Religion

[El Correcto]

A thing is universally accepted as true when no one can demonstrate that the opposite occasionally happens. It's on that, I think any logical person would agree that the universe could not be self-existent, because it would have to create itself from nothing.

No they would dismiss your assumption about nothing ever existing.
Only uniformed people claim the universe came from nothing or speak about “nothing” being a part of reality.

 

[BrownFlush]

No they would dismiss your assumption about nothing ever existing.
Only uniformed people claim the universe came from nothing or speak about “nothing” being a part of reality.

You can't do it, can you?

What does the Big Bang (theory) start with?

 

[El Correcto]

What does the Big Bang (theory) start with?

Big bang is the expansion of a “singularity”. My understanding of singularities is they are found at the core of neutron stars, black holes and the universe before the Big Bang, a singularity is kind of a way of saying we don’t really now but it is a very small but massive amount of mass and energy. I think the “infinitely” aspects of singularities is more of a math error than reality.

 

[El Correcto]

I guess singularities aren’t at the core of neutron stars but we still don’t really under the core of neutron stars either.
That stuff gets pretty wild and some of the hypothesis are worse than what a black hole does to the universe.

Neutron stars can become black holes though.

 

[BrownFlush]

Big bang is the expansion of a “singularity”. My understanding of singularities is they are found at the core of neutron stars, black holes and the universe before the Big Bang, a singularity is kind of a way of saying we don’t really now but it is a very small but massive amount of mass and energy. I think the “infinitely” aspects of singularities is more of a math error than reality.

I guess singularities aren’t at the core of neutron stars but we still don’t really under the core of neutron stars either.
That stuff gets pretty wild and some of the theories are worse than what a black hole does to the universe.

Neutron stars can become black holes though.

Sounds heavy and is packed with we don't know. The theories are wild. There's a big difference between what scientists believe and what scientists know. I'll tell ya, you have more faith than I do to believe this stuff. You know, things unprovable.

Self evident truths/facts are easier for me to put my faith in.
If you leave matter(forget its origin)to itself, matter cannot choose to act on its own. Matter can be acted upon by mind (intelligence), but not the other way around. Matter cannot produce life. That's a fact.
What is evident to me, and you can put down your attack hammer because I see it different, but just the enormous amount of planning and action (mind, intelligence and power) that would have been necessary in order to bring this orderly universe (order cannot come from disorder) and all the life systems we know into being, would have been impossible to happen by chance and luck with black holes and neutron stars coming outta no where.
I'm convinced because of what I see as obvious, that the First Cause(tough it out) was not lifeless matter but a highly intelligent mind.
"Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why didst thou make me thus?" - Romans 9:20

 

[El Correcto]

There are good arguments for god, I just don’t ever hear them from fundamentalists.
It’s one of the reasons when god is debated they are not there to defend Christianity if they are smart, just arguments for the idea of god and how god is real to people.

 

[BrownFlush]

Not debating God really, but offering necessary conclusions. Self evident truths. You reap what you sow. You can't plant corn and expect to get tomatoes.

Something cannot come from nothing. Creation demands a Creator. Life demands a Life Giver.
Design demands a Designer. The fact that the earth tilts at the right angle and gives us dependable seasons every year, that it completes a rotation on its axis every day and a revolution around the sun every year so that we can set our clocks and make our calendars. That all living organisms have dependable systems. Respiratory, circulation, nervous, etc. DNA alone should be enough for anyone to know we are no accident.
The fact of a conscience implies an intelligent law giver who has a set of standards of right and wrong. It sets apart from animals. What other reason could there be for a conscience, a sense of right and wrong, if there is no standard by which to order and measure it? This implies a revelation of the will of the Law-giver.
Some things are obvious even without the revelation of God. (Bible)



​

 

[BrownFlush]

Genesee 1:1 And man created God in his own image.

 

[tourists24]

1.9K views · 94K reactions | 👏👏👏 | Keren Gee | peteholmes · Original audio

👏👏👏. peteholmes · Original audio

www.facebook.com

hmmmm

 

[El Correcto]

1.9K views · 94K reactions | 👏👏👏 | Keren Gee | peteholmes · Original audio

👏👏👏. peteholmes · Original audio

www.facebook.com

hmmmm

Does a good job of explaining the problem with nothing. Believing in the idea of nothing is comparable to believing in god, it’s without evidence or any scientific backing.

 

[BrownFlush]

Believing in the idea of nothing is comparable to believing in god, it’s without evidence or any scientific backing.

Is this a fact or theory?

If you leave matter(forget its origin)to itself, matter cannot choose to act on its own. Matter can be acted upon by mind (intelligence), but not the other way around. Matter cannot produce life.

Are these facts or theories?

You reap what you sow. You can't plant corn and expect to get tomatoes.

Creation demands a Creator. Life demands a Life Giver.
Design demands a Designer.​

 

[vantexan]

Does a good job of explaining the problem with nothing. Believing in the idea of nothing is comparable to believing in god, it’s without evidence or any scientific backing.

You keep talking about science as if it's settled fact. It's the THEORY of Evolution. It's the Big Bang THEORY. I can look at what we do know, as in archaeology and geology, and see a lot of conflict with the Biblical narrative. But to say we know exactly what happened is incorrect. Much is theory. I see intelligent design. Not happenstance. Evolutionists want to discount everything but the glacial inevitable formation of complex systems. Creationists only want to believe the Biblical narrative right down to the Earth is only 6000-8000 years old. I suspect based on the geological and archeological record it's much, much older. With unexplained branches of humankind like the Neanderthals and Denisovans. With archeological sites from over 11,000 years ago. I don't know the true nature of God anymore than anyone else does. Evolutionists don't want to allow for an advanced civilization that may have altered life on Earth. Neither do Creationists. Everything is faith. Faith that they've gotten their theories right. Faith that men with primitive technology explained accurately their world around them. And consistent clues keep getting turned up that question all of the above. And anyone pointing them out is a threat to orthodoxy.

 

[El Correcto]

You keep talking about science as if it's settled fact. It's the THEORY of Evolution. It's the Big Bang THEORY. I can look at what we do know, as in archaeology and geology, and see a lot of conflict with the Biblical narrative. But to say we know exactly what happened is incorrect. Much is theory. I see intelligent design. Not happenstance. Evolutionists want to discount everything but the glacial inevitable formation of complex systems. Creationists only want to believe the Biblical narrative right down to the Earth is only 6000-8000 years old. I suspect based on the geological and archeological record it's much, much older. With unexplained branches of humankind like the Neanderthals and Denisovans. With archeological sites from over 11,000 years ago. I don't know the true nature of God anymore than anyone else does. Evolutionists don't want to allow for an advanced civilization that may have altered life on Earth. Neither do Creationists. Everything is faith. Faith that they've gotten their theories right. Faith that men with primitive technology explained accurately their world around them. And consistent clues keep getting turned up that question all of the above. And anyone pointing them out is a threat to orthodoxy.

There is a big difference in how scientist and creationists draw conclusions, different meanings of the word faith you could in bad faith apply to scientists as if they are some religious zealot treating Isaac newton like a god or that evolution is some sacred cow they are scared of being disproven.

No one is worried about evolution being disproven, maybe new info will come that could alter our understanding of it, but evolution itself the random mutations over long period of times, each new generation slightly different than the previous for better or worse, is about as proven as anything can be in this world.

You’re trying to introduce a radical skepticism that really isn’t warranted or on the same level of skepticism I bring to your religion.

 

[El Correcto]

Is this a fact or theory?

Are these facts or theories?

First is fact, there is no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of nothing.

Are these facts or theories?

Second one is schizo ramblings on matter trying to muddy the waters because you probably haven’t even heard of abiogenesis.

Last one is just more schizo Bible ramblings with a bunch of baseless assumptions that you just declare true(they are not).

 

[El Correcto]

You keep talking about science as if it's settled fact. It's the THEORY of Evolution. It's the Big Bang THEORY. I can look at what we do know, as in archaeology and geology, and see a lot of conflict with the Biblical narrative. But to say we know exactly what happened is incorrect. Much is theory. I see intelligent design. Not happenstance. Evolutionists want to discount everything but the glacial inevitable formation of complex systems. Creationists only want to believe the Biblical narrative right down to the Earth is only 6000-8000 years old. I suspect based on the geological and archeological record it's much, much older. With unexplained branches of humankind like the Neanderthals and Denisovans. With archeological sites from over 11,000 years ago. I don't know the true nature of God anymore than anyone else does. Evolutionists don't want to allow for an advanced civilization that may have altered life on Earth. Neither do Creationists. Everything is faith. Faith that they've gotten their theories right. Faith that men with primitive technology explained accurately their world around them. And consistent clues keep getting turned up that question all of the above. And anyone pointing them out is a threat to orthodoxy.

If you introduced the same level of skepticism that you do towards big bang or evolution to your religion, you would no longer care about the Bible or being a christian.
There are mountains of evidences and documented observations anyone can make, on the other side is a book of forged letters, false prophecies and disproven myths.

I guess science needs to have a magic man in the sky threatening you with eternal torture to get you to lower your skepticism.

 

[BrownFlush]

First is fact, there is no evidence of a creator, there is no evidence of nothing.

I didn't ask if there was evidence of a Creator. I asked if a creation would demand a Creator .
I'll ask it different since the words creation and Creator seem to give you cramps....
Does every house that's built, have a builder?

Second one is schizo ramblings on matter trying to muddy the waters because you probably haven’t even heard of abiogenesis.

No attempt to muddy waters. No hidden agenda. Abiogenesis? Another theory where if you pile enough time on something, say 5 billion years, some kind of organic"life" will come from an inanimate object.
I'm asking you. Can matter produce life?

Last one is just more schizo Bible ramblings with a bunch of baseless assumptions that you just declare true(they are not).

There's no bible in the questions. Baseless? Assumptions? lol.
So whatever you're calling them, they're not true?

I just had my yard landscaped. This lady came out. Measured and wrote stuff. We discussed what and how we wanted.
She came back with a blueprint where the fences, rocks, and all the plants would go.
What she designed on the paper wouldn't have happened in real life if she had not did what she did.
I guess, the design wouldn't have happened without the designer....

schizo Bible ramblings

lol... If you want have an honest discussion, you're gong to have to be honest.

 

[vantexan]

If you introduced the same level of skepticism that you do towards big bang or evolution to your religion, you would no longer care about the Bible or being a christian.
There are mountains of evidences and documented observations anyone can make, on the other side is a book of forged letters, false prophecies and disproven myths.

I guess science needs to have a magic man in the sky threatening you with eternal torture to get you to lower your skepticism.

Show me a better world if everyone strove to live the Christian life? You think your world of decadence, violence, abuse is better? Then I feel sorry for you.

 

[vantexan]

There is a big difference in how scientist and creationists draw conclusions, different meanings of the word faith you could in bad faith apply to scientists as if they are some religious zealot treating Isaac newton like a god or that evolution is some sacred cow they are scared of being disproven.

No one is worried about evolution being disproven, maybe new info will come that could alter our understanding of it, but evolution itself the random mutations over long period of times, each new generation slightly different than the previous for better or worse, is about as proven as anything can be in this world.

You’re trying to introduce a radical skepticism that really isn’t warranted or on the same level of skepticism I bring to your religion.

Still a theory that hasn't been proven.

 

[BrownFlush]

 

[El Correcto]

You think your world is better?

I think my view of it is more correct than anything primitive people wrote thousands of years ago.

Still a theory that hasn't been proven.

Evolution is undeniably true. There are things people don’t fully understand, but what we do understand is fact. This is a ridiculous argument, you’re trying to play semantics to make your skepticism not seem childish.