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!
Yeah.... *I* am the closed minded one, because I don't see any reason to consider claims of entities that are indistinguishable from non-existance.
I don't doubt people's experiences or sincerity.
Dear gnostic, I know BB storyline is, it is nonsense, you have drank their cool aid. There is no outside the BB universe because the BB expansion is akin to the increased distance between the spots on a balloon surface being blown up, and you can't look outwards, only sideways model, c'mon.
You've just described not only every single advancement for 4000 years but every original thought.
What's always had me beat is how big the giant must be who is blowing up the balloon. OMG, could the giant actually be God?
Do you have something besides appealing to ignorance?
It's a strawman because the point has nothing to with evolutionary biology or physics and everything with evidence-free assertions concerning supposed supernatural entities.
wrong
People can't accept their own ignorance. We see what we believe so we believe that we know everything. We can see no gaps in our vision so we must know everything. Theory can be extrapolated ad infinitum so all things are right before our eyes and we never notice we still see only what we believe.
There are parts of it that have failed beyond redemption.
Good question. The idea of something existing outside of time is incongruent. To exist or to be real or actual means to occupy a series of consecutive instants in some space and to interact with other existing things, the sum of all such objects and processes comprising reality. For a god to exist, think, or act implies the passage of time - of will be becoming is and is becoming was, with before and after states. They talk about a god existing, thinking, and acting outside of time, but that's incongruent as I said. To think, for example, requires a before and after state.
I understand that to mean that we can't demonstrate that a god exists, so if we are to believe, we have to believe that by faith and intuition, and you call that spirit.
No, it didn't. It shows that the expansion had a beginning. What began expanding could have been a region of a multiverse that existed before the expansion began.
Not at all. The Bible describes a six-day creation event.
Not helpful to you, perhaps, which implies either that you can't make a distinction between "I don't have a reason to believe it" and "It's untrue," or you prefer to not deal with it and dismiss it as semantics. It is semantics, but not in the way you mean. Semantics is about word meaning: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning."
Disagree. Thise are not the same thing. You do one and I do the other, and our lives are very different as a result.
Hebrew has a word for ball.
No. The Big Bang hypothesis derives from science, not scripture. The biblical account has been falsified by science. As far as we can tell, nobody said or needed to say let there be light. The universe began expanding and as soon as there were photons, it was glowing more or less like inside the sun, but much hotter and denser.
Not from the perspective of within the expanding universe, but we can easily imagine a multiverse timeline within which our universe's T=0 occurred, like the conception and birth of a new life, whose T=0 occurred in an existing earth timeline.
That's your declaration, and it's based in an intuition. Nobody needs to "prove" that you are wrong. You haven't given any evidence that you are correct.
Disagree again. Even if it seems counterintuitive to you, there may well have once been nothing, and nobody need and possibly nobody can "prove" either possibility.
There you go again, sharing your irresistible intuitions. You may be correct, but even if you are, you can't know it.
No, that's your leap of faith. There remain two logical possibilities: even though we can't conceive of infinite time into the past, that might be the case. And even though we can't conceive of something coming from nothing, that might be the case. I think that covers all logical possibilities, and both are inconceivable and counterintuitive. To pick either in a guess because of a feeling is a logical error. Your feeling is that is one way and another's equally irresistible intuition is that it is the other way, and neither of you has the better case. The mistake is to consider only half of this, notice that the suggestion seems impossible, and say it must be the other without noticing that it is equally "impossible."
Not most of us. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.
You may be certain, but others know that you cannot know that a god exists however certain you feel. Gods have become an irresistible intuition for you. You are unable to not hold that belief now, yet you very well may be incorrect.
Nope. I just contradicted that.
What claim is more meritless than asserting gods exist without sufficient evidentiary support
