Not of science. Rather, of your claim of what it is supposed to be.so you are making denial of science?
you might have to go out on a limb..........................................................................
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not of science. Rather, of your claim of what it is supposed to be.so you are making denial of science?
you might have to go out on a limb..........................................................................
step forward and make a proper denialNot of science. Rather, of your claim of what it is supposed to be.
I invite you to make denialI agree with the OP that the big bang as an explanation for the origin of the universe would appear to be fundamentally flawed. I'm not going to go as far as saying god fills the gap though because as a materialist I'm biased against religion and I'm more than willing to say so.
Basically the Big Bang is built on a logical fallacy that nothing causes everything or that nothing must necessarily be something inorder to cause everything. So Either 0 does not equal 0, or 0=1. Which in virtually any other sphere of enquiry is "wrong".
In the defence of science however, logic is not necessarily a guide for truth. reality is messy and complicated and our ideas are only imperfect representations of reality so its more than possible that as we gather more evidence a better picture will emerge. The problem is trying to study time and space on cosmological scales of billions of years makes ibservations difficult and relies on a high degree of abstraction.
But as I am the scientific eqivilent of a medieval peasant telling Gallelo "that telescope is witchcraft! It is the work of the devil! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!" I'll settle for saying that cosmology is just in a really weird place at the moment as I cannot offer a better explanation than everything out of nothing.
I invite you to make denial
science lied about a substance at rest......stays that way.....?
step forward and make a proper denial
substance will remain at rest until an action upon it
(science)
Thing is, I have neither need nor interest in adopting your dogmatic premises, so there is no place for me in this game of yours.step forward and make a proper denial
substance will remain at rest until an action upon it
(science)
oh good.....I have no dogma....Thing is, I have neither need nor interest in adopting your dogmatic premises, so there is no place for me in this game of yours.
And there it is, your very own denial....I have no dogma....
And you claim science?as for the other two previous posts.....
I believe science is correct
an object at rest will stay that way
I also believe that what we see above our heads is CLEAR indication of a starting 'point'
when I ask substance first?......it's a no-brainer
Spirit had to be in MOTION.....that substance would be so
Yea change it around to suite this day and age, that's all their trying to do, make it fit with what science already know, after all we are dealing with desperate people with a desperate belief.no...no....
God....in the beginning.....
the belief came first.....long before scienceYea change it around to suite this day and age, that's all their trying to do, make it fit with what science already know, after all we are dealing with desperate people with a desperate belief.
as for the other two previous posts.....
I believe science is correct
an object at rest will stay that way
I also believe that what we see above our heads is CLEAR indication of a starting 'point'
when I ask substance first?......it's a no-brainer
Spirit had to be in MOTION.....that substance would be so
No it didn't, your interpretation came after the fact, you can make just about anything sound the way you want it to sound, backward words from the past are nothing compared to what we know today, get up with the times if you truly want to learn something about the cosmos.the belief came first.....long before science
no....once more.....No it didn't, your interpretation came after the fact, you can make just about anything sound the way you want it to sound, backward words from the past are nothing compared to what we know today, get up with the times if you truly want to learn something about the cosmos.
And once more your just fitting what you want to fit into what you believe, just to make it sound all so knowledgeable, when it isn't.no....once more.....
belief in Higher Powers came long before science
Prove this via logic or evidence.Spirit first
if it fits........And once more your just fitting what you want to fit into what you believe, just to make it sound all so knowledgeable, when it isn't.
go back to op ....and readProve this via logic or evidence.