OK, so now you are just saying nonsense.
Go research it. The birthday of Mithras is December 25th.
What's in that gap? God started the Big Bang, then stayed absent for the next 14Bn years?
But I am asking.
OK, so now you are just saying nonsense.
Go research it. The birthday of Mithras is December 25th.
What's in that gap? God started the Big Bang, then stayed absent for the next 14Bn years?
But I am asking.
Why, because it is something you cannot conceive? What existed before the Big Bang?
12/25 is not a biblically significant date, and neither is the birth of Christ. You are confusing the adoptions of the Catholic Church with Christianity and Biblical Scripture.
I am so tired of answering this. God didn't "start" the Big Bang... God CREATED the universe, which includes all of time. YOUR perception of time has nothing to do with whatever God may experience in what we know as time. Time is as integral to our universe as space is. So, there is no way for God to "stay" anything. Have you not read any of my posts on this subject?
The problem is that you aren't going to buy any legitimate reason for faith. From everything you've said, you can't believe in God until there is evidence to do so, which leaves no room for faith. So for me to try to get you to "buy" my reasoning would be a waste of my time.
Nothing.
It's confused, because it's concoction from various sources. I am not confused about that fact.
The 'big bang' is the beginning of space and time. I think your physics is lacking.
Steady on, you just crossed the cop out line.
Yeah, but they all sound like weak excuses. Mere allegory, no reasoning behind any of it, just prose. Not good.
Try laying a legitimate reason on me, and see what happens.
phlog, would it at all be possible for you to step back from yourself long enough to actually continue this conversation? You are arguing with points that aren't even being made.
That was my original point. Re-read the first bullet on post 418.
I am not confused about history's corruption of the original scriptures either (and for that matter, I don't even accept the NT as scripture), but you cannot say that the Biblical Jesus is a myth, and then use non-biblical myths to support your point.
What have I said that would indicate I didn't think the big bang was the beginning of space and time? Again, re-read post 418 if you must.
Again, you are making my point. You refuse to accept anything that might exist beyond our physical, material universe. That is why you cannot accept faith, and why I will never be able to get your buy-in on MY faith... And knowing that is why I have no interest in trying.
You still haven't given me an example of "Statement X is an excuse for issue Y." Until you do, I will dismiss your use of the term excuse as rhetoric.
I have, and you call it an excuse (and fail to explain how or why, I might add). If you continue going nowhere with your derision I am just going to stop responding.
That was my original point. Re-read the first bullet on post 418.
I am not confused about history's corruption of the original scriptures either (and for that matter, I don't even accept the NT as scripture), but you cannot say that the Biblical Jesus is a myth, and then use non-biblical myths to support your point.
What have I said that would indicate I didn't think the big bang was the beginning of space and time? Again, re-read post 418 if you must.
Again, you are making my point. You refuse to accept anything that might exist beyond our physical, material universe. That is why you cannot accept faith, and why I will never be able to get your buy-in on MY faith... And knowing that is why I have no interest in trying.
You still haven't given me an example of "Statement X is an excuse for issue Y." Until you do, I will dismiss your use of the term excuse as rhetoric.
I have, and you call it an excuse (and fail to explain how or why, I might add). If you continue going nowhere with your derision I am just going to stop responding.
S
science man
Guest
Exactly what I said before. If you're going byu that theory, you might as well say that there's a chance of a trillion meteors hitting the Earth at the very second you're reading this.
Well, technically - there probably IS a chance of that... (however remote it may be)
With that said, on what basis do you believe the existence of the supernatural is such a remote possibility?
S
science man
Guest
sigh omg
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST THINK ABOUT THE MATHEMATICS OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I said 'nothing', which means there was no God existing before the big bang. Nothing. As a word, it has meaning, it means 'nothing'.
Sorry, what point do you think I'm making? Other then scripture is nor a reliable source of information, of course.
You said:
"The gap is again in the pre-14b years noted earlier."
There was no 'earlier'. Time and space were created in the same instance. There was no time before the 'Big Bang'.
No I am not! I am saying that if something exists outside our physical Universe that can have any effect on us, like a God, there is an interface that projects into our reality, and that interface should be detectable from our side. We have not seen it yet!
I'm just sayin'... Quantum indeterminancy and all that.
:bugeye: You didn't answer my question... at all.
Ok; in one of my previous posts on this subject (in this very thread - I really wish you would keep up), I also noted that the idea of the universe coming from nothing was more incomprehensible than a deity coming from nothing, as the properties of a deity would explain such inscrutability. The properties of a random natural event do not.
You said the Biblical Jesus was a myth, and then to 'support' that statement you brought up some myths that were established post-Bible - which says nothing at all about the Biblical Jesus. So, based on what are you saying Biblical scripture is not a reliable source of information?
A supposition for which you have no more or less evidence than the existence of a supernatural being existing "before" (or rather, "outside") the Big Bang. Given the lack of evidence for either supposition, we are left with Ocham's Razor - which is a simpler explanation? I argue that the deity is the simpler explanation in that it actually has properties that provide an explanation. "Nothing" on the other hand doesn't answer anything.
Answer my previous question from last night. Why would a deity create a universe with physical laws that don't obey its will? Why would it need to establish said reality with flawed laws, such that it needed to provide secondary interjection? I have been saying since the beginning that God's will is made manifest through the laws of nature, so there is no reason to think there should be anything detectable from our side at all, as it would all be expressed through nature itself.
You really don't know anything about it, do you?
Why yes. In that example, the DVD now ages.
But only in relation to the external timeline. The aging of the disc is not affected by the timeline of the movie itself in the slightest.
We are all born without religion, so why do you assume that I or one of my ancestors had to be converted for me to be atheist? The truth of the matter is I haven't been converted from atheist (without theism) to someone elses crazy doctrine. so I am still as Nature intended: atheist.
p.s. I don't think I am atheist, but that doesn't mean I can let ridiculous statements slide.
p.s. I don't think I am atheist, but that doesn't mean I can let ridiculous statements slide.
S
science man
Guest
oh sry I misread what you said. I believe on the basis of the odds of anything else (such as chance)
S
science man
Guest
No, it is you who doesn't understand probability. Btw have you ever read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins?
I think you are going to have to be more specific, as this last statement really says nothing at all. So let me try to clarify. On what basis do you believe the chances of there being a supernatural deity outside our realm of material existence? Frankly I don't see how any such odds could be calculated - and "incalculable" does not translate to "really, really high". I can accept someone saying that because it is incalculable they have no reason to believe in it, but to actually lay odds on it would be illogical.
The data of the disc; however, is affected by aging. On a side note, the timeline of the disc isn't necessarily determined by the disc. It's often determined by the disc's data and the disc reader.
OK; I'm not suggesting that the universe is ACTUALLY a DVD... If you don't get the metaphor by now I give up.