Reply With Quote
Why can't you see both then?
I assumed you understood I was playing the part of the Christian and asking what they would ask. I have talked about my belief on this many times. It's.............I don't have a clue just like everyone else but I can see "something" designing all this before I would....BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's it.
Why can't you see both then?
Why do I need to?
Obviously, I mean the idea of religion in terms of origin stories and history. The idea of it as a general moral compass is pretty much agnostic to science, though it's still full of problems.
i know, but he refers to churchgoing (and has a few times in this thread)... and having a full blown creation model without a religious basis seems more unlikely than just about any other view. and then you have his constant bashing of islam, while never really going after christians... his thread about the christian movie "God's Not Dead", etc.
You wouldn't seem like an ostrich with its head in the sand. There's a ton of evidence for the Bang. It doesn't make sense to disbelieve it if you don't have a stake in a dogma. It's like not believing in the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.
i know.
i thought the post was very well put, and the gif was my way of saying i agree
So if not for the Big Bang none of this would have happened, right? God/something couldn't have done it alone....right?
I thought it was your way of telling me that you crawled through 500 yards of and came out clean on the other end.
That doesn't make sense. The Bang is a physical event. It didn't make anything. It just happened. If god created the universe, the Bang was just a step in the process, like toasting bread before putting jam on it.
that's the length of 5 football fields
Just shy of half a mile.
It makes all the sense in the world since some think there was no God and it was the Big Bang that was responsible for all this.
So if not for God or the Big Bang we'd still have what we do today?
football field is 120 yards long
its my favorite movie ever, but as a football fanatic that always bothered me more than it should have, since i know what he meant
The Bang is responsible in the sense that an accelerator is responsible for your car going faster. It's a chain reaction, like dominoes.
I guess not. The Bang is an event that led to the universe as we know it. I believe god set the universe into motion, including the Bang. Without it, the universe would at least be different (provided the laws of physics were the same as they are now).So if not for God or the Big Bang we'd still have what we do today?
Yeah, and 500 feet is nowhere near a half-mile. Do you really expect a life-long prisoner to know all this complicated math stuff?football field is 120 yards long
its my favorite movie ever, but as a football fanatic that always bothered me more than it should have, since i know what he meant
yeah, 500 yards is about 1/4 ~ 1/3 a mile
Why would any Superior Being/God/Whatever need a Big Bang to do anything? Sort of a barbaric, primitive way of doing things wouldn't you think. More trouble than it's worth. There had to be a better way than that.
440 yards in 1/4 of mile.
The mile relay consists of 4 sprinters each running 440 yards.
First, who said god needed to do anything the way it was done? Do you need to do everything you do in the exact way you do it?
Second, even if you think god is all-powerful, that doesn't mean that his actions can't have physical effects. I mean, you have to accept physics to a certain extent, right? Why is there gravity? Why is there matter? Doesn't matter. There are all those things.
Third, I don't think there's such a thing as "more trouble than it's worth" to an all-powerful being. If he could speak the universe into existence, he could just as easily speak the Bang into existence.
Finally, you don't think a huge burst of light and energy is a good way to start something? It's like the ultimate fireworks show. I can't imagine I'd do it any differently.
Well even in the Biblical God after six days he needed a rest.....right? So it appears He had limits.
I can see no reason at all to go the Big Bang route when it simply wasn't needed. When you already know how things will end up why delay them with...BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!
well, if you're a god/supreme being technically the universe isn't needed either.
doesn't mean he didn't make one
We can see the stars, and know for a fact we have a Universe, so Something was responsible.
Sure a lot of this out there...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-happened.html
Yeah..Andy Dufresne prolly would. After all, he helped a few guys get their high school diplomas. I mean why do you think the warden let's him do those things. To keep him happy doing the laundry....money that is.
The Count of Monte Crisco....by Alexandree Dumb-ass.
Shawshank is da cat's meow....and da bee's knees. Gotta be a top 10 of all time kinda movie....
im not denying that there is a universe
you said "why would a god make a big bang. he doesn't need to"
i'm just saying that if you really think about it, why does god even need to make a universe? with the ultimate point being that a god doesn't "have" to do anything... so a god putting forth a big bang is perfectly plausible
that's a 4 year old article... and while that in itself is an unimportant detail, it is significant to note that it hasn't really gained traction among the scientific community. the article itself maintains that there is already a scientific consensus, and that this guys model has no explanation for the cosmic microwave background... which is considered to be among the strongest pieces of evidence of the big bang theory.
i also like how it says "Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent en ies but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two."
that's not Shu's idea. that's been around for over 50 years and is part of the theory of relativity.
the next sentence is pretty confusing... "Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant."
so its depending on a constant... that isn't necessarily a constant. that seems to contradict itself. that's not necessarily an indictment on the scientist, but probably on the writer of the article who must have missed something
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
