Today's her birthday btw, if you didn't know.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's Present Some Evidence ...
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
Today's her birthday btw, if you didn't know.
Really? Assuming you meant "grammar" perhaps you could be more specific. Course if you really DID mean "grammer" . . . :thud:
Then there is the 3rd possibility. You meant neither and do not, in fact, know WHAT you mean. I'm thinking the latter. But do feel free to correct me.
"YOU GOT NOTHING..." lol
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I'm confused. What's your point? Even if his grammar was complete garbage, that alone does not invalidate any point he makes. Especially considering how you know probably next to nothing about him, you don't know if English might be a second or third language. English is my second language. I don't have perfect grammar.
So there is really no reason for you to bring this up, other than as a mindless distraction.
English is my second language as well. Did the poster not invite me to correct him? I was merely obliging an invitation and perhaps it was a challenge on the posters part.
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
.
[/QUOTE]Nothing can come out of nothing? Now all you have to do is explain were god came from, remember, nothing can come from nothing. And you can't say he has always existed, because that can also be said of the universe. Consider the multiuniverse theory, our universe in one of many, ours may have come from the big bang, but the others? And what makes you think god created the big bang? there are other options just as possible as your god theory, because thats all you have is a theory, a theory without evidence.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Silly!
A nine year journey of being "scientifically miraculous" to produce four simple documents, the last a hypothesis of four sentences, to bring about the Unwording - to catch the entire human race committing an act of sin where I can be the righteousness of Job - and all of you can be cleansed of evil by allowing me to be that symbol - to burn eternal in the lake of fire for every single member of mankind as I sing of my love for Gwyneth Paltrow... and fade into the nothingness of my greatest desire...Or not,
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
I can see how that the rise of self awareness pulled god from the tao. The biggest thing we know is how much we don't know. How about gravity being the opposite of time?
Why? What have you heard? :slap:
Nothing can come out of nothing? Now all you have to do is explain were god came from, remember, nothing can come from nothing. And you can't say he has always existed, because that can also be said of the universe. Consider the multiuniverse theory, our universe in one of many, ours may have come from the big bang, but the others? And what makes you think god created the big bang? there are other options just as possible as your god theory, because thats all you have is a theory, a theory without evidence.[/quote]
In reply to post665 If you are in accord with the currently accepted science it cannot be said that the universe has always existed. You are in denial on this point . What other options are you referring to? Or have you been reefering too much? I can quite easily explain where " God comes from" but the dictionary does it better than I do. Check under the word "eternal."
Last edited:
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
The universe as we know it, no, but all that makes up the universe was present before the big bang, so it's more or less the same thing.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Old science fiction- I want to say the dispossessed- by leGuin - maybe. It was one of those days. Point A, Point B; the shortest distance between two points... is I. Then it was off to the races. The opposite of the speed of light is absolute zero, gravity opposes time; out ability to understand is merely the limit of our resolution...
Everything (in a sense) remembers. Matter remembering unity, mind remembering god...
Too much tao, too much Gwynnie...
Source of information?
The concept of creation is that, that matter itself did not always exist. Are you suggesting that a car is the same as a cake? And there is nothing to suggest that physical matter itself existed before the Big Bang.
Last edited:
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
I am always amazed at how dishonest and two faced your kind can be, you have no use for science when it concerns evolution but now it fits your argument, or so you think, so you use it. "The science of evolution is the most worthless theory, I hold no interest in evolution." Your quote from post 380. No one knows for certain the origin of the universe, science can only speculate given the data, and you still can not produce evidence equal to that of science to confirm your belief that a super being caused the big bang. I asked where your god came from and all you could do is show me the definition of eternal, you call that proof?
How can I deny what does not exist?
Show me how a highly advanced race of Aliens could not have caused the big bang. Prove to me that a race of super being, as advanced as we are compared to a single cell organism, does not exist. If you can't then you are in denial as to possible alternatives to the origin of the universe.
[/QUOTE]Once again this is no explanation it is just your flimsy belief, at least science, which you hold in contempt, has data to confirm a possible explanation for the start of the universe, your contention that a god thing was instrumental has no such data, just a whole lot of hot air.
McBell
Unbound
Really?
Then what, exactly, went "bang"?
It's the difference between the physical and the spiritual.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Given that you are presenting an idea that cannot be differentiated from his theoretical supposition in terms of the available evidence should have been enough to make his point.
Diederick
Active Member
Speak for yourself.
The fact that we don't know how all this came to be (and I mean all matter and energy in the world, not life - which we pretty much already know about) should be a good hint that this thread will not get anywhere. It basically boils down to this:
Non-theism: we have some theories, but no evidence, about the origin of the world, if there ever was a beginning. We don't know how all energy and matter came about, but we do know about what must have happened with it up until now.
Theism: "God(s) did everything."
So we have no evidence on either side of the debate, concerning the origin of this world. Religious people will now grab their Holy Book and claim that scripture is evidence, but it really isn't. I could write a book right now, which would make more sense than the Bible and which is still not based on any evidence. What exactly would be the difference? There would be no difference, it's just writing.
Because God is unprovable (and I'll just go with the singular form, to keep things simple) by reality-based means, or even scientific theories; God is not automatically impossible. The alternative, though leaving spaces blank because we simply don't know, is provable (for the part available) by reality-based means and scientific theories. So we end up with God=no evidence and Science=some evidence.
Of course, if you don't believe in reality and all the intelligent thought that mankind has put in it over the years (science), my argument is rubbish. But to the select group of people who do believe that this world is actually the real world, some (scientific) evidence is better than no evidence ('scripture').
And it doesn't matter how old the Scriptures are, or who wrote them, or how many prophecies come true in the story; it is not evidence, because it cannot be verified. Unlike scientific evidence, which is almost entirely based on tests, testing again, and again, trying to rule out any doubts.
You think it cannot be differentiated based upon only your limited understanding of theology because is not a strictly scientific argument. What is accredited to God is not only the material universe.
You will require more than mere opinions to discredit thousands of years of human experience which is the true basis of belief in God. It simply has not been your experience for whatever reason. I could not prove to a blind man that the grass is green either but so what? The grass is still green. Fact is there is more than one way to be blind and there is no scientific concurrence against the existence of God.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
I used the term evidence because it puts the wind up you lot. It is a dirty word, a filthy word, to the theologian who, frankly, doesnt have any. Whenever you want to retreat to the world of theology for argument you first have to substantiate that the world of theology is complete garbage. Good luck with.