And God came from ?
Faith.
From a book that men wrote. Same as science texts written by men in the past (and men and women nowadays) and in the future.
Science evolves. Faith it seems devolves.
I "lean" on Science.
Six biblical truths about money...
- Thread starter expiated
- Start date
Faith.
From a book that men wrote. Same as science texts written by men in the past (and men and women nowadays) and in the future.
Science evolves. Faith it seems devolves.
I "lean" on Science.
Let's see here
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...issues-credit-card.331158/page-2#post-4831695
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/six-biblical-truths-about-money.331077/
Do I need to go on? As many posters have pointed out, reading comprehension isn't your strong point, but it appears that extends to even reading your own posts! Are you so lacking in self-awareness that you genuinely don't realize you're a bigoted anti-semite who is consumed by hate? Sad.
And no, I will never "agree to disagree" with bigotry!
Last edited:
Did I not just mention that Christianity is a faith based religion? The Bible is considered a God inspired book by believers, not by you of course. You could not be more wrong on the continuity of the biblical scripture and accuracy over time. Despite it having been copied by hundreds if not thousands long time before the printing press was invented hardly any if any single mistake or change entered the bible over centuries. It's the most popular, consistent, and most read book on the planet and that for decades since we started counting books' popularity.
Last edited:
The big bang theory is reliant on the assumption that matter came into existence from nowhere and that velocity and gravity came from nowhere.
Not everyone thinks matter came from nothing and/or nowhere:
https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-energy-for-the-big-bang-come-from
According to the standard Big Bang theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity". What is a ‘‘singularity’’ and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure.
https://www.space.com/38982-no-big-bang-bouncing-cosmology-theory.html
However, there is no direct evidence of the original singularity. (Collecting information from that first moment of expansion is impossible with current methods.) In the new paper, Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves argues that the original singularity may never have existed.
https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html
"The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes."
Something needed to happen to set up the initial conditions for the Big Bang, and that “thing” is cosmic inflation, or a period where the energy in the Universe wasn’t dominated by matter (or antimatter) or radiation, but rather by energy inherent to space itself, or an early, super-intense form of dark energy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/
The conclusion was inescapable: the hot Big Bang definitely happened, but doesn't extend to go all the way back to an arbitrarily hot and dense state. Instead, the very early Universe underwent a period of time where all of the energy that would go into the matter and radiation present today was instead bound up in the fabric of space itself. That period, known as cosmic inflation, came to an end and gave rise to the hot Big Bang, but never created an arbitrarily hot, dense state, nor did it create a singularity. What happened prior to inflation — or whether inflation was eternal to the past — is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang2.htm
But whether it as a Big Bang or a Big Bounce, the question of what existed before our present universe remains an open question. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality.
https://curiosity.com/topics/what-came-before-the-big-bang-curiosity/
Here are a few of the leading contenders for what happened before the Big Bang.
An earlier universe collapsed into the singularity that started our own.
The universe was hibernating until something set it in motion
There was never a singularity. Instead, all the energy in the universe was bound in the fabric of space.
We're just one universe in the multiverse.
http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-started-the-big-bang-79845
What started the Big Bang? – Pippi, 8, Canberra.
the short answer is that we do not know what started the Big Bang. This is a big mystery.
http://umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/according-to-the-big-bang/
it is not really known whether or not the universe started from a singularity.
https://ninewells.vuletic.com/scien...-creationism/big-bang-something-from-nothing/
Big Bang theory does not actually say that the universe came from nothing.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-of-the-universe/
Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't.
https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe
the Big Bang theory cannot describe what the conditions were at the very beginning of the universe
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/bigbang.html
So how did it all start? A very good question, and one that is highly debated. Most people agree that the universe started very small and very dense and underwent an initial inflation that lasted a infinitismle fraction of a second (thus the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light (and you thought nothing could move faster than the speed of light...).
https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...verse-scientists-discover-what-existed-before
More importantly they discovered what came before this universe was.. another universe or more accurately another ‘cosmological phase’.
None of these theories proves or disproves the existence of God, of course.
Exactly. Like I've said: Math and Science can't explain the origins of matter/energy, whether we call it a singularity or something else. Math and Science can't, and never will be, imo, able to explain the origins of matter/energy (or their precursors).
After pages and pages of back and forth and back and forth, we still have:
A leap of faith is required for both big BANG etc. theories, and creationism. This fact seems to really upset some people.
Because some people have been badly hurt in the name of religion. But the pathetic thing is that such individuals never grew up and moved on and hence rage a war against Christianity and in their limited mindset every Christian is a fanatic and misguided individual. Those are the same who preach tolerance from sunrise till sunset. Hipocrisy in full display.
I know what your point is and I'm pointing out, as are others, that you are wrong.
I insist on stating big bang is rooted in math because it is. That's just a fact.
Neither math nor big bang is a guess.
The big bang theory is superior to 'all others' for very good reason. Belief plays no part in it.
Stephen Hawking's statement about how and why the universe can and will spontaneously create itself therefor no God required, is because of how the laws of physics work. He explains that. Faith or belief have nothing to do with it.
What you seem to refuse to understand is proving other hypothesis to be false leads to scientific theories that are true. Faith and or belief are irrelevant to the process.
But there must be a lot of disappointed people who accept the fact that their hypothesis is wrong and can get no further. It's one thing that makes the scientific method rigorous. Another thing you seem unable to appreciate.
A true sign of an unrealistic religious believer is their resistance to being disappointed. That strong resistance to disappointment is what they call 'faith'.
As a Creationist, your resistance must be inordinately excessive.
Last edited:
As I said prior to this "discussion:"
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/six-biblical-truths-about-money.331077/page-5#post-4836162
We disagree.
Last edited:
