Big Bang may not have happened.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Everything material has a cause.

Because you cannot borrow a dollar from an unlimited number of broke guys.

Not a fan of the kalam argument, but rather the Aristotelian-Thomistic, which proposes that there must be an uncaused cause even if the universe were eternal.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Imagine all the other things we think we know that we don't know jack about.

The one thing I am sure about is that virtually everything we read in newspapers, scientific magazines, and see on TV is wrong or bullshit.

It's all either purposeful agenda driven bullshit, people that are unaware they are misinformed passing on bad information, people suffering cognitive biases that are unable to process information objectively, people that are bought and paid to lie, people that are afraid to tell the truth because it will impact their careers negatively, morons that got into the their position for reasons other than merit, and people that were very successful in one area that mistakenly believe that makes them experts at everything.

It's all a lie.

If I could make a bet at an intergalactic casino and get the answer right away I'd bet that evolution as presently understood is WAY wrong, Einstein was wrong about almost everything (even where he's right it's for the wrong reason), the Big Bang is wrong etc...

IMO, it's all so complex it's beyond human comprehension. They are millions of things going on that we don't know about because lack the senses to observe them and intelligence to understand them. We are bunch of arrogant apes.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Clocker

If you knew for certain that the big bang did or didn't happen, what difference would it make in your life?

Would it make any difference to you if the universe actually had a beginning and was created by an all-powerful, all-knowing deity?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

We are bunch of arrogant apes.

This sums it up quite nicely.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by Actor

Pope Pius XI wanted to make the Big Bang part of church doctrine. Lemaitre advised against it, telling the Pope that the science could change.
Pope Pius XII (successor to Pius XI) declared that religion and evolution could co-exist. I don't think he mentioned the Big Bang.
Cite a source for that. I don't think atheists panicked about anything.
In order to support a static universe Einstein had to add another term to his equations in the General Theory of Relativity. Lemaitre's theory supports the idea that this extra term is zero. I personally think it may be greater than zero, albeit very small.
No, he was not. Look it up.

Okay Sparky, lets take these one by one. Lemaitre advised against it because he was an adamant proponent of the separation of church and state.

Pope Pius XII did mention it, he was an adamant supporter. This is his quote. “It would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux (Let there be Light), when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say ‘Therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists!"

Einstein finally accepted an expanding universe and therefore should have accepted a definite starting point. That was his big mistake.

Well over 90% of atheists panic, get angry or nervous anytime someone mentions a plausible reason or explanation for God. I get my source from personal observation. What I find so screwed up about atheists is that they openly root for there not to be an afterlife. When given the choice between being worm food or a glorious eternity, they choose the former. To me there is something seriously wrong with you people who take such a fatalistic approach to life and death.

Where I get a kick out of you guys is when you say there is no proof or evidence for God. My response is always the same. "You want physical proof for a spiritual being? S**t you should become a f*****g comedian." LOL

Then when an atheist brings up the Multiverse as an alternative to the Big Bang, I ask where is just one shred of evidence or proof that there is another Universe out there. That's right, why is it you guys make wild speculations and convince yourself of things that are impossible to test and observe but yet are so sure that it is just a matter of time before science proves it. The reason is because of your absolute hatred for the possibility for a supernatural being and an afterlife.

So final question, why is it that there is a possibility that there are an infinite amount of Universe's without any proof or a eternal Universe that has been proven wrong but yet absolutely zero chance that a Creator exists. Just curious as to how you can be so sure there is nothing after death.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The one thing I am sure about is that virtually everything we read in newspapers, scientific magazines, and see on TV is wrong or bullshit.

It's all either purposeful agenda driven bullshit, people that are unaware they are misinformed passing on bad information, people suffering cognitive biases that are unable to process information objectively, people that are bought and paid to lie, people that are afraid to tell the truth because it will impact their careers negatively, morons that got into the their position for reasons other than merit, and people that were very successful in one area that mistakenly believe that makes them experts at everything.

It's all a lie.

If I could make a bet at an intergalactic casino and get the answer right away I'd bet that evolution as presently understood is WAY wrong, Einstein was wrong about almost everything (even where he's right it's for the wrong reason), the Big Bang is wrong etc...

IMO, it's all so complex it's beyond human comprehension. They are millions of things going on that we don't know about because lack the senses to observe them and intelligence to understand them. We are bunch of arrogant apes.

Actually, we're a bunch of lost, blind, dead souls. I don't say apes because they're not made in the image of their Creator; whereas, we are.

Perhaps the only book on the planet that can actually shed real light on questions like this is the Holy Bible, which claims throughout to be the divinely inspired Word of God.

[classhandicapper]

What I find so screwed up about atheists is that they openly root for there not to be an afterlife. When given the choice between being worm food or a glorious eternity, they choose the former. To me there is something seriously wrong with you people who take such a fatalistic approach to life and death.

The reason is because of your absolute hatred for the possibility for a supernatural being and an afterlife.

I don't have a problem with atheism or agnosticism. I have no issue with people that require evidence/proof before believing something. But I think you are on to something here.

There is a subset of atheists (primarily on the left) that are actively hostile to religion and the idea of a God. For them it's not just about science and wanting proof before they personally believe something. They want to remove God from society and impose their will. They want to be "god". And if someone believes in God, sin, and objective morality that comes from God, it threatens their goal of imposing their own values on everyone else.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Would it make any difference to you if the universe actually had a beginning and was created by an all-powerful, all-knowing deity?

Do you have some evidence that that is the case?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Do you have some evidence that that is the case?

The Creation Model is the only one that makes a lick of sense, especially when understood in the context of divine revelation, which the bible claims to be. Creationism presents far fewer philosophical and logical problems than any other theory.

Since most scientists believe the universe had a beginning (and will also have an end), then it must be asked how did the universe come into existence? Did it create itself? But this isn't logically plausible since self-creation is absurd, since it violates the Law of Noncontradiction.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Creation Model is the only one that makes a lick of sense, especially when understood in the context of divine revelation, which the bible claims to be. Creationism presents far fewer philosophical and logical problems than any other theory.

That's not evidence, that's faith. Too many people confuse the two. You are saying believe the bible to be right because the bible claims to be right.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Clocker

That's not evidence, that's faith. Too many people confuse the two. You are saying believe the bible to be right because the bible claims to be right.

No, that's not what I said. I said the Creationism is the most sensible, reasonable and logical worldview, especially when understood through the lens of scripture. After all, the bible purports to be divine truth that shines light on such topics.

And by the way, whatever worldview you subscribe to requires faith. You and I were not around at the beginning of time. Neither was anyone else, including all the forensic scientists, who to this day are still trying to solve the mystery of the origin of the universe.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by zico20

Okay Sparky, lets take these one by one. Lemaitre advised against it because he was an adamant proponent of the separation of church and state.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by zico20

Pope Pius XII did mention it, he was an adamant supporter. This is his quote. “It would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux (Let there be Light), when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, science has confirmed the contingency ...

Definition of contingency: an event that may but is not certain to occur

Originally Posted by zico20

... of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place.

Non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by zico20

We say ‘Therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists!"

Non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by zico20

Einstein finally accepted an expanding universe and therefore should have accepted a definite starting point.

How do you know he did not? Can you cite a source?

Originally Posted by zico20

Well over 90% of atheists panic, ...

I don't.

Originally Posted by zico20

... get angry or nervous anytime someone mentions a plausible reason or explanation for God.

I've never heard a "plausible or explanation for God."

Originally Posted by zico20

I get my source from personal observation.

Hardly an unbiased source.

Originally Posted by zico20

What I find so screwed up about atheists is that they openly root for there not to be an afterlife.

I do not. However, the Christian teaching is that you are going to burn forever for something you did not do, but was done by an ancestor whose existence is highly doubtful.

Originally Posted by zico20

When given the choice between being worm food or a glorious eternity, they choose the former.

Choice does not enter into it. There simply is no evidence for the latter, appealing as it may be.

Originally Posted by zico20

"You want physical proof for a spiritual being?

Proof would be nice, but by definition anything spiritual cannot be proven.

Originally Posted by zico20

Then when an atheist brings up the Multiverse as an alternative to the Big Bang, ..

I do not. The jury is still out on the multiverse hypothesis.

Originally Posted by zico20

... why is it you guys make wild speculations and convince yourself of things that are impossible to test and observe but yet are so sure that it is just a matter of time before science proves it.

I don't believe any scientist thinks that.

Originally Posted by zico20

Just curious as to how you can be so sure there is nothing after death.

I'm not sure. But that does not make the thesis correct either way. To argue that is does is called the Fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

After all, the bible purports to be divine truth that shines light on such topics.

Circular argument.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Circular argument.

No , it's not. I simply stated what the bible claims. I did not say that the bible is true because it says so.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No , it's not. I simply stated what the bible claims.

Why should we believe what the Bible claims?

Originally Posted by boxcar

I did not say that the bible is true because it says so.