Big bang theory?

[Debunker]

I dont care what people believe, that is your mistake.



I have stated all the facts there are pertaining this.

your creation account is what??? when did magic man step in?

]all creationist are different and none beleive the same so please share

Can't share with you because you claim to have all the facts. What did you say was your rational reason for creation? We missed it.

 

[outhouse]

But then, why did God create science? Did you ever hear of the philosophy of science? Probably not.

you have nothing relevent to bring to the table?

god did not create science.

in my opinon man created science and hebrews created your god

 

[Gloone]

you have nothing relevent to bring to the table?

god did not create science.

in my opinon man created science and hebrews created your god

... yawn.. let me know when you make it past genesis.

 

[Onlooker]

Hi Onlooker. Great job bother. It seems to me that there was a post on the RF that explained how the creation of matter came about from existence or ontology. Matter was created from something that was not cosmological. This makes sense to me just like saying that God created the scientific method so man could navigate in the cosmological universe that dabar created. What is your take on this?

These forums are great to see peoples thoughts/debating skills/reasoning and core beliefs.
The one concept I havent wrestled with "successfully" is the concept: In the beginning was the word...., thats not just a new testament philosophy. The sages Rashi and Rambam describe the "black fire" was actually the "word" in the old testament.
Whether your a christian or atheist, you cant deny the power of words. I suspect we will find scientific evidence soon about spoken words and how they effect you, specifically when you speak them yourself. (consider dyslexia, the right lateralization of brain mass compared to left dominant on normal readers, the effect it has on the senses and memory, alot we can learn).[part of the treatment for dyslexia is vocalizing phonetics, which helps the left side come up to speed on fMRI's]
So the concept of spoken words being the origination of matter (notice the torah/bible doesnt say "GOD THOUGHT") is very interesting.
I dont know if thats what you're referring to?

 

[DeistPrimate]

But then, why did God create science? Did you ever hear of the philosophy of science? Probably not.

I think it was Francis Bacon who created science, a man.

 

[Know it all.]

prove that with some links cause I think your reaching again.

Einstein getting info from the Bible is not something that requires nor needs any proofs and there is no link that speaks better than one self.

If you do not use your own opinion in this regard then that is only your own loss and nothing for me to challenge nor to prove.

:candle:

 

[Know it all.]

Also, the BBE isn't evidence of a "creation day." In order for it to be so you'd have to demonstrate that it was the beginning of material existence, which as far as we know it wasn't. It was indeed the beginning of the current STATE of the universe but no god is required for its explanation.

The Big-Bang was the beginning as "in the beginning" so it is the creation day of the universe and it is silly to deny the obvious.

As to whether a "God" is required is a totally different aspect, but a creation day does imply a creator regardless of whatever name or attributes such a creator might have.

:thud:

 

[Know it all.]

Let me give you a tip Know it-all. Most of these post on threads like this one, the posters have a well designed agenda. Most of the responders here are atheist, agnostics, pure cosmologist, etc., all people interested in taking God out of the explanation of what is really real. They will talk to you about God but their definition will be that of a God created by a cosmological reality. They are humanist in general when it comes to ethics and they are not interested in a moral code that they or society did not create. In fact they eliminate ontology as ontology proper.

If you are going to push you ideas you should try to better understand the difference between ontology and cosmology, the source of knowledge, and what is the nature of ethical behavior, etc. We all have weaknesses in our world views but you do not seem to have any consistent world view that explains what you are trying to say. I see you are trapped in the two sock theory here in your post. My only suggestion to you is to stop wearing socks.

I say your summation of me is quite correct except your conclusion for me to stop it.

I see no problem nor dispute between science and religion, and I like ontology and cosmology just as I like Theology.

I say the problem is with the many people who are determined to wear the "one sock" that fits-all because I find there are very many paths to the same ultimate truths.

 

[Know it all.]

See Know-it-all, I told you the atheist will not recognize an ontological existence created the universe. Creationist do not believe in a magic man but that is the only rebuff they can come up with when put to the test.

I agree that the "magic man" is a dead argument and dead position but Christianity surely does claim their magic man and Christians do give the loudest and most stubborn claim of all.

I say a big reason for many honest people and realistic scientist to reject the "Creator" is because of that obstinate and ridiculous stance of the ultimate "magic man" instead of finding the "God" for whatever that God might yet prove to be.

In fact the Big-Bang as creation day is a huge example that the God-thing is not a magic-man.

 

[Debunker]

you have nothing relevent to bring to the table?

god did not create science.

in my opinon man created science and hebrews created your god

You understand reality void of ontology so anything that refers to half the discussion of what is real, is not relative for you. In this sense your statement of reality is only half true and not relative to the whole truth.

Yes God did create science. The Hebrews discovered God through science. They learned to give a reason for God and existence of other things, all through science and logic/reasoning, and inspiration from reality around them. They were not so arrogant to assume they knew all about God but they followed after God hoping to ever learn more about God.

The science you use was the creation of man, which is why it is so often flawed. You keep learning but are not able to come to greater truth. You assume you know the truth through earthly science. Pseudo-science was your creation. Your opinion makes great errors

 

[PolyHedral]

You keep learning but are not able to come to greater truth.

What do you call this?

 

[Debunker]

I think it was Francis Bacon who created science, a man.

You think incorrectly. Much more of the scientific method has been discovered since Bacon. He did not create science and it is unreasonable to claim he did.

 

[Debunker]

I agree that the "magic man" is a dead argument and dead position but Christianity surely does claim their magic man and Christians do give the loudest and most stubborn claim of all.

I say a big reason for many honest people and realistic scientist to reject the "Creator" is because of that obstinate and ridiculous stance of the ultimate "magic man" instead of finding the "God" for whatever that God might yet prove to be.

In fact the Big-Bang as creation day is a huge example that the God-thing is not a magic-man.

The magic man has never been part of the argument that theist argue in support of their cosmological argument for God. We need to make these atheist and agnostics stick to their foolish insistence to what they say so everybody will see their argument is based on foolishness instead of reasoning. I enjoy pointing out how flawed their logic is with total oppositional attitudes and not science at all. Positional defiant disorders are described in the DSM IV. Until the atheist give a rational with their matter of fact statements one must assume they that they are just upset because they can not bully us into their emotional "we know best" attitude. In other words, they can not deal with a real definition of God.

 

[outhouse]

Yes God did create science.

wrong, prove he did. wait you cannot.

Science is a process for understanding natural phenomena. The process has changed considerably over the years. It's impossible to say who first had a scientific thought, but some scientific concepts predate humanity. Even somewhat primitive animals are able to observe their surroundings and make conclusions based on their observations. This is a simple form of science.

Science doesn't really 'end.' As I said, it's a process for answering questions. There will always be questions asked, so the process will always be relevant.

The fact that you even ask how god is involved shows how little you understand of it.

The Hebrews discovered God through science.

no they didnt, hebrews created there god figure through fiction and borrowed pagan gods. You know the hebrews worshipped more then one god before they were merged into one???

They were not so arrogant to assume they knew all about God

Boloney,,,, they wrote everything about this mythical entity and your statement goes directly against scripture

The science you use was the creation of man, which is why it is so often flawed

this shows how little education you have. There is not debate about the theory of evolution.

human origin is solid. We see how man evolved naturally without ole magic man every doing anything. We dont have every piece to the puzzle, but facts are facts and the picture is perfectly clear.

Pseudo-science was your creation

Im sorry your creation myth is psedoscience and that the exact reason it is outlawed in public schools

 

[McBell]

Yes, it is beyond you. still you offer no alternative to my reasoning on creation,yet the best you can do is your magic man theory. My, my, what a logical argument? With such strong facts you'll probably be able to turn the world to atheism.

What post is it that has you presenting your reasoning?

 

[gnostic]

In other words, they can not deal with a real definition of God.

What real definition of God are you talking about?

And how is God and its definition related to the Big Bang theory?

 

[DeistPrimate]

Originally Posted by DeistPrimate
I think it was Francis Bacon who created science, a man.

You think incorrectly. Much more of the scientific method has been discovered since Bacon. He did not create science and it is unreasonable to claim he did.

Me thinks you might need to take a History of Science course sometime, or read a book or two on the topic. Actually to be more accurate there were some Pre-Bacon examples of scientific methodology (Galileo and Copernicus) but it was Bacon who set up the modern mechanism.

God didn't create the scientific method anymore than 'He' provided me with my breakfast this morning (which is why I didn't say grace and thank 'Him' for it). Some farmers, truckers and grocery store workers provided me with it.

You might be able to argue God created the laws of nature discoverable by the scientific method, but the method itself is wholly man-made.

 

[Onlooker]

Originally Posted by DeistPrimate
I think it was Francis Bacon who created science, a man.




Me thinks you might need to take a History of Science course sometime, or read a book or two on the topic. Actually to be more accurate there were some Pre-Bacon examples of scientific methodology (Galileo and Copernicus) but it was Bacon who set up the modern mechanism.

God didn't create the scientific method anymore than 'He' provided me with my breakfast this morning (which is why I didn't say grace and thank 'Him' for it). Some farmers, truckers and grocery store workers provided me with it.

You might be able to argue God created the laws of nature discoverable by the scientific method, but the method itself is wholly man-made.

There are more examples of pre-Renaissance men who made strides into the science fields prior to Bacon. They date back to, probably, when mankind gained consciousness.
My belief is that God created everything, therefore a very functional and higher order "being" compared to us, His creation.
I believe we were made "like" Him, therefore creative, logical and overall functional creation over all the other "animals".
If "scientific method" were defined in the past (during the "tales" of the bible) they would have used that term.
Example: Jacob (father of the 12 tribes of Israel) used natural science, deduction and experimentation to turn quite a profit. When he gave the normal/solid colored sheep water troughs that had cut pieces of wood which shaded the reflection of the sheep. Somehow (even to this date, I know of no experiment that replicates this) the visual cues the solid sheep had, either narrowed their self identity to "speckled" (and therefore they mated only with speckled) or changed their offspring genetically? (I dont read Hebrew, it would be nice if a Rabbi had a better explanation).
Either way, science as anybody would define it was utilized.
Another is Daniel after captivity in Babylon, utilized his knowledge about nutrition to out "smart" the scholars in Babylon. That was no accident, I'm sure alot of observation, testing, recording etc.was involved with this.
My point to the ramble, you are defining a God that is clueless.
If you are discussing, in a religious forum, God and His attributes, the Torah/Tankh/Bible has plenty of "stories" that show scientific, judicial and moral wisdom. Definitely not able to prove God "created" the scientific method any more than anybody else "created" it. I think its more a part of critical thinking that most humans have.
Unfortunately, religion and politics have been an opiate over generations that numbed this critical thinking, but none the less, its not unique.

 

[Ace7X]

before you ask the question, " who invented science ? "
you must first know what is 'science'.

 

[Tristesse]

The magic man has never been part of the argument that theist argue in support of their cosmological argument for God. We need to make these atheist and agnostics stick to their foolish insistence to what they say so everybody will see their argument is based on foolishness instead of reasoning. I enjoy pointing out how flawed their logic is with total oppositional attitudes and not science at all. Positional defiant disorders are described in the DSM IV. Until the atheist give a rational with their matter of fact statements one must assume they that they are just upset because they can not bully us into their emotional "we know best" attitude. In other words, they can not deal with a real definition of God.

As an atheist, I don't define what is or isn't a god. Considering I don't believe in one, it would be foolish of me or any atheist to define what god others believe in.

Just for clarity, what part of the argument would you consider foolish?