View Full Version : The creation of the Universe.
Let's hear it, how was the Universe created, and be prepared to be questioned.
I believe that God created it, but some Atheists and Scientists will say Big Bang and stuff, so bring it on. :smart:
-ZainDustin
Big bang and God are not incompatible -- plenty of Christians believe in it. The correct word for people who prefer the literal scripture to scienfic evidence is "fundamentalist," not "Christian."
Marcellus
03-12-2006, 03:28
I doubt we'll actually know how the universe was made anytime soon, if ever.
Christian's jobs are to lead people to God, and believe everything in the bible. The bible says that the Universe was created by God's hand, so the definition of Christian is one who believes Everything in the bible. If you don't, you need help. (You meaning anyone). Christians who believe in Big Bang are definently not on the same page as God.
-ZainDustin
Zain, if you're going to get all fundamentalist, please read all of Moses' laws, which are laid out very clearly as the direct commandments of God. Have you hugged your mother while she was menstruating? Then you are unclean, and if you didn't purify yourself in a tent for two weeks, you're violating God's will. Have you ever worked on the Sabbath? Collected firewood, for example? Then you should be stoned to death.
Look my friend, the smartest thing any priest ever told me about the Bible was, "It's not a book -- it's a library." And you can't take a library literally. Not if you hope to stay sane.
Read your Bible, and read it carefully. Then come back and tell us all about how you intend to live according to every literal precept within it. I can't wait.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2006, 03:35
The universe wasn't created, it's always been here ~:handball:
I think Zain and Nav need to get together ...
When Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sin's, things changed in a sense of the laws. But when it talks about how things are created, that kind of thing can't changed. That's why there is an Old Testament and a New Testament. I'm not talking about the laws, because of how things changed after the crusifiction, and the direct line of communication between God and Humans was created. People used to have to go to the Synagogue and pray, you know?
-ZainDustin
Things don't just appear, Sasaki.
-ZainDustin
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2006, 03:42
Things don't just appear, Sasaki.
-ZainDustin
Exactly, that's why I say it's always been here :2thumbsup:
Well, if you're ready to throw out Moses' laws, than you aren't really taking the Bible as literally as you claim, now are you? You've already gone deep into interpretaion land. Why are you allowed to ignore the word of God as given to Moses, but you're going to read Genesis as direct reportage?
You're already interpreting. You have to. The Bible cannot be read as literal truth, not if you want to have any sort of cogent life. Like I said, it's a library, and Christians should do everything in their power to learn from it. Do you want to see what the world looks like when everybody takes their scripture as the literal, unchaning Word of God? Do you want to know what it's like when science and art and squashed flat by the people who declare that they have divined God's will?
Go spend some time in Saudi Arabia. Then tell us how much you like living in a fundamentalist paradise. Say hi to the Wahhabis while you're there.
I'd rather not got to Saudi Arabia. I'm not throwing out the Ten Commandments, only saying the old laws have changed due to the crusifixion.
Nav is our resident fundamentalist. But hey, he's been here a long time, and if you want to apply for the job, I'm sure you'll get a fair chance.
Another thought -- since God is all-powerful and omniscient, since God is awesome beyond our comprehension, and since God doesn't have to justify a blessed thing to us (see Job for more details), why would you believe that a trans-human divinity would drop a literal text on us? Why would God feel the need to give us something so basic, so rudimentary, that all we need to do is connect the dots and do as little contemplation as possible? Does that sound like an omniscient being to you?
Nav is our resident fundamentalist. But hey, he's been here a long time, and if you want to apply for the job, I'm sure you'll get a fair chance.
Another thought -- since God is all-powerful and omniscient, since God is awesome beyond our comprehension, and since God doesn't have to justify a blessed thing to us (see Job for more details), why would you believe that a trans-human divinity would drop a literal text on us? Why would God feel the need to give us something so basic, so rudimentary, that all we need to do is connect the dots and do as little contemplation as possible? Does that sound like an omniscient being to you?
I never said it was literal. The bible is a big puzzle worth decoding.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2006, 03:49
Another thought -- since God is all-powerful and omniscient, since God is awesome beyond our comprehension, and since God doesn't have to justify a blessed thing to us (see Job for more details), why would you believe that a trans-human divinity would drop a literal text on us? Why would God feel the need to give us something so basic, so rudimentary, that all we need to do is connect the dots and do as little contemplation as possible? Does that sound like an omniscient being to you?
He put it here to see who would take it literally. And then he sends all those people to hell :laugh4:
The atheists end up in heaven :2thumbsup:
He put it here to see who would take it literally. And then he sends all those people to hell :laugh4:
The atheists end up in heaven :2thumbsup:
:inquisitive:
it's a strange combination to not believe in God, but believe in Heaven. Seems kind of Oxy Moron, doesn't it?
-ZainDustin
Very funny, Sasaki. Reminds me of the South Park episode where all the dead people are insisting that they led righteous lives, full of love and compassion, but the guy at the gate says," Sorry, the correct answer was ... Mormon."
Zain, you're already interpreting the Moses' law away, which means you've just gotten rid of the only part of the Bible which condemns homosexuals. Now you're admitting that the Bible must be contemplated and decoded. It's a very small step from where you're standing to accepting that science has a legitimate role to play, that maybe, just maybe, the Lord's creation is worth the same level of scrutiny and study that the Bible deserves.
So let's not go calling people who believe in the Big Bang and/or Evolution a bunch of non-Christians, okay? It makes you sound like a fundamentalist.
I'm just saying that, why would the bible say, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" if it wasn't true?
-ZainDustin
Mongoose
03-12-2006, 03:59
I never said it was literal. The bible is a big puzzle worth decoding.
I think most people will agree that the Bible is metaphor. Since it's just a collection of stories to help guide you, then we should only realy judge the values that it preaches, and not it's historical value.
Frankly, when I read the OT part of the Bible, it feels like some non-scifi version of a dystopian world ruled by callous alien overlords, who rule with an iron fist and kill all who disobey even the most arbitrary rule.
An example? That little SOB kid who thought he could gather firewood on a sunday without getting some divine justice...
:oops:
As I said earlier, the big bang does not exclude God. Many astrophysicists are also religious. And just because an early Jewish priest wrote that "God created the heavens and earth" does not mean that particular Jewish priest had the whole story. And how would it sound to everybody else if God did reveal to that guy exactly what happened? Would he jump up and run around the Temple, babbling about singularities, event horizons and the way that plasma converts to matter? His buddies would have said, "Zachariah, you've been sniffing too much incense," and taken him outside to sober up.
I strongly recommend you read up on how the Bible was composed. We know a lot more than we ever hoped to know, thanks to the discoveries of ancient texts in Israel and Egypt. Bible study has come a long, long way in the last 20 years. It won't shake your faith, unless you let it. And a book is much more meaningful when you know something about how it was written.
All I know about how it was written was that God used these people as vessels to write the bible.
Yes, of course, but how did God use those vessels? And was he using them all in the same way? And since we have been given free will by the Lord, to what degree have we managed to mess these texts up?
It wouldn't kill you to read up on the current state of scriptural study. There's some fascinating stuff out there.
You really should leave alone the whole last comments telling me what I should do, it's getting annoying.
Didn't mean to offend you, Zain, and I'm sorry that I have. Please accept my apologies. :shame:
Would you care to respond to the points I made?
Exempli gratia:
Yes, of course, but how did God use those vessels? And was he using them all in the same way? And since we have been given free will by the Lord, to what degree have we managed to mess these texts up?
I wouldn't know how God used the Vessels, but I'm sure the way religious fanatics are, the bible's text shouldn't have been messed with.
You didn't offend me, it was just annoying. I hope we are nicely debating, instead of angrily debating.
By Backroom standards, this is a terribly nice debate. We should serve tea and crumpets, it's so nice. We're probably sitting on wicker furniture, watching people play croquet in summer whites while servants bring us mint juleps. That's the kind of nice I'm talking about.
The overriding point I'm trying to make, Zain, is that fundamentalism is a slippery slope. It's very comforting to say, "I have God's will right here and nobody can tell me otherwise," but that way madness lies. And I really doubt that it's pleasing to God.
You sound sarcastic about the kind of debate we're having.
I doubt debate makes God happy because my father once told me that debate is one of the things that Satan wants more then ever, because it can create a shaky belief. I just like to debate because it feels like I'm testing myself, and makes my knowledge greater.
-ZainDustin
I was trying to be silly, not sarcastic. Sorry, tone gets lost in forums. I was attempting to make a funny.
Debate is what Satan wants us to do? Well, I guess that's one way of looking at it. Let's do a little side-by-side comparison:
Debate is fundamental to:
Democracy (let's form a governmental system where everybody can voice their opinion, and then we all vote on it)
Moderation (hard to be an extremist when you're digesting other peoples' views)
Learning (disputation is a cornerstone of all knowledge)
A lack of debate is fundamental to:
Dictatorships (listen and obey)
Extremism (everybody agrees with me or is silent! Yay!)
Rigid-mindedness (there's this one way of looking at things, and I don't want to hear different)
Which of these sets of characteristics do you suppose Satan would prefer?
Oh good, another one of these threads. We just need our friendly fanatical liberals and we will be good.
I'm a Christian, I believe God did create the universe, but I also believe in science. I believe he did through the big bang theory. As it was stated earlier in the dicussion, you can't take the Bible litterally. Well you can, but think about it...
Divinus Arma
03-12-2006, 04:48
Well. I pretty much gave all my views just a moment ago in the "What is Your religion: Part II (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62352)" thread.
This is a fun topic. I want to play too. :2thumbsup:
The way you talk about it, he would want less debating, but there are other ways to think about it. I've got to go, so I'll talk to you later.
-ZainDustin
He was two-timing us, DA, talking to you in one thread and me in another. I feel used.
How are you used? I was just debating two different people at two different places.
-ZainDustin
Tribesman
03-12-2006, 04:58
Humor, Zain. Humor.
Not on the Sabbath Lemur:no:
Divinus Arma
03-12-2006, 05:03
ZainDustin, Lemur is a respected and respectful member of the backroom. We may not agree with each other, and I happen to think he is liberal slime :laugh4: (that's a joke mods), but ultimately, Lemur is good people back here.
ZainDustin, unfortunately distance communication technology like forums, email, and MSN Messenger all lack the subtle interpersonal cues we rely on in day to day conversation. Sometimes it is hard to tell if someone is being a jerk or making a joke- we lack the smile, the roll of the eyes, a half-cocked eyebrow. If you always assume the best, you will never find yourself insulting or being insulted.
This is a great topic, though, and we are glad to have you back here. :2thumbsup:
Warm Regards Buddy.
And as for you, Lemur... you liberal scum you, I agree with all your points on biblical interpretation. I also concur that debate is healthy for all involved. Debate is no threat to one's faith. It only reinforces beliefs by explaining cracks. A fear of debate should make one suspicious of the snake oil being sold.
Big_John
03-12-2006, 05:16
m-theory holds the key.
KukriKhan
03-12-2006, 05:48
...We may not agree with each other, and I happen to think he is liberal slime :laugh4: (that's a joke mods),...
:flips open the Moderator's Guide to Humor:
Hmmm.
Non-specific insult, smiley (nice spoonerism: smile/slime), disclaimer...
OK!:laugh4:
The question that's been raised is "Does the Bible say exactly how God made the Earth?" Did he use a giant EZ-Bake oven? Do they sell Shake and Bake Humanity on some higher plane? :dizzy2:
Does the Bible say exactly how long those days were? (Thank you Clarence Darrow) What is time to God?
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2006, 07:13
Does the Bible say exactly how long those days were? (Thank you Clarence Darrow) What is time to God?
Man: God, how long is a million years to you?
God: A minute.
Man: God, how much is a million dollars to you?
God: A penny.
Man: God, can I have a penny?
God: In a minute.
:2thumbsup:
Let's hear it, how was the Universe created, and be prepared to be questioned. Nobody knows how it "was created" or "came about".
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 11:04
I find creation myths fascinating. A lot of the ancient religions tell of a great flood for example. This indicates to me a cataclysmic event that unfolded back in our pre-historical past. (Black Sea anyone?)
As for the universe, it is my opinion that to all intents and purposes it's always been there. In the human time scale, that is.
The Bible was early bronze age mans attempt to explain the world around him. As other 'good' books of that era are. Having no knowledge of physics, chemistry or biology, they had to try and find reasons for natural events. So they decided that a supreme being must be the answer.
As for taking the Bible literally, possibly, as long as we go back to living in tents and herding goats, then it might work. :laugh4:
BTW Kukri congrats on the promotion. :2thumbsup:
Shaka_Khan
03-12-2006, 11:13
Christian's jobs are to lead people to God, and believe everything in the bible. The bible says that the Universe was created by God's hand, so the definition of Christian is one who believes Everything in the bible. If you don't, you need help. (You meaning anyone). Christians who believe in Big Bang are definently not on the same page as God.
-ZainDustin
We could say that God created the universe with a Big Bang. Then we all can agree on the Big Bang, unless someone prooves the Big Bang to be wrong.
An image says a thousand words ...
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/lanceurs_US/atlas/ac5%20explosion%2003.jpg
I don't really bother with what came before.
Dutch_guy
03-12-2006, 12:49
As for the universe, it is my opinion that to all intents and purposes it's always been there. In the human time scale, that is.
The Bible was early bronze age mans attempt to explain the world around him. As other 'good' books of that era are. Having no knowledge of physics, chemistry or biology, they had to try and find reasons for natural events. So they decided that a supreme being must be the answer.
As for taking the Bible literally, possibly, as long as we go back to living in tents and herding goats, then it might work. :laugh4:
BTW Kukri congrats on the promotion. :2thumbsup:
That's more or less how I think about it :yes:
:balloon2:
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 13:21
All I know about how it was written was that God used these people as vessels to write the bible.
But what about the translators and the editors ? Where they divinely inspired too ?
We could say that God created the universe with a Big Bang. Then we all can agree on the Big Bang, unless someone prooves the Big Bang to be wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong ,but wasn't the big bang just a theory?
It's not yet been proven, true?
Big bang: first there was nothing, and then that blew up as well.:inquisitive:
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 17:02
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance.
The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.
Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.
:coffeenews:
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 17:12
Correct me if I'm wrong ,but wasn't the big bang just a theory?
It's not yet been proven, true?
So is aerodynamic lift, are you sure you want to chance getting on a plane?
I believe that in the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea. ~:wacko:
Heh, honestly I believe that the origin of the universe is one of the many mysteries of God. ~:)
Edit:
We could say that God created the universe with a Big Bang.
This is actually pretty close to what I think.
Kanamori
03-12-2006, 18:19
The Big Bang was created as a christian explanation to how the universe was created, and it was initially opposed by many who saw it as an extension of religiousity in science. In fact, the Catholic church has officially accepted it as compatible with The Bible.
Christian's jobs are to lead people to God, and believe everything in the bible. The bible says that the Universe was created by God's hand, so the definition of Christian is one who believes Everything in the bible. If you don't, you need help. (You meaning anyone). Christians who believe in Big Bang are definently not on the same page as God.
-ZainDustin
So you believe in women covering their heads and slavery being fine and stuff?
Anyway if God fails to understand his own universe, the name isn't God, it's manipulative controller and he isn't an all-powerful being, he's a human who wants power.
Simply what the universe looks like suggests the big bang. You can 'see' this (or at least an ancient universe billions of years old) by certain frequencies of electro-magnetic radiation. So claiming this isn't so is no different from claiming what you see in front of you with your eyes is not what it is. Hey look it's a banana! No, wait, it's a house, because this book here says so.
I believe the big bang created the universe as we know it today. Its a simple and understandable theory, big explosion spreads matters around, matter gathers together forms supermassive black holes, supermassive black holes create stars in surounding matter. Stars gravity helps to produce planets planet, walla earth. What I cant explain nor have I heard an explaination of is how the matter that was condensed to such a point got there in the first place. Obviously matter doesnt appear out of nowhere now, so it had to come from someplace, which is why there is room for a diety. We still know very little about our universe ad have much to learn. I would be curious as to whether or not a big bang hasnt happened many times in the past recreating the universe. Whether or not there are more universes out there, much like galaxies. Until the day we know everything about the universe I think something had to help out the big bang a little bit to get started.
Let's change the subject just a little bit to Evolution. Fact or not?
-ZainDustin
I have a way of disclaiming Big Bang from Evolution, and discrediting both of them in themselves. Please, someone explain Evolution for me, the best way you can.
-ZainDustin
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 21:12
No. Create a new thread.
I believe the big bang created the universe as we know it today. Its a simple and understandable theory, big explosion spreads matters around, matter gathers together forms supermassive black holes, supermassive black holes create stars in surounding matter. Stars gravity helps to produce planets planet, walla earth. What I cant explain nor have I heard an explaination of is how the matter that was condensed to such a point got there in the first place. Obviously matter doesnt appear out of nowhere now, so it had to come from someplace, which is why there is room for a diety. We still know very little about our universe ad have much to learn. I would be curious as to whether or not a big bang hasnt happened many times in the past recreating the universe. Whether or not there are more universes out there, much like galaxies. Until the day we know everything about the universe I think something had to help out the big bang a little bit to get started.
We (humans) may never know. That doesn't preclude the fact they we will try. God willing. :oops: :laugh4:
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:15
Stop talking in terms of "fact". Science rarely deals with facts, instead with theories which over time are refined and improved and brought more into focus with observable data and hypothesis. Which, as new data is collected and advances are made in our understanding, can be replaced by new theories which better explain the phenomenon in question. The best example of this is Newton and Einstein. The former described Newtonian Mechanics, the latter found that Newton's Laws were merely a special case of Relativity. Was Newton wrong? Not really, he just didnt have the full picture. His laws are still probably the most common laws used in Engineering today. Who knows what the next advance will bring into focus, I very much doubt we have the full picture now. This is what is termed the Scientific Process. Nothing is really absolute. The beauty lies in the flexibility.
Mirco-evolution is pretty undisputable at this stage. It can be directly observed and indeed controlled in a laboratory. Macro-evolution is disputed by some, but the vast majority of scientists accept it, but may dispute many details.
Nothing is really absolute.
You probably didn't mean this in a certain way, but when you mean Nothing, you mean Nothing, right?
So, you're telling me that I'm not absolutely sitting here, typing? You mean I could actually be walking in the streets of Sydney, Australia drinking a Cocktail?
-ZainDustin
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:21
Eh, well not really. What I meant is that at any time a new discovery could be made which would completely change our understanding about something in the Universe.
But you enjoy that cocktail! ~;)
Lol, I once had a science teacher that said that absolutely nothing was absolute, so I used that exact line (about Australia and the cocktail), and he couldn't answer me. Some people are just morons...
-ZainDustin
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:32
Well, its not totally impossible that you are not infact in Texas at the moment and that you are for some reason tripping out in Sydney imagining all of this, but it is extremely unlikely. The probability would be aproaching zero and so still be something infintesimally tiny (Think 1/10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) that someone using logical deduction would discount it.
:book:
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 21:33
Nothing is impossible, only improbable
It is impossible for a human being to fly (Like Neo, or Superman).
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 21:38
Nuh uh...just improbable...
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:39
Based on our understanding of aerodynamics, gravity and the current state of technology, yes. That however, leaves room for any of the above to advance/change.
No doubt further technology could make some kind of something to make this happen, but it's humanly impossible.
-ZainDustin
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 21:41
Based on our understanding of aerodynamics, gravity and the current state of technology, yes. That however, leaves room for any of the above to advance/change.
Exactly.
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 21:45
Nothing is absolutely certain is something we can be pretty certain about. Your example of humans not being able to fly appeals to common sense. Common sens is often very, very wrong. people with common sense used to think the world was flat, or that rocket propulsion wasn't possbile in space (this was true in the early 20th century).
Recently scientist have build a (quantum) computer that works by not working:
Even for the crazy world of quantum mechanics, this one is twisted. A quantum computer program has produced an answer without actually running.
The idea behind the feat, first proposed in 1998, is to put a quantum computer into a “superposition”, a state in which it is both running and not running. It is as if you asked Schrödinger's cat to hit "Run".
With the right set-up, the theory suggested, the computer would sometimes get an answer out of the computer even though the program did not run. And now researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have improved on the original design and built a non-running quantum computer that really works.
They send a photon into a system of mirrors and other optical devices, which included a set of components that run a simple database search by changing the properties of the photon.
The new design includes a quantum trick called the Zeno effect. Repeated measurements stop the photon from entering the actual program, but allow its quantum nature to flirt with the program's components - so it can become gradually altered even though it never actually passes through.
"It is very bizarre that you know your computer has not run but you also know what the answer is," says team member Onur Hosten.
This scheme could have an advantage over straightforward quantum computing. "A non-running computer produces fewer errors," says Hosten. That sentiment should have technophobes nodding enthusiastically.
This is about as far away from common sens as you can get. :dizzy2:
BTW: if humans can't fly: how did Jesus ascend to heaven ?
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 21:46
..Based on our current understanding of the Universe. But had you told the average Joe in 1900 about the unthinkably large amounts of energy available inside a lump of Uranium, he would have said it was impossible. Not so.
BTW: if humans can't fly: how did Jesus ascend to heaven ?
Because He is God.
I think humanity needs a few more hundred years before getting a clue on how the universe was created...so lets leave that to the "nerdy guys in white robes and plastic glasses".
...and in the mean time, we normal people could try and figure out a way to live side by side without blowing each other apart, pushing beliefes down others throuts and just in general hurt people. :2thumbsup:
and the Bible.... so boring, tried to read it once...trust me, Wheel of Time is way more fun to read! :book:
Read the book of Daniel. You like war stories?
-ZainDustin
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 22:07
Because He is God.
But He was made human, just like the rest of us. If he was cheating his way through life there wouldn't be much to his sacrifice would there ? I mean, if flying is allowed, surely turning off a few pain receptors is no big deal...
He walked on water, he ascended into the sky, and he healed the hurt and sick because God was within him. He was human, yes, but he also was a very powerful vessel used by God.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 22:15
AND he turned water into wine :2thumbsup:
Some late nights Jesus? (only kidding)
Big_John
03-12-2006, 22:16
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3014_q_06.html
this is the solution, no doubt. never question it. ever.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:17
So, according to the Bible flying is humanly possible...
mystic brew
03-12-2006, 22:18
just to return to one of the early issues in the thread, Zain, i was just wondering if you still hold the position that the bible is a word for word as-it-happened book?
And if so, why? I know a large number of christians who have studied scriptures and don't feel the way you do.
And though you criticise science's explanation, isn't your own explanation just as open to those same criticisms?
Alexanderofmacedon
03-12-2006, 22:22
So, according to the Bible flying is humanly possible...
But improbable ~;)
just to return to one of the early issues in the thread, Zain, i was just wondering if you still hold the position that the bible is a word for word as-it-happened book?
I believe that the bible is the real Word, but it's not word for word. Just look at Revelations and you will see, there's no way it's word for word. It uses many metaphors and parables.
And if so, why? I know a large number of christians who have studied scriptures and don't feel the way you do.
I do not believe it's word for word. But it is true, all of it.
And though you criticise science's explanation, isn't your own explanation just as open to those same criticisms?
Yes, they are definently open to criticisms. But, if you think about it. If you compare the bible to scientific studies, the Bible was composed by a divine God. Scientific studies were composed by humans, who will never be perfect, and are hardly correct.
-ZainDustin
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:27
I believe that the bible is the real Word, but it's not word for word. Just look at Revelations and you will see, there's no way it's word for word. It uses many metaphors and parables.
Then, maybe, just maybe, the sory of the Creation is one of those parables/metaphores and not an historic account? Call me crazy and all... :dizzy2:
Sasaki Kojiro
03-12-2006, 22:27
So, according to the Bible flying is humanly possible...
You see, things don't fall because of gravity. God pushes them down (Intelligent Falling). He chose not to push Jesus down.
you're crazy... :smile: :laugh2: Just kidding.
I think that How he created the universe wasn't explained, but he Did create it.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:32
But it is explained in the Bible... The story of the Creation gives a pretty detailed explanation of how Jewish Bronze age priests believed that God created the universe... do you believe this account literally, or have you come round, as it were, to believing that the story of the Creation is a mere allegory or metaphore to a process which God started which created the universe...
I personally believe that he just simply created the Universe.
-ZainDustin
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:38
As described in the Bible?:dizzy2:
Yes. He SPOKE the Universe into existance.
_Martyr_
03-12-2006, 22:44
hmm.. this begining to get all spaghetti monstery...
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 22:44
He walked on water, he ascended into the sky, and he healed the hurt and sick because God was within him. He was human, yes, but he also was a very powerful vessel used by God.
So humans should all be able to do what Jesus did...
mystic brew
03-12-2006, 22:45
[QUOTE=ZainDustin
Yes, they are definently open to criticisms. But, if you think about it. If you compare the bible to scientific studies, the Bible was composed by a divine God. Scientific studies were composed by humans, who will never be perfect, and are hardly correct.[/QUOTE]
this is circular logic though... it's using the bible's divinity as being evidence for it's truth. I'm sure you see the problem.
If a human had enough faith in God, and God wanted him to, he could walk on the water. Paul walked on the water, towards Jesus.
It's divinity is because it is the Word of God.
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 22:53
Prove it.
I, myself, can't. But, neither can YOU disprove it.
doc_bean
03-12-2006, 23:01
I, myself, can't. But, neither can YOU disprove it.
Disprove the existence of Santa Clause if you can...
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 23:02
Why should I disprove something that doesn't exist?
Papewaio
03-12-2006, 23:02
I, myself, can't. But, neither can YOU disprove it.
And you can't disprove dragons, fairies, other gods, etc etc.
So which is more real leprachauns at the bottom of your garden or God? You cannot disprove either...
Leprechauns can be disproven. Of course, I don't know much about them anyway. If they are supposed to be living on Earth, they can be disproven, or proven. Although, these things were made up before actual evidence of their existance was found.
-ZainDustin
InsaneApache
03-12-2006, 23:12
Leprechauns can be disproven. Of course, I don't know much about them anyway. If they are supposed to be living on Earth, they can be disproven, or proven. Although, these things were made up before actual evidence of their existance was found.
-ZainDustin
Go on then. Disprove them.
Although, these things were made up before actual evidence of their existance was found.
a lot like God then.
My god, who's existance is proven by this holy book He sent me, says your god doesn't exist.
He also supports chocolate ice-cream being a compulsary food.
My god, who's existance is proven by this holy book He sent me, says your god doesn't exist.
He also supports chocolate ice-cream being a compulsary food.
what God do you serve BDC?
mystic brew
03-12-2006, 23:58
It's divinity is because it is the Word of God.
there's that circular logic again. here is the word of god, in the form of the bible. how do we know it's the word of god? because the bible tells us it is the word of god...
as i said, i'm sure you see the problem
Big_John
03-12-2006, 23:59
what God do you serve BDC?clearly, he serves the god of double posts.
InsaneApache
03-13-2006, 00:02
Indeed.
Divinus Arma
03-13-2006, 01:09
An image says a thousand words ...
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/lanceurs_US/atlas/ac5%20explosion%2003.jpg
I don't really bother with what came before.
SEE YOU THERE BIG DADDY!
If hell existed, then humanity should not exist. Why? I love my unborn children enough not to have them in order to save them from even a
.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of going to hell.
Let's look at the relationship between risk and benefit, shall we:
Chance of going to hell: .000000000000000000000001%.
Time spent in hell:99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999 to the power of 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 years. And then some.
Point being, even a teeny tiny risk of damning my children to hell makes it worthwhile not to have them in order to spare them from eternal suffering.
THUS, the concept of hell is contrary to human survival. Becaue my this logic, no would ever have children and the human race would end.
Mongoose
03-13-2006, 03:45
People always think that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is only a joke. I think that's unfair and rather ignorant.
Apparently we are seen as more of a joke - satire, if you will - than a real religion. I, for one, am offended. I feel that my constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious belief is being unfairly discriminated against.
-Our prophet.
This is the time that I reveal my real religion: I'm a pastafatiran(sp?). We beleive that if schools teach ID, then they should also give an equal amount of time to our theory.
We even have a chart that shows that the number of pirates is related to the amount of global warming. In other words, the rising global temperature is a direct result of not enough people dressing in his holy garb.
But I'm sure that most of you have heard this already. Why do you think that our God is the false one?
Papewaio
03-13-2006, 04:54
Christian's jobs are to lead people to God, and believe everything in the bible. The bible says that the Universe was created by God's hand, so the definition of Christian is one who believes Everything in the bible. If you don't, you need help. (You meaning anyone). Christians who believe in Big Bang are definently not on the same page as God.
-ZainDustin
What an arrogant condescending thing to say.
1) You should not tell people how they may or may not practice their religion without expecting a broadside in return.
2) It is fundamentalist claptrap like that, that gives religions such a bad reputation.
3) I know plenty of Christians who have the intellectual ability to understand the Big Bang and the internal belief structure to believe in God.
4) Also most of the Christians that I know talk about have a personal relationship with their saviour Jesus Christ and that a lot of the bible is allegorical... Even Jesus uses allegorical tales... he talks about seeds finding the right ground to grow in... rocks being to barren, soil being too thin... he wasn't giving a gardening lesson, he was talking about faith.
5) The bible lists what is most important: Love... and it never lists creationism.
People always think that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is only a joke. I think that's unfair and rather ignorant.
-Our prophet.
This is the time that I reveal my real religion: I'm a pastafatiran(sp?). We beleive that if schools teach ID, then they should also give an equal amount of time to our theory.
We even have a chart that shows that the number of pirates is related to the amount of global warming. In other words, the rising global temperature is a direct result of not enough people dressing in his holy garb.
But I'm sure that most of you have heard this already. Why do you think that our God is the false one?
I've never heard of that religion. What does it believe?
-ZainDustin
What an arrogant condescending thing to say.
1) You should not tell people how they may or may not practice their religion without expecting a broadside in return.
2) It is fundamentalist claptrap like that, that gives religions such a bad reputation.
3) I know plenty of Christians who have the intellectual ability to understand the Big Band and the internal belief structure to believe in God.
4) Also most of the Christians that I know talk about have a personal relationship with their saviour Jesus Christ and that a lot of the bible is allegorical... Even Jesus uses allegorical tales... he talks about seeds finding the right ground to grow in... rocks being to barren, soil being too thin... he wasn't giving a gardening lesson, he was talking about faith.
5) The bible lists what is most important: Love... and it never lists creationism.
Creationism isn't the most important thing, as you have said. It is about having a relation ship with your Lord, Jesus Christ. But it is a very fun thing to debate about. That's all.
-ZainDustin
Mongoose
03-13-2006, 05:01
I've never heard of that religion. What does it believe?
-ZainDustin
Hmm, thought that the FSM was known by almost all.
http://www.venganza.org/
It's not so much anti religion, so much as it's anti-religion-being-taught-as-science.
Banquo's Ghost
03-13-2006, 09:56
If a human had enough faith in God, and God wanted him to, he could walk on the water. Paul walked on the water, towards Jesus.
I'm trying ever so hard not to get involved in this debate, but the pedant in me can't overlook this one. :saint:
It wasn't Paul who allegedly walked on water and sank because of a lack of faith, it was Peter. Paul never met Jesus (not while alive, anyway).
It is exactly small typos/scribing errors like this that have been incorporated for millenia into the Bible, and add them to the translation errors and you have a very shaky basis for claiming the Bible as the actual word of God. Unless you can read Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic (with a smattering of Coptic and hieroglyphs) and have access to the original books/scrolls, any claim of the unreconstructed Word of God is flawed.
Just something to think about. ~D
_Martyr_
03-13-2006, 10:12
Haruchai you cheeky divil! ~;)
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 10:45
I'm trying ever so hard not to get involved in this debate, but the pedant in me can't overlook this one.
Don't ya just love Zealots that don't know scripture :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
the definition of Christian is one who believes Everything in the bible.
So Zain , you believe in giant aliens who come to earth because they liked the food and the sex .
Slavery is the natural role for certain people because their forefather saw his dad when the old fella was drunk and naked . And oysters are bad , very bad . Rape is good , as long as you don't sell the woman afterwards . If you lose a bet then it is OK to go killing and robbing to repay that debt . Oh and genocide and ethnic cleansing are Gods will .
Do you follow the correct proceedures if you discover mildew in your house ?
So do you beleive in and follow Everything in the bible ? Or are you not really a Christian by your own definition ?
I'm trying ever so hard not to get involved in this debate, but the pedant in me can't overlook this one.
Don't ya just love Zealots that don't know scripture :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
the definition of Christian is one who believes Everything in the bible.
So Zain , you believe in giant aliens who come to earth because they liked the food and the sex .
Slavery is the natural role for certain people because their forefather saw his dad when the old fella was drunk and naked . And oysters are bad , very bad . Rape is good , as long as you don't sell the woman afterwards . If you lose a bet then it is OK to go killing and robbing to repay that debt . Oh and genocide and ethnic cleansing are Gods will .
Do you follow the correct proceedures if you discover mildew in your house ?
So do you beleive in and follow Everything in the bible ? Or are you not really a Christian by your own definition ?
It was just a typo, I knew the man that walked on water had a "P". No big deal, I guess it would be though if it was in the bible.
No, I don't do all those things because the laws and procedures changed when Jesus died on the cross. He died on the cross my everyone's sins so those things don't have to happen. The laws changed after the crusifixion, that's why the temple's cloth tore from the top to the bottom.
-ZainDustin
InsaneApache
03-13-2006, 14:16
https://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2053/brightsideoflife6lk.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life
Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad,
Other things just make you swear and curse,
When you're chewing life's gristle,
Don't grumble,
Give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best.
And...
Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistle]
Always look on the light side of life.
[whistle]
If life seems jolly rotten,
There's something you've forgotten,
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps,
Don't be silly chumps.
Just purse your lips and whistle.
That's the thing.
And...
Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistle]
Always look on the right side of life,
[whistle]
For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word.
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin.
Give the audience a grin.
Enjoy it. It's your last chance, anyhow.
So,...
Always look on the bright side of death,
[whistle]
Just before you draw your terminal breath.
[whistle]
Life's a piece of shit,
When you look at it.
Life's a laugh and death's a joke it's true.
You'll see it's all a show.
Keep 'em laughing as you go.
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And...
Always look on the bright side of life.
Always look on the right side of life.
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Always look on the bright side of life!
[whistle]
Like this?
InsaneApache
03-13-2006, 14:28
Or maybe this?
One of the most controversial, and some would say, scurrilous films
of the last year has been the box-office blockbuster, The General
Synod's _Life of Christ_. Sarah Gould talked to Lawrence Vironconium
- Bishop of Wroxeter, the director of the film, and Alexander Walker,
one of its stoutest critics.
The film deals with the story of the rise of a humble carpenter's
son, one Jesus Christ, to fame and greatness, but many people have
seen in the film a thinly disguised and blasphemous attack on the
life of Monty Python. Python worshippers say that it sets out to
ridicule by parody the actual members of Monty Python who even today,
of course, are worshipped throughout the Western World.
NOT!: Alexander Walker, can I ask you first, what did you think of
the film?
WALKER: It apalled me. I find it deeply offensive that, in what is
still, after all, basically a Python-worshipping country, fourteen-
year-old children can get to see this film. They get little enough
proper Python these days, without having this distorted garbage paraded
about.
NOT!: Bishop, you directed the film. Did you expect this kind of
reaction?
BISHOP: Well, I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! Yes.
Yes, I did direct the film. And what I feel I _must_ emphasise at
once, is that it is not an attack on Python. I'm not a Pythonist
myself, but obviously I have enormous respect for people, like
Alexander, who are.
WALKER: Oh, come now bishop. The central figure in the film...
this... er...
BISHOP: Jesus Christ.
WALKER: ... thank you, this "Jesus Christ" is quite clearly a
lampoon of the comic messiah himself, Our Lord John Cleese. I mean,
look, even the initials are the same!
BISHOP: No. No, absolutely not. If I may try and explain. The Christ
figure is not meant to _be_ Cleese, he's just an ordinary person who
happens to have been born in Weston-super-Mare at the same _time_
as Mr Cleese.
WALKER: No. No, really, Lawrence, that's too...
BISHOP: And ... and, if I may finish... he is _mistaken_ for the
comic messiah by credulous people of the sort that can see something
"completely different" in anything, and who then follow him around
in vast crowds... ah... doing silly walks, and chanting No, No, Not
The Comfy Chair, and other slogans from the Good Bok itself.
NOT!: Alexander Walker - your comments on that?
WALKER: No, I'm sorry, whatever the Bishop may say, this is a highly
distasteful film. Have people forgotten how Monty Python suffered
for us? How often the sketches failed? I mean these men died for us.
Frequently.
NOT!: Bishop, turning back to you, do you not agree that the film
may affect the position of Monty Python in our spiritual life?
BISHOP: No, I hardly think so. If Python _is_ immortal (as
Pythonists believe), I'm sure a mere film...
WALKER: A tenth rate film.
BISHOP: ...I'm sure a mere film is not going to stop believers.
Remember the words of John cleese: "When two or three people are
gathered together in my name, they shall perform the Parrot Sketch..."
NOT!: Indeed. "It is an Ex-Parrot..."
ALL: "...it has Ceased To Be"
NOT!: Well, the final scene in the film has perhaps attracted the
most attention of all. Alexander Walker, a last word from you.
WALKER: Yes, well, the final scene is... is the ultimate blasphemy.
It... it is set in a hotel, in Torquay, where literally hundreds of
Spanish waiters are being clipped about the ear by this "Jesus
Christ" bloke in a ghastly cartoon of the Comic Messiah's
Greatest Half-Hour.
NOT!: Alexander Walker, thank you.
WALKER: Thank you.
NOT!: Bishop, thank you.
BISHOP: Thank you. Actually, it's not Torquay, it's Torbay.
WALKER: Oh, Torquay, Torbay, whatever. I really don't see...
NOT!: Alexander Walker, Bishop, thank you.
BOTH: Thank you.
NEXT WEEK: The Islamic New Wave.
Not! goes on location with "47 Brides for 7 Brothers"
:laugh4:
mystic brew
03-13-2006, 14:38
Leprechauns can be disproven. Of course, I don't know much about them anyway. If they are supposed to be living on Earth, they can be disproven, or proven.
Not true.
Fairies, leprauchuns live in the 'Realm of Faerie', and only visit the waking world briefly. They can't survive here long, and when they die they return to the realm of faerie.
Disprove their existence... After all, thousands of people believed in the existence of fairys long before JC came along.
What I don't understand about Genesis is that God lies and the Serpent tells the truth. (not defined as 'Satan' then - Satan being a Zoroastran word)
God says 'don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge or you will die'. The Serpent says 'This isn't true, you can eat it and you won't die'.
Which is the truth and which is a lie?
mystic brew
03-13-2006, 14:41
both are selective truths.
God leaves out the intervening time between eating the fruit and death, and the serpent leaves out the eventual death.
Rodion Romanovich
03-13-2006, 15:39
Let's hear it, how was the Universe created, and be prepared to be questioned.
I believe that God created it, but some Atheists and Scientists will say Big Bang and stuff, so bring it on. :smart:
-ZainDustin
Was the universe really ever created? And what is the definition of universe - matter and energy, only matter, or only energy? Or is it the very concept of space in which we can be positioned, or the concept of time, or both?
If God is defined as the creator of the universe, the universe was created by God. But why would that mean that that God concept will be the same as the God concept you pray to? And would they ever be able to be the same being? Or would the word God be defined as a collection of several distinct abstract and non-abstract phenomenons and concepts bunched together in a collection (and therefore have no function other than classifying distinct things into a group, rather than being a result of those distinct things being the same thing in reality) like classification of animals is done: every ape and human is a primate, but a primate shouldn't be comprehended as a single being. And if the universe was never really created, God would be a concept referring to something that doesn't necessarily exist, but doesn't necessarily not exist either, combined with phenomenons that might exist. Could God then be a comprehensible concept to model as a single being when you think of it?
Nothing is really absolute.
You probably didn't mean this in a certain way, but when you mean Nothing, you mean Nothing, right?
So, you're telling me that I'm not absolutely sitting here, typing? You mean I could actually be walking in the streets of Sydney, Australia drinking a Cocktail?
-ZainDustin
This reminds me of a BBC documentary I once saw. In it, scientists stated that, in order to learn more about our own history (but time machines being an impossibility), it would be very likely that future generations would ultimately develop a computerprogram that would be able to simulate the entirity of earth's (or the universe's) history and all of its components. The 'occupants' of this program would, of course, be totally oblivious of the fact that they are simulations of the real thing. Because this simulation would develop along the lines of the real world, in it there would be developed another simulation for exactly the same goal, in which simulation the same would happen again, ad infinitum.
Therefore, the scientist reasoned, the chance of us ourselves actually being simulations is much, much greater than us being the 'real us', since there would be an infinite number of simulations and only one reality.
Thusly, the universe as we know it was most likely created by a computer programmer, who, for the sake of religion, shall henceforth be known as Bob.
(With regards to Old Thrashbarg).
God said: Let it blow! And so it was.
Tribesman
03-13-2006, 23:11
The laws changed after the crusifixion
So the Old Testament is thrown out of the window then , does that include the commandments ? It appears that you claim to believe in everything in the Bible , but are very selective about which parts you are willling to accept as Gods word . Why is that ?
Or could you point out the passages in the New Testament that specify which of the old laws are to be thrown out and which are to be retained ?
Also , if the O.T. is now "incorrect" then why are you sticking with Genesis ?:inquisitive:
The laws changed after the crusifixion
So the Old Testament is thrown out of the window then , does that include the commandments ? It appears that you claim to believe in everything in the Bible , but are very selective about which parts you are willling to accept as Gods word . Why is that ?
Or could you point out the passages in the New Testament that specify which of the old laws are to be thrown out and which are to be retained ?
Also , if the O.T. is now "incorrect" then why are you sticking with Genesis ?:inquisitive:
I found your passage...
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith. The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Curse is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."
-Galatians 3:10-14 NIV
The Old Testament is not thrown out the window, unless the bible says so. And occording to this passage, some of it is.
I do believe in the bible, all of it. But, in some cases the bible says to disregard some of the things, mostly the old laws changed by the crusifixion.
Sadly this doesn't say which laws are thrown out, but it's pretty self explanitory.
I hope this answers your questions (all of you).
-ZainDustin
Tribesman
03-14-2006, 08:48
Galatians So , a letter by a bloke who didn't walk on water ?~;)
Byzantine Mercenary
03-14-2006, 10:34
ZainDustin, your treading a thin line, the statement i have qouted below is vergeing on judgemental which is a very serious sin. I don't agree that your as bad as Nav but you must understand that god is the only one who may judge others beliefs.
If you don't, you need help. (You meaning anyone). Christians who believe in Big Bang are definently not on the same page as God.
-ZainDustin
Don't forget this is a games forum, not many people here are being veryserious (apart from the aformentioned Nav) the bible has a great creation story that mirrors the big bang as much as any bronze age text could and more then you would expect it to. although the big bang is not a hole proof theory.
There is not danger in debating trust me on this i have never lost my faith in a debate but i have gained perspective which is very important. You should know the difference between Peter and Paul they were different people with different perspectives.
evolution also fits in with the creation story in genesis, look at the order in which the species are created.
ZainDustin, your treading a thin line, the statement i have qouted below is vergeing on judgemental which is a very serious sin. I don't agree that your as bad as Nav but you must understand that god is the only one who may judge others beliefs.
Don't forget this is a games forum, not many people here are being veryserious (apart from the aformentioned Nav) the bible has a great creation story that mirrors the big bang as much as any bronze age text could and more then you would expect it to. although the big bang is not a hole proof theory.
There is not danger in debating trust me on this i have never lost my faith in a debate but i have gained perspective which is very important. You should know the difference between Peter and Paul they were different people with different perspectives.
evolution also fits in with the creation story in genesis, look at the order in which the species are created.
You've been following this discussion, haven't you? :detective:
As I have been talking with everyone, I realize now saying that was wrong, although I still see the Big Bang as wrong.
-ZainDustin
mystic brew
03-14-2006, 15:46
glad you acknowledge a mistake. it speaks well of you.
But can we investigate why you think the big bang is wrong? In the original form, the creation is in poetry, in figurative language, yes? and Jesus spoke in parables all the time... I don't see how the bible supports this creationism.
I'd just be interested to hear why?
Byzantine Mercenary
03-14-2006, 15:58
As I have been talking with everyone, I realize now saying that was wrong, although I still see the Big Bang as wrong.
-ZainDustin
im sceptical of the theory myself, heck i started a thread about it once:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59837
okay I haven't read the whole thread but anyway
I thought the Huble had made fotographs wich still shows some evidence about the theory. (And it's by Lemaitre, a Belgian, so it can't be wrong ~;).
And what about the cosmic microwave background radiation? WMAP has made pictues of this.
Tough I don't get all about this, and there might be some questions and perhaps some contra dictions there's a reason it is accepted by most Astronomors. And there seems to be some proof. (perhaps not much but still.)
glad you acknowledge a mistake. it speaks well of you.
But can we investigate why you think the big bang is wrong? In the original form, the creation is in poetry, in figurative language, yes? and Jesus spoke in parables all the time... I don't see how the bible supports this creationism.
I'd just be interested to hear why?
Thanks, I'm glad my name has been uplifted to not just the person everyone beats up on because of my beliefs (Which happened for 3 days or so) and I still held up.
I believe the Big Bang is wrong, because it just doesn't make sense. Why would God have created a huge explosion, waited until all of that time for the Universe to form, and then seperate the waters from the Earth, make light and day, create humans and animals and plants? To me, it doesn't make any sense why he would do that, if he could create the whole Universe with just a thought.
It is true that the bible is poetic, and doesn't always mean what it says, in gramatical terms.
-ZainDustin
Papewaio
03-14-2006, 23:00
Thanks, I'm glad my name has been uplifted to not just the person everyone beats up on because of my beliefs (Which happened for 3 days or so) and I still held up.
I believe the Big Bang is wrong, because it just doesn't make sense. Why would God have created a huge explosion, waited until all of that time for the Universe to form, and then seperate the waters from the Earth, make light and day, create humans and animals and plants? To me, it doesn't make any sense why he would do that, if he could create the whole Universe with just a thought.
It is true that the bible is poetic, and doesn't always mean what it says, in gramatical terms.
-ZainDustin
I can create a French Toast with a thought... that is the design process.
The implementation process has to be done in order and has a time dependancy attached to it.
Souffle's are even harder... interrupt the process at the wrong point and you have a muffin.
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 11:44
A question to both big bang and God supporters: if the universe was created, what existed before universe?
InsaneApache
03-15-2006, 11:50
Nothing.
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 11:53
So how could something be created out of nothing? That nothing must have caused the something in some way, and unless the nothing was a changing nothing, it couldn't have had built-in the potential of once giving rise to something.
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 12:19
So how could something be created out of nothing? That nothing must have caused the something in some way, and unless the nothing was a changing nothing, it couldn't have had built-in the potential of once giving rise to something.
In my limited understanding of the mathematics, the assumed logic that there must be something to give rise to something is a fallacy. The question of what was there 'before' is redundant, because time was created along with the big bang.
Counter-intuitive, I know, but then much of what we know about physics is. :dizzy2:
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 12:22
Thanks, I'm glad my name has been uplifted to not just the person everyone beats up on because of my beliefs (Which happened for 3 days or so) and I still held up.
I believe the Big Bang is wrong, because it just doesn't make sense. Why would God have created a huge explosion, waited until all of that time for the Universe to form, and then seperate the waters from the Earth, make light and day, create humans and animals and plants? To me, it doesn't make any sense why he would do that, if he could create the whole Universe with just a thought.
ah, the backroom is just that... it's a low ceilinged smokey bar and you can expect to take a few bruises. The thing to watch out for is people flogging their own point of view without listening. It's best not to debate with those that don't have open minds. You listened, you realised you were mistaken, you apologised. Good on you! ~;)
So, back to the big bang.
but... if i can paraphrase something you said earlier in this thread.
"God exists outside time".
This answers your query with the big bang in one simple step. god didn't have to wait for anything. if he's outside time, then length of time means absolutely bugger all.
The elegant simplicity is astounding...
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 12:23
A question to both big bang and God supporters: if the universe was created, what existed before universe?
another counter intuitive answer, i'm afraid, but the thing we have to understand is that 'time' is a dimension...
Since time is only a creation of the universe, there was no before! :dizzy2:
and no, i don't really get it, either
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 12:37
In my limited understanding of the mathematics, the assumed logic that there must be something to give rise to something is a fallacy. The question of what was there 'before' is redundant, because time was created along with the big bang.
Counter-intuitive, I know, but then much of what we know about physics is. :dizzy2:
No wait! I meant that assuming the cause-and-effect system is true, every state is a result of the previous state. If the state just before big bang was "nothing", and "nothing" causally gives rise to "something", then "nothing" would have caused "something" immediately after it started existing. Which means if "nothing" was the state before big bang, then time can't have existed before big bang, and the state "nothing" only existed in an infinitesimal time period, which could be the same as saying it never existed. However, if "nothing" existed for a longer period of time, then the "nothing" must have been of different kinds all the time, otherwise the special "nothing" state that caused the "something" state would have caused the "something" state earlier. All this is assuming cause and effect principles are true, which I believe also the big bang theory assumes, and God theory also assumes.
The problem as I see it is that the big bang theory assumes that time didn't exist before big bang, without proving it. Big bang theory only has supporting arguments for the creation of exergy, and I don't think it has anything supporting creation of matter and energy, let alone time and dimensions.
InsaneApache
03-15-2006, 12:49
Try and look at it like this. Where do your thoughts come from and what are they made of? Before you had the thought what was there before it. The thought only started to exist when you had it.
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 12:52
No, every thought comes from a combination of outer impressions, memories, and the way my brain looked when I was born. No thought comes out of nothing.
InsaneApache
03-15-2006, 12:59
No, every thought comes from a combination of outer impressions, memories, and the way my brain looked when I was born. No thought comes out of nothing.
That's not true.
Einsteins' theories weren't from memories or outer impressions nor was he born with them. The brain is a very complex thing and only now are we beginning to understand it.
Also, where does the thought go once you've had it?
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 13:09
Einsteins' theories weren't from memories or outer impressions nor was he born with them.
Of course they were! To simplify things a lot, the system is very much equivalent to a module where you process data, and one module where you store it, and one module for receiving impressions (data) through senses. His theories stemmed from his fantasy, his prior knowledge in the subject, and his abilities to compare the memories he had to each other, drawing new conclusions. Then he had to store these new insights as memories, from which he could deduce new theories. His prior knowledge came from processing and storing the impressions from the outside. His processing ability came from earlier experiences (from the outside) and earlier thoughts.
Essentially the brain is actually built up much like a computer, the only difference is that it's a computer that is a million/billion/trillion times more complex than a normal computer, and that it can rewire its own hardware when needed, and that most of the constant wiring is part of a billions of years long evolutionary process. Can you really give example of a single thought that isn't built on memories, impressions and processing of those impressions and memories?
Also, where does the thought go once you've had it?
Either to the memory, or it reaches a dead end and is discarded, or it is transformed into output in the form of say a movement, something you say, or something else.
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 13:24
The problem as I see it is that the big bang theory assumes that time didn't exist before big bang, without proving it. Big bang theory only has supporting arguments for the creation of exergy, and I don't think it has anything supporting creation of matter and energy, let alone time and dimensions.
Time is a property of this universe. There is nothing to say it is an essential property of any other universe. For this universe, it was created at the Big Bang. Therefore there is no concept of before in relation to the creation of this universe.
Matter and energy are inter-dependent. Time as a dimension is a property of this universe, as are length and breadth. The Big Bang deals neatly with them all, insofar as the creation of the universe goes. It currently has nothing to say about before, because there is no before.
If you apply your own assumptions as detailed, of course the Big Bang doesn't seem to fit the observations. But your assumptions need to be changed if you want to understand - which is what cosmologists are finding right now. The maths is very hard to follow, but interesting when explained, even if counter-intuitive.
I'm a biologist by training, so physics makes my brain hurt. ~:eek:
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 14:42
Yes, but apparently if you look far enough away, you'll see light sent out as early as from the time when big bang was supposed to happen. If you look further away, you're supposed to see... what? Will there be an edge there?
Also, I've still not seen the proof that time couldn't exist before big bang. A bunch of matter and stuff goes boom and therefore no time could exist before...? That's an assumption if anything. I too made an assumption, but it was an assumption that the big bang theory also uses. I use but one assumption, the big bang theory uses that assumption plus at least one more. I personally think big bang is as little trustworthy as the God model. Both are after all models, there's no skilled scientists that would say big bang is the truth, only a model of truth until we can find a contradiction in it and new observations and/or thoughts require a change of model, much like the case has been in quantum physics where we've changed model at least 5 times the last century. So - if big bang doesn't in any way whatsoever motivate, theoretically or by some observation, that time couldn't exist before big bang, then it's obviously not a complete theory.
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 14:51
well, for proof time is a dimension, well, it's a tricky one. But i'lll try.
we move through the universe in 4 dimensions. the normal 3 plus time. though for some reason we can only move in one direction in time. when we move faster and faster in three dimensions, then we are expending less of our 'energy' by travelling in time. this is, apparantly, even measurable at the speeds humanity can travel in, though it is infinitesimal.
as we move faster and faster, getting close to the speed of light, we are expending less and less of our energy to time- hence the time dilation effect so beloved by the sci-fi writers.
So it's demonstrably true that 'time' is an artefact of the universe... 'before' isn't a word that can ever be applied to the universe, since it only came into being with it.
I think that's pretty much the flavour of it.
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 15:09
Yes, but apparently if you look far enough away, you'll see light sent out as early as from the time when big bang was supposed to happen. If you look further away, you're supposed to see... what? Will there be an edge there?
No, because there is nothing there. You're still trying to work with a linear model.
Also, I've still not seen the proof that time couldn't exist before big bang. A bunch of matter and stuff goes boom and therefore no time could exist before...? That's an assumption if anything. I too made an assumption, but it was an assumption that the big bang theory also uses. I use but one assumption, the big bang theory uses that assumption plus at least one more. I personally think big bang is as little trustworthy as the God model.
Time is a dimensional property of the universe. If the universe doesn't exist then neither does time. We need to agree on our language - you are taking my use of the word 'assumption' as if am using it as a bad thing.
Assumptions, alongside observations, are the basis of science. One makes an assumption to test a theory and if the assumption can be validated, it helps bolster the theory. The problem with the God model is that there are no ways to test the assumptions integral to the theory. This does not mean the God model is wrong, just that it can't be validated except through faith, and therefore it is not science.
Both are after all models, there's no skilled scientists that would say big bang is the truth, only a model of truth until we can find a contradiction in it and new observations and/or thoughts require a change of model, much like the case has been in quantum physics where we've changed model at least 5 times the last century. So - if big bang doesn't in any way whatsoever motivate, theoretically or by some observation, that time couldn't exist before big bang, then it's obviously not a complete theory.
Precisely. The Big Bang is a model that has, to date, explained most of the observations we can make of our universe. It does not consider what you call 'before'. Beyond that is the realm of pure mathematical models, to which we can try and fit new observations - which will either continue to support the consensus, or wreck it at which time we come up with a new model to be tested.
I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms. ~:cool:
I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms.
Definately. Well said.
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 16:04
I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms. ~:cool:
First of all I'm not supporting God theory just because I don't support the Big bang theory. Plus regarding the God model, you can indeed prove it's existence through a circular proof - define God as "the creator of the universe", then the universe must have been created by God. But as I explained earlier in the thread, that God concept isn't necessarily the same concept as the concept religious people normally call God. For example, if the big bang theory would be true, then the Big Bang would be called God, and the word God would refer to Big Bang, but it wouldn't simulatenously imply that you can pray to Big Bang, and expect a response. It could also mean that the word God is defined as a classifying concept containing many concept, much like "primates" refer to all individual apes and humans. So God would then, in this example, mean "Big Bang AND some being you can pray to", without Big Bang being the same as the being you could pray to. And you wouldn't either have any proof of the being you can pray to exists, you might even have a situation where Big Bang exists and the being you can pray to doesn't, while you can still define the word "God" as both of them together. And because much religion define God as the creator of the universe, this circular proof isn't as bad as it might sound, the problem is that the religious seldom understand that God concept, and use it in a different meaning in other cases, without knowing it's a different concept in reality they are referring to. Apart from that I won't discuss the God model, except explain what I mean by this text above if it was unclear.
No, because there is nothing there. You're still trying to work with a linear model.
So what would the photographic lenses, on telescopes, if zoomed in far enough, record on them? Blackness? Can the non-existance have a color? If you could see the non-existance, it would be a paradox.
Time is a dimensional property of the universe. If the universe doesn't exist then neither does time. We need to agree on our language - you are taking my use of the word 'assumption' as if am using it as a bad thing.
But the Big Bang theory isn't about the birth of the universe, is it? It's supposed to explain why matter is moving like it does today, split up the way it is today, and why exergy exists and we don't live in a thermal death-scenario. If you can show that the Big Bang theory explains the birth of dimensions too, then I could maybe believe in it. But as it is now the concept of matter and exergy is called universe when you try to prove the theory, and when you use it, the concept of matter, exergy, energy and dimensions are also involved in the concept. I'm not trying to be cheeky, just want to know if there, within the big bang theory, is really any explanation for these things too?
Assumptions, alongside observations, are the basis of science. One makes an assumption to test a theory and if the assumption can be validated, it helps bolster the theory. The problem with the God model is that there are no ways to test the assumptions integral to the theory. This does not mean the God model is wrong, just that it can't be validated except through faith, and therefore it is not science.
A theory derived theoretically by logic etc. is based on assumptions, like all logic. The problem is, if those assumptions are incorrect, the entire theory isn't necessarily true any more. That's why every statement about reality should rely as little as possible on as few assumptions as possible.
@mystic brew: Yes, I can support the statemetn that time can be a dimension, but I can't support that time wouldn't have existed always, or that the room dimensions wouldn't have existed always, unless there's some motivation for it. Which "universe" was created by big bang? Time and space and energy and exergy, or just exergy and some movement of matter? There's still no proof that those parts of the universe (time and space) hasn't existed always, and that it would have been created. Actually there's still no proof that both matter, energy, exergy, time and space hasn't existed always.
So what would the photographic lenses, on telescopes, if zoomed in far enough, record on them? Blackness? Can the non-existance have a color? If you could see the non-existance, it would be a paradox.
Zoomed back far enough you just see what the universe looked like the first moment it became transparent. It's not in visible light anymore though due to shifts caused by the universe expanding (think red-shift). It's radiowave length. I could probably find dozens of images of it given a bit of searching on Google.
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 16:12
Zoomed back far enough you just see what the universe looked like the first moment it became transparent. It's not in visible light anymore though due to shifts caused by the universe expanding (think red-shift). It's radiowave length. I could probably find dozens of images of it given a bit of searching on Google.
So if space and time didn't exist before this big boom, what sent out this light that was infrared or has become infrared when travelling through space? This infrared stuff however explains my own private 1 minute thought up theory hehe :grin:
Edit: and supposing you'd travel to the edge, would you "fall off the edge"?
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 16:14
Plus regarding the God model, you can indeed prove it's existence through a circular proof - define God as "the creator of the universe", then the universe must have been created by God.
:dizzy2: ~:confused: :wall:
Erm... you lost me right there.
I surrender. ~:cool:
:surrender:
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 16:20
:dizzy2: ~:confused: :wall:
Erm... you lost me right there.
I surrender. ~:cool:
:surrender:
Ok, let me explain it more simply: you can make something that is formally possible to consider a correct proof (even despite that it's a circular proof, yes I know it sounds odd), but that proof in fact isn't a proof in the sense you normally mean a proof should be (just something that formally looks like a proof), so nobody has any use for that "proof" in practise. So the paragraph I wrote above really says nothing at all, but it does so in a very deep way :grin:
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 17:15
Ok, let me explain it more simply: you can make something that is formally possible to consider a correct proof (even despite that it's a circular proof, yes I know it sounds odd), but that proof in fact isn't a proof in the sense you normally mean a proof should be (just something that formally looks like a proof), so nobody has any use for that "proof" in practise. So the paragraph I wrote above really says nothing at all, but it does so in a very deep way :grin:
Prove it. :bounce:
Seriously, if you want to learn more about the Big Bang and how there is no before, try Paul Davies "The Last Three Minutes". It's quite short and well written. Of course there is always Stephen Hawkin's "A Short History of Time".
As for proving how the creation of dimensions such as time and space happened, well, you're gonna have to learn super string theory. :book:
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 17:30
Prove it. :bounce:
Which of the things did you mean? Or was it just teasing :grin: ?
Seriously, if you want to learn more about the Big Bang and how there is no before, try Paul Davies "The Last Three Minutes". It's quite short and well written. Of course there is always Stephen Hawkin's "A Short History of Time".
As for proving how the creation of dimensions such as time and space happened, well, you're gonna have to learn super string theory. :book:
I would have checked it out, if I wasn't already forced to read some 2000 pages per month :wall:
Anyway I think these super strings and so on might just be a complicated and unintuitive way of saying something simple. Some examples of such situations:
- Einstein's theory of relativity says certain waves move straight through space, but space is bent. You could also say (easier to understand I think) that space is straight, but those certain waves bend off.
- Before Kepler it was said that the earth was the center of the solar system. Kepler stated the sun was the center. Both starting points could give pretty accurate models, but putting the sun in the middle made it easier to describe and understand the planet movements in few words.
So I think these super strings are just an overly complicated way of describing the universe. Some parts of it seem to just be assumptions - for example that not all dimensions have existed always...
Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2006, 20:27
Which of the things did you mean? Or was it just teasing :grin: ?
Just teasing :2thumbsup:
- Before Kepler it was said that the earth was the center of the solar system. Kepler stated the sun was the center. Both starting points could give pretty accurate models, but putting the sun in the middle made it easier to describe and understand the planet movements in few words.
Absolutely. I'm all for simplicity in explanations, but not at the expense of accuracy. It might be easier to accept the earth as the centre of the solar system for those of us who live on it - it seems intuitive - but it's WRONG. It also means you don't understand the planet's orbits because their observed movements don't match the calculations. So science gets even more bent out of shape. :freak:
The same as using the billiard balls/little solar system model to illustrate how electrons orbit atomic nuclei. Simple to understand, but ultimately wrong - and so all your scientific advances based on quantum mechanics are lost.
Once you have a better model, you discard the older less accurate one. That's progress. ~:thumb:
By the way, it was Copernicus that postulated the heliocentric theory (earth orbits the sun) and it was confirmed observationally by Galileo. Assumption, Theory, Observation, Validation. Beautiful, ain't it? :daisy:
Rodion Romanovich
03-15-2006, 21:57
Assumption, Theory, Observation, Validation. Beautiful, ain't it? :daisy:
Yes beautiful :2thumbsup: (but how do the flowers :daisy: fit into the picture? :wink:)
Papewaio
03-16-2006, 01:21
- Einstein's theory of relativity says certain waves move straight through space, but space is bent. You could also say (easier to understand I think) that space is straight, but those certain waves bend off.
It is easier to understand relativity without the effects of gravity (bent space).
That is why the easier version is refered to as special relativity... special because it refers to a flat spacetime (no gravity)... a restricted subset of the more general set of solutions.
While general relativity being the more difficult version to understand includes the effects of gravity. And by definition treats gravity as a geometric effect... in other words space is bent by gravity.
Rodion Romanovich
03-16-2006, 11:22
It is easier to understand relativity without the effects of gravity (bent space).
That is why the easier version is refered to as special relativity... special because it refers to a flat spacetime (no gravity)... a restricted subset of the more general set of solutions.
While general relativity being the more difficult version to understand includes the effects of gravity. And by definition treats gravity as a geometric effect... in other words space is bent by gravity.
Yes, but maybe you've heard this:
Passenger: Does this train stop at Princeton?
Einstein: One might as well say - does Princeton stop at this train?
What's the difference between that and this:
- Space is bent and things move straightly through it
- Space is straight and things move through bent paths through it
Banquo's Ghost
03-16-2006, 11:28
Yes beautiful :2thumbsup: (but how do the flowers :daisy: fit into the picture? :wink:)
Erm..just my attempt to simplify Copernican solar mechanics - look, it's easy, just think of the sun as a daisy - the corona is the petals and that bee is like, er, Jupiter but furry .... :embarassed:
OK, I'll get my coat. ~:wave:
Papewaio
03-16-2006, 23:59
Yes, but maybe you've heard this:
Passenger: Does this train stop at Princeton?
Einstein: One might as well say - does Princeton stop at this train?
What's the difference between that and this:
- Space is bent and things move straightly through it
- Space is straight and things move through bent paths through it
Einstein is talking about frames of reference.
The difference between space being bent and things going in bent paths is okay from a frame of reference point of view.
From an understanding of cause and effect, it is easier to understand it from the point of view of what is causing the change... space is bent = gravity, rather then things move in bent paths because of ?.
One has a cause and effect, the other just describes the effect.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.