CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The Big Bang Theory is false.
The Big Bang Theory is false. In the name, it already shows it. The Big Bang THEORY. A theory is something that isn't scientifically proven. The Big Bang Theory started out as a singularity and it got so dense it exploded, and we all know the rest. The question is, what created that singularity? It did not just magically appear one day. How do you think that singularity got there, other than from God?
Reading is one thing but not ignoring is another. The religious ones here (can't recall who hasn't... it's that bad), on this site, are given plenty of evidence, logic, thinking material, and they ignore all of it.
It's almost as though theists ignore reality in order to sustain their beliefs ... isn't that somewhat telling?
Not saying that religion + science can't go together, before I became an atheist that's what I believed, but it's undeniable that critical thinking is not something that religion teaches.
Critical thinking requires having an open mind and that requires questioning. They are not allowed to question or they'll just get cooked.
It's not even sad anymore, it's rather funny - that's how very sad it is.
Agreed, some people seem to put their heads in the sand a little bit, and ignore the rest of the world, listening to their own stories, proven by their own logic, while the rest of the world just gets ignored, along with all pieces of empirical evidence.
But, there is hope yet. Maybe not for Christianity, but this is definitely an interesting read. If you're lazy, just look at the fourth paragraph, and the author. Not all theists claim that their religion has to be absolutely true, but I feel this is because Buddhism has a much more philosophical aspect than other major religions, so I'm not predicting it catches on.
The Bible is just another reason to believe in something if God was really alive magic would have been all around the world, and everyone's dream would have been answered.
No, there really is a lot of evidence for some things in the Bible. For example, there is evidence that there was the great flood, there is evidence for how the universe was created, there is evidence for several other things that science cannot prove. The fact is, that there are some things that neither can prove, some things that one can prove, but they very rarely both support different things entirely.
For example, there is evidence that there was the great flood,
Ummm, no. There is absolutely no evidence for a global flood, such and event is impossible. Where did the water go? How did life attain its current degree of diversity or even recover from such a cataclysmic? Why is there not evidence of such an event in the exact same lithographic strata all over the globe?
Now, yes....there is evidence of many localized floods all over the Earth. Not surprising since we see localized floods all over, every year. Water does that. But a global flood that eradicated nearly all life? Nope. Not a shred of evidence.
there is evidence for how the universe was created
"God said let ther be light, and there was"- Not exactly a detailed recounting, huh? Really easy to use confirmation bias and say that was the Big Bang, especially when the original source is extremely vague. As with almost tales of God's being and actions.
there is evidence for several other things that science cannot prove.
Such as?
The fact is, that there are some things that neither can prove, some things that one can prove,
What has religion ever proved?
but they very rarely both support different things entirely.
Creation vs. Evolution? Afterlife vs. deomposition? Results of Prayer vs. Reality?
"How did life attain its current degree of diversity[?]"
The Bible explains that, too. According to the Bible, Noah took two of each and every animal on board with him and his family.
"How did life ... even recover from such a cataclysmic?"
Life recovered when it was released into the wild again and it began to breed. That is how - as explained in the Bible.
"Why is there no evidence ... all over the Globe?"
There is evidence of how it happened all over the globe. How else would certain creatures be fossilised to effectively and efficiently?
"Nope. Not a shred of evidence"
As I have explained, there is all kinds of evidence shown in the video above.
Not exactly detailed"
The Big Bang Theory has all sorts of flaws in it, too. Such as how all of the particles in the universe just happened to be in the same place. Why were they in the same place? Well, it's not exactly detailed.
"Such as?"
Science cannot explain these six things in the world: http://www.cracked.com/article_16871_6-insane-discoveries-that-science-cant-explain_p2.html , whereas God can. Discoveries such as the huge balls in Costa Rica? God could have used them for punishing people he didn't like - and why not? He's already flooded the entirety of the world. The Bloop, especially, is something that I think religion can explain that science cannot. Religion could put it down to a number of things.
Out of kindness and curiosity, I watched both parts. I don't have the desire or inclination to point out every piece of fallacious information, every spurious claim and every bastardization of fundamental logical skills...but a couple points:
This whole "Things that happen today can't explain (insert example here)...." that weaves throughout this whole thing like a bad burrito down the digestive system is (a) wrong and (b) wrong for a totally different reason:
a) the world is full of examples of many of these things happening RIGHT NOW. And yes, rivers can and will cut downward channels, silt layers lay unimpeded and so many other things that this video claims doesn't happen but are found in countless geology journals.
b) yes, some things that show up in stratigraphic records would have been caused by things that are no longer active, but we also know that the Earth has gone through MANY changes in its 4.56 billion year lifespan, each era with its own unique characteristics and effects. Where I live is now a mountainous region with plains to the east. But I have personally gone up to rock formations with my geology class and seen evidence of it being a desert, being underwater, being a lush forest, being perfectly flat. All over the course of billions of years, all leaving evidence. The kind of changes that could do that AND leave evidence are long, slow processes. The reason we don't see glaciers loitering up and down continents is because, right now, we are lucky enough not to live in an Ice age.
Going on....the use of Mt. St. Helens at the intro and later on is, well....a very stupid thing for their producers to use, because it actually defeats their point. They actually carefully demonstrate how a volcano, which is poetically the EXACT OPPOSITE of a flood, can create results that are similar to what we would see in a flood. Basically what they are saying is "see, very different processes can create similar results! But ignore that last statement...only a flood could do this!"
And the biology lesson in the second bit is missing one huge point: Sure we can hook up a lion and a tiger, and make a liger. Zebra and horse make a zorse. Cool. Buuuut: Ligers and Zorses are infertile. They cannot produce beyond two or three generations because the constituent species are two far apart. And general rates of speciation mixed fossil record appearances of the big cats and horse family are totally consistent with evolution and the normal time span of it. He's talking about homogenization instead of speciation, but then tries to support it with speciation via wolfs/dogs. Hilarious, man...
And the whole thing about fresh water/salt water floating in different levels would actually make sence...if we didn't know a thing about marine biology. Thankfully we do. Water filters out light. The deeper you go, the darker. We therefore have stratified water ecosystems, and most plants and animals are perfectly fine tune to their on strata. Most marine animals that live on the top layer, like sharks and whales would not live long at deeper, darker levels for several reasons. You put a layer of freshwater atop the salt water and everything in the salt water is bumped down a few strata. It would be like putting a jungle bird in the desert and then betting how long it could survive.
So, I think that is well more than the piece of trash video reasons. Onward and downward!
According to the Bible, Noah took two of each and every animal on board with him and his family.
Which would be the same thing as signing the death sentence on every species. Genetic diversity is the spice of life, and everybody knows what happens when you inbreed. They would have to go numerous generation before Johnny porcupine wasn't porking his cousin, and porcupine kind would be dead as pork by then.
Also...predators? A lion kills a female zebra before she gives birth. Now her widower zebra is the last of his kind. Extinction. And lions tend to eat more than one zebra before they die...
There is evidence of how it happened all over the globe. How else would certain creatures be fossilised to effectively and efficiently?
Mudslides, landslides, ash falls from super volcanoes and meteor strikes, and most of any given ice age. And while these things are found in fossil records globally, the are also found millions of years apart in the fossil record. Noah's flood wasn't millions of years long, right.
Such as how all of the particles in the universe just happened to be in the same place. Why were they in the same place?
First of all, your statement is meaningless because in the singularity there was no such concept of "place"...the better question is what caused them to stop being in the same no/place. Meanwhile, the only contention, flaw if you will, that you have to offer is that it seems kind of unlikely to a person who (I'm guessing) has no knowledge of quantum physics? Are you truly that arrogant?
As far as the Cracked.com article, thanks! I love that site, and it was an intriguing read. I learned something today. But, so what? Your argument only works if I was claiming that science can currently explain everything. And no fan of science would say that. Everything we know was once unknown. Science's current inability to answer a few things simply means we need to keep investigating.
By the way, does the Bible ever mention God punishing recalcitrant Costa Ricans with his huge balls?
I'm not going to respond to the other articles you posted at this point because this is getting to be a freaking long response. We can happily come back to them later, though.
But one last thing:
On one level I do agree with you about the creationism/evolution debate. If I accept that good is all-powerful, well sure...God could have used evolution. I mean we have evidence of the evolution, so now all we need is evidence of God and then we are set. Really, evolution is not at all atheistic, it does not mention God one way or the other, and does not contradict basic theism. What it does contradict is the Bible. The Bible tells us all life got here at once and in its present form, and that is most certainly not true.
I didn't even bother watching the video as I assumed/knew it would be idiotic crap anyway.
Also...predators? A lion kills a female zebra before she gives birth. Now her widower zebra is the last of his kind. Extinction. And lions tend to eat more than one zebra before they die...
That's a good one! If there was a flood then there'd be no predators.
No, there really is a lot of evidence for some things in the Bible.
There really is not.
For example, there is evidence that there was the great flood,
There's not enough water on Earth for that kind of flood to have occurred. Anyone sane or mentally mature would understand this.
there is evidence for how the universe was created,
That God farted? Yeah, you see, first you have to prove that God itself exists. And if you look at what "God" means then you'll notice, assuming you've got the brains for it, that "God" contradicts itself, that basically means it disproves itself.
there is evidence for several other things that science cannot prove.
If current science cannot prove something then in the highest likelihood it did not happen and it does not exist.
Everything in science comes from what exists. If science says it does not exist, then it does not exist. Things that cannot be known, cannot be known, and taking them as absolutely real is idiotic.
The fact is, that there are some things that neither can prove, some things that one can prove, but they very rarely both support different things entirely.
???
Things that have no absolute certainty, no evidence, are considered science fiction or fantasy. Seriously... you've got issues, serious mental issues.
A lot of things that people see about the Bible is so atheist that it cloud logic. I think that I am right when I quote Einstein, who once said:
-
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind"
-
This applies for several other things in religious arguments such as this. I am not trying to disprove science, I am trying to say that religion is true. In this case, I disagree that the Big Bang existed, however I am not saying all of science is a lie.
"You have to prove that God Himself exists"
Unless God reveals himself to the world I doubt that this debate will ever end. However, there is a lot of proof for God's existence, as you will see in the link below.
"If current science cannot prove something then in the highest likelihood it did not happen and it does not exist"
I think that to say such a thing as that is the equivalent of saying that we understand everything there is to know about the world and that we will never discover anything new because we know it all. That is not the case. If that was the case, then we wouldn't be having this debate because it would have been proven.
"Everything in science comes from something that exists. If science says it does not exist, then it does not exist"
Firstly, science may have made errors or have been biased in some way. This happens all of the time in science and is something that may convince people to believe a certain thing that may not have existed, such as The Big Bang theory.
Secondly, there may have just been something that science has not yet discovered, but that does not mean that was has not been discovered does not exist.
"Cannot be known, and taking them as absolutely real is idiotic"
Religion is not something that cannot be known, and neither are the stories related to Christianity. These things were known by the 60 or so prophets who contributed to the making of the Bible, and there is no reason, apart from people who do not correctly perceive science, and think that it means religion is a complete lie, for religion not to exist. Saying that religion defies logic is not true, as there is often a lot of truth that can be found in the Bible.
"You've got mental issues, serious mental issues"
Do I? For supporting something that you do not with an open mind? Does that mean I have mental issues?
There is a lot of evidence for the flood, and several other things, such as the creation of the universe - as you will see in the link below.
The opinion that there is is a delusion, nothing more. That's right, you are delusional. Weird how many times I've had to say it on this site.
Since when was God ever really held back by science? Look at this video, it proves that there is a lot of evidence for the flood and links it in with science.
It does not prove it. It is impossible to prove something that has not and does not exist. Where would you take all the water to flood the Earth? Have you any idea how much water you would need for it?
A lot of things that people see about the Bible is so atheist that it cloud logic. I think that I am right when I quote Einstein, who once said:
Wait, what??? You do understand that with the above you basically claimed that logic clouds logic?
Your precious book has contradictions in it. You do know what a contradiction means?
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind"
-
This applies for several other things in religious arguments such as this. I am not trying to disprove science, I am trying to say that religion is true. In this case, I disagree that the Big Bang existed, however I am not saying all of science is a lie.
The quoted thing only applies to idiots... Science does not need religion. Religion by definition is blind. Don't quote other people, it only shows you as incompetent, use your own mind (not that you are capable, as you are indoctrinated). As to Einstein supposedly saying that, I do not care. Being smart in some areas does not mean being smart in all areas, obviously.
Religion is not true, it's dead wrong. You clearly know nothing about the contradictions with reality that religion has, because you take fantasy as reality.
All science is not a lie? So you simply pick out the parts you like? What an idiot! Grow a brain, seriously.
Unless God reveals himself to the world I doubt that this debate will ever end. However, there is a lot of proof for God's existence, as you will see in the link below.
There is no proof to God's existence, and never can be. Wanna know why? Because God does not exist. God contradicts itself (the definition), disproving itself.
Like talking to a wall...
I think that to say such a thing as that is the equivalent of saying that we understand everything there is to know about the world and that we will never discover anything new because we know it all.
I'll copy paste what I said with emphasis on certain parts, perhaps this time you'll notice, "If current science cannot prove something then in the highest likelihood it did not happen and it does not exist." How can you misunderstand that?
Science is constantly advancing. More is found out every day.
Firstly, science may have made errors or have been biased in some way. This happens all of the time in science and is something that may convince people to believe a certain thing that may not have existed, such as The Big Bang theory.
And what? Religion is always right? Science is based on evidence, while religion has none. So stupid...
Secondly, there may have just been something that science has not yet discovered, but that does not mean that was has not been discovered does not exist.
So?
God has not been discovered. And if you look at what a God is considered as then you'll notice its existence is impossible.
The point is to differentiate fantasy and reality. Can you do that? No, you clearly can't.
Religion is not something that cannot be known, and neither are the stories related to Christianity.
Those stories are fiction. There is no magic.
If you picked out the parts with no magic from LOTR and Harry Potter, would those parts then be real? Would they have really happened? So stupid...
These things were known by the 60 or so prophets who contributed to the making of the Bible,
Where's your proof? Oh, right, there ain't any.
and there is no reason, apart from people who do not correctly perceive science, and think that it means religion is a complete lie, for religion not to exist.
Religion is a complete lie. That's exactly its purpose, or at least it was, now it's just pointless stupidity.
Saying that religion defies logic is not true, as there is often a lot of truth that can be found in the Bible.
Can be found? If you don't follow all parts of it that means you are denying and defying God and that means you'll go to hell, isn't that so?
You might as well look for truths from The Lord of the Rings or from Harry Potter. Honestly, you'll find far more from those books.
Can be found... so stupid. I've said it so many times on this site...
Do I? For supporting something that you do not with an open mind? Does that mean I have mental issues?
You literally cannot support religion with an open mind, while being religious yourself. Having an open mind means you would not be religious, or that you would not support it, because you would see the flaws and stupidity in it.
Maybe I am, but that isn't really the point of this debate. You cannot dismiss my arguments by simply saying: "you're delusional so you're wrong".
"Weird how many times I have to say it on this site"
Well, that says more about you than anyone else.
"Where would you take all the water to flood the Earth?"
Well, if God created the world in six days, and everything we have comes from that, then why can he not remove it all if he is all-powerful?
"Have you any idea how much water you would need for it?"
Yes - a lot. God was logically all-powerful and therefore to put everything he does down to science is not logical.
"You do understand that with the above you basically claimed that logic clouds logic?"
No, I didn't do that at all. I think that there has to be religion and science together, or there will never be the whole understanding of things, to say otherwise is like saying: "I can play chess, so I know the rules to all board games," which is completely ridiculous.
I think that logic is having both.
"Your precious book has contradictions in it"
This debate is about the Big Bang theory and what you quoted me on there had nothing to do with contradictions at all. I am trying to disprove the Big Bang Theory here, not defend the fact that the Bible is 100% accurate.
"The quoted thing only applies to idiots... Science does not need religion"
As I have already proven, science cannot explain all things in the world, and therefore to explain everything they need each other. A broader mind helps, Nummi.
"Religion by definition is blind"
No, religion is a way of explaining and helping things.
"Don't quote other people, it only shows you as incompetent"
No, it casts a wider perspective and sheds more light on a subject. One view does not always prove things, several working together does.
Anyway, you have told me this before.
"Not that you are incapable"
I think that you extremely underestimate me; you need to have a more open mind.
"Being smart in some areas does not mean being smart in all areas, obviously"
Yep, but not really related to the Big Bang Theory.
"You clearly know nothing about the contradictions with reality that religion has"
There are several things that differ from one another, but without one, several things cannot be explained. Science cannot explain everything, Nummi - as I have proven.
"All science is not a lie?"
Most of science is not a lie. Most of religion is not a lie.
"You simply pick out the parts you like?"
No, with science you pick out the parts that have been disproven. The same applies to religion.
"What an idiot! Grow a brain, seriously"
I am not an idiot; my brain is doing great things.
"Like talking to a wall"
I have provided proof for you that you disregard with the statement that God does not exist. You have not, however, provided any evidence for this.
I'm the one talking to a wall.
"How can you misunderstand that?"
You implied that if science had not discovered something it did not exist.
"Science is based on evidence, while religion has none. So stupid..."
For a start, I am getting bored, now, of you calling me stupid. It is really getting on my nerves. Secondly, I have given you a lot of proof for religion!
"God has not been discovered"
Several people have discovered God, just ask some people who are strongly religious. Srom, for example.
"And if you look at what a God is considered as then you'll notice its existence is impossible"
Why? Because he's a legend? What's wrong with that?
There are all sorts of things science can't explain, God is one of them.
"The point is to differentiate fantasy and reality. Can you do that? No, you clearly can't"
Differentiating fantasy and reality is irrelevant. Because, as you will see in my evidence, there is proof for Gods, existence, and therefore it is not fantasy. I do not have to differentiate between them because of that.
I can, however, differentiate between religion and science. They are two different things, that don't necessarily mean two different things.
"If you picked out the parts with no magic from LOTR and Harry Potter, would those parts then be real? Would they have really happened? So stupid..."
What evidence do you have to say that the Bible is a practical joke? What makes you think that 2000 pages of religious text is a joke of fiction?
"Where's your proof? Oh, right, there ain't any"
Apart from those prophets writing entire books for His existence and their personal experiences amongst other things...
"Religion is a complete lie. That's exactly its purpose, or at least it was, now it's just pointless stupidity"
Religion was never intended to be a lie, and it never wholly will be. It is not just pointless stupidity because of all the people who it guides to do better things.
"You might as well look for truths from The Lord of the Rings or from Harry Potter. Honestly, you'll find far more from those books"
I am not interested in following Death Eaterism though, are you? It is irrelevant.
Maybe I am, but that isn't really the point of this debate. You cannot dismiss my arguments by simply saying: "you're delusional so you're wrong".
Um... being delusional does mean being wrong... How can you not know that?
Well, that says more about you than anyone else.
Yes, you're right, it does. That I'm right on so many occasions.
Well, if God created the world in six days, and everything we have comes from that, then why can he not remove it all if he is all-powerful?
Okay... Then why didn't he create us as perfect from the beginning?
Yes - a lot. God was logically all-powerful and therefore to put everything he does down to science is not logical.
You clearly don't know what a "God" means. If you knew you would see that there is nothing logical about it, contradictions within one thing make no sense, they are illogical. Therefore your precious God does not exist, and you will just keep denying the truth.
No, I didn't do that at all.
You did, it's simple logic.
I think that there has to be religion and science together, or there will never be the whole understanding of things, to say otherwise is like saying: "I can play chess, so I know the rules to all board games," which is completely ridiculous.
Science questions everything. Religion does not allow questioning. They cannot be together, it is either one or the other.
The whole understanding can only come with science. Science is the knowledge of existence, basically.
What science is the chess and religion is the board games? Or the opposite? The thing with that is it is just completely stupid. You cannot compare science and religion with those things.
I think that logic is having both.
Logic says that religion is nonsense.
This debate is about the Big Bang theory and what you quoted me on there had nothing to do with contradictions at all. I am trying to disprove the Big Bang Theory here, not defend the fact that the Bible is 100% accurate.
Big Bang makes far more sense than your precious book which makes no sense at all.
As I have already proven, science cannot explain all things in the world, and therefore to explain everything they need each other. A broader mind helps, Nummi.
That's because we don't yet know everything. Saying that things we don't know are made by God is extremely stupid. Instead of saying that God made them why don't you begin creating your own theories and then testing them?
A broader mind? I have a very broad mind, compared to you.
No, religion is a way of explaining and helping things.
Religion states some things and if you say otherwise, you'll be roasted. Religion only helps people to remain stupid and ignorant.
Religion might have been a way of explaining things a very long time ago, but is no longer. Now it is simply pointless stupidity.
No, it casts a wider perspective and sheds more light on a subject. One view does not always prove things, several working together does.
Anyway, you have told me this before.
Instead of putting several other people's opinions together why not come up with one inclusive one on your own?
I think that you extremely underestimate me; you need to have a more open mind.
I have an open mind. I observe and conclude.
Yep, but not really related to the Big Bang Theory.
Then why quote Einstein? It had nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Or did he mean under religion fantasy? He should've said so then...
There are several things that differ from one another, but without one, several things cannot be explained. Science cannot explain everything, Nummi - as I have proven.'
If science cannot prove something that means our science has not yet advanced that far, not that automatically God created it. As should be obvious to anyone.
Most of science is not a lie. Most of religion is not a lie.
Science is not a lie, there might be parts that at one point will need improvements, but that does not mean it is a lie.
Now, religion, that is all a lie (there might be some real events as a basis to some stories but there's no evidence to any of it), it's its purpose, or rather was, now it's simply worthless stupidity, as I've said many times. And given reasons as to why it is.
No, with science you pick out the parts that have been disproven. The same applies to religion.
Wait, once science proves something claimed by religion to be false you go with science? Then what is the point of religion in the first place?
What has proof that has, what doesn't that will need to be investigated.
I am not an idiot; my brain is doing great things.
I can see that... Contradictions and nonsense. I guess you could consider them as great, in some perspective.
I have provided proof for you that you disregard with the statement that God does not exist. You have not, however, provided any evidence for this.
Exactly like a wall.
Omnipotent means being able to create something that he cannot cross, lift, etc. and it also says he cannot do just that, because he is omnipotent. Omniscient, there never would have been a flood because he would have known what was coming and could have made things differently. Omnibenevolent, that means there should be no hell. Shall I go on? Your God does not exist. There might be some very powerful beings but they would not be gods.
I'm the one talking to a wall.
Yet I'm the one not denying reality.
You implied that if science had not discovered something it did not exist.
I said in the highest likelihood. There are logical theories for pretty much everything but many of those don't have any evidence yet. They can explain them but with no evidence supporting but only logic itself.
For a start, I am getting bored, now, of you calling me stupid. It is really getting on my nerves. Secondly, I have given you a lot of proof for religion!
Proof for religion you have not given. Everything you have given me makes no sense, has contradictions in it, or, as I've said many times, is just stupid.
This does get boring. Walls are not meant for talking with.
You are already beyond getting to my nerves. Now its just boring.
Several people have discovered God, just ask some people who are strongly religious. Srom, for example.
That's not God, that's insanity, basically.
Why? Because he's a legend? What's wrong with that?
Legend? No, a concept that contradicts itself. Taking something like that as real is bad.
There are all sorts of things science can't explain, God is one of them.
And science never will explain God. You cannot prove something that disproves itself, something like that cannot exist. Science might one day explain very powerful beings, but they're not gods, and never will be.
Differentiating fantasy and reality is irrelevant. Because, as you will see in my evidence, there is proof for Gods, existence, and therefore it is not fantasy. I do not have to differentiate between them because of that.
As I said, you cannot differentiate fantasy and reality. There is no proof to God, the only proof there is is logic and that is against God.
I can, however, differentiate between religion and science. They are two different things, that don't necessarily mean two different things.
Religion and science are very different. Two different things are two different things.
What evidence do you have to say that the Bible is a practical joke? What makes you think that 2000 pages of religious text is a joke of fiction?
What makes you LOTR and Harry Potter are practical jokes, what makes you think they are a joke of fiction? Prove what those books include did not really happen. You can't. There is only the fact that they were created by humans, and exactly the same goes about Bible. Everything we can come up with does not make it real.
Apart from those prophets writing entire books for His existence and their personal experiences amongst other things...
This all, prove it. Again, you can't.
Personal experience that is only in one's mind is not exactly evidence.
Religion was never intended to be a lie, and it never wholly will be. It is not just pointless stupidity because of all the people who it guides to do better things.
If it was not intended as a lie then why is it one and why has it been and still is used as a lie?
Religion guides no one to do better things (people's ignorance, crusades, witch burning, inquisition, Islamic countries, etc). If you are incapable of doing things through sane and rational thoughts then you are seriously messed up. Atheists do good things because they know by themselves it is good, not because they are told to do so.
I am not interested in following Death Eaterism though, are you? It is irrelevant.
It is relevant, as the bible is also fiction. The fact that there are so many contradictions and illogical situations make it fiction.
That's in the past, now.
you've had some before? Didn't help much, did it? Seems you're hopeless.
How could you possibly believe that a ball of matter the size of a football could explode and release so much energy that it would form the universe as we know it. Even if somehow this did happen, where would be the location it occurred at. We believe that the universe is everything in existence, and if the big bang theory created the universe, where did the big bang theory happen? Exactly! It didn't happen! Nobody will be convinced that the big bang theory actually occurred until we the exact coordinates are revealed to us.
What you're asking is where exactly the big bang occurred. It's as if you expect the location of it to be something specific, like the corner of my backyard for example.
Even Hubble did not posit the cause of red-shift as expansion until he was quite old. His mule driver who worked his way up to a technical position, eventually taking over the operation of Mt. Wilson Observatory, Milton Humason, was a student of the Belgian priest Georges Lamaitre who proposed BB theory, and Humason denied use of the observatory to anyone in opposition to the theory. Also, numerous other mechanisms (gravitational lensing, absorption/reradiation) can account for the red shift. BB theory also puts an artificial limit on the age of the universe which most certainly took almost an eternity to build up to the current complexity utilizing pair-formation (the "creation" process of physics ) to provide the material building blocks, e+,e-, of the universe. The contridictions associated with dark matter and dark energy are exemplifications of the difficulties inherent in BB theory.
It is false.. because our Universe exists forever, I mean there was no any Big Bang theory. It is stupidity of modern scientists, who have no ideas in order to prove our Universe existing. This theory was created because scientists can't explain what happens in the universe. They know nothing about our environment, especially about Universe.
Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.
According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.
As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.
Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot).
This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious.
1. Nothingness can not pack together
2. a Vacuum has no density
3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness
4. How do you expand what isn't there.
5. Nothingness cannot produce heat
6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter.
Now lets look at the outward pushing particles
1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart.
2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles.
3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another.
4. No way to change the direction of even one particle
Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together)
1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated
2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together
Look at "Push themselves into stars"
1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together
2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars
3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars.
4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract.
We could go on and on.
This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell
this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory
but how did Vance Harewell made this? also back then technology was new and very bad so how can they know vast thing such as the big bang theory.. i believe this is a fiction book.
I agree that the Big Bang Theory is false but the point about it being a "theory" is incorrect. Theories are considered as strong as laws just in a different way.
People use the big bang as an argument of evolution, or against Creationism. My point is that by it's very name "The Big Bang Theory" is just a theory. You are incorrect that in Science a Theory is something that does not have enough proof to be a Law. Hence, You would have to believe the Big Bang Theory based on Faith. Faith is what Creationists use....so the real question is which to have Faith in.
No... A theory, in the scientific community, is a hypothesis that has gained a sufficient amount of evidence to support it. A scientific theory is significantly different from the commonly used definition of theory.
Okay so you can have Faith to support it. that does not make it a law. It is not proven. You can't state that people who believe in God are blind for believing in something that is not 100% proven without thereby the pot calling the kettle black.
That makes no sense. You deny that a scientific theory has evidence to support it when... that's the definition!? A scientific theory has evidence to support it, once again, regardless of what you say.
Nothing in science is ever considered true or false. The hypotheses are merely accepted or rejected... this continues to theories and laws. Science is constantly changing and that should be your point of contention with the theories against Christianity.
There is no and never will be any absolute proof that gravity will still be working tomorrow. All we know is that gravity has been working every single day before this. Is it possible that it will stop tomorrow morning and kill everyone? Absolutely. It is probable? No. Only an idiot would tie himself to the ground every day just in case, would you not agree?
Research epistemology a bit and I bet we can make a skeptic out of you yet. But, there are some things that you just have to accept as true in order to live a normal life, which everyone does to some extent. Where to draw the line is the difference between sane and insane, and sometimes even between theists and atheists.
Except for the Laws of Thermodynamics, Chemical Law, Law of Gravity, Law of Magnetism, Faraday's Law, Laws of Diffusion, Raoult's Law, the various Ideal Gas Laws, Hess's Law, Planck's Law, Stefan-Boltzmann Law, Snell's Law, Dalton's Law, Hubble's Law, Laws of motion...and a few hundred others...
Laws and "Facts" are observations concordant with reality that can be repeated given the right circumstances and give us the framework on which to build and test hypotheses and theories. They aren't proof, they are observations. And theories and hypotheses attempt to form an explanation for these observations.
All of which are mathematical laws, as they are defined by mathematics and therefore can be proved mathematically. Things like germs and evolution can't be proven correct using maths like a law can.
Hence why a theory is the highest level of proof outside mathematics.
In common practice, the difference between a "law" and a "fact" is that laws can be expressed mathematically with relative ease, facts cannot. The "Law of Gravity" can be shown mathematically. The fact that allele frequencies vary among and between populations over time (evolution) cannot be demonstrated mathematically as a whole, only when you talk about specific instances. Both are facts, Laws are just facts that mathematicians get warm fuzzies about. Sure, they are designed by math, but they are still just observations of reality, typically found, studied and used by scientists. They are very much a part of the scientific lexicon and practice.
Hence why a theory is the highest level of proof outside mathematics.
One more time...facts and laws aren't meant to be proof. They are observations.
For that matter, theories are not meant to be proof either, all though they are designed in a way that they can be disproved if erroneous.
You are right in that true "proof" cannot be found in science, only in mathematics. But two divorce the two, to saw that laws aren't a part of science is to take away one of the scientist's greatest tool for investigative inquiry, and to take away the very thing that theories are constructed to explain in the first place.
Its like saying books can't be considered entertainment because we can write for reasons other than to entertain.
Just a theory? You don't know what the word theory means in science. In science, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". Faith is not exclusive to religion. Religion requires faith. Faith does not require religion.
If you don't believe in God that is your choice. But the big theory is false. It can be proved wrong by science. The argument of this debate is that the big bang theory is false not "God created the world"
If you don't believe in God that is your choice. But the big theory is false. It can be proved wrong by science. The argument of this debate is that the big bang theory is false not "God created the world"
Actually there is logic supporting it....you just have not studied enough to know what it is
Scientists have said that the order of the universe is as unlikely to have happened as a printing shop exploding and letters landing in a Book in such an organized fashion as to create a Webster's Dictionary.
Actually there is logic supporting it....you just have not studied enough to know what it is
How exactly are contradictions logical? I don't have to study religion, I know more than enough about it as it is. Studying religion is almost the biggest waste of time there is. A short review will do just well.
Scientists have said that the order of the universe is as unlikely to have happened as a printing shop exploding and letters landing in a Book in such an organized fashion as to create a Webster's Dictionary.
Order? Do you even know how our universe works (what is currently known about it, anyway)? There is no need for a creator.
Care to clarify which scientists, and whether they were religious or not?
So there are people who have claimed to have a Heavenly Visit from God...because there is not sufficient evidence to prove all aspects of God you should agree with Creationism based on "some evidence"
"So there are people who have claimed to have a Heavenly Visit from God"
Anecdotal evidence does not an argument make. If you could conclusively prove "person A exists, therefore person A will receive at some point in their life a 'heavenly visit from god,'" then that would be conclusive evidence. However, that does not exist, and we cannot say with certainty that God exists.
"What about Pascal's wager?"
Seems like a coward's way of accepting god. I'm sure if there were a God, he wouldn't appreciate being betted upon. Additionally, Pascal's wager is irrelevant towards living a happy and fulfilling life. Say you don't believe in God, but you go through your days, have children, raise them well, and live as basically a good person. I cannot believe God would punish you with eternal life in Hell because you don't believe in Him. I think He would care more about you actually living your life in a way that is compatible with the ideals of a Heaven than some petty need for validation by necessitating belief in Him.
Also, God is irrelevant from a debate on the Big Bang Theory because nowhere in the Big Bang Theory does it posit the existence of a God.
Aside from what Conro has already posted in refutation (since I agree with it all), I have one more thing to add.
Why is this wager only about the Judeo-Christian god? If Blaise Pascal's Wager is true, we should believe in every god believed to be real, for only believing in one or a couple means that we still have something to lose if we are wrong in our pick of which god(s) may be real.
You, only choosing one religion, one god to believe in means you are setting yourself up to lose everything if you are wrong about which god is real. You could possibly go to their hell.
The Big Bang Theory is false. In the name, it already shows it. The Big Bang THEORY. A theory is something that isn't scientifically proven. The Big Bang Theory started out as a singularity and it got so dense it exploded, and we all know the rest.
Theory is something that has no absolute evidence, but everything that is known supports it being real. If a more conclusive one will be cooked up then the current theory will either be improved or replaced. There's none of that when it comes to religions.
Science approves the Big Bang.
What you think a god farted and thus came the Bang?
The question is, what created that singularity? It did not just magically appear one day. How do you think that singularity got there, other than from God?
What was before the bang is at this point all fantasy. As I've said in a previous debate, three different energies clashed together, a reaction occurred, all that energy was pulled into one point, then they combined and expanded rapidly. All fantasy at this point, yet it makes far more sense then your precious "God theory". See that? A theory, and a weak one at that.
Like somebody wrote energy can't be created or destroyed its just something that must exist. So this already proves that their are some things that can't be disected any further. Although god for moment seem beyond scientific explaination god is not beyond reason. What happen if the reason for god's existant was that if god didn't exist nothing would which is impossible. So explain to me how nothing can exist if you disagree or tell me something else that would prove me wrong.
I must warn you I'm a man of science as well. So try me, please i dare you.
Like somebody wrote energy can't be created or destroyed its just something that must exist. So this already proves that their are some things that can't be disected any further.
Energy can go from one state to another, probably as a result of some other energy affecting it. But it cannot just go out of existence.
Very possible that some things cannot be dissected any further, if we were to advance to that level. Currently we cannot know for sure.
Would be nice to know where all the energy came from, or how it began. It's weird, it's as if existence is eternal and infinite, although it changes states.
Although god for moment seem beyond scientific explaination god is not beyond reason.
Energy does not have sentience. If you are referring to a Christian or similar God then that does not exist, its definition itself proves it not existing. Omnipotence, omniscience, and all that, according to that God should have the power to take itself out of existence but God is supposed to be eternal and infinite... a huge contradiction, and that's not the only one.
What happen if the reason for god's existant was that if god didn't exist nothing would which is impossible.
Where everything came from (before our universe) is at this point all fantasy, there's no evidence of any kind.
Let's say some very powerful being messed with some energies and that caused our universe. If that being had not existed then we would very probably also not exist. But the energy that we are currently made of would still be somewhere, in some state.
So explain to me how nothing can exist if you disagree or tell me something else that would prove me wrong.
I never said nothing can exist. We both obviously do exist...
what created those 3 energies? People like to come with complex ideas about more anti-matter than matter...blah blah blah.....but they can never answer what created those energies. You state Religion is all fantasy - but it sounds like science fiction to state that all of the sudden 3 energies collided
Some other energies. Those again from some other energies. By interacting with each other they change their states, etc.
What created God? Care to clarify?
People like to come with complex ideas about more anti-matter than matter...blah blah blah.....but they can never answer what created those energies.
All that exists in this universe comes from the bang. What created the bang? Want some more fantasy? I could bring in the "Great and Magnificent Unicorn of Purple Rainbows of Yellow-land", something like that... Or you want good old Orcs? And Elves? They're kinda overused...
You state Religion is all fantasy - but it sounds like science fiction to state that all of the sudden 3 energies collided
It is fantasy as there is no evidence at all, but, yes, it could and I do also consider it as science fiction. (as I'm working toward becoming a writer one day, science fiction and fantasy more specifically) I could come up with many more versions of the "beginning" and where they came from, and so on.
What created God? How can you argue that an all powerful all knowing and all good being has always exsisted but it's impossible for 3 energies to always exsist?
As far as we can tell, energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transferred and sometimes changing characteristics. Every thing we know about energy indicates that it is beyond the rule of having to be created. You might claim that God is beyond those rules too. The difference here is we can observe and test energy. God seems rather shy...
Wrong. A scientific theory is something that has been proven to be true, at least to the extent that there is no contradictory evidence. To this date, all evidence either points towards the BBT, or at least doesn't directly contradict it.
The only reason why we don't call it the 'Big Bang Law' is that "laws" are descriptions of observed phenomenon while theories are explanations of phenomenons. Also, Laws require predictive capabilities.
Acknowledging that the BBT is a theory does not disprove it. That's a foolish and entirely semantics-based argument. It also shows an embarrassing ignorance on your part on just how significant the implications of something being labelled as a 'theory' in the scientific community are.
Furthermore, Modern theoretical physics suggests the existence of additional spatial-dimensions. This means that the 'stuff' needed to ignite the big bang can and certainly did exist somewhere else prior to the antiquity of our universe.
As I see it, Big Bang Theory only accounts for the Universe's formation from a singularity to its current state. All testable and verifiable evidence found thus far supports its conclusions.
The Big Bang Theory does not account for the creation of the singularity itself. There is no testable or verifiable evidence from which to draw conclusions as of yet. Without such evidence, any explanation is the result of hypothetical speculation and conjecture.
Because of this, postulating that God created the singularity is, in my opinion, on equal grounds with postulating a multi-verse, or any other explanation offered up so far. Until we have evidence, they're all just shots in the dark. Not even strong enough to be called theories.
It seems to me that your argument is not against the Big Bang, but against these other "shots in the dark" preceding the Big Bang.
Interesting. So while everyones talking about the big bang what happen to the steady state theory? It's claim that the evidence of the background radiant killed the theory but i personal feel that the evidence actually proves the steady state theory more. What do everyone else think.
OK so what theories do you have? None. you have no eligible theories. And don't give me any religious crap because then everyone else will just call you a hypocrite because of what you said " How did this singularity get there, magic?" Yep, well how did God get there. You don't have any better theory than this one, and though just a theory, it's the best we've got. You can criticise it when you have something better.
Can i just add, as human beings our minds only go so far. We rely on Einsteins theory of relativity, however deciphering the universe is much more complex. A little while back you put "and how did those three energys get there?" Well, everyone has the same idea that the universe came to being at once. Well, yes thats what the theory says. However, that's what you call the universe. These energy's might always have been there, but nothing else. It's hard for a 14yo to explain, but we all have different misconceptions on what the universe exactly is, and though everyone is fighting to say the 'Big Bang Theory' is correct, no one knows exactly that. Yes there may have been a singularity, but before that there could have been the energy's' you were talking about. Hard to explain as it is, you can't always rely on what others are talking about. I think, given it's the best we've got, the Big Bang Theory is probably the one to listen to. But you don't have to go in to depth, You can try and alter it and find out for your self..!
To be honest , there had to be something before the big bang. There couldn't be just nothing, could it? Scientists say the 'Big Bang Theory' started the entire universe. But if they're so smart why don't they tell us what happened before that?
The have. It is called the singularity. The Big Bang may have started the universe as we know it but "before" that (if you can use that word in any respect prior to the arrival of time), the universe was simply a VERY different place.
You're right, the big bang theory is just a theory, but that doesn't make it false, and even if it were false, it wouldn't necessarily follow that some mythology invented thousands of years ago would then have to be true. Whether or not the big bang theory is true does nothing to distinguish the possibility that god created the universe from the possibility that the earth was created from the body of the dead frost giant Ymir, or any of a thousand other creation myths.
The big bang theory is not likely to be false, at least not by our current understanding. Science at the moment does not know what created the singularity. I don't understand why you think that because science does not know the answer, it just HAS to be God. Why is that?
Well, given all the posts on here are 48 days old, i'm not sure as to how this debate got on here, but oh well! It's one thing to call the Big Bang Theory false. After all, it is only a theory, and it's the best one we have. But saying, it's false, because God is more logical, is simply beyond me. You said that this singularity couldn't have appeared out of no where. If you look in depth at an atom, and look at all the components of a sub-atomic particle, you'll find they're pretty small. Things get a whole lot smaller! And there has to be a point somehow, somewhere where it is infinatly small! However this random cosmic being, who came out of nowhere, created the universe. How God created himself, before creating space and time is also beyond me. He then proceed to create the heavens and the earth in just 6 days ( i don't see how days existed before the sun, but we'll let that pass!) He then created the first humans, completely skipping the millions of years of earth story that has been proven to have happened before humans walked the earth, and suddenly these two meager humans somehow multiplied without any signs of inbreeding! Then we skip on a bit more to Jesus Christ. Who somehow was conceived in the Virgin Mary ( I don't know why being a virgin is so sacred to the Christians, after God supposedly told them to "Go forth and multiply" but again, oh well. This man was born and helped a very small amount of people before then allowing himself to be murdered. I still don't know why, him being the son of God, with such divine powers he must have had, he didn't help more serious issues in the world. or at least, more people. And after going through all the hassle of being killed, he then decided "Nope, i like it here" and then three days later he woke up in some cave, and that;s the end. Oh, but that's completely disregarding all other religions, and multiply contradictions in the Bible! And you say all that, is what happened, instead of a perfectly plausible ( don't say it isn't, because after all, this is the one theory we are most confident in) theory. Well, good luck with that! By the way, what actual proof do you have of this religion of yours? A Multiply translated book written thousands of years ago, and long after the events it describes? Maybe, piece of fried chicken that has the face of Jesus on it?? Not much else! Scientists have found loads of background radiation left over from the beginning of the universe! Which is more than enough proof to match your silly superstitions!
It amazes me that people who have some sort of a affiliation religion are some how offended by the big bang theory just because it goes against a their 2000 year old belief. There are a lot of theories you religious people can go bother but just because theories such as the evolution and the big bang explains how we are here gives you the right to judge, I am all for being critical but when your only evidence is your religious text book...go bother with control theory, something you religious nut jobs should be experts on, you been doing it since you were born.
i disagree because theres almost no evidences and facts that agrees with the theory.
also a THEORY is only a theory. its not a fact yet. if the big bang theory expanded where did it all start? the researchers says it all starts everywhere and the theory says a big bang started everything