Origin of God's Morality.

[Davian]

Your question makes no sense...rephrase pls

I suppose the question does assume at least a laymen's level understanding of the concepts involved - inflation theory, and all that.

I retract my question.

 

[Davian]

Yeah, I do.

Does that mean that you concur with him, in accepting the big bang cosmological model as an accurate description of reality, or that you don't?

The Big Bang was started by God.

 

[Davian]

Do you believe that the universe is a fact a truth that exists?

I cannot parse this. Can you grammar it better?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Does that mean that you concur with him, in accepting the big bang cosmological model as an accurate description of reality, or that you don't?

You mean "I do agree with him" doesn't make sense to you?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I suppose the question does assume at least a laymen's level understanding of the concepts involved - inflation theory, and all that.

I retract my question.

Oh, that theory....the one that you and 5 other people believe in......yeah, you should retract the question....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you believe that the universe is a fact a truth that exists?

I don't believe there is a layman's understanding of grammar there....you should retract the question.....

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't believe he has a layman's understanding of grammar....should retract the question.....

It doesn't matter, I have withdrawn my interaction with him.

 

[Davian]

Oh, that theory....the one that you and 5 other people believe in.

Must you tell lies about me?

.....yeah, you should retract the question....

Indeed, at least until you have a working understanding of the concepts involved.

 

[Davian]

You mean "I do agree with him" doesn't make sense to you?

There are those (who will remain anonymous ) is this thread that will use William Lane Craig's Kalamity argument (a "God" starts the "big bang") in support of their theology, while simultaneously requiring the subsequent formation of the Cosmos and Earth to happen via a series of "miracles" over a relatively short period of time, and there are Christians that uncritically accept the big bang cosmological model, and the billions of years required for the formation of the heavier elements, then our solar system, followed by the eventual cooling of our planet that permitted the process of life to begin some 3.8 billion years ago.

Hence my question.

 

[Davian]

It doesn't matter, I have withdrawn my interaction with him.

And I do so miss those evasive responses you give.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Must you tell lies about me?

Indeed, at least until you have a working understanding of the concepts involved.

Why, nobody but you 6 care.....

 

[Davian]

Why, nobody but you 6 care.....

Out of curiosity, what to the words "Honesty, Integrity, Fidelity" refer to in your sig?

 

[Hoghead1]

Nope! I asked about Darwin's Theory specifically. I believe some form of evolution, just not Darwin's.

I don't know hat you are lumping under Darwin's Theory. Actually, the proper term today is neo-Darwin, since modern genetics has gone beyond Darwin.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Out of curiosity, what to the words "Honesty, Integrity, Fidelity" refer to in your sig?

Oh, don't tell me you need a dictionary too?

 

[Davian]

Oh, don't tell me you need a dictionary too?

Why would the dictionary explain why you put those words in your sig?

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, don't tell me you need a dictionary too?

No, he doesn't need a dictionary, but he appears to be trying to reconcile the meaning of those terms, with what you post.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Simple search of Wiki:
The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state,[4][5] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law.[6] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity. Some estimates place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[7] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies.

Since Georges Lemaître first noted, in 1927, that an expanding universe might be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different expanding universe theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, accumulated empirical evidence provides strong support for the former.[8] In 1929, from analysis of galactic redshifts, Edwin Hubble concluded that galaxies are drifting apart; this is important observational evidence consistent with the hypothesis of an expanding universe. In 1965, the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which was crucial evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, since that theory predicted the existence of background radiation throughout the universe before it was discovered. More recently, measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to dark energy's existence.[9] The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature.[10][11][12]

Ummm... how does that contradict what I've been saying? Read the first paragraph again:

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state,[4][5] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law.[6] If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they have been verified, there is a singularity. Some estimates place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[7] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, Mr. Trump.

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Unfortunately he is wrong.

What? Why?

While the Big Bang does explain the creation of the universe, beginning with that time immediately following the release of energy from the singularity, it does not explain the existence of the singularity itself.....that is what cosmologists are unable to explain....where did it come from not what happened afterward of which there is much empirical evidence.

Ummm... if you watched the video... You know what, nevermind...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I asked you a question about that, I don't believe you answered. I'm trying to find common ground. I don't understand the term 'well-being'. I asked if you would say that our desire for wellbeing of others would be the same as conscience?

Actually, you asked who determines whether what we do is good or bad, thereby including in your question a premise that I do not accept.