Many speculate that there is no creator. Many believe there is no creator. Many have said there is no need for a creator for the universe to exist, but none claim it to be fact. No real man of science would.
Bottom line, nobody knows for sure whether there is or isn't a creator. Well, except for the zealots on both sides of the argument. Occasionally it's amusing to watch the pot and kettle argue, but most of the time it's just sad.

 

[Lucrum]

Oh, you know it to be fact do ya'? Einstein didn't believe it to be fact. Darwin didn't believe it to be fact. There are no credible scientists that believe the evidence proves that there is absolutely no creator. Many speculate that there is no creator. Many believe there is no creator. Many have said there is no need for a creator for the universe to exist, but none claim it to be fact. No real man of science would.
Bottom line, nobody knows for sure whether there is or isn't a creator. Well, except for the zealots on both sides of the argument. Occasionally it's amusing to watch the pot and kettle argue, but most of the time it's just sad.

Is there a "Like" button I can select somewhere?