The question asked if Islam and democracy can coexist. Your own example of Turkey shows that yes they can coexist.
Just barely. Islamists make every effort to turn Turkey into an Islamic theocracy. It's amazing they're still secular.
The majority of muslims live outside of the arab world. Turkey, a secular nation with a muslim majority proves that those two can coexist. Another example of such a country is Albania.
No, it proves that Islamists just take time to undermine a secular democracy. Turkey may fall under the spell of Islam in the future, a concerted effort is being made against it.
Some interesting problems for cosmologic Big Bang theorists.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/bigbang/
Did you read through the astrophysics section of that research library? How about the astrophysics and cosmology section of any scientific publication (No, Scientific American isn't primary literature). I ask because you seem to have no idea how tied into science Big Bang Theory is. When a news release says that astronomical theories are being changed, it does not mean that Big Bang Theory is being abandoned. It means that we are changing our understanding of theories relating to it. Your second link looks like quackery, and I can say this because any science publication I read on the topic of astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics regularly shows research utilising Big Bang Theory in its framework or underlying its research. For something so wrong it seems to enjoy wide circulation amongst the qualified experts.
Anyway, I'm leaving the site today. Just wanted to tie up this loose end.
I dont see how this scripture realtes to anything regarding that.
On a spherical Earth no tree or mountain could be tall or high enough for what was described. A sphere prevents the bottom half from seeing that tree, or the mountain from seeing the bottom portion's civilisations. A flat Earth, however would permit what happened in the bible.
Well, I'm leaving the site today. It was nice talking with you these months.
My point is I dont fear death. I never said anything that suggests that i fear it. Why? Because Jesus christ conquered death.
This sounds like you fear death and simply displaced that fear with a religious belief. A person who does not fear death would accept their mortality and not pretend to be immortal.
Give me an example, anywhere in the biblie that says anything about human sacrifice and we will discuss from their.
Jesus Christ was a human sacrifice.
Why dont we take this a step at a time shall we? Because of atheists have a problem with the word of God, get specific, not arrogant and diss the whole thing.
I've made numerous posts in the last few days which had nitpicks of biblical verses. Maybe you not see them?
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all the earth.
The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.
Psalm 93:1
The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength.
He has established the world; it shall never be moved;
Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, ‘The Lord is king!
The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.
He will judge the peoples with equity.’
Psalm 104:5
You set the earth on its foundations,
so that it shall never be shaken.
Isaiah 40:21-22
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Daniel 4:10-11
Upon my bed this is what I saw;
there was a tree at the centre of the earth,
and its height was great.
The tree grew great and strong,
its top reached to heaven,
and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and their splendour;
Revelation 1:7
Look! He is coming with the clouds;
every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail.
So it is to be. Amen.
These verses imply a fixed (geocentric), flat Earth.
Billions of people diied not knowing the truth? What is truth, surely you born out of your own choice would gladly tell me what truth is.
The truth is that we evolved from simpler organisms, over billions of years, on a planet that formed from the remains of dead stars and exploding stars, and our universe has no apparent design or purpose.
There is nothing pure about it? hahahah wow. How insulting. The word of God is in me. So you are pretty much saying that I am based of torture, lies and human sacrifice.
Human and animal sacrifice, holy war, and superstitions are not pure. Sorry that the truth is so unappealing. It rarely is, why do you think everyone wants to live a lie?
Have you ever read the biblie?
Yes. I've looked throughout it. I've even looked at multiple translations in good faith.
You will find that it is full of love and truth, which is identical to the identity of Jesus.
Not really. The love it has isn't of divine magnitude and the hatred it has is just as petty as any human.
Emotional trap? Tell me what exactly are you trying to save me from?
I'm just telling you what I learned the hard way. I know you can't accept what I say though. When I was your age I was adamantly opposed to people like me. I even felt I successfully battled all those "wrong" atheists, and came out the victor. I guess if anything I wish I could tell myself those many years ago that I was mistaken.
No dont go towards the light! Stay here with me in the darkness while you still can!
It's actually the other way around. Your beliefs are the darkness, designed to keep you from seeing the light of reality.
Sounds like something is speaking in your heart, the devil really is the father of lies. He will do anything and I mean anything to keep you away from what kills him. Life. Pls open up your heart! If you keep closing it then how will you know the truth?
Tell me something: do you really believe that in our world darkness, light, goodness and evil are open about what they are? In other words do you just believe that your "light" is illuminating because it wouldn't lie to you? The first thing we have to learn about life is that nothing is ever what it appears to be, least of all ideologies and beliefs.
You believe in something evil that masquerades as goodness and light, versus what it considers evil and darkness (which happens to be enlightenment and decency). You're turned around by culture, by tradition, by authority.
I had to learn the hard way. I am now truly open-minded.
Just because the man is Catholic doesn't mean he was killed for it. He criticized a political policy put in place not because of religion but rather as a political move to exercise greater control over the people. The political view was criticized and threatened so they killed him.
He was killed for blasphemy. The assassins stated that outright. Blasphemy is a religious crime, it has no other purpose.
Shahbaz Bhatti (9 September 1968 – 2 March 2011)[1] was a Pakistani politician and elected member of the National Assembly from 2008.[2] He was the first Federal Minister for Minorities[1] from 2008 until his assassination on 2 March 2011 in Islamabad.[3] Bhatti, a Roman Catholic, was an outspoken critic of Pakistan's blasphemy laws and the only Christian in the Cabinet.[4] Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for his killing and called him a blasphemer of Muhammad.[5]
the imaginations of ancient peoples. Also, you are wrong about the sun orbiting the Earth, in that it is clearly implied in the bible, with verses repeatedly insisting that the Earth does not move, and that the sun moves.
Remember that this is a very old text. Heliocentricism was barely conceived of just 2000 or so years ago. The bible is between 2000 and 3000 years old. We didn't have a mathematical model of Heliocentric theory until about 500 years ago.
Why would you expect such old texts to predict something barely conceived of then? If you are reading texts of a culture in a period when it was believed that the sun orbited the Earth, why would you impose your knowledge onto it?
SHow me the verses
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all the earth.
The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.
Psalm 93:1
The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength.
He has established the world; it shall never be moved;
Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, ‘The Lord is king!
The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.
He will judge the peoples with equity.’
Psalm 104:5
You set the earth on its foundations,
so that it shall never be shaken.
You have not shown me an error. You can't prove your origin theory and your frustration proves an admittance of that fact.
If you bothered to read them, you would understand that your knowledge of scientific nomenclature is wrong.
If you want me to go point by point to show you the error of these theories then bring them up to me. If not then they are far too long to get into here. Challenge me with a point if you have one. If not then your argument has the same perceived substance as mine.
I perceive that you are wasting time. You have no convincing argument against these theories, and that is why your lack of argument has been one focused on instilling doubt rather than presenting a solid case for yourself. It is also why you still make no argument.
It is through faith that I claim this position.
So you believe it just because you want to. No reasoning, no knowledge, just the need to believe something happens to be wrong.
I believe in God and what He has revealed to us.
You believe in a god and what some authors claim he revealed.
I believe in His supernatural being.
So you believe in magic.
I believe this in faith and I don't hide that fact.
Of course you do. When pressed you will say that you believe as you do because there is evidence of it. But that is a lie. When you believe because of faith, there is no evidence, just blind belief.
If you refuse to even consider that existence then that is your choice.
I don't dispute that you have faith.
This doesn't change the fact that thousands of people claim to have witnessed the accounts in the Bible.
Those are biblical accounts. Not extrabiblical ones. To use an analogy, I can claim that hundreds of people saw Harry Potter use his magic, it's all in the book. Indeed his classmates, his friends, relatives, etc. have all witnessed his incredible feats. How can you deny his magic as fact? There are hundreds of witnesses.
You say it can't verify itself, but where else should it be recorded.
Outside of the bible. If we saw an encyclopedia which mentioned Harry Potter in a nonfiction account, that may warrant research. If we saw newspapers reporting on magic used by the young Wizard, that would raise some eyebrows.
What counts as strong evidence however is not testimony. Physical evidence, mechanisms that could explain testimony, etc.
The Bible is the compilation of 66 books written from the first one (Genesis) over four thousand years in the past. What other religious text has lasted as long and followed so fervently?
Seriously? Bhagavad Gītā (भगवद् गीता) is between 2000 to 5000 years old depending on scholarly method of ascertaining age. Analects (論語) were written around 2500 years ago. Veda (वेद) were assembled around 3000 years ago. Upanishad (उपनिषद्) is almost 3000 years old. The Old Testament (תּוֹרָה, נְבִיאִים, כְּתוּבִים) is as much as 3000 years old.
You ignore it because you refuse to believe, and trust me that doesn't make you right.
I don't believe it because I require evidence and reason. It isn't enough for someone to insist that I believe "just because" (which is what faith is). Look at the position you are in. Don't you feel awful that you just have to accept something as true because an authority told you so? How strange that must be, to be forced to admit that you must take your beliefs on faith, because you have nothing better to convince you. How difficult it must be when pressed, because your position is indefensible. You have NO defense, you just believe.
Then to tell me I refuse to accept your beliefs, like that is some flaw on my part. How strange is that? Did you know that I am the President of Nigeria? Why don't you believe me? It just takes a little faith.
You can't disprove the accounts in the Bible,
You can't disprove that I am the president of Nigeria. You can't disprove that there are reptilian alien hybrids in Washington, who camouflage themselves and conspire to enslave us. How many things that can't be disproven do you not believe?
you have thousands of witnesses who saw the accounts.
In Martian Chronicles there were millions of witnesses who saw the ruins of Martian Civilisation. How can you deny the testimony of these witnesses in Martian Chronicles?
The miracles were special instances so of course they don't follow natural science.
If they don't follow the laws of the universe then that should tell you they are impossible. Impossible things do not happen, by definition. In other words, every time the bible proclaims a miracle, you know it just lied to you. Because miracles fundamentally cannot happen.
To assume they would be restrained by those laws is ignorance.
It's called using reason, and not being gullible. Of course, if you can prove that the laws of the universe can be abrogated at will, then you have a Nobel prize awaiting you.
And there is the evidence. Here are a few about Jesus.
I saw nothing supernatural there. Jesus appeared to some people after his death? This has happened to hysterical or otherwise deluded people before. It's not magic, but a combination of suggestibility, delusion, and wishful thinking.
An eclipse happened? Or it didn't. If it did happen, Jesus was not crucified in Passover, and eclipses are natural things. If it didn't happen, the historians were mistaken because a solar eclipse couldn't occur during Passover.
You're making huge claims about the world and universe, so you are required to furnish proof of biblical claims, like physical proof of a flood, that life was created from nothing, that men can be raised from the dead, etc. I'm not asking for denialism, or falsified evidence which permeates creationism.
I didn't mean testify in the literal sense. How do we learn about the universe, through observing it. How do we understand fossils, by studying the fossils. The only assumptions you make about fossils is by what you observe about them.
Right. So what's the problem?
But if that original dense matter/energy undertook rapid expulsion, and we see that the universe is still expanding in all directions. Gravity alone would not draw that matter to other matter. We are not at critical mass even today. So how do you suppose that matter would be able to attract to one another? If space itself was under going rapid expulsion?
Because in our universe there is no objective reference frame. While space expands, everything isn't expanding from some point, it is all relative to points within itself. This causes the effect that there is perceptibly no expansion of space. It is like the speed of Earth. The Earth travels at around 30km/s, and I've seen figures for the Sun traveling around the Milky way at around 200+km/s. Why aren't you traveling at this speed when you stand still? It has to do with reference frames.
Gravity doesn't hold the universe in place today. That is why dark matter/energy was hypothesized. If Gravity was powerful enough to suspend the expanding space then we would never had expanded in the first place. We would still be constrained to that primordial matter/energy composite. You see then the problem with your theory?
I see that you have some misunderstandings. Gravity isn't supposed to suspend expanding space, as that doesn't even make sense, since it only acts on matter, not space. Dark matter was hypothesized to account for some specific errors in measurement when observing the mass and gravity interactions of distant celestial bodies. For an inexplicable reason, certain bodies behave more massively than they are. It was hypothesized that matter must exist which doesn't absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation. This is dark matter.
All of the ways of determining distance require mass and the speed of light. That mass is directly related by the luminosity of the star in question. Lensing has not been fully understood yet. That lensing would directly affect the luminosity of the celestial body. Because at such immense distances the bending of light between it and that dark matter could be very significant. If it takes a twin Quasar (the most energetic phenomenon known today) to discover this, then what other instances has this effected our astrometry. Can you say for certain?
On these matters I trust the experts, because they make a living examining these methods and know them better than I do. I examined those methods and they looked systematic and reliable, because each method has a specific purpose and range of expected use.
In other words, if you have these big questions, ask an expert, because he is paid for a living to ask those very questions and more than likely already has at some point before improving methodology.
The operational physics absolutely, although that changes especially near black holes. There is far too many unknowns in the universe to believe it is completely symmetrical.
That is only if black holes can be maintained in physics. Loop-Quantum Gravity seems to suggest that there aren't singularities as was thought under General Relativity.
We observe a minute fraction of time within that stars evolution to make such claims as millions if not billions of years. Perhaps the fact that it is observable within the few decades we have had the technology shows just how rapid a stars life cycle can be.
There is an uncountable number of stars in the universe, even of galaxies. We can make these observations because we have a huge display of all kinds of stars before us.
A beneficial mutation is not evolution.
Yes it is. When it passes onto the population, that is evolution.
How do you think we got corn? Beneficial mutations to a simple grass.
It is damage in the DNA that causes bacteria to lose a venerability to certain threats.
It is a mutation that may confer an altered metabolism, which is a step towards totally new metabolic processes. We saw this with the long-term E. coli experiments.
This does not create new genetic material that is capable of going from ape to man. Or even to change the basic genetics of the test subject.
This is just a point of dogma which you memorised to keep you ignorant. Novel mutations change metabolism, if these are beneficial they are preserved and passed on. Causing evolution. Given thousands, or millions of years, or even billions, you have bacteria that become protozoa, plants, and animals. You have bacteria that evolve the ability to use citrate. You have grasses and weeds that become Corn and Rye. Millions of iterations of small steps causes a bacteria to turn into an amoeba. Millions more cause it to turn into a multicellular animal.
I believe in a supernatural transcendent God.
You believe in magic.
You believe nothing created something. And then you restrain yourselves to natural laws and fail right out the gate because of the origin theory.
I believe in using reason, which gives us many insights to answer the big questions, which you continue to deny because of your faith in magic.
Well let's see you make a hypothesis to test your theory. This is a basic part of the scientific method. Where is the misunderstanding?
I gave you these links earlier to explain your error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_fact#Fact_in_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxaM0P8Fyu4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14
Your assumptions are not provable. We all assume before we actually know. To be able to know you must be able to prove by factual evidence. Not assumptuous evidence.
Again, I'm waiting for an actual argument instead of your assertion that the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are wrong.
Why can't it? Like I said before we study the universe to verify what the universe is doing. We compare what is in the Bible but not only the books in them also extrabiblical references as well. Your logic is we can't use fossils to explain fossils.
You can't because it's circular. Your argument for god becomes "God exists because the bible says god exist and we can trust the bible because it says it is god's word."
You need extrabiblical evidence and material.
On those other subjects, fossils do not claims about themselves, and the universe doesn't proclaim anything. You are confusing investigation of a subject with using that subject to verify itself.
Even in your own theory (Big Bang) we shouldn't see any proximity of matter in the universe. Especially if space itself is constantly expanding. If the universe has been expanding since 15 billion years, then why are we seeing gravitational collisions between galaxies. If that first rapid expanse occurred how would matter ever had combined with other matter.
Gravity draws matter together. If it didn't exist, then your prediction would be correct.
Well these distances rely on the red shift to figure its recessional velocity. Knowing its recessional velocity we can determine its distance from us. The problem this poses is the amount of unseen matter in the universe (secular theory). There is no way to accurately detect gravitational lensing on average stars outside our own galaxy. We only recently discovered this problem with the double Quasar. Which is a very luminous and extremely high energy event. Other stellar occurrences would be extremely difficult to observe as most of what is known is simply their composition. There is just too many stars to individually monitor for repeated occurrences. And as the distance increases so would the chance for interference. Not to mention gravity stretching the light from all of the dark matter we can't detect. You see then how the variables need to be accounted for?
That is why we have many different methods to measure distance, and each one has its prescribed limitations and variables accounted for. Your claim only works if we assume we have just one tool in our kit, which is simplistic and doesn't account for modern knowledge.
You can't impose that when you have one example to go on. And the one example is not an observable event. This isn't operational science but purely theoretical.
Symmetry supersedes those scientific laws that you are so enamoured by. It is derived from math and explains, essentially, that physics must operate the same everywhere in the universe, and at any time. It also explains the conservation laws.
As for your other objections:
http://www.space.com/11083-hubble-photo-dying-star-toxic-gas.html
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100626.html
We see dying stars, newly born stars, indeed all sorts of phenomena just by observing space. That is how we learn about stellar evolution, and how we test those theories.
I have heard of it, but I have never seen it.
Try looking at the Hubble telescope photos some day. There are many examples of stars forming, of nebulae condensing, etc.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_
I will stop you there, it is not new matter. The same electrons, protons, and neutrons are recycled to make different particles. They can't defy the law of conservation of mass and energy.
My language was not precise: They break down matter and form new kinds of matter with it.
Only the made up instances of quantum occurrences. When their research doesn't coincide with the supported model then they are completely ignored. Evolutionists themselves hinder scientific progress because they limit their ideas to such exorbitant amount of time.
Biologists use a theory that has been refined for over a century. The claims it makes exist because of the evidence leading to those conclusions. You should know better, but instead you deny a fundamental piece of science because you have faith in something written by men over two thousand years ago. Have some context for your bold claims.
The simple fact is that we have observed animals and bacteria evolve. We have observed new mutations that benefit populations. What haven't we observed? God. Magic. Prayer working. A flat Earth (biblical claim). A fixed Earth (biblical claim). People walking on water. Animals popping into existence from nothing (creationism).
You have no place to criticise biology and science when your beliefs are absurd and laughable.
My explanation is the account in scripture. I believe God a supernatural being created all that is in the universe. You believe that matter/energy came into existence...? That's right through nothing!! That or you are stupid enough to believe it always existed and violate both laws of thermodynamics. Especially because ever trade off with energy always loses an amount.
You believe in a text written over two thousand years ago, by man. You believe that text's claim that it is inspired by a god which it claims exists. That is the truth of the matter. You have not established that god exists, or that the text is correct. You have only your belief in it. Belief that flies in the face of modern evidence and methodology. You believe in a document that explains how to sacrifice animals to appease a god. That claims men can live in the belly of a giant fish. That says that women came from a rib (actually the baculum). That says magic words can create things from nothing.
Then you have the gall to talk about my assumptions as if I am the one making absurd claims that defy nature and reality. That is known as projection. My claims are not absurd, neither are my assumptions, but you are projecting your absurdity onto me as a defense mechanism. Learn your place. You have no business calling other people stupid or absurd when you believe in talking snakes and literal hocus pocus.
The facts are that I gave you two possible answers being investigated which describe how our universe may have come into being. This is a very recondite subject, well beyond your education, and one of the few subjects that I have difficulty understanding, which is saying something because I am hardly ever challenged. That you dismiss it out of hand without bothering to learn about it, says volumes of your ignorance and arrogance.
It is the inspired word of God. That is a fact you have no proof to dispute. Tell me what do you think the Bible says about the universe. Quote some scripture.
No. It claims to be the inspired word of an assumed god. See the difference? Harry Potter claims to be an account of a young wizard in Hogwarts. Martian Chronicles claims to be an account of our exploration and conquest of Mars. You made a puerile mistake in confusing a claim with a fact.
Of course I can't dispute that claim, it is an unfalsifiable one. Remember what I told you about science (aka knowledge) and falsifiability? What, don't tell me you automatically believed it because it cannot be proven false? That's funny. I cannot prove or dispute the claim that leprechauns exist. Do you believe in them? How about fairies? Monsters under the bed?
Jeremiah 10:12
12 It is he who made the earth by his power,
who established the world by his wisdom,
and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.
Yeah, so? It's talking about the firmament. In biblical cosmology the Earth is surrounded by the universe which is a dome-like structure of firmament. Oh, also the Earth is flat and fixed. The dome has windows which let in water. Read Psalm, Job, 1 Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew and Revelation. I believe even Genesis mentions the windows of heaven.
You mean like science fiction? Terraforming and Martians.
Martian Chronicles is a book I read, used to illustrate the point about believing silly things in books. Like gods.
As stated, I am talking about "the existence of God(s)".
The debate description merely gets specific ON SOME POINTS that will be brought up during debate.
Even so, it all doesn't matter. Unless you understand a religion up to a point where others will believe that YOU believe in it (when describing it), you will not be able to debunk a religion.
Right, but don't you think that when discussing god you should frame it within the debate topic?
you really are confused. Billions of people have died because they beleived in God? Here we go again putting all the religions in one box and throwing them down the trash.
You misunderstood me. Billions of people have died not knowing the truth, believing in religious doctrines and never having the opportunity to laugh at the absurdity of it all.
By nature we are evil.
No, we aren't, because there is no evil. There is no good either. There is only what we decide is good and bad.
The foundation of christianity is only pure and divine.
It is based on human sacrifice and torture, and lies. There is nothing pure about that.
Im sure it is easy for you to blame everything on religion, but this is not so.
I don't. I blame a lot of things on religion, but not everything. I don't believe anything has done more over the last thousand years than religion did to crush the human spirit and enslave the mind.
Humans by nature crave for power, wealth, lust, bloodshed. We are blind, death, and dumb. Jesus christ thank God has conquered death so we are no longer slaves of sin. Their is hope found in Jesus christ.
These are just points of dogma which have ensnared your mind. You're not a dumb person for believing this, but you are stuck in a loop that forces you to say really unintelligent things because of that dogma. The key to you overcoming your trap is to lose your emotional reasons for believing in it. Those emotional reasons vary from person to person, but they serve the same purpose: to hold your intellect hostage. Once you find a reason for living that isn't tied to those emotions, you will be able to see your dogma for what it is, and you won't have this blind spot which utterly prevents you from debating the subject or reasoning it.
Trust me when I say this, I went through this religion just like you did. I enjoyed all the ups and downs of it, and I fervently believed the dogma, until I was able to let go of the emotional trap and actually examine it for what it was.
We long to do good, but we dont know how to bring it forth, because sin deceives us.
The problem isn't that we do not know how to do good, it is that other considerations get in the way. Power, money, sex, games, love. These all affect our ultimate decisions relating to good.
Death now has no power over me, because I am saved, and I choose to bask in the sun, because that is where I have found life.
Is that your emotional trap? Fear of death? Many of us fear death because we don't want our existence to end. If you fear death, then I suggest you get out of your religion while you're still young, because nothing hurts worse than the feeling of living a lie your entire life, especially when your life is almost over.
And remeber people can claim to be alot of things. People can claim to be beleivers, but really they are only deceiving themselves. Only christ truely knows your heart and where it lies.
If you want to know the truth about believers and how they became atheist, I suggest a good starting point here:
This is really making me mad. Explain yourself! I just see bits and pieces of scripture flying all over the place. Daniel? Upon my bed this is what i saw? you didnt even finish what the scripture was saying!
These are relevant portions which describe situations where a flat earth must be the case.
Define origin of the universe. Do you mean its development, I.E. The Big Bang, or do you mean the first cause (if there ever was one)?
Cosmology with Bounce by Flat Space-Time Theory of Gravitation and a New Interpretation
Enigmatic Aspects of the Early Universe: Possibility of a 'Pre-Big Bang Phase'!
These bits of research would seem to either suggest plainly a Big Bounce scenario, or hint at it.
Theories do become laws. All the scientific laws we know were once theorized at one point. This applies to gravity and thermodynamics as well and many others.
You are equivocating the meaning of theory into the casual one, which is hypothesis, in order to justify your blatant misunderstanding of scientific methodology.
Your assumptions for the origin of the universe is built upon previous untestable and unobservable assumptions. There gets a point where all you have is assumptions upon assumptions i.e. Big Bang. Mathematical assumptions are proven. Secular origin theories are not proven.
You did not make a case for yourself. You just repeated yourself without a deeper understanding of what an assumption is, and then asserted that scientific theories are unproven.
Testing is part of the scientific method this is true. Religion has been tested and continue to do so. You may not believe the Bible, but the books written in it have been proven to have been written by those who claimed to witness the events.
Religion is not tested. It is a matter of faith. It begins with you believing just for the sake of it, and ends with you believing just for the sake of it.
The bible cannot be used to prove itself, either. And a minor correction: the new testament accounts were written decades after the fact, if it even happened.
The debate would be to just how far back is that time.
Before the first stars, when there were just dense, high energies.
That is following the assumption that the triangulation of astronomical distances are correct. These distances can't be verified.
If you're not going to address the argument itself but just use innuendo to instill doubt to the minds of the lesser educated, why are you here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The cosmic distance ladder (also known as the Extragalactic Distance Scale) is the succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects. A real direct distance measurement to an astronomical object is only possible for those objects that are "close enough" (within about a thousand parsecs) to Earth. The techniques for determining distances to more distant objects are all based on various measured correlations between methods that work at close distances with methods that work at larger distances. Several methods rely on a standard candle, which is an astronomical object that has a known luminosity.
The ladder analogy arises because no one technique can measure distances at all ranges encountered in astronomy. Instead, one method can be used to measure nearby distances, a second can be used to measure nearby to intermediate distances, and so on. Each rung of the ladder provides information that can be used to determine the distances at the next higher rung.
We take the observations of our Sun and apply that to other stars in the universe. Scientists build theories on the formation of our solar system then apply that to the universe.
You never heard of symmetry? Also, we can observe the formation of stars, their deaths, etc. by observing deep space with out telescopes.
They do that when they can't prove how our solar system formed!!
You never heard of nebular hypothesis and accretion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System. There is evidence that it was first proposed in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg.[1][2] Originally applied only to our own Solar System, this method of planetary system formation is now thought to be at work throughout the universe.[3] The widely accepted modern variant of the nebular hypothesis is Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM) or simply Solar Nebular Model.[4]
A theory plus a theory doesn't equal a law. Manipulating physical laws to build your theories doesn't prove it. If anything it shows just how far off you really are.
A scientific primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
A couple quick videos on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
This is to test how the particles interact with each other, this does not show how matter was created.
Particle accelerators break down matter and they form new matter. They they test theories on the composition of primordial matter, and attempt to verify hypotheses about the early universe and the formation of matter at that time.
Those scientists claim to know what caused it. But they do recognize (some of them) that the absurdity of a spontaneous expansion of space from a primordial dense energy/matter combination. This is a untestable and unobservable phenomenon. That does not qualify it as actual science.
You hardly understand the scientific process, and now you want to debunk quantum mechanics? Talk about brazen. Also, despite how authoritative some scientists are, their opinion on the cause of the big bang is not the same as their research. You should know better.
One other thing, people who live in tissue paper houses shouldn't throw stones. Your lack of explanation for the universe is magic words.
That's where you are wrong. I take the inspired word of God on absolute authority.
No you don't. You take the word of man as the asserted word of god. Be honest with yourself. If there is a god, it is not your god, because this universe is infinitely more complex than anything dreamt up in the bible.
You claim that I can't know the truth.
I know that you cannot know the truth.
Reading mythology is not a form of science.
I claim that I do because of the many prophets of God. I believe the inspired words of these men are divinely established to record what God has revealed to us. That and the many eyewitnesses in the Bible, as well as extrabiblical testimony.
I don't care what you claim. I could claim that Harry Potter is an accurate assessment of reality, and therefore witches must exist who battle evil. It wouldn't matter. What matters is whether I can support my claims. You cannot.
Islamic scholars make the same claims as you, so do certain Hindu scholars.
If God created all matter, energy, and time then in fact He did create those physical laws.
I don't care about your assumptions. I asked for a mechanism. If you are going to assert that god used magic words to create the universe, provide a detailed account of how the creation of the universe happened, precisely how those words worked, what words they were, the physics of it all. If you are going to pretend that creationism is science, then you'd better provide the science of magic. Biblical stories are not applicable. I'm talking about detailed models, mechanisms, data.
However, evolution has not and will never be observable or testable as is the fundamentals of genetics would have to be completely violated for it to occur.
Didn't I just send you this report a week or so ago?
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/
How can you make such blatantly false statements? Do you not blush at your audacity?
A statistical analysis based on the unit of one is not valid.
That is not the position. The position is that we know from Earth how life could form. We know from cosmology the distribution and quantities of the elements. It is not a statistical analysis of one planet, but of space itself. Other solar systems, stars, etc.
The calculations for life in the universe is just that, they are calculations based on our unique and individual planet. They have no substantial proof. When 90% of our universe is unknown then such assumptions are absurd.
So now you are alleging that life could take up forms besides those of Earth. That's good for my position, because if we just use the chemical composition of Earth life as a factor in what conditions to expect for alien life, that narrows the search since we need specific solar ranges, atmospheres, chemicals, etc. If you're saying that Earth represents JUST ONE possible way that life could form, that means you acknowledge other ways that life could form, which means that the solar range may be broader, the dependence on liquid water not so critical, the atmosphere composition less specific, etc. Thanks for supporting my case.
Water, carbon based life forms, its atmosphere, temperature, and the human race.
http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/
H: 75%
O: 1%
C: 0.5%
N: 0.1%
Those elements are common in the universe.
http://www.ozh2o.com/h2universe.html
Fortunately, the composition of a planet's atmosphere and surface can be partially
determined by analyzing the spectrum of light emitted or absorbed by the elements that
compose it.
A spectrum is a display of the intensity of light emitted at each wavelength.
Each type of molecules has a unique spectrum of light. Thus, if the spectrum of
water is found to be present in the full spectrum of light that we observe from a given
planet, we can infer the existence of water on that planet.
Water molecules have been detected in this manner in the atmospheres and the surfaces of
some of the planets and elsewhere in the universe.
Below is a partial list of evidence of the existence of water in the universe,
detected spectroscopically and by other means:
Ice on the Moon: Over the last couple of years, spacecraft orbiting the Moon have
used radar to study its surface. The reflection of the radar signals from craters near
the poles indicates that there may be a large amount of subsurface ice there.
Comets: Comets are chunks of dust and frozen gases including water that are in
highly oblong (elliptical or hyperbolic) orbits around the Sun. They are sometimes
referred to as "dirty snowballs" although they are many kilometers in size. As they
near the Sun, the sunlight melts some of the comet's material which results in a long tail.
Some astronomers have raised the possibility that comets have fed the oceans with water
through numerous collisions with the Earth over the aeons.
Mars: Even the earliest spacecraft photographs of the famous Red Planet show
long jagged structures that appear to be old rivers and canyons. One canyon is as long
as the United States! Photographs taken recently by the Pathfinder lander show stacked
boulders that were probably deposited by raging floods. However, the atmospheric pressure
on Mars is now 100 times less than ours and, therefore, water cannot exist as a liquid
there anymore. It is possible that much of the water exists as subsurface ice. There are
polar ice caps on Mars that get larger during the Martian winter and smaller in the summer.
The ice caps are largely composed of frozen carbon dioxide, but small amounts of water-ice
have also been detected.
Europa: The Galileo spacecraft orbiting Jupiter has photographed its four largest
moons. The surface of one of the moons, Europa, appears cracked with many fissures,
as if it is made of ice that freezes and then thaws repeatedly. There may actually be a
liquid ocean under the ice! Ganymede, another of the four moons, has a similar looking
surface but to a lesser degree.
Interstellar Clouds: The spectrum of water has been detected in interstellar gas/dust
clouds. Water masers have even been detected. Maser stands for Microwave Amplification
by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Water molecules in masers in interstellar clouds
are stimulated by the energies of nearby stars. Very powerful masers have also been detected
near the centers of other galaxies.
Temperature, Atmospheres, etc.
http://www.universetoday.com/53941/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/
The team determined the planet, GJ 1214b, is either blanketed with a thin layer of water steam or surrounded by a thick layer of high clouds. If the former, the planet itself would have an icy composition. If the latter, the planet would be rocky or similar to the composition of Neptune, though much smaller.
"This is the first super-Earth known to have an atmosphere," said Jacob Bean, a NASA Sagan Fellow and astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "But even with these new measurements, we can't say yet what that atmosphere is made of. This world is being very shy and veiling its true nature from us."
As for the human race, we know how it evolved and we have a better idea of the origin of life, and both are not special to Earth. They just require self-replicating molecules and time.
Mars and Venus are within the habitable zone in our system, yet there is no life there. Proximity doesn't determine life, there are many more factors that need to be addressed. Also what type of star is in their system? It's a red dwarf with a M3V spectral class. This means usually a very old star, except the fact that it lies fairly close to us. Our Sun of course if of the G class. There are many problems with your assumption that any of its planets could harbor life.
The point was that a mere 20.3 LY away a candidate planet was spotted. We keep finding new candidate planets, and they are not so far away. Imagine how populated the universe must be, of planets outside out range of view. Then imagine that just a few of them need liquid water, an atmosphere, and common chemicals to begin abiogenesis.
Being that close to its star would cause massive tidal shifts in the planet. This would be a very volcanic terrain. Not to mention the formation of the star and planets would have robbed most of the 'organic' producing material (according to secular theories).
Early Earth was very volcanic and extremely uninhabitable. Planets have stages.
That's a principle not a law. You can't cite an assumptuous theory with another.
Did you bother to read it? It's mathematical.
You are right falsifiable is very important but that falls under testable. You are wrong about dark matter (a made up concept to explain errors in theories). We can't test dark matter at all. What we do is observe the interactions we believe it has with other objects. We can only assume its mass and maybe velocity.
Dark matter is evidenced by gravitational and cosmic background radiation anomalies. It is an example of using theory to find indirect evidence of something. If you have a problem with it, make a case. Don't just spout innuendos that you don't understand.
That sounds like the Big Bang.
Only an ignorant person would say such a thing. Try reading about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I realise that being as deeply religious as you are requires denial of basic science, but at least do your homework.
You mean assumption based guesses to deny the truth.
Are you talking about Christianity again?
No it isn't the universe testifies about the universe right?
The universe does not testify.
Miracles are impossible in natural science. But they are not impossible to God. Water can and has been manipulated by the Creator. Jesus rose from the dead because He is Emmanuel (God with us). And the ark preserved the different species and kinds for re-population.
I'll just replace your language with its real meaning so you can spot the errors:
Miracles are impossible in the universe, by definition. But god is defined to be magical. Water can and has been manipulated by magic. Jesus rose from the dead because of magic. And the ark preserved the different species and kinds for re-population with magic.
I'll also address the last bit: a flooded Earth would be unable to host life after the waters are magiked away. All life, including bacteria, plants, sealife and riverlife would perish. This is because all life has its own range of temperatures, moisture, saline concentration, etc. that it can live in. A worldwide flood would merge those conditions into one which is inhospitable to all life. Ark or not, all life would perish. Also, life cannot inbreed to repopulate. Inbreeding causes severe problems to animal fitness.
Is that not what the network is called now? Do you refer to Germany as Prussia? Or do you use the latent name?
I call it Deutschland. I also use the original names for the elements; Kalium, Plumbum, Hydragyrum, Argentum, Wolfram, Natrium, Cuprum, Aurum, Stibium, Stannum, Ferrum etc. I like old things.
A zombie is still dead through the fictitious virus. Jesus is risen the flesh on Him is as alive as it was before His Crucification. A worldwide flood is not impossible. We have billions of dead things buried in mud everywhere. If that water was still here then we would still be flooded. You need to look at the deep sea trenches and ice caps to see where that water receded.
I misspoke, I meant undead. Jesus is your undead saviour. I guess we need a better way to kill holy men that keeps them dead. I wonder if that could be a sales pitch for Hydrogen Cyanide: "Kills men dead and keeps them that way."
I already explained why a worldwide flood could not happen. It was an oral story passed on many thousands of years ago which the biblical authors exaggerated because that's the nature of storytelling for morals.
There is not enough water on Earth to flood it. Frozen water does not recede, it expands because water crystalises, so icecaps with this much water would expand to cover the world even deeper in ice. There isn't enough water in the icecaps to come close to flooding the Earth. A worldwide deluge would kill everything with no survival afterwords, it would be a dead planet. We are talking about so much water that it would rise miles into the air, on every point upon Earth. These figures are huge, and you could not hide the water, because fluids conform to their surface. Water does not compress. A wooden ark could not hold every species on Earth. If you say that it held "kinds" then you imply that evolution by natural selection is a fact, while denying the constraints of genetics which do not allow small populations to inbreed for fitness.
See how much you need to deny basic reality to believe your silly mythology?
What other planet has an atmosphere like ours. What other planet has observed liquid water? If you want to argue about Europa (which is a moon, but nevertheless a celestial object) then let's go there.
Venus has an atmosphere, which is what I stated "an atmosphere." Mars at one point had liquid water.
The Jovian planets all contain chemical elements, yet none contain life.
However they are too far from the sun. Planets composed of these elements exist within the proper range. Gliese 581 d is an example of this.
It has life!! My request to you is show me another planet that has life. My evidence is our planet, and yours is...?
Life is not composed of anything that is only found on Earth. Its precursor conditions are not unique to Earth. So what is your point? That life requires a planet with certain chemicals, a certain distance near the sun, an atmosphere... common conditions in our universe.
What mistakes are those? I am honest about my faith. You aren't honest about yours. Your theories have no proof and you don't have the guts to own up to that fact. Just be honest.
So you are saying that meteorites if in fact are from Mars do not contain any contamination? That a meteorite that impacts our planet at an immense velocity and extreme temperature won't fuse with any of our elements. You can't be that naive can you?
The experts have agreed that those meteorites contain evidence of martian water. This means that after asking the obvious questions you posed, they tested and found otherwise that it wasn't contamination.
Of who's physics? It's certainly not anything we are capable of doing.
There's a difference between what we can presently do, and what is possible according to physics. One day we will have the technology.
The question is "Is the problem of Evil a coherent argument against the existence of God(s)".
This does not say anything about a merciful or caring God. Merely the existence of a deity.
Right, but it follows with:
In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism).
I have no qualms with finding the physics of the universe. I actually love it! I'm all for reverse-engineering the parts of the car to find how and why they work. But the answer to the origins of the universe might not be in there, just like the origins of the car aren't actually in the car itself.
If the origins of the universe forever remain obscure, then that means we will never know the answer. This means that religions cannot claim authority on the matter because they are no more privy to the details of the universe than our scientists.
But then Yellowstone erupts, changing the environment and it throws off the equilibrium. Once a creature stops adapting and changing, it dies. Michael Crichton (yes, a fiction author, but lots of good research) wrote a book on it. It's quite good. It's called The Lost World. You should read it, if only for the amazing plot-line.
I must assume that a species capable of seeding planets and solar systems with life is more than capable of regulating its own evolution, and in fact halting it.
We have technology which makes us uniquely able to combat environmental changes.
The OT is an observation of events, most likely passed down word-of-mouth until somebody got around to writing them down (and no, it probably wasn't Moses, despite popular belief). That those events happen to show the existence of God doesn't disprove them anymore than the credibility of a history book would be in danger if it mentioned the Holocaust when the world didn't believe it ever happened. That is, of course, an analogy as I'm sure the Holocaust is still believed.
It does not change the claims made within it that its texts are divinely inspired, its claims about god, etc. You cannot rely on a single document to prove itself. Contrary to your example, we have multiple history texts, and we have pieces of concentration camps and the German war machine in museums.
Or you could have a steady (but quite powerful) wind that allows people to walk on a shallow section of a sea. It's conceivable and has been studied. I believe the number was 67 mph, which is much less powerful than, say, a hurricane.
We're talking about a sea, not a marsh or pond. The waters would not part without an extreme amount of force to push such a bulk of water (thousands of tons of it) aside.
Honestly, just out of curiosity, how do we know the mountains are millions of years old? Surely they can't use carbon, as the rocks weren't living. Or did they use the same process that dated fresh rocks from Mt. St. Hellens to be a quite old? Or did they assume that the strata layers have been deposited the same rate forever?
We date igneous rocks using radiometric dating.
As for Mt. St. Helens:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/
That website goes into specifics of your claim.
There are a whole variety of ways to date rock and mountains. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, for example measuring a sedimentary layer based on its deposit rate is accurate provided the rate is correct, then there are index fossils which can provide clues about age. Radiometric dating is very reliable when done correctly and there are many different isotopes to test for. That is why it is common to use several different dating methods.
Wouldn't it be possible that a massive flood set down the layers before the mountains came up?
No. It does not account for the complexity of our geographical features. When a deluge deposits layers, they are sorted by density, and the layers we have are not fixed this way (for example the fossil distribution would require all fossils on one layer, but they are scattered across geographic time based on age).
But there's no harm in saying you watch channel 59, is there? So why is there harm in calling channel 59 by it's name: SyFy?
It was a meaningless comment, I think you take it too seriously.
And, semi-honestly, do the British spell 'civilization' with an 's' instead of a 'z'?
Yes.
It is also not physically possible to make a bag weighing at least 55 pounds weight 45 pounds, but it happened. It's also not possible to have paint bubble from the ground, and that happened as well. And there's really no point in trying to discredit those stories, as me and my family have witnessed them first-hand.
Or my brother-in-law's friend suddenly being cured totally of cancer, with the medical x-rays to confirm it. Here's him with the tumors, and here's him without any. No treatment in between.
Weight scales can malfunction, human error can occur. A tank of paint disposed of by burial could rupture, or someone lazy could have dumped it there. Cancer does go into spontaneous remission.
You have no proof to what it was before. You are using historical science based what you think it was before.
Exactly, you believe it did. This does not mean you have evidence that it actually did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
All that you demonstrated is that our planet is very unique.
Because our planet is the only one with a star? An atmosphere? Water? Chemical elements? It isn't. I keep making a simple request: explain how Earth is unique in the universe despite being made of elements and having properties that are not unique to it.
I don't need to read anymore about the supposed water on Mars. The fact here is no water has been found.
So you don't want to correct your mistakes, you just want to make one big faith-based assumption that magic made the earth, and therefore it is special.
It is now accepted that over thirty meteorites have been found that came from Mars. These Mars meteorites have provided scientists with a wonderful opportunity to analyze the rocks of Mars. Some of them contain evidence that these rocks were exposed to water when on Mars.
In 1983 it was suggested by Smith et al. [145] that meteorites in the so called SNC group (Shergottites, Nakhlites, Chassignites) originated from Mars, from evidence from an instrumental and radiochemical neutron activation analysis of the meteorites. They found that the SNC meteorites possess chemical, isotopic, and petrologic features consistent with data available from Mars at the time, findings further confirmed by Treiman et al. [146] a few years later, by similar methods. Then in late 1983, Bogard et al. [147] showed that the isotopic concentrations of various noble gases of some of the shergottites were consistent with the observations of the atmosphere of Mars made by the Viking spacecraft in the mid-to-late 1970s.
You are citing a fictional concept one that is impossible.
Because...? It's within the capacity of physics.
Planets are common, yes. But still, as of yet, we haven't found another earth-like one. The indirect evidence is statistical math, which also fails to apply to casinos and weather.
Again, if you have cause to believe that Earth is unique, I implore you to share it.
I'll accept it when there's evidence to do so. As of right now, there is none. So it seems that you're more based on faith (at least in this regard) than I am.
Like I said, the indirect evidence is overwhelming. Also you never made a case for the Earth being unique.
How is that emotional evidence? It's bleedin' physical! Did you even read what I said?
Sorry, I meant emotional justification. I misspoke.
You're arguing that the supernatural doesn't exist. I give an example that cannot be explained naturally. Fifty-five pound bags cannot weight 45 pounds. That's a fact. But it did. That's physical evidence for a supernatural.
The supernatural is by definition beyond the scope of the natural. Nothing natural can justify it because it does not play by the laws of nature, and in some definitions (which I despise), logic itself.
Same goes for paint bubbling out of the ground. None of it is emotional. It's physical.
Sounds like you just don't want to accept that.
Paint on the ground inexplicably, or unusually heavy bags, do not follow into god. It simply doesn't follow.
No. The Constitution of the US provides set rules with which to rule a country. In the 200+ years we've been doing so, there have been dozens of views on how to interpret the document. These views are not originated by those that wrote the constitution, but are the product of people since that time.
Correct. We know that because they left around extra-constitutional evidence of themselves. This is not the case with the bible.
But that doesn't mean that the Constitution, or it's writers, are a product of people since it was written. If I suddenly decided that those who wrote the Constitution didn't exist, that it was written by people in the early 1900s, than there would be no external evidence for them. I could easily discredit everything written about them as just being fantasies of a confused culture. Nobody talks to them nowadays, thus severing all evidence.
That is because there is evidence of them outside the constitution. If nobody knew of them outside of it, your questioning would be justified.
Except God does talk to people today. Imagine if you will you were able to take pair of HAM radios, some battery packs for power, and a buddy, back to the 1400s. Your buddy goes off somewhere, but you keep in contact with the radios.
Nobody would believe that your buddy exists. You're using a level of communication that's beyond the science of the day. But just because it wasn't physically and scientifically possible at the time, doesn't make it impossible.
It's not a matter of being so advanced we cannot explain it. It is a matter of definition: gods are defined to be above nature, and in some cases above logic. When you define an object like this, it cannot be understood or followed using natural laws (or in the rare cases, which I mentioned, logic).
What about natural evidences that cannot be explained naturally. Like if gravity turned off all the sudden. Or something smaller, like a mountain getting up and jumping into the ocean.
We'd be left twiddling our thumbs, unable to explain it. We simply have no method for evaluating the supernatural, if it even exists.
Look, how much does it take right now to send a probe to mars? How much did the ISS take? Millions if not billions. Instead of chucking stuff that fails half the time, why not spend the money in developing an economically viable engine or reducing green house gas emissions?
This is a false dichotomy. That we either fund space exploration and research or the reduction of green house gasses. We can do both, actually.
I would agree. But I'm going to believe evidence, and so far it's come up shy.
If you believe evidence then you must accept that planets are common and earthlike ones are uncommon but not unique. That is what the indirect evidence suggests.
Yes, we've only dipped our exploratory cup into the ocean of the universe, but I will be skeptical until we find another habitable planet. Yes, it will take a long time, and the math does show that it's possible, but statistical probabilities don't always hold true against reality.
It sounds to me like you just don't want to accept that you aren't unique in the universe.
Our telescopes can't sea anywhere near the Big Bang. And the cosmic background radiation might be a residue effect of "Let there be light."
We see the cosmic background radiation which is residue from the early big bang, before the first stars.
Don't make bare assertions to fit your prejudices.
How's this? When traveling on a mission trip to Indiana, Peru (not Peru, Indiana), we were limited to a single personal checked bag. The other slot was taken up by things like medicine for the villages we would visit, all packed into massive 45-pound bags (as they couldn't exceed 50 lbs due to a price bump in the cost, and we were quite poor).
The main group had gone left Salt Lake City for Atlanta, leaving only four of us with six medicine bags. One of our people was having passport troubles, while the other was helping him. In the end, the one guy couldn't come with us. So we divided that 45-pound bag into the five other 45-pound bags, and they all still weighed 45-pounds.
Or when my sister's mission trip found a well of house paint bubbling up from the ground when they ran out while fixing an Appalachian house.
Seems like evidence to me.
Like I said, emotional evidence.
I'm not claiming that religion is infallable. I'm claiming that God exists. There is a big difference between the two, just as there is a big difference between God's will and what people say God's will is (e.g. the Crusades). Religion in often invented by humans, usually for the purpose of controlling other humans.
If religion is a human invention, then god must be as well, as it is a religious concept with no external evidence.
Interesting. You say nothing could demonstrate the existence of God? You are so adamant and resigned that absolutely nothing could do it? What if Jesus came back in the Second Advent, with his army of angels and the trumpets blaring? Would you not be convinced then, or would you search for a natural explanation?
A supernatural thing cannot be evidenced. Because they are defined to be outside the boundaries of nature, no natural evidence (your senses, the world, whatever) can be used to validate their existence as supernatural entities. It can only evaluate effects of their existence upon the natural universe.
This is the burden you took when you decided to place your faith in the supernatural. You chose to abandon the possibility of ever having proof or evidence.
Mechanisms aren't required when the creator is working outside of the universe.
So you have no answers and are touting ignorance in their place. Just like I said you were doing.
If you have no answers to offer that increase our insight about nature, then just keep your mouth shut on the topic and let people who care about truth answer the big questions. Because, you have no answers. You just have ignorance masquerading as knowledge. You are only answering a question with more questions.
Just like the mechanisms for building a car aren't contained in the car itself.
This is a broken analogy. When figuring out how a car works, one does not say "Jim made it by speaking it into existence" and leave that as the answer. You reverse-engineer the components and discover their physics.
Also, don't say "Well, we can always ask Jim how the car was made" because you cannot do that with god. Remember that god is defined to be supernatural. That means any alleged divine revelations or communications can never be shown to have come from god, which means that any voices you hear can't be shown to be anything more than mental illness. You'll also note, to continue the metaphor, that no holy book has ever contained any knowledge about the universe that was ahead of the era the book was written in and that instead we find people reading modern insights into holy verses (which is the opposite of a prediction).
The burden of proof is still on you, and you have yet to supply it. All the exosolar planets I've heard and read about are quite different from Earth. The closest thing would be Kepler-10b, which is only 1.5 Earth radii, but the temperature of the surface is a sweltering 1833 K. The next might be COROT-7b at 1.5 Earth radii as well, and it's also around 2000 K, not to mention eight times as massive. And both of those not-close planets are around 500 light years away.
I already answered this.
Gliese 581 c has never been directly observed, but has more than 5 times the mass of Earth, and reports of atmospheric conditions cast doubt on habitability. 851 e is the closest to earth-sized, but it's far too close to the star.
A heavy earth would not be inhospitable to life. It is within the habitable zone, however.
Please enlighten me.
Under certain conditions equilibrium can be achieved in allele frequencies, thus ending evolution.
It's easy to say God uses magic as we can't understand Him. Just like the parts of the car probably think (if they were sentient) that the car manufacturing plant is magic, as there's nothing on the car that could do what the plant could do.
When you call something supernatural, that is the same thing as magic. If you cannot claim to understand god, then why would you propose it as an explanation? Why would anyone propose something that they say will never be understood as an answer to a question? You're just parroting beliefs at this point if you have no understanding.
And why not? Much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is history. Historical text. Normally historians love text that old that tells what happened. It's called 'primary source'. As for the parting of the Red Sea, it wasn't 'magic'. The Bible clearly states that God used wind to do it. And science has actually confirmed that under the right circumstances, wind can push water significantly.
Using a book to prove itself is circular. The bible claims that god exists, then claims its writings as proof (those allegedly historical writings), and THEN claims that it can be trusted because it is the word of god (inerrant). This is circular reasoning.
Also, if you have enough wind to push the massive bulk of a sea in half, you have enough wind to tear apart anyone who walks in the path of that divided water.
And there is enough water on Earth to completely cover the land--if the land was flattened a bit. Okay, a lot a bit. But what's to say the pre-flood Earth wasn't quite flat? Certainly something like a worldwide flood would change the landscape. Maybe the flood was what set the tectonic plates in motion, causing the modern mountains to rise up out of the water.
The nature of water is that it will conform to the surface it fills. That means, if there isn't enough water to cover Earth now, there never was. It also means that if the Earth was covered in water, the water would have no place to go. A flat earth is not indicated in the geological record, as our highest mountains are millions of years old, not thousands.
There is a name for what you're doing. It's called Argumentum ad Hominem.
Actually not. I wasn't using youth as an attack on his argument.
Syfy is actuall a channel on TV. Judging by his grammar and writing skill, I'd say that he's actually a well-educated adult, or at least a well-educated young adult. I've noticed that you've made more spelling errors than he has.
Yes, and it was part of a trend in today's youth to repackage Sci-Fi as syfy for trendiness. Also, I use British spelling which is a different, but correct, system.
I've covered the 'magic' part. As for zombies, people raised from the dead aren't zombies. Zombies are mindless living-dead creatures. People God has raised are ex-dead people.
Zombie was a bit of a misnomer, but you're right that they would be undead. Still a silly thing to believe in, magical undead walking the earth and ascending into the sky.
In the New Testament, which is an amazing Primary Source, has recorded several people coming back to life through God's power. That you refuse to believe historical text is quite disappointing.
It is not biologically possible for the dead to resurrect once the brain decomposes past a certain point (if you've been dead for hours or days, you're reached it). If you try to raise a person this decomposed back to life, you will indeed have a zombie because they will not retain any identity.
The bible is not a credible document, neither is the New Testament. You cannot use the bible to justify itself. Now, if we had multiple credible historic reports of dead walking the earth, that would certainly warrant further research.
Second: Mr. Aveskde, you said, "Prove it. I follow parsimony, you do not." As I recall, you brought up the argument that there are tons of other planets like Earth. Due to the burden of proof, you are the one that has to prove it.
I really wish that people understood how the burden of proof works. When circumstances are equal, the one making positive and negative claims has to back them up. When there are unequal positions, the one on the fringe has to back his claims up, because the established ideas have the majority of evidence in their favour.
It is established in cosmology and astronomy that planetary formation is natural, and commonplace due to accretion. It is established that the elements for planets like Earth are not unique to it, and many are quite common. It is established that stars form naturally and commonly.
http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/
http://earthguide.ucsd.
All the conditions in this universe are ripe for the formation of uncountable planets. A fraction of those will be within the habitable zone. A fraction of those will have liquid water, and atmosphere formation. When dealing with large numbers, it makes claims that the earth is unique sound specious. Therefore I put it to you, same as him, what makes Earth unique in the universe, unable to be created elsewhere?
Once again, there is little proof of this. With all of the solar and exosolar planets we've found, none of them come even remotely close to meeting the requirements for Earth-like life.
We've barely sampled the cosmos. What you're saying is like the man who puts a cup into the ocean, comes out with no whales, and concludes that they do not exist in the waters. Already we have spotted Gliese 581 d, which has the potential to be an earth-like planet. There is no reason to think we won't find more, and that eventually we may find ways to get more data about those planets.
Slippery slope, or something like that.
No it isn't. It is a replacement of his pompous language with the underlying message in plain text.
Here's a fact: no human was around at the beginning of the universe. There is no written records from anywhere around that time.
There are photographic records from that period. Our telescopes do not merely see great distances from us, they can see back in time, on the order of billions of years. The early universe is observed by measuring Cosmic Background Radiation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/
The big bang is a theory supported by some evidence, but it's still a theory, and in the end you still have to have faith that it's true.
It is the only theory that explains Cosmic Background Radiation. Odd how religious people will have faith in things which are supported only by emotions but won't trust that which is supported by evidence. Selective scepticism, really.
I really don't want to go into the 'does god exist or not' argument, as it really has little to do with the idea of space exploration, but I'd say that God also has some evidence going for him.
There is none, actually. Every single claim for the existence of god has either been shown to be wrong, has a natural explanation, or is an outright fabrication. This makes perfect sense because religious people have defined god to be supernatural, which means that in addition to making their god unfalsifiable (so they can always believe in him), their god can never have evidence. That's the double-edged blade of supernatural beliefs.
You have no more proof that primitive man invented god than you do that the big bang happened. To turn your belief-centered reasoning back on itself, I'll hit you with a phrase similar to yours.
I have no proof? Have you ever studied a single religion besides the one you were raised to believe in? Have you never studied ancient and extinct religions? To make a claim like yours one has to be completely oblivious to foreign cultures.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
http://meta-
Just try studying other religions, and their cultures, and you'll see that they are limitless creative constructs with no common points about their gods.
"What you actually said was:
My answer is the authority of quite-possibly damned heathens. They were not there when the universe began, but I'd rather trust in their account than the Almighty Creator and Ruler of the universe."
Just food for thought.
That is a non-sequitur. There is nothing that demonstrates or could demonstrate that an alleged "Almighty Creator and Ruler of the Universe" is communicating with us. Therefore you cannot claim that kind of authority.
First of all, ya morons, if we were debating on God's existence, we would have to accept that if he did exist, we would NOT understand his true intentions. We're human beings that are limited by the physical realm. God is supposed to be supernatural and powerful and shit. So saying "if God does exist, he's an asshole for letting evil happen" is admitting that you're an ignorant fool who isn't serious about reasoning.
You missed the underlying point. If a god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then evil cannot exist. It's a matter of logic. The converse is true: if evil exist, said god could not exist.
