Jb
Tsun in the streets
...and an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent deity makes sense right?
Comming from someone that chooses to belive it, yes.
...and an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent deity makes sense right?
Comming from someone that chooses to belive it, yes.
Then why question those who believe in the big bang theory?
I didn't, I just said I don't belive it, the same way others don't belive in a God.
But I don't think people can even take the Big Bang Theory as sereiously as Religion, from a defenceive point,atleast. Just my thought on it.
My source for all this information: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-the-big-bang-theory-vs-gods-word
christiancourier
Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).
I have studied some of the Big Bang theory. I just do not see how it is supported.
we still don't know what gravity even is
Okay, so basically the big bang theory states that everything in the universe came from a single "cosmic egg", right? A ball of tightly packed matter? And where did the ball of matter come from in the first place, you tell me. You can't; it's a shortcoming of that theory. There is no scientific proof to tell anyone where that first "egg" came from.
(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).
(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe...
(3)...does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform...
Well put.Modern religion is holding us back, there’s no doubt in my mind, and that’d due to religions influence bleeding into strictly non-religious issues. Christianity does provide appropriate moral guidance for many aspects of life, that intention is noble, but followers of religion often misinterpret age old doctrine to suit their own individual beliefs and agendas, which poses a distinct threat to human progress and to general harmony (religion meddling in scientific advances and Islamic fundamentalism say a big hello). A vast majority of Christians are harmless, what they believe grants them with a certain degree of comfort and happiness, something which I fully condone and support, but I personally believe Christianity would be best served as a more insular organisation. Like minded individuals meeting to share in worship is fine and should be widely accepted, but unfortunately we all know of the somewhat unaccepting nature Christianity has towards certain sections of society, although that isn’t my point.
My main concern comes with the intervention of religion in irrelevant situations, specifically, politics and science. Much of the bible’s moral teachings are relevant today, but Christianity itself cannot claim responsibility for the basic steps towards common sense humanity has taken. Thou shalt not kill is a perfect example of an appropriate commandment, but others, such as not committing adultery, is more frowned upon, still wrong, but not in the league of murder. Basic guide lines are helpful to society, but that’s pretty much where Christianity’s usefulness ends.
I’m not against Christians, but those optional beliefs should hold no sway over our progress. When people say stem cell research is against god, or abortion is against god, is when religious people lose their integrity in my opinion. A belief should be a simple thing, if you’re against an issue, don’t concern yourself with it, but the fact that people try to apply religion to issues that don’t even affect them, is what truly baffles me. When individuals use religion to restrict progress is when the cons of Christianity’s influence on culture become apparent. It’s ironic really, many politically minded Christians protest against abortion, claiming it as murder and somehow connect the issue to god, yet fiercely oppose stem cell research? Same deal as when some religious sects refuse blood transfusions or using medical advancements to save them, because they are labouring under the assumption they are already ‘saved’. Stem cell research is necessary to concur many of the ailments mankind has previously been unable to control, yet with one hand, Christians condemn abortion as murder, but also condemn stem cell research with the other, despite its potential to save lives? They apply god to science and make it a question of what we shouldn’t be allowed to do, instead of what we can accomplish.
Basically, I’d much rather we as a society could become an evolved culture, free of religious intervention, where science and technology were treated as the new faith so we can concentrate on something useful instead of waiting to see who draws last blood in the next holy war.
This comment.It's not the religion, it's the people.....
It's not the religion itself, its the people who carry on with it.
But is it not the religion that drives these people to carry on with it?
All religions try to tell or illustrate valuable lessons or morals.
Well, who exactly is to say our universe is orderly? Not only do quantum physics debunk that, but we can't really say our universe is organized considering there isn't another one we know of to compare it with.I have studied some of the Big Bang theory. I just do not see how it is supported.
(I know that gravity is a theory, and we still don't know what gravity even is)
Okay, so basically the big bang theory states that everything in the universe came from a single "cosmic egg", right? A ball of tightly packed matter? And where did the ball of matter come from in the first place, you tell me. You can't; it's a shortcoming of that theory. There is no scientific proof to tell anyone where that first "egg" came from.
There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:
(1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).
(2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
(3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
My source for all this information: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/133-the-big-bang-theory-vs-gods-word
And you ask me "where did God come from then?"
I don't know.
But your explanation is no better.
I don't know if that's always an accurate way to express it.
Religions claim a truth about the nonphysical world, and they then promise the key to happiness/peace/salvation/honor/whathaveyou according to that claim, and give a set of rules or guidelines (or rituals, to be technical) you need to obey to earn this key. Religions serve to provide comfort and structure, and relief from the fear of mortality, to whatever population they exist in.
The value or morality of any religion only exists insofar as it serves that religion's purpose. If you ask me, people bring their values and moral intuitions to their religion (rather than deriving them all from their religion), and then define them in terms of the situations the religion calls attention to.
tl;dr - Religions give you rules to achieve whatever particular afterlife condition they're promising; they don't necessarily contain lessons or morals developed by the religion and extrapolated outside of it.