NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey guys, I know I never post on here, but I'm a Christian and I would like to share my faith which is the very thing that gives me tons and tons of fulfillment. I'm definitely not here to condemn anybody, and I'm not above you all and that stuff.

Anyway, read these articles and tell me what you think:

Evidence that God created Earth:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/creation/creatn1.htm (read some of the other pages if you like)

Evidence of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/defense2/WhoisJesus.htm (again, read the other pages; you'll probably need to)

Pass.

This is going to be brutal...

Hey guys, I know I never post on here, but I'm a Christian and I would like to share my faith which is the very thing that gives me tons and tons of fulfillment. I'm definitely not here to condemn anybody, and I'm not above you all and that stuff.

Anyway, read these articles and tell me what you think:

Evidence that God created Earth:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/creation/creatn1.htm (read some of the other pages if you like)

Evidence of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/defense2/WhoisJesus.htm (again, read the other pages; you'll probably need to)interesting read.

Good luck on your first thread and your first post.

I have some questons for the Christain.

1. Have you ever had an impression of God? Have you smelt him, touched him, seen him, felt him? Where is he?

2. If God created man in his image, and he is all-powerful and all knowing, why are we supposedly imperfect and whose fault is that?

3. If God is all good, how can he be wraithful?

4. If God is all good and all knowing, why does he condem to hell/refuse to offer salvation based on belief in him/christ? Would he not know that many (currently 5/6th of humanity) would not believe?

5. How can you say you don't consider yourself above us when you are trying to convert us?

Looking forward to your reply...

I have some questons for the Christain.

1. Have you ever had an impression of God? Have you smelt him, touched him, seen him, felt him? Where is he?

2. If God created man in his image, and he is all-powerful and all knowing, why are we supposedly imperfect and whose fault is that?

3. If God is all good, how can he be wraithful?

4. If God is all good and all knowing, why does he condem to hell/refuse to offer salvation based on belief in him/christ? Would he not know that many (currently 5/6th of humanity) would not believe?

5. How can you say you don't consider yourself above us when you are trying to convert us?

Looking forward to your reply... It BEGINS! *Mortal Kombat music starts*

It's a decent, logical defense of Jesus' divinity, but it is in no way unshakable proof.

I have some questons for the Christain.
Do you just want his answers or do you want all Christians to answer this?

Anyway, read these articles and tell me what you think:

Evidence that God created Earth:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/creation/creatn1.htm (read some of the other pages if you like)

Evidence of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/defense2/WhoisJesus.htm (again, read the other pages; you'll probably need to)
I think they're crock. Go read something by Stephen J. Gould, or at least Sagan's Cosmos. Then come back.

Edit: Oh, and I think you're a troll.

Edit: Oh, and I think you're a troll.
I agree. No one in their right mind seriously calls themself "Joshy Poo." Just some troll attempting to discredit Christianity by making a strawman. By the way, Iztatepopotla, I've read Gould and Sagan, and though they have some good points, I don't think they've settled the issue. Though I think Dawkins is even better than Gould.

I think they're deeply flawed. Just a few points from the first page of the first article...

That humans evolved from ape-like ancestors is a hypothesis that attempts to explain the evidence from paleontology, biochemistry, genetics, morphology, etc. It is not and never can be a fact of science.

We can find additional corroborative evidence by finding life on other planets.

Most of the rest of the arguments on that first page are concerning how "just right" the world is to support life. That's a fallacy. It's like a puddle becoming conscious and noticing that the ground around it fits it just right. We know from exploring deep sea life along volcanic fissures that life fits itself into whatever is available... not the other way around.

Christian astronomer Hugh Ross estimates that the probability of one planet, suitable for life, arising by natural processes is one chance in 10^-42.

Well, he would, wouldn't he? After all, he is a Christian astronomer. No agenda there, right?

Given that we've found life on this planet in every environment from the edges of volcanoes to beneath the Antarctic pack ice, I'd say he's wrong. We've also found evidence supporting the possibility of extinct life on Mars. And Europa is looking like a pretty good candidate for life in our solar system right now.

The late astronomer Carl Sagan and the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking are among the many investigators who have searched for a way to explain the universe apart from God. Their world view does not contain room for God or at least the God of the Bible. Mankind will continue to search for a way to explain the universe apart from the Creator.

False binary. Just because Sagan and Hawking haven't come up with an acceptable alternative doesn't mean the god squad is right.

As for the second article... it stops in its tracks with the very first paragraph:

Having established above the overwhelming historical reliability of the extra-biblical and biblical source documents concerning His life, only dishonest scholarship would lead one to the conclusion that Jesus never lived.

Stop right there. "Overwhelming historical reliability of extra-biblical documents"? I think not. Go back one page to see the list of references the author believes makes his case.

The so-called historical references to Jesus in the works of Tacitus and Josephus were 4th-century forgeries, and particularly bad ones at that.

Suetonius is writing about riots in 49CE instigated by "Chrestus," who he believes is a ringleader. Note that this would be several years after the death of Jesus... and therefore, even if he meant to say "Christos," it doesn't provide contemporary witness of Jesus the man.

Pliny's letter to Trajan is about how to deal with Christians, and provides no witness at all to Jesus. It only provides witness to the Christian movement some time later, and imperial policy on it.

Plutarch regularly embellished in his biographies, and while he did do bios of historically verifiable people like Alexander the Great and Marc Antony, he also did bios of legendary figures like Hercules and Rome's founders, Romulus and Remus.

I'm not sure what the author hopes to achieve by citing Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius. As you can see by the dates he provides, they are all ancient works by the time of Jesus, and therefore offer nothing in the way of witness to him.

And that wraps up ALL of the author's extra-biblical references. Their reliability underwhelms.

I think they're crock. Go read something by Stephen J. Gould, or at least Sagan's Cosmos. Then come back.

Edit: Oh, and I think you're a troll.same can be said for you to read the Bible, Koran and other religious texts...

and as for being a troll? I've seen worse threads... at least he's trying to prove his points and doing it politely.

2A is silly – we would evolve somewhere else if the Earth was not ‘just right’
2A5 Wow, Fred Hoyle. This is the best example of Appeal to Authority I have ever seen.
221 Of course, the fact that there are other stars our size in the universe is lost on these people.
222 Then we would evolve differently, or somewhere else, and be having the same argument there.
223 What did I just say?
231 is the perfect example of Appeal to Authority. I, having mentant skills, think that this article needs to read the Logical Fallacy page.
234-235 Wow, the physics department has lots of Christians and Jews, and Muslims, and Buddhists. Maybe even a Zoroastrian.
236 Or that we are lucky. I found a $20 bill in the street! GOD MUST LOVE ME!, considering the fact that the likelihood of that is 10^-10. Or I am just lucky.
44 I so care about the bold quotes, I want to throw reason to the wind and see the true path to reason by following the teachings of the Internet Christian Community.

Wow. This is ground breaking. 4 billion non Christians must now convert. AND, another 1 billion or so Christians must convert to the same belief as yours.

I agree. No one in their right mind seriously calls themself "Joshy Poo." Just some troll attempting to discredit Christianity by making a strawman. By the way, Iztatepopotla, I've read Gould and Sagan, and though they have some good points, I don't think they've settled the issue. Though I think Dawkins is even better than Gould.
No, of course. The issue is far from settled. The thing is that most creationists have such a lousy understanding of science which comes from having read only one book or just things written by "Ph.D"s in creationism that it's very difficult to have even a mildly interesting discussion.

So, if they at least had an understanding of the basics. The ones not trolling, of course.

A good source for understanding the staggering array of situations in which life has been found and has thrived: http://www.astrobiology.com/extreme.html

same can be said for you to read the Bible, Koran and other religious texts...

I have. The Bible, the Koran, the Baghavad-Gita, the Popol-Vuh, and a few other mythologies. What about you? Following up on scientific developments?

and as for being a troll? I've seen worse threads... at least he's trying to prove his points and doing it politely.
Yes, at least he is polite.

You do realise that the universe is infinitely big so if anything could happen it will happen somewhere in the universe.

I let people worship me im not in league with the devil or a poached egg i can claim to heal disease forgive sins(anyone can) i can also perform miracles over nature i can blow a leaf upwind.

So answer me this does this mean im god?

I have. The Bible, the Koran, the Baghavad-Gita, the Popol-Vuh, and a few other mythologies. What about you? Following up on scientific developments?


Yes, at least he is polite.Yep. tho i'm kinda limited on time than anything else.

You do realise that the universe is infinitely big so if anything could happen it will happen somewhere in the universe.

I let people worship me im not in league with the devil or a poached egg i can claim to heal disease forgive sins(anyone can) i can also perform miracles over nature i can blow a leaf upwind.

So answer me this does this mean im god?

The universe is not infinitely big.

The first article is mainly crock, but the second refrains from junk science and instead turns to some logical arguments. Still, they are vaguely supportive, but not "proof" by any standards.

If you respond to a troll, isnt that an indication of your own lack of intelligence?

Sorry it is ever expanding do you like that better.

Originally posted by Amestria
I have some questons for the Christain.
I will do what I can to answer your questions as best I can.

1. Have you ever had an impression of God? Have you smelt him, touched him, seen him, felt him? Where is he?
Empirically? No. I have not used my senses to feel Him, smell Him, taste Him, hear Him, or see Him.

Where is He? Hmm . . . good question. One I cannot fully answer. As He is a being without confines, it would be hard to say that His location is defined to any specific place. Basically, I am not going to tell God where He has to be.

2. If God created man in his image, and he is all-powerful and all knowing, why are we supposedly imperfect and whose fault is that?
Why are we imperfect? Because of the "Fall" as you would likely hear other Christians call it. Really, all it means is the first rebellion of humankind (I hate using Christianese words, so I try to explain them in terms that actually make sense.).

Whose fault is it? I can't say that it is anyone's fault but mankind's. If God creates a perfect being that chooses to integrate imperfection into itself, thus making it no longer perfect, I can't really place the blame on the Creator.

3. If God is all good, how can he be wraithful?
I think you mean "wrathful" (Since "wraith" is actually a metaphysical spirit of a dead person, I think.). Basically, you have to ask the question: Is wrath bad? I don't think so for a couple of reasons concerning God.

(A) I think there is a legitimate time to be angry.
(B) As He would be a perfect being, He is the one most likely to have a right to be angry (It also says He is merciful, thankfully.)

4. If God is all good and all knowing, why does he condem to hell/refuse to offer salvation based on belief in him/christ? Would he not know that many (currently 5/6th of humanity) would not believe?
Here is the conundrum dealing with the pre-knowledge of God versus the free choice of man. Your idea of what God knows and how He knows it is from a strict Calvinistic perspective (which can be rationalized through some relatively unpopular ideas). I would subscribe to this concept, however:

As human is a finite being, he has a finite (though not conceivable by the human mind) number of choices. As God is infinite, He would then know every single one of the choices one could possibly make and still have an outcome that does not "catch God offguard" as He knew every possible choice I could make. This is a human understanding that gives God the ability to know everything and still reserves the free choice of humanity.

Also, He cannot help but to not allow those who do not accept the only atonement for their sin into heaven, as He would be perfect. Adding something imperfect into perfection would then make the perfection tainted. Thus, He provided a way for anyone, rich and poor, old and young . . . anyone to be saved. All it takes is the acceptance of the gift of salvation. However, as this gift was through Jesus Christ, how would someone that doesn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah accept such a gift. It would be like me saying I was going to give you a twenty-dollar bill. You have yet to see it, but you aren't going to accept it if you don't believe I really have a twenty-dollar bill.

5. How can you say you don't consider yourself above us when you are trying to convert us?
Here, my point is not to convert you. Frankly, if you end up believing absolutely everything I believe, then I have failed you. However, as I believe that I have been given a gift (salvation) that I did not deserve in any way, I would urge you to share in that gift. I am not going to force you. I wouldn't put a gun to your head and make you renounce what you believe now. Nor would I badger you incessantly about it. Heck, I would probably wait for you to bring it up, as shoving it down your throat would only make you "choke on it and spit it back out at me." Thus, if someone is trying to convert you, it is because they don't understand what it means to bear witness of the gift they have. It means to live like it. Unfortunately, I see few Christians that would make me want to become one. Thankfully, you don't have to aim to be like other Christians. If that was the point, I wouldn't be one, because those who share my faith (myself included sometimes) disgust me sometimes. They make me wonder what they think a Christian is supposed to be.

Looking forward to your reply...
I hope this helped. I don't claim to be the end-all to Christianity. I am merely a student that seeks truth in both its beauty and its ugliness.

If you dismiss this, I am not going to sit here and shove it back at you. What will that accomplish? Nothing. If you decide that you know better, which you may do, there is nothing I can say to change your mind, and frankly, it's not my mind to change. It is yours, and I will respect that.

This doesn't prove much. I only had time to read a potrion of it, but I read the bit about how the earth and sun and moon are structured for life and some of the physics reasoning: it fails to discount the possibility that the universe is simply so large that we're more ore less just... well... lucky. Take a look up into the sky sometime and tell me that out of all that you wouldn't be able to find a planetary system configured like this?

Nonwhistanding that, it seems to make a lot of assumptions about the universe that we're not really equipped to answer yet.

Hate to burst the bubble of all the wannabe scienticians out there, so I'll make this swift and relatively painless.

Sometimes Science is also refered to as The Process of Falsification. This means that the theory of science is not to PROVE something IS or DOES or EXISTS. It means that the thory of science is to Offer a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for something. This explanation remains accepted until it is DISPROVED. If you toss a coin three times and it lands on heads EVERY TIME, then you might conclude the theory that this coin has properties which allow it to always fall with Liz facing up. On the fourth throw, however, it lands tails up. Your theory (explanation) for the coin having these properties has to be discarded because this fourth toss has disproved or falsified your explanation.

Scientific "facts" are, for this reason, constantly open to being reviewed and revised. The notion of FACT is static and unchanging, and should be stricken from the vocabluary of any self-respecting scientist. Contrary to the view in the article, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and to attempt to do so indicates a very poor grasp of what Science is about. I'll happily direct you to the writings of Popper and Kuhn if my explanation is too complex. In the meantime, I advice the scienticians to accept that it's not at all inconsistent to both believe in God and to be a really good scientist simultaneously, because the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

Liking both Take That and East 17, however, are an entirely different issue.

Apologies for length/girth/volume, but your boyfriend loved it.

Hey guys, I know I never post on here, but I'm a Christian and I would like to share my faith which is the very thing that gives me tons and tons of fulfillment. I'm definitely not here to condemn anybody, and I'm not above you all and that stuff.

Anyway, read these articles and tell me what you think:

Evidence that God created Earth:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/creation/creatn1.htm (read some of the other pages if you like)


That distinction of "operation science" and "origin science" (alternative terms would be 'good science' and 'bad science') as mentioned in the first link is tabsolute nonsense. It's prettymuch all the same. You can't go ahead and tell scientists what of their research is good and which not. Remember what the catholic church did with Galilei?

Well, he would, wouldn't he? After all, he is a Christian astronomer. No agenda there, right?

Given that we've found life on this planet in every environment from the edges of volcanoes to beneath the Antarctic pack ice, I'd say he's wrong. We've also found evidence supporting the possibility of extinct life on Mars. And Europa is looking like a pretty good candidate for life in our solar system right now.


i hate when people try to use "the chance is howeverso much unlikely for life to evolve that it must have been planned" because they admit that there is still a chance. that chance still can happen, and must have happened somewhere, so that percent is life here.

How about we just let this thread die quietly. The fact is, Joshy-Poo started this thread (his first ever post) 9 hours ago and hasn't replied to anything posted.
All that adds up to me as meaning is that someone created a new nation simply to post this laughable attempt at proving God's existance and then buggered off.
Tis' a Troll, methinks and not worth the time and effort to bother replying properly to this thread.

Apparently creationists haven't heard of the Anthropic theory.

I'm not trying to be a troll, guys. I was merely trying to make everybody think a little bit and start up a little discussion. The reason I haven't replied yet is because I posted that right before I went to sleep. Besides, I joined NationStates months ago, so I didn't just join it to try to prove the existence of God. But if I acted like a troll, I'm sorry. Didn't mean it.

By the way, I agree with everything Aluminumia said. Good job.

Anyway, I don't really have time to counter every single argument, but what about the law of entropy? It basically says that the whole universe is wearing down more and more everyday, and everything tends to chaos. Evolution says that the universe is getting better and better, when in reality everything is waning away.

Also, consider the law that matter cannot create itself. Evolution says it did, but I believe that matter can't be created without a supernatural cause.

Anyway, I don't really have time to counter every single argument, but what about the law of entropy? It basically says that the whole universe is wearing down more and more everyday, and everything tends to chaos. Evolution says that the universe is getting better and better, when in reality everything is waning away.

Also, consider the law that matter cannot create itself. Evolution says it did, but I believe that matter can't be created without a supernatural cause.

ROFL, that's hilarious! This evidently proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (like most Creationists do, to my expirience).

Misconception #1 is that you haven't understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you would read closer what exactly it says, you would see it doesn't contradict the existence of life.

Misconception #2 is that evolution doesn't state that the universe is getting better and better. It just says the complexity of lifeforms has increased.

Misconception #3 is that evolution doesn't either state that matter can create itself. No scientist ever claimed that nonsense. Where did you pick that up? Evolution is about life, not about the universe in general. I reckon though that all the other science that support the 'Evolutionist world view' (i.e. astrophysics, geology, paleontology - in fact "Evolutionist" is in fact a derogatory term used by Creationists) is lumped together by Creationists as "bad science", which is utter nonsense.

As a personal note, i have the feeling you Creationists don't get any smarter, it's rather the opposite way. :confused:

Anyway, I don't really have time to counter every single argument, but what about the law of entropy? It basically says that the whole universe is wearing down more and more everyday, and everything tends to chaos. Evolution says that the universe is getting better and better, when in reality everything is waning away.

Also, consider the law that matter cannot create itself. Evolution says it did, but I believe that matter can't be created without a supernatural cause.
Jesus freaking Christ. How the hell can someone fit so many straw men and misunderstandings of science and pure bullshit in 2 paragraphs.

Evolution does not violate the 2LoT. It applies to closed systems, and life, and indeed the Earth, aren't. Where the fuck did you get that the ToE says the universe is getting better? That's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

The ToE does not say matter created itself. Nothing does. More bullshit.

And on a side note, the universe doesn't cater to your beliefs. This is to say that matter can arise spontaneously. It's been observed in multiple laboratory experiments.

Anyway, I don't really have time to counter every single argument, but what about the law of entropy? It basically says that the whole universe is wearing down more and more everyday, and everything tends to chaos. Evolution says that the universe is getting better and better, when in reality everything is waning away.


No. It. Doesnt.

Now stop being stupid and tell me why beleiving in god and evolution is such an anathema to you guys.

The universe is not infinitely big.
may you provide proof?

may you provide proof?
The universe came into existance as a result of the Big Bang, which occured about 10 to 20 billion years ago. The universe is expanding at about the speed of light. Therefore, the universe has a radius of about 10 to 20 billion light years.

The universe came into existance as a result of the Big Bang, which occured about 10 to 20 billion years ago. The universe is expanding at about the speed of light. Therefore, the universe has a radius of about 10 to 20 billion light years.

I have to disagree. That is the visible universe. The universe must obviously be bigger than that.

I have to disagree. That is the visible universe. The universe must obviously be bigger than that.
How the hell do you get that? By definition the universe is the size I said.

How the hell do you get that? By definition the universe is the size I said.

Well, the speed of light limits our sight range. Therefore, if we look into the distance, the most distant thing we see is Big Bang (cosmic background radiation, actually). But, since our sight range is increasing (specifically with one light-second per second), we can see the beginning of the universe in more distant regions. Therefore, the total universe must be bigger than the visible universe.

Well, the speed of light limits our sight range. Therefore, if we look into the distance, the most distant thing we see is Big Bang (cosmic background radiation, actually). But, since our sight range is increasing (specifically with one light-second per second), we can see the beginning of the universe in more distant regions. Therefore, the total universe must be bigger than the visible universe.

but since we know the unverse is 10-20 billion years old, and the speed limit of the universe is the speed of light, the radius of the universe must be 10-20 billion light years.

Well, the speed of light limits our sight range. Therefore, if we look into the distance, the most distant thing we see is Big Bang (cosmic background radiation, actually). But, since our sight range is increasing (specifically with one light-second per second), we can see the beginning of the universe in more distant regions. Therefore, the total universe must be bigger than the visible universe.
We see what formed <Insert number of years> ago. Granted, that's not what most recently formed, which is why the 20 billion year estimate is in there. Scientists are very good at finding the age of the universe. Where do you think I got the numbers?

We see what formed <Insert number of years> ago. Granted, that's not what most recently formed, which is why the 20 billion year estimate is in there. Scientists are very good at finding the age of the universe. Where do you think I got the numbers?

I don't deny that the universe began that long time ago (btw, i think the most accurate value i heard recently was 13.7 billion years), it's just that you have to realize that when looking into space, we're looking both into distance and into past. Now, imagine, we're looking at cosmic background radiation, 13.7 billion years ago, in a region of space 13.7 billion light years away. A second later, we are still looking at the same event but we see it a light second further away.

That's prettymuch the event horizon of our visible universe. Oh, and i forget to mention, the universe is expanding inflationary...

I don't deny that the universe began that long time ago (btw, i think the most accurate value i heard recently was 13.7 billion years), it's just that you have to realize that when looking into space, we're looking both into distance and into past. Now, imagine, we're looking at cosmic background radiation, 13.7 billion years ago, in a region of space 13.7 billion light years away. A second later, we are still looking at the same event but we see it a light second further away.

That's prettymuch the event horizon of our visible universe. Oh, and i forget to mention, the universe is expanding inflationary...
You seem to be arguing under the misconception that CthulhuFhtagn mentioned the visible universe. What s/he said did not mention the visible universe. S/he didn't even mention looking at anything.

You seem to be arguing under the misconception that CthulhuFhtagn mentioned the visible universe. What s/he said did not mention the visible universe. S/he didn't even mention looking at anything.

Well, from my point of view, CthulhuFhtagn's misconception is that (s)he assumes that the size of the visible universe is the total size of the universe, which is not the case and which i am trying to explain to him/her. :rolleyes:

Well, from my point of view, CthulhuFhtagn's misconception is that (s)he assumes that the size of the visible universe is the total size of the universe, which is not the case and which i am trying to explain to him/her. :rolleyes:

grrr. arg. Cthulu is not talking about the visible universe. He's talking about the entire universe. You dont need to see the entire universe to estimate how old it is.

Well, from my point of view, CthulhuFhtagn's misconception is that (s)he assumes that the size of the visible universe is the total size of the universe, which is not the case and which i am trying to explain to him/her. :rolleyes:
See, there's the problem again.
Read CthulhuFhtagn's posts again.
S/he is not talking about the visible universe. S/he was talking about the total possible size of the universe.

The only way it could be larger than the size s/he posted would be if it were either older than currently assumed, or expanded faster than the speed of light, assuming I have my physics right.

This post summed it up well:
but since we know the unverse is 10-20 billion years old, and the speed limit of the universe is the speed of light, the radius of the universe must be 10-20 billion light years.
No visibility was mentioned, what was mentioned was expansion speed.

grrr. arg. Cthulu is not talking about the visible universe. He's talking about the entire universe. You dont need to see the entire universe to estimate how old it is.

Ok, that's true. Good point there. I will stop now. :)

another point about being made in the image of God is

we are not made as gods... but like God is

god can do what he wants, when he wants. we have been gifted with free wills

The only way it could be larger than the size s/he posted would be if it were either older than currently assumed, or expanded faster than the speed of light, assuming I have my physics right.


I know i said i would stop, but what you say is exactly the point. The universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light, or at least has been doing so at some time in history. Read this:

Link 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_universe) and Link 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon#Other_examples_of_an_event_horizon)

I hope that will explain it. :cool:

I know i said i would stop, but what you say exactly the point. The universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light, or at least has been doing so at some time in history.
Ah, it appears that I totally misunderstood what you meant by your argument before.
Sorry about that!

I know i said i would stop, but what you say is exactly the point. The universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light, or at least has been doing so at some time in history. Read this:

Link 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_universe) and Link 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon#Other_examples_of_an_event_horizon)

I hope that will explain it. :cool:
Not now. For a few nanoseconds (Or less) after the Big Bang it did, but not any more. Now, it expands at slightly slower than the speed of light.

Incidentally, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia, because anyone can put something there. I could put that the speed of light is 2 miles an hour there. It'd get edited out quickly, but I could put it there.

Incidentally, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia, because anyone can put something there. I could put that the speed of light is 2 miles an hour there. It'd get edited out quickly, but I could put it there.

Well, i can tell you i have read it at a lot of other places (i mean inflationary universe, not that other stuff, LOL). Books by Stephen Hawking, for example. Therefore, what's written at Wikipedia is most times quite accurate. :p

The problem with that logic is the cause vs. effect. The article states that God created various fundamental laws of the universe, and the local regions of it, with humans in mind. However the converse is more likely to be true. In a universe with the fundamental laws and local regions being what they are, humans are able to evolve and survive as opposed to the Ewoks, which require different universal laws and regions.

Hey guys, I know I never post on here, but I'm a Christian and I would like to share my faith which is the very thing that gives me tons and tons of fulfillment. I'm definitely not here to condemn anybody, and I'm not above you all and that stuff.

Anyway, read these articles and tell me what you think:

Evidence that God created Earth:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/creation/creatn1.htm (read some of the other pages if you like)

Evidence of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/defense2/WhoisJesus.htm (again, read the other pages; you'll probably need to)

Well, I read the first one.

It had opinions.

It had some direct attacks on certain aspects of thought... like the fact that 'physicists' are 'not much use' in a debate...?

It had some nice little quotes tucked in there, by some very witty minds, I'm sure.

What it lacked, unfortunately - was any evidence.

Oh - there was some speculation... like a probablity that a 'christian astronomer' (Hugh Ross, apparently) had dreamed up... but no rationalisation of where the number came from, or WHY it was valid... or even of any interest.

There were also some errors... it implies that the moon is just the right distance from Earth to support life... yet ignores the fact that life could also commence on a non-orbited body.

Some good thought.

Some not-so-hot ones.

No evidence.

Not really too shocked...

Not now. For a few nanoseconds (Or less) after the Big Bang it did, but not any more. Now, it expands at slightly slower than the speed of light.

Incidentally, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia, because anyone can put something there. I could put that the speed of light is 2 miles an hour there. It'd get edited out quickly, but I could put it there.
There was a very good article on Scientific American, I think, two or three months ago. I'm going to try to fish it out. They made a much better job of explaining than I could.

But, yes, the universe is much larger than 13 BLY. In the first few fractions of a second it simply became incredibly big. So big that no curvature is detected today.

I am curious as to what are thought to have been the catalyst events causing the Big Bang. To put it in more blunt terms, what banged?

I have some questons for the Christain.

1. Have you ever had an impression of God? Have you smelt him, touched him, seen him, felt him? Where is he?Felt his Presence and his Power. Where is he? everywhere...

2. If God created man in his image, and he is all-powerful and all knowing, why are we supposedly imperfect and whose fault is that?depends on your Denomination... I believe that in Eden, we were perfect. However Sin is the flaw that made us imperfect. so it's our Fault.

3. If God is all good, how can he be wraithful?You can be a good parent but still strict.

4. If God is all good and all knowing, why does he condem to hell/refuse to offer salvation based on belief in him/christ? Would he not know that many (currently 5/6th of humanity) would not believe?Free will... He will give us the Keys to the Kingdom if we accept his Covenant (accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior) and ask for forgiveness for our sins. do that and Salvation is yours.

5. How can you say you don't consider yourself above us when you are trying to convert us?When I find Joy and Happiness, I would like to share it. I don't look down upon anyone. It's like raising a Family... when you know someone who is a new parent, they deluge you with Photos, stories... and hint as to when you will become a parent. This is not them looking down on you... but wanting you to share in the joy a family brings.

Yet alot of people look down upon the Faithful as being crazy.

Looking forward to your reply... hope that's what you're looking for... now if I may ask a few questions of my own.

1) Why do Athiests/Agnostics (at least most on these boards) demand Proof? Alwasy Prove this, Prove that. 'Prove to me He exsist.'

2) What would it take for you to believe?

3) Why do you Demand proof when God himself states that he will not "perform" on command.

Deuteronomy 6:16
"You shall not tempt the LORD your God as you tempted Him in Massah.
and if you are wondering about Massah...
Exodus 17
5 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go on before the people, and take with you some of the elders of Israel. Also take in your hand your rod with which you struck the river, and go.
6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink." And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
7 So he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the contention of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, "Is the LORD among us or not?"

not a troll nor a flamebait, but honest curiosity and perhaps an idea on what people are looking for.

1) Why do Athiests/Agnostics (at least most on these boards) demand Proof? Alwasy Prove this, Prove that. 'Prove to me He exsist.' This would most likely stem from the fact that you base a lot of your judgements on something that many people believe to be utterly ridiculous and false. It would be like me saying; "I think that gays should be shot on sight because a multi-dimensional cockaroach told me so." People would probably question my beliefs. (Yes this is an extreme example)

2) What would it take for you to believe? In what?

3) Why do you Demand proof when God himself states that he will not "perform" on command He wouldn't need to perform. There should be ample evidence of His existence without him needing to come from the sky with thunder and lightening, sadly for theists, this evidence is being carefully deconstructed and ultimately discredited thanks to modern thought and science.

I am curious as to what are thought to have been the catalyst events causing the Big Bang. To put it in more blunt terms, what banged?
Could have been a couple of 12-dimensional strings getting entangled together. And the other explanations are weirder.

A new series of satellites able to penetrate the backroung noise radiation is expected to be in orbit within the next decade. That should shed some light and produce a few more questions.

I can't answer for other Atheists/Agnostics, we don't standardize our beliefs - but I can answer for myself, at least...


1) Why do Athiests/Agnostics (at least most on these boards) demand Proof? Alwasy Prove this, Prove that. 'Prove to me He exsist.'

Because without evidence/proof, how can we know he exists? I've met Christians who are absolutely sure they are right, and present a very good argument; I've met Muslims who are just as convinced they are correct; I've even met pagans/wiccans/other interesting denominations who are convinced they are correct. And of course Atheists or Agnostics too.

How can we decide who is right?

And that's why we demand evidence, proof. So that we can know which decision to make. In the absence of any evidence, it seems silly to make up entities, even if they offer a seemingly convenient answer to some questions. If there's no proof or evidence, how do we know they really exist and aren't figments of our own imagination?

Evidence would point to where the answer lies.


2) What would it take for you to believe?

Evidence and/or proof. Simple enough.


3) Why do you Demand proof when God himself states that he will not "perform" on command.

Because what happened in the past leaves evidence. If God had never influenced the world, then he might as well not exist; and if he HAS influenced the world (much less made it) this would have left signs, evidence.

And of course there's the argument that's applicable to some Gods only - if He wants us to believe in Him, and He (being omniscient) knows what it would take for all of us to believe in Him, it seems obvious that He would provide evidence.

I am curious as to what are thought to have been the catalyst events causing the Big Bang. To put it in more blunt terms, what banged?

As far as I can tell, nobody has a slightest clue. There are plenty of wacky ideas floating out there, but none that is remotely near supported.

Extrapolating back from what we see in galactic motion and in the cosmic background radiation, it seems pretty certain that the universe did, in fact expand from a really small size; we can't really extrapolate lower than a certain small size because all of our current theories break down and we have no leg to stand on. But everything that we see in the universe at large seems to point to an expansion from a "point" - hence, Big Bang Theory.

Before figuring out where the big bang came from, we first need to figure out some way to make Quantum Mechanics (the theory that works oh-so-brilliantly well at explaining how small things and electrically-charged things interact) and General Relativity (the theory that works oh-so-brilliantly at describing how really-massive things move over large distances) NOT contradict each other; if we figure out a theory that does that, and can prove that it's correct, then we will see what it says about the Big Bang and get some more insight into it, possibly know where it came from.

But as of yet, though there are several promising such theories (such as String Theory), none have good supporting evidence yet; hence, I can be pretty sure in saying that the answer to your question is "we don't know."

I am curious as to what are thought to have been the catalyst events causing the Big Bang. To put it in more blunt terms, what banged?

As I have heard it explained, before the big bang, two objects existed, they were both traveling at near the speed of light, over countless eons gravity did its work and then when they hit each other, E=MC^2 and a lot of mass showed up. Yeah, it makes about as much sense as some old fogey saying "Let there be light." But barring muiltverse theories that is the only way to create that much mass.

Yet alot of people look down upon the Faithful as being crazy.

Well, let me explain you why. Christian Fundamentalists insist that the bible has to be taken literal, including such parts as a the Creation and Deluge stories. These are inconsistent with the universe we see. (in other words, Earth is billions of years old, all life evolved from a common ancestor and there's no evidence for a global flood).
Christian Fundamentalists state that the position of conventional science is fraudulent - i.e. there is 'bad science' such as archaeology, astrophysics, biology, geology and paleontology which contradict the bible and must not be taught. However, if you think about it, this implies that their Faith is prettymuch based on lies.
Alternatively, they sometimes claim that God created all the contradictionary evidence to deceive us. Where does the bible state that God is a deceiver?!?

Therefore, if you think about it, either positions of Christian Fundamentalists are pretty crazy.
Scientists know that their science is honest and real, and then they are told that by Christian Fundamentalists that it is all just a lie. Will they accept Christian faith when they are told what they do is fraudulent? No! :mad:

As I have heard it explained, before the big bang, two objects existed, they were both traveling at near the speed of light, over countless eons gravity did its work and then when they hit each other, E=MC^2 and a lot of mass showed up. Yeah, it makes about as much sense as some old fogey saying "Let there be light." But barring muiltverse theories that is the only way to create that much mass.

Hm? I've never heard that explanation.

Besides, I don't think it's consistent - if two objects with large energies/masses collide, if they had enough energy/mass to form the entire universe, they would have stuck together and formed a black hole...

And besides - it doesn't explain where the energy came from, it just pushes it back one step. You're right, it does make about as much sense as some old fogey saying "let there be light"... ;)

Hey guys, I know I never post on here, but I'm a Christian and I would like to share my faith which is the very thing that gives me tons and tons of fulfillment. I'm definitely not here to condemn anybody, and I'm not above you all and that stuff.

Anyway, read these articles and tell me what you think:

Evidence that God created Earth:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/creation/creatn1.htm (read some of the other pages if you like)

Evidence of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/defense2/WhoisJesus.htm (again, read the other pages; you'll probably need to)

Drivel.

Originally Posted by Hyperbia
As I have heard it explained, before the big bang, two objects existed, they were both traveling at near the speed of light, over countless eons gravity did its work and then when they hit each other, E=MC^2 and a lot of mass showed up. Yeah, it makes about as much sense as some old fogey saying "Let there be light." But barring muiltverse theories that is the only way to create that much mass.
Originally Posted by Reasonabilityness
As far as I can tell, nobody has a slightest clue. There are plenty of wacky ideas floating out there, but none that is remotely near supported.

Extrapolating back from what we see in galactic motion and in the cosmic background radiation, it seems pretty certain that the universe did, in fact expand from a really small size; we can't really extrapolate lower than a certain small size because all of our current theories break down and we have no leg to stand on. But everything that we see in the universe at large seems to point to an expansion from a "point" - hence, Big Bang Theory.

Before figuring out where the big bang came from, we first need to figure out some way to make Quantum Mechanics (the theory that works oh-so-brilliantly well at explaining how small things and electrically-charged things interact) and General Relativity (the theory that works oh-so-brilliantly at describing how really-massive things move over large distances) NOT contradict each other; if we figure out a theory that does that, and can prove that it's correct, then we will see what it says about the Big Bang and get some more insight into it, possibly know where it came from.

But as of yet, though there are several promising such theories (such as String Theory), none have good supporting evidence yet; hence, I can be pretty sure in saying that the answer to your question is "we don't know."
Originally Posted by Iztatepopotla
Could have been a couple of 12-dimensional strings getting entangled together. And the other explanations are weirder.

A new series of satellites able to penetrate the backroung noise radiation is expected to be in orbit within the next decade. That should shed some light and produce a few more questions.
Great, just what we want. More questions . . . ;)

Thanks for the feedback. It didn't quite answer my question, but then, I guess I wasn't expecting it to be answered. The basic question was, "What was there before the 'Big Bang' that caused it? If something did exist then, where did IT come from?" Unfortunately, this question begs that, eventually, something had to create itself before it existed, which seems irrational and would, as far as I know, defy anything that can be proven of science. Am I wrong?

While I honestly do have a respect of science and enjoy the things you can find out, it doesn't seem to be able to answer everything.

As this is, if science is the only way we can know something, there are, in fact, things that we can never know.

I am okay with that. ;) Then again, I am okay with a God who sets science as the laws that dictate the earth and yet has the authority (if He does institute these laws) to override them. If there is nothing that defies science, then there is no such thing as a miracle. Again, am I wrong?

Just some interesting quandries I had come up with.

Hey guys, I know I never post on here, but I'm a Christian and I would like to share my faith which is the very thing that gives me tons and tons of fulfillment. I'm definitely not here to condemn anybody, and I'm not above you all and that stuff.

Anyway, read these articles and tell me what you think:

Evidence that God created Earth:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/creation/creatn1.htm (read some of the other pages if you like)

Evidence of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead:
http://www.northave.org/MGManual/defense2/WhoisJesus.htm (again, read the other pages; you'll probably need to)

Since when did those with faith need evidence? Surely even an atheist such as myself can understand that.

Originally posted by Centrostina
Since when did those with faith need evidence? Surely even an atheist such as myself can understand that.
Show me a man that says that he has faith without justification and I will usually be able to show you someone that doesn't even have faith, but tradition: the tradition that their parents passed to them.

Or they had some emotional "conversion" where they threw logic to the wind and they "felt" God.

My old professor would reply, "How do you know it was God? Maybe you just had gas."

Boy did he get a lot of Pentacostals upset with that one. ;)

Well, let me explain you why. Christian Fundamentalists insist that the bible has to be taken literal, including such parts as a the Creation and Deluge stories. These are inconsistent with the universe we see. (in other words, Earth is billions of years old, all life evolved from a common ancestor and there's no evidence for a global flood).
Christian Fundamentalists state that the position of conventional science is fraudulent - i.e. there is 'bad science' such as archaeology, astrophysics, biology, geology and paleontology which contradict the bible and must not be taught. However, if you think about it, this implies that their Faith is prettymuch based on lies.
Alternatively, they sometimes claim that God created all the contradictionary evidence to deceive us. Where does the bible state that God is a deceiver?!?

Therefore, if you think about it, either positions of Christian Fundamentalists are pretty crazy.
Scientists know that their science is honest and real, and then they are told that by Christian Fundamentalists that it is all just a lie. Will they accept Christian faith when they are told what they do is fraudulent? No! :mad:Interesting points... but that's Christian Fundamentalists... any such views about the Baptists, or Prodestants, or Catholics or any other denomination? I am Baptist, and I was not taught to take the Bible literally yet, people think that all Christians are taught this.

You can be a good parent but still strict.

And yet this "god" parent will throw us into a lake of fire if we dont ask for forgiveness. the christian god is just violent.


Yet alot of people look down upon the Faithful as being crazy.


What makes you have your faith? You follow words in a book and say it is the word of God without one ounce of support to the claim.


1) Why do Athiests/Agnostics (at least most on these boards) demand Proof? Alwasy Prove this, Prove that. 'Prove to me He exsist.'

2) What would it take for you to believe?

3) Why do you Demand proof when God himself states that he will not "perform" on command.


1) Do you believe anything someone tells you? I dont. I need evidence that what i am being told is true. I will not believe something "just because." If God wants to prove that he exists, he can try alot harder than a book.

2) God himself.

3) Im not asking God to perform, im asking God to reveal. I would like to see him face to face. He wont do that will he? No, because he doesnt care what happens to me. If God exists and is a loving God, would he not show up and say that he is real? I have no reason to suspect a god even exists.

I am curious as to what are thought to have been the catalyst events causing the Big Bang. To put it in more blunt terms, what banged?

Science doesn't really deal with what was BEFORE the 'bang', if there was such a thing.

Genesis theories attempt to explain the observable... that there is (or appears to be) a universe, and that it is (or appears to be) expanding from a central point.

That is the fundamental basis of 'Big Bang theory'.

There are SOME theories about what happened before the 'Bang', but they are a realm of speculatory science. In most cases, the idea that a 'god' inspired the origin are at least as supportable as any other mechanism... since THAT part of the process is outside of observable parameters, and thus alien to Pure science.

For me - having seen how other astronomical phenomena seem to 'work', the most likely scientific process would be the collapse of a prior universe... giving birth to a new universe in a Rising-From-the-Ashes mechanism.

"What was there before the 'Big Bang' that caused it? If something did exist then, where did IT come from?"

You're missing the point - there WAS no "before" the Big Bang. Space and Time were created at the instant of the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing because there was nowhere for it to be. In fact, the mere concept of "before the Big Bang" is a contradiction, as the word "before" implies a linear time-stream, but this was created in the instant of the Big Bang. I know it's hard to wrap your head aroung, but the Big Bang was the very beginning of Time. There WAS no "before". (Unless you subscribe to the theory that a previous Universe's collapse created ours, which I think is a nice theory, and I want to believe it's true, but there is absolutely zero evidence for it.)

You're missing the point - there WAS no "before" the Big Bang. Space and Time were created at the instant of the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing because there was nowhere for it to be. In fact, the mere concept of "before the Big Bang" is a contradiction, as the word "before" implies a linear time-stream, but this was created in the instant of the Big Bang. I know it's hard to wrap your head aroung, but the Big Bang was the very beginning of Time. There WAS no "before". (Unless you subscribe to the theory that a previous Universe's collapse created ours, which I think is a nice theory, and I want to believe it's true, but there is absolutely zero evidence for it.)

in short: saying 'before the big bang' is like saying 'north of the northpole' or 'temperatures below zero'.

Pretty much. (Assuming you means zero kelvin rather than zero centigrade, but I think I can make that assumption.)

Pretty much. (Assuming you means zero kelvin rather than zero centigrade, but I think I can make that assumption.)

you can make that assumption as it is the only one that gives a decent result.

Well, for all I knew you might live on the surface of the Sun, and so not have heard of temperatures below zero centigrade. :p

Well, for all I knew you might live on the surface of the Sun, and so not have heard of temperatures below zero centigrade. :p

ah, but the mere absence of temperatures below zero centigrade constitutes no proof of their non-existance. Something that i hope i would be aware off.

Okay, so how about: You might have been a fool.

One simple and/or complex equasion solves all problems and/or questions relating to God and/or religion:

poop + boob = þooþ

One simple and/or complex equasion solves all problems and/or questions relating to God and/or religion:

poop + boob = þooþ e=þooþ²

Originally posted by Smug Wankers
You're missing the point - there WAS no "before" the Big Bang. Space and Time were created at the instant of the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing because there was nowhere for it to be. In fact, the mere concept of "before the Big Bang" is a contradiction, as the word "before" implies a linear time-stream, but this was created in the instant of the Big Bang. I know it's hard to wrap your head aroung, but the Big Bang was the very beginning of Time. There WAS no "before". (Unless you subscribe to the theory that a previous Universe's collapse created ours, which I think is a nice theory, and I want to believe it's true, but there is absolutely zero evidence for it.)
If such is the case, then why would it occur? If there was a bang, there was a cause to the bang. And the Big Bang created time? This would mean that the Big Bang was not within the realm of time, thus time would have never began. In addition, if there was no space, as there was nothing, there was no place for this bang to occur. No reason, no catalyst, and no time . . . This theory is then supernatural, with zero evidence, as it is easily outside the confines of natural law, thus making it as speculatory as any.

Grave, thanks for the response, sir. It leaves the question unanswered, but then, nothing really answers the question scientifically.

If such is the case, then why would it occur? If there was a bang, there was a cause to the bang. And the Big Bang created time? This would mean that the Big Bang was not within the realm of time, thus time would have never began. In addition, if there was no space, as there was nothing, there was no place for this bang to occur. No reason, no catalyst, and no time . . . This theory is then supernatural, with zero evidence, as it is easily outside the confines of natural law, thus making it as speculatory as any.

Grave, thanks for the response, sir. It leaves the question unanswered, but then, nothing really answers the question scientifically.
So much misunderstanding in one small post.

The Big Bang was the expansion of space-time. It needs no cause, and it needs no space in which to operate. It just happened. When things get down to singularities, everything gets screwy.

Originally posted by CthulhuFhtagn
When things get down to singularities, everything gets screwy.

To be honest, most of that was written knowing that this is a possibility. The point, however, is that there is no more evidence of it than anything else. It is arguing something that is beyond the capacity of the human mind, which is not able to be done. That was actually my point.

If such is the case, then why would it occur? If there was a bang, there was a cause to the bang. And the Big Bang created time? This would mean that the Big Bang was not within the realm of time, thus time would have never began. In addition, if there was no space, as there was nothing, there was no place for this bang to occur. No reason, no catalyst, and no time . . . This theory is then supernatural, with zero evidence, as it is easily outside the confines of natural law, thus making it as speculatory as any.

Grave, thanks for the response, sir. It leaves the question unanswered, but then, nothing really answers the question scientifically.

The whole point of science is supposed to be an attempt to explain what is observed... it is actually somewhat un-scientific for the scientist to try to explain an assumed (but not observed) event... so there will likely never be a truly scientific response to 'what came before the Big Bang'.

Assuming that theory continues to hold at all, of course.

Regarding the above statement you made, I see a flaw in your logic. It can be observed that time flows 'forward' (for want of a better term), consistently and regularly. Thus, given the regularity of 'time', and the continued progression, reverse extension implies a 'start point' for 'time'.

Similarly, since all matter seems to be radiating, ostensibly from a central point - reverse extension again implies an 'origin' point.

Could 'time' have existed before there was reality? It seems to defy logic.

Could reality have existed before there was 'time'? Again, logic seems to argue against it.

Thus - either time was created with the creation of reality, or reality was created with the creation of time.

Thus - either 'time' was first instigated... and that was the 'trigger' that revealed Genesis, OR reality is created, bringing 'time' with it as an observable 'effect'.

The concept of 'never began' is flawed... because there WAS no duration before the creation... so 'never' is moot. 'Ever' only starts from the point at which 'time' commences.

Similarly - 'no place' is flawed, because there was neither 'place' nor 'lack of place' until a volume could be defined.

The improbability of the event (even, the impossibility, if you would argue an absolute) is irrelevent, since the parameters that could define the impossibility are non-existent until AFTER the event occurs.

There IS lack of concrete evidence for the Big Bang, and CERTAINLY for it's chronology - but the expansion of time and space implies a linkage of the two - which suggests (by NO means 'proves') a common origin.

Did that make any sense to anyone not in my head?

Originally posted by Grave_n_idle
Did that make any sense to anyone not in my head?
With remarkable clarity, in fact. I honestly wanted a better term than "never began" but thinking in abstract terms and explaining them are not always equally simple. Forgive my lack of clarity.

Essentially, I look at this subject as something that is fun to discuss, but is essentially moot, since there is no way for anyone to know what is outside time, as we live within it and are dictated by it.

Good to see you around to keep me honest! :D

With remarkable clarity, in fact. I honestly wanted a better term than "never began" but thinking in abstract terms and explaining them are not always equally simple. Forgive my lack of clarity.

Essentially, I look at this subject as something that is fun to discuss, but is essentially moot, since there is no way for anyone to know what is outside time, as we live within it and are dictated by it.

Good to see you around to keep me honest! :D

It was fun to attempt... although I wasn't entirely convinced anyone would be able to read it... :)

Curiously - your approach there is very scientific... while it is fun to discuss origin theories, we can never truly KNOW what preceded... 'everything', by the very nature of what that would entail.

We can assume 'god', through faith... or we can construct mechanisms... but there is no 'unarguable proof' for either side.

Ah well... thank you, friend.

A pleasure, as always. :)

Proving the possibility of the Big Bang/God is very easy. I can prove their possibility right now.

First before the big bang/creation, there was no laws of any kind (yes murder was legal and negatives could attract!!!(Kidding, you know the laws, I just forgot the word)) so matter could have spontainiously created itself (It still could. All you need is a magnet or a black hole getting the virtual antimatter away from virtual matter) and due to the massive density it would have exploded(nothing ever implodes anymore :(). Same could apply to God except without the matter and with him.

So in conclusion I have won.
There are two more theories.

1.The universe is constantly banging and crunching (the crunch would never happen)
2. There was always ambiplasma andthats all i know of that one

1.The universe is constantly banging and crunching (the crunch would never happen)

Why would the 'cruch' never happen?

I believe you are relying on flawed assumptions.

Why would the 'cruch' never happen?

I believe you are relying on flawed assumptions.

Mathmatically proved. Not by me mind you. Now they are worring about the big rip. I think it was proved impossible as well but I am not sure

Mathmatically proved. Not by me mind you. Now they are worring about the big rip. I think it was proved impossible as well but I am not sure

You don't have a source, or anything?

I have seen 'proofs' of the impossibility of a Big Crunch - but most seem to assume that there is some finite limit beyond which gravitational forces become irrelevent.

A flawed assumption that 'negligible' is the same as 'irrelevent'.

I have some questons for the Christain.

1. Have you ever had an impression of God? Have you smelt him, touched him, seen him, felt him? Where is he?

2. If God created man in his image, and he is all-powerful and all knowing, why are we supposedly imperfect and whose fault is that?

3. If God is all good, how can he be wraithful?

4. If God is all good and all knowing, why does he condem to hell/refuse to offer salvation based on belief in him/christ? Would he not know that many (currently 5/6th of humanity) would not believe?

Looking forward to your reply...
Proof of anything about religion is almost impossible, and the initial post is no exception.

However, these questions are equally senseless.

for question 1: Have you smelt love? hate? Touched, seen? felt? No, that is the effect of the love, not the love itself.... Nope, ok, conclusion: Not everything that exist can directly be felt with senses.

for question 2: Who says it's a fault? Unless, you are believing in god and very angry to it, your sentence does not make any sense.

for question 3: Is giving money to a beggar is a good thing? If you say yes, you are supporting corruption of the society, If you say no, you are hearthless and doesn't care for who are in need. See the dilemma?

for question 4: It's not about god knowing our deeds, it's about us knowing our deeds. God does not need to measure us, we need to measure ourselves. Ponder that for a sec.

Think...

Not with me and I dont feel like looking it up. I think that it was from looking the big rip up on google or from a netscape link

Yes, I previously practiced a enlightening and delicious blend of moderna Buddhism and Thorism until I viewed this documentary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/babelfish.shtml

After watching this it became apparent to me that man was as far as it got.

Good sites. The part I like best is:

From all this we learn that God loves and cares for us a great deal. This entire universe has been constructed in just such a way as to allow you and me to not only exist but to exist in style.

You hear that, guys? We exist in style.

"Origin Science" as is defined there is not a science, it is philosophy. We can prove through "Operational Science" that we evolved from monkeys because of similar habits, bone structures, genetics and transitional species. We did evolve from apes.

2:A is stupid, as our matter may not exist, but others would in a different universe. It is just luck that those were the characteristics that were given to this universe, our species could've evolved in a completely different universe.

2:B is stupid, 1 and 2) There are millions, billions, trillions, infinite amounts of solar systems, there was bound to be one that got it right. 3) There is proof that life was once present on Mars, meaning our planet isn't that special and life can evolve in other ecosystems. That and your definition of life is very narrow. There are creatures at the bottom of the sea that live off of otherwise toxic chemicals, and don't require oxygen.

3: *is a christian astronomer* means that he can't under good conciousness defy God. His work is thus biased. Aso remember that the universe is infinite, it is impossible for it to end, because then, what is beyond it. So technically the number of plants is 1x10^Inifinite, meaning the chance is very real.

4, if you want to get into "How things began" I have a question for you. An infinitely old universe is as you say proposterous, which means the entire idea of eternal is proposterous, not just our universe, so there must then be a beginning. God you say, well what created God? What created that? If the universe is not infinitely old, neither is God, which means something created him, and it just keeps going. If you believe in beginnings, there has to be something to cause that beginning; if anything is eternal, everything is eternal. Also, don't forget that matter is indestructible. I just did prove that the theistic approach is impossible.

Jesus article:
VIII: A follower of Zeus would call your God a fable, that was a dumb statement.

IX: Hitler said he was right, he was one of the greatest liars of history. I can say and teach total truth, then tell you that the world is a pentagram, people can be hypocrites, people can be liars. There is no proof that Jesus wasn't a liar, thus me must be a liar; there is proof that every man can and will lie, this it cannot be reversed. Lunatics can be a variety of things, don't use stereotypes. Never underestimate the clever use of propaganda and greed. In 68 years, it is quite easy to spread stories, especially in a time with poor documentation of events. If there was no television, radio or newspaper in 1963, me and a group of rich bodies could easily start saying that Kennedy was God, and it would become a belief. That and the fact that it started with the Apostles, it was not a 3 billion follower religion at that time; so only 12 people needed to believe, then just use clever propaganda.

There we go, entire article debunked.