Is there a God?

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by seesaw
Yeah it's a theory but there is proof of it.

No. There is evidence, not proof.

Yes I know there is no scientific evidence and there won't be.

Oh, there will be proof, it just will be useless to science.

 

[lithium.]

No. There is evidence, not proof.

Well yeah evidence but there is new evidence that shows that the big bang happened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2271377.stm
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/1178

Oh, there will be proof, it just will be useless to science.

Again how do you know this?

 

[stray bullet]

Proofs huh?

Alright...

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by stray bullet
Proofs huh?

Alright...

I mean't proves not proofs lol.

Btw why do you think we will not find any planets like ours or close to ours around any stars?

 

[stray bullet]

heh

 

[lithium.]

la la la

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by seesaw
He could have but in the bible it says nothing about a big bang or anything like it and creationist believe it was really happened in 7 days.

Since when did you agree that the Bible is a scientific document?  Genesis starts "In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth"  Well, Big Bang definitely is a "beginning" and a "creation", isn't it?

We are not talking about creationists. We are talking about your claim that God didn't create. The literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 held by creationists is a how of creation.  Everything science finds is also a how of creation.  You are trying to claim that a deity did not create at all. To do that you have to show that deity did not create by the mechanisms and timing found by science.

I don't know of any scientific papers that do this. Do you? If so, please cite them.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by seesaw
BTW there is almost proof that the big bang happened, and evidence of evolution, there is no evidence of creation or god.

This is your claim about the existence of deity and creation.  Evidence of creation depends on the how of creation you hypothesize. Again, if you hypothesize creation by the mechanisms discovered by science, you have more than ample evidence of creation and of the existence of deity.

Creationism and creation are not the same thing.

And many people have personal experiences that is evidence that convinces them that deity exists.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by stray bullet
Evolution is change over time.


We won't.

The Big Bang is a theory, not a law.

There's no scientific proof. Because God can't be weighed, measured or compared.

Evolution is descent with modification.

And I am curious along with Seesaw: how do you know we won't find an earth-like planet with life on it?

Laws are not "proved", either.  Nor are laws necessarily more reliable than theories.  The more precise way to phrase it is: All the alternatives to Big Bang have been falsified.

However, that is not strictly accurate today.  Within the past year a new theory, called the ekpyrotic theory, has been advanced.  There is still a "big bang like" event, but it is not exactly the standard Big Bang theory.

I would agree that there is no scientific evidence today that would either "prove" or disprove the existence of deity.  However, I am not as confident as you are that this will always be the case.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Since when did you agree that the Bible is a scientific document?  Genesis starts "In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth"  Well, Big Bang definitely is a "beginning" and a "creation", isn't it?

We are not talking about creationists. We are talking about your claim that God didn't create. The literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 held by creationists is a how of creation.  Everything science finds is also a how of creation.  You are trying to claim that a deity did not create at all. To do that you have to show that deity did not create by the mechanisms and timing found by science.

I don't know of any scientific papers that do this. Do you? If so, please cite them.

Well fine **** a god could create the universe through the big bang but guess what there is no real evidence of a god so until I see god I will not believe that he created the universe. So until there is a god that we can see or until I can see him I will not believe in a god or that he created the big bang.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by lucaspa
This is your claim about the existence of deity and creation.  Evidence of creation depends on the how of creation you hypothesize. Again, if you hypothesize creation by the mechanisms discovered by science, you have more than ample evidence of creation and of the existence of deity.

Creationism and creation are not the same thing.

And many people have personal experiences that is evidence that convinces them that deity exists.

IMO I think its weak when people use that as evidence I could have personal experiences that make me believe in monsters from fairy tales but just cause I believe doesn't make them real . We know that the mind can play games and make you think something when you are seeing or feeling something different.

 

[webboffin]

seesaw, the big bang is not proven - were you there when it happened???
it is an idea some of it based on infra-red background radiation and cosmic expansion but now even your glorious big bang THEORY is by some scientists not all as it plainly seems. There is suggestions that some of the laws of physics over billions of years have change slightly and not as constant as what scientists had since forever believed.
The men in white cloaks wearing wide collars and wacky beards looking through big hollow tubes into the sky or whatever does not mean that they hold for definate any SOLID PROOF. It is still only a THEORY! (remember it is called the Big Bang THEORY) NOT an absolute given fact. Some scientists already are questioning the validity of the B.B.T.
I have been reading this stuff for 20 years and studied a lot of the details but I still remain unconvinced with it all.
Atoms and molecules wandering aimlessly around by complete accident knowing nothing about themselves does not one day make a human being that questions it'self and the universe. But I am not going to waste much time on the matter now as I have other threads I want to read.

by the way Stephen Hawkin's not God either

 

[lithium.]

Some scientists already are questioning the validity of the B.B.T.

HAHaH...That is the funnest thing I have ever heard new evidence that supports the big bang comes out almost every month.

by the way Stephen Hawkin's not God either

Well DUH! did anyone say he was.

Atoms and molecules wandering aimlessly around by complete accident knowing nothing about themselves does not one day make a human being that questions it'self and the universe.

It's not complete accident we believe it was alot of work it took along time for the right stuff to happen for the first to be created.

I have been reading this stuff for 20 years and studied a lot of the details but I still remain unconvinced with it all.

No disrepect but you must have been reading the wrong things.

btw scientist know that there was a big bang we have found the echo of the big bang.

 

[webboffin]

laughing at seesaw

 

[webboffin]

oops be nice I meant with seesaw

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
laughing at seesaw

I don't care if you are laughing at me I have studied this and from everything that I have learned the big bang happened there is just to much evidence.

 

[lithium.]

As GR professor Tony Rothman says....


"When the temperature dropped far below one billion degrees [three
minutes after the big bang] this 'primordial nucleosynthesis' stopped and,
according to the standard model, we should be left with roughly 25% helium
by mass and 2 x 10-5 parts deuterium. It may seem like a miracle that
astronomers in fact do measure about 25% helium in the real universe, but it
is a miracle squared that they also measure something like 2 x 10-5 parts
deuterium."


Most scientists took the discovery of the microwave background (and its blackbody curve) as the clinching indicator that the big bang indeed occurred. If anyone can ever detect the neutrino background at about 2 degrees K, that will REALLY clinch it.

So the big bang theory is looking really solid. But the big bang theory really picks up at 10-44 seconds after the big bang and explains everything from there. Question is, will we ever know how the universe originated? obviously, if any evidence remains, then we have a chance of finding it. If no evidence remains, then we're out of luck.

 

[Orihalcon]

and just imagine, a few galaxies away, there's a race of aliens chatting away saying 'isn't it just sooo amazingly convenient that our planet is at JUST the right distance from the sun, with JUST the right amount of photosynthetic prokaryotes to maintain the temperature at 186 K and the ammonia in the atmosphere at 31%? isn't it just TOO convenient?'

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Orihalcon
and just imagine, a few galaxies away, there's a race of aliens chatting away saying 'isn't it just sooo amazingly convenient that our planet is at JUST the right distance from the sun, with JUST the right amount of photosynthetic prokaryotes to maintain the temperature at 186 K and the ammonia in the atmosphere at 31%? isn't it just TOO convenient?'

Heh it doesn't have to he a few galaxies away it could be a few 1000 stars away.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by webboffin
seesaw, the big bang is not proven - were you there when it happened???
it is an idea some of it based on infra-red background radiation and cosmic expansion but now even your glorious big bang THEORY is by some scientists not all as it plainly seems. There is suggestions that some of the laws of physics over billions of years have change slightly and not as constant as what scientists had since forever believed.
The men in white cloaks wearing wide collars and wacky beards looking through big hollow tubes into the sky or whatever does not mean that they hold for definate any SOLID PROOF. It is still only a THEORY! (remember it is called the Big Bang THEORY) NOT an absolute given fact. Some scientists already are questioning the validity of the B.B.T.
I have been reading this stuff for 20 years and studied a lot of the details but I still remain unconvinced with it all.
Atoms and molecules wandering aimlessly around by complete accident knowing nothing about themselves does not one day make a human being that questions it'self and the universe. But I am not going to waste much time on the matter now as I have other threads I want to read.

by the way Stephen Hawkin's not God either

A theory is as good as the observed facts it can explain.
BBT can explain a great deal about our universe. Even, you are right, when some observations don't seem to fit with it.
But as yet, there is no alternative theory, since the Steady State Theory, could not explain the things the BBT could. But to state that BBT is ONLY a theory, is a wrong conception. It is currently the acknowledged theory by the majority of scientists. They might be all wrong. 200 years ago, everyone thought that Newton was right, untill Einstein discovered a better theory. But without Newton, we would not have come there. Even when Newton was wrong in the end (but only marginally in fact), his theory of Gravity was a major progress for science.
For sure BBT is not the end of cosmology, it can and will be replaced one day with a better theory. That is because science evolves and develops. Just like humans and humanity does.
In science, ABSOLUTE PROVEN FACTS do not exist. Unless of course you are looking for tautology or evidental stuff (1+2=2, etc). We just have theories, that are being well tested, founded on observed facts, and don't take into account things which lay outside the domain of science.
Science is not telling truth by stating it to be the truth, on which you have to belief. Science needs a critical outlook in every respect. There isn't probably any scientific theory that is absolute right in every respect, therefore there is a constant struggle, for having a better theory. And as the result of that, we do know a lot more as we ever did.

Atoms and other stuff not being conscious don't make a human conscious being in ONE day, nor SIX days. It has costed billions of years for that!!!
But the neurons in your brain, yet as they do function as part of your mind and consciousness, are not aware of them being there either. Does that proof you have no mind either?
One molecule of water, ain't by itself not much. Where do you see oceanness in a molecule of water??? Yet, oceans ARE made of billions of water molecules, containing other molecules too.

If you're stating that all things (even human minds) are not made of "ordinary" matter, which is not a bit ordinary since we still are exploring more about matter, and probably never stop, then please tell me what to replace it with.

I don't discredit or dismerit anyone of his or her beliefs, and anyone is entitled to have thoughts or beliefs that (according to others) might not be correct. It's up to each person to be the judge of that, I think.