- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,603
- 52,510
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Funny ... he was honest enough to admit it.That's not a mistake, even by KJVO standards.
Funny ... he was honest enough to admit it.
Why can't you?
We have evidence that the laws of physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
And for "evidence" you cite:
What came before the big bang? - Boing Boing
That link has no evidence for what you are saying. The link says, and I quote "There was no such epoch as before the big bang, because time began with the big bang". Your original sentence implies that there was a time before the big bang when physical laws didn't exist. The article does not. Try again?
What does Paul say here about putting a letter 's' on the end of a word?The mistake was so small and irrelevant, I'm not surprised he didn't notice it. It was literally just a letter 's',
Seriously. Ok, my bad there was no before the Big Bang. That better.
What does Paul say here about putting a letter 's' on the end of a word?
Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
No, not better, just in agreement with the article you posted to support you. But that doesn't really matter, does it?
Of course it matters. Why wouldn't it?
You posted an article that didn't support your argument. When you were showed that fact, you simply changed the argument. So, the argument didn't matter.
Not true. I conveyed my claim in a poor way. The laws of physics were not prior to the Big Bang because there was no prior. It is obvious what my intent was.
Not true. I conveyed my claim in a poor way. The laws of physics were not prior to the Big Bang because there was no prior. It is obvious what my intent was.
Obvious only to you. To me, there is a tremendous difference between having a time with no physical laws and not having it.
/sarcasm
I have repeatedly shown evidence that time and space, matter and energy were none existence before the Big Bang.
I can show that Hawaii was non-existent 4.5 billion years ago. That doesn't mean that Hawaii had to be created by a supernatural deity, although it is quite heavenly.
That is 100% correct.
Therefore, being non-existent and then existent in no way indicates a supernatural origin, correct?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?