|
|
Post by anonymous on May 31, 2005 21:56:14 GMT -5
Is it possible that the big bang could have taken place?
|
|
|
|
Post by Timothy Newman on Jun 1, 2005 4:33:12 GMT -5
Scientist cant even come up with enough proof that this Big bang ever really happened. Its as if they dont want to beleive in creation by God so they have to try and come up with another way. How could all of this life, complex life have been created by an accident. Simple it couldnt have.
God said BANG and it happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Jun 1, 2005 14:18:27 GMT -5
As I am reading in my book "The case for Faith," by Lee Strobel he talks about scientists and atheists trying to prove that the big bang theory is true and that there is no creator. First off the big bang theory says that the explosion occured from an infantesimol molecule so small it couldn't be imagined. There own statement is in contradiction, because if it is infinitely small then there would be nothing. Second where did this infintesimolly object come from. The big bang theorists can't answer that. It all came from one Creator and that is God.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan forgottologin on Jun 7, 2005 7:11:30 GMT -5
As far the origin of reality goes, it's impossible for something to come out of nothing. 'Big Bang' just means when something started to happen. So ah ... it's absolutely certain that the Big Bang happened because we exist. But the nature of it (what caused it? was it even caused?), as well as the nature of what happened after it (strict darwinian evolution? guided evolution/Intelligent Design? etc ..), is a little contested.
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzy on Jun 18, 2005 8:13:41 GMT -5
Scientist cant even come up with enough proof that this Big bang ever really happened. Its as if they dont want to beleive in creation by God so they have to try and come up with another way. How could all of this life, complex life have been created by an accident. Simple it couldnt have. God said BANG and it happened. Not to disrespect you, but can religious people prove that God created everything? All I hear is that scientists can't prove this or scientists can't prove that... As far as I know, it can't really be proved for either argument, so I usually tend to stay away from it... Religion is about faith, and what you believe - but you can't really give solid facts about how we were created. Just writings from a book that "tell you". Scientists on the other hand have tons of theories about what happened based on scientific calculations, but they can't really be proven either because it's impossible to go to the beginning of existance and find out. Since neither side can give me solid proof, I will tend to go the scientific way because science is something that can be proven most of the time, whereas religion is strictly about faith and believing. |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jun 23, 2005 9:14:00 GMT -5
Interestingly, it's hard to say what exactly constitutes 'proof'. We need to be sure of things, to "feel sure" of them, but we don't always need it to be 100% solid before we believe it. (for example, all knowledge is born out of faith. Even 'I think therefore I am' was eventually changed into 'I think therefore thinking exists' and then changed into 'I think therefore something is happening'. So the 'starting point' of knowledge needs us to have faith in what we see, experience, that reality is coherent, etc ... just a side track)
In regards to what we believe, I think we look more for a level of psycho certainty, not strict 100% unavoidable logic.
But if we're still talking about origins in specific, then it isn't a question that science can/should answer because it is a metaphysical question in nature. In other words, it's not possible to use scientific explinations to explain the origin of reality as we know it because the origin is what brought about the very things science depends on to make theories.
When I percieve that science is disagreeing with the bible (not religion in general, I really have no desire to see Hinduism defended), then I think it's best to 'withhold judgement' until the theories can be refined or my understanding of the bible is better researched. Something that is interesting to me: Darwinian evolution was widely regarded as fact for the last while until recently, when Behe and a few others started looking into the idea of irreducable complexity. Evolution works via small changes over large periods of time, but if an organism consists of parts that, if you took any of them away, the organism stops working, it's impossible for that organism to have arisn from small changes. Any previous state would make it non-functional and thus no small changes could be made because there would be no organism for the changes to be made on.
man, now I'm late for my class. Mach's gut! And Todd, mein deutsch ist nicht sehr gut, aber horen sie mir. Du muss abfeuern der Feind! Bis später!
|
|
|
|
Post by danagain on Jun 23, 2005 9:15:16 GMT -5
*change 'Du muss abfeuren der Feind' to 'Du muss der Feind abfeuren' crazy duetsch grammer!
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd on Jun 23, 2005 11:27:14 GMT -5
Aber mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut auch. Dein Deutsch ist gut und dass ist C :oL. Oh and don't forget to bring home some of those Euros when you come Dan. We miss ya at paintball.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Jun 23, 2005 19:29:28 GMT -5
I havnt really read much in the Bible, so im just going to say this (not trying to offend anyone). If the Big Bang can't be proven then how can God be proven? How do we know God was the creator of the universe and life, and if he is, thats a pretty old extraterrestrial being. If we can't prove God or the fact that the universe and life was created by a 'Bang' then obviously it's not supposed to be found out and if we do find out what will happen?
None of these answers can ever be proven because of the little supplies on Earth we have to work with as we are running out of gasoline for fuel and we have found very little other ways to fuel a ship weighing over 500 tons to not even go to Pluto and back, or for even communications at that distance is what pretty much seems impossible but the fact that we made it to mars appauls me. Why did we come up with the 'Big Bang' theory anyhow? How could something like this exist and before the 'Big Bang' what was there, just an empty white space as we usually picture it in cartoons? How do we know we arn't part of a 'String Theory' that is part of another life form so much bigger than us? But then how do we know there is such thing as a 'String Theory'? These questions you can't answer so how can you prove that God or the 'Big Bang' even existed or still exists?
|
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Jun 23, 2005 22:33:15 GMT -5
Well the "Big Bang" is a theory, and God is a belief. Theories need to be proven and accepted by a majority of the population, and beliefs can only be proven by the person who holds them, and only proven to themselves. Instead of focusing on a scientific theory that is impossible to be proven within the next few generations, try to focus on your own beliefs. In the end you will get more out of it. Science and history can have a great effect on a belief, be sure to research the TRUTHS before digesting scientific theories. Just please don't believe in something because you were raised to, you were made with your own choice of what best fits YOUR beliefs. Too many people fall into a rut believing in the same things their parents, or friends believe. Hold true to yourself and make your own decision.
Is it possible that the "Big Bang" could have taken place. Sure, but remember it is also possible that once I click this "Post Reply" button a meteor will fall from the sky and kill me. Though it is just as possible, it won't stop be from actually doing it, and living my life as I believe I should live it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jun 29, 2005 3:58:43 GMT -5
Just remember, what we're after is the truth. The truth is still true regardless of who believes it. A dog is not a cat regardless of who I am. God either exists, is personal, communicated to us, or he did not -- regardless of who I am. Belief 'for me' and 'for you' regards belief in matters of opinion, not truth. For me, hot dogs taste good. For you, hot dogs taste bad. However, if I say, 'For me, black is white', then I'm not talking about actual black and white, I'm talking about my perception of them. The color black is still not the color white, regardless of who is who. In the exact same way, it is important to pursue what is -true-, not what -feels good- or is true -for me-.
Also, belief 'for me' usually is regarding the existential, the living, part of my life. Does this philosophy fill me with wonder/meaning/etc...(something experience-oriented)? This is very important, but it's not the only test for truth. It still must correspond with reality (the scientific testing, historical testing, archeology, etc). It also must be at least logically coherent (it cannot say, for example, that God is personal and non-personal. this is affirming two opposite things ... we can assume it is false).
So science is very important in discerning what is true. However, science doesn't affirm what is true, it only gets rid of other options. We can 'narrow down the playing field' (greek gods aren't believed any more because they were constructed to explain repeatable phenomona that we have discovered, via science among other things, are actually just properties of the universe. God of the gaps is what it's called usually. this differs from the christian God in that the christian God explains phenomona that are -not- repeatable, for example, the origin of the universe. This is not a gap in scientific understanding because it answers a question that is unscientific in nature). And when you narrow the playing field down you make 'guesses' as to what is really happening. This is a hypothesis.
In conclusion (believe me, this is far more enjoyable than studying for my mind-nummingly boring german final), we believe in various things. Some of those things are true, some are false. Does God exist? Apply the tests and see if it 'fits' with reality (does it confirm what you've experienced in life, does it jive with reality -- the science of it, and is it logicaly consistent with itself). We won't find out 100%, but at least we'll be able to look back and say, 'Hey, I've looked at the options out there, this one seems to be the best.'
|
|
