Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang

[SkyWriting]

If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

This backs the multiverse theory. We are the lucky ones who get to wonder about the rest.

 

[SkyWriting]

Science cannot observe or test the supernatural realm,

Or any past events.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution is a fact and all religions are myths, everyone knows that even if they won't admit it.

Projecting your thoughts on the population won't get you anywhere.
Progress will only come when you realize everyone else is just as
right as you think you are.

 

[BrriKerr]

Projecting your thoughts on the population won't get you anywhere.
Progress will only come when you realize everyone else is just as
right as you think you are.

I don't need to project my thoughts on any population because the populations already know that evolution is a fact and religions are myths, you can have your own opinions but you can not have your own facts.

If religious people think they can change the outcome of their lives simply by wanting it to be a certain way then I wish them all the very best and I hope it works out for them.

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't need to project my thoughts on any population because the populations already know that evolution is a fact and religions are myths, you can have your own opinions but you can not have your own facts.

If religious people think they can change the outcome of their lives simply by wanting it to be a certain way then I wish them all the very best and I hope it works out for them.

The majority of people may know that Evolution is very likely true, but religions are not myths - at least not in the sense that you mean. When a theologian says that religion makes use of myth, he is using the word in a slightly technical sense.

 

[BrriKerr]

The majority of people may know that Evolution is very likely true, but religions are not myths - at least not in the sense that you mean. When a theologian says that religion makes use of myth, he is using the word in a slightly technical sense.

If religions are not myths what are they?

 

[lesliedellow]

If religions are not myths what are they?

They are religions.

If science isn't a movie, what is it?

 

[BrriKerr]

They are religions.

Why didn't I think of that. IANATSWIWTS.

Is it really that easy to fool yourself?

 

[lesliedellow]

Why didn't I think of that. IANATSWIWTS.

Is it really that easy to fool yourself?

I don't need a dictionary, unlike some.

 

[BrriKerr]

I don't need a dictionary, unlike some.

Religions are myths based on old stories about people who may or may not have existed, people like King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood, do you know people actually visit the fictitious house where Holmes is supposed to have lived and he only existed in the mind of Sir Arthur Conon Doyle, you would never believe the stories some people are prepared to believe, nearly 14 million people believe that Mormonism is true and that was a story made up two hundred years ago by a con man.

 

[lesliedellow]

Religions are myths based on old stories about people who may or may not have existed, people like King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood, do you know people actually visit the fictitious house where Holmes is supposed to have lived and he only existed in the mind of Sir Arthur Conon Doyle, you would never believe the stories some people are prepared to believe, nearly 14 million people believe that Mormonism is true and that was a story made up two hundred years ago by a con man.

So let me guess. You think Jesus never existed. Unfortunately, you would be hard pushed to find more than one historian to agree with you, be they theist, atheist, or otherwise. And the one exception I have in mind isn't actually employed as a historian; although he advertises himself as such.

 

[PsychoSarah]

PEOPLE did all of that just as people wrote all the religious books, people are fallible and very often get things wrong,
what else is new?

Even when your point is good, you muddy it with unnecessary aggression. Don't be mean to AV, he means well, and is a good sport in these debates for the most part. He is not deserving of your ire.

Evolution is a fact and all religions are myths, everyone knows that even if they won't admit it.

Fallacy on the level of a person with less of a theory of mind than I have; fyi, my theory of mind is less developed than the average 5 year old's. People do not die for the sake of something they THINK is a lie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't be mean to AV, he means well, and is a good sport in these debates for the most part. He is not deserving of your ire.

Thank you, Sarah!

 

[BrriKerr]

So let me guess. You think Jesus never existed. Unfortunately, you would be hard pushed to find more than one historian to agree with you, be they theist, atheist, or otherwise. And the one exception I have in mind isn't actually employed as a historian; although he advertises himself as such.

There is nothing to say that a person named Jesus ever existed, and even if he did everything he was supposed to have said was written down at least 60 after he was supposed to have died, what does that tell you? it tells you it's a myth.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Haven't we been down that road already?

The Big Bang is relevant to evolution -- cosmic evolution.

And if you're talking about just biological evolution, biological evolution is the Big Bang's great-great-great-great grandson.*

* Cosmic evolution:

1. Big Bang
2. Particulate
3. Galactic
4. Stellar
5. Planetary
6. Chemical
7. Biological

Finally we find your true science sources, "Big Daddy."

 

[Hoghead1]

Good point, lesliedellow. No matter how skeptical scholarly sources may be on whether Christ is truly God or really performed true miracles, the fact remains that just about all scholars admit that there definitely was a major historical figure named Jesus. Many NT scholars, including myself, do believe that the NT does represent major spin-doctoring on the life of Christ. Via the Gospels, we are not looking directly at the human-historical Jesus; rather we are looking at Christ though the lenses of later interpreters. Consider the Virgin Birth, always a hot bone of contention. It is not at all found in the Gospel of Mark, which is probably the oldest of the Gospels. I believe the Virgin Birth is a later idea introduced by later Christians, not first-hand witnesses, to present a more godly image of Christ. Consider "The Infancy Gospel of Thomas." It argues that Christ was a very bad boy and actually killed a playmate. Why was this not included in the canon? Probably because it represents a less-that-flattering image of Christ.

A problem many have is that they labor under the false impression that there are no references to Christ anywhere else than in the Gospels. Hence, there probably was no Jesus, period, end of it, because if there really was any real historical even remotely resembling Jesus, we certainly would find him mentioned elsewhere. This is false because there are other witnesses to Christ. Above, I just cited the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas." I know it is extra-canonical, but it appears just as serious and valid as any of the other Gospels. So here is at less one other key witness to Christ. Also, come 1945, the bombshell hit. A surprise finding were about 42 gnostic gospels. Unfortunately, many laity know little about Christian Gnosticism. In short, this was a major movement in early Christianity that stood in tension with the "orthodox," or early Christians with our Bible and also our basic doctrines of Christ. However, my point is that the "orthodox are not at the only witness to Christ. Problem is, the gnostics (meaning knowers) and the orthodox were like a cat and a dog. Without going into detail, Gnosticism argued that the OT God was real, but a very inferior God who did a lousy job of creating the material world, which is the source of all suffering and evil. Moses is described as a fool who fell for all these unnecessary rules from the OT God. Christ came to show that the path to freedom is to just about break every single law of the OT God. We all initially pre-existed in an immaterial kingdom of light. However, overcome by the wiles of the carnal world, we became reborn as human beings. Hell is reincarnation, another round in the miserable physical world. Jesus came to show us how to transcend the material world and inter into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is inside each of us. Christ never was crucified, but some fool in his place. There was no reason for Christi to go to the Cross anyway. pure propaganda from the orthodox. Also, Christ was definitely not Jewish. OK Bottom line: There are many more witnesses to Christ than the four gospels we have. Granted, the conflict between the gnostics and the orthodox probably involved considerable spin-doctoring of the life of Christ both sides. Still, the fact remains even two radically different camps did both agree that there was a real figure named Christ.

Also, yes, we theologians do use myth in a way different sense. Our concept of a myth is that all myths have a solid basis in reality, no matter how much spin-doctoring went on.

Note that King Arthur and also Robin Hood are taken by most serious historians as referring to persons who did in fact actually exist, despite the spin-doctoring. Sherlock Homes is very interesting here. He actually does have a firm basis in reality. How? It is well-documented that Doyle had considerable interaction with Scotland Yard detectives, especially a real super-sleuth nicknamed, I think, Tom or Nick of the Yard. Homes , then, was modeled after a real detective. Also, Doyle was an M.D., who studied under a pioneering professor of forensic medicine. So Holmes has definitely a second basis in reality, right down to his famous pipe, incidentally. Also, professor Moriarity was based on a real international super-criminal that Scotland Yard did chase after for over 20 years. So, even fictional characters have a basis in reality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you, Sarah!

The solution to being an attacked minority, is not to try to flip it around and do the same to the majority group, of which some members are offenders, but most are not.

The solution is to be so nice it sickens people to think of harming you. Even though it doesn't dissuade all, it promotes far more happiness, quality conversation, and decreases frustration significantly.

I find great humor in how some people react to my persistent willingness to listen and attempt to be fair in criticism; some people conclude I must not be an atheist, and most assure my salvation.

The best kind of debate is the one people on the opposing side thank you for, even when the disagreement is not resolved.

Never before has kindness sounded so passive aggressive XD XD XD, but while I will freely admit that there are some people that I am nice to that I really don't want to be, you're not one of them, AV.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, AV1611, if science ain't you bag, why are you here? If you just want to screw around with stuff, please go elsewhere. I and many others here feel these issues are no joking matter. Also, if science ain't your bag and you have admitted you are unwilling to read Darwin or anything else on evolution, how do you expect to contribute anything worthwhile here when you honestly have no real idea what you are talking about?

 

[lesliedellow]

There is nothing to say that a person named Jesus ever existed, and even if he did everything he was supposed to have said was written down at least 60 after he was supposed to have died, what does that tell you? it tells you it's a myth.

Um no, not even sceptical scholars think that. Try forty years if you want to be amongst the sceptics. Even that might have to be rethought if rumours of a fragment of Mark's Gospel circa AD80 turn out to be true.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't understand, PsychoSarah, why you seem to want to disconnect biological evolution from the Big Bang? Either there is one set of rules governing all things, or we are dealing with two conflicting worlds. Hence, if the rules or laws of biological evolution do not somehow fit the rest of the universe, then we are all at war with the rest. Generally, in science for a "law" to really be any good or useful, it must be assumed to apply to the whole world and the universe as well. I don't think of the universe as one thing and biology as something else. I picture the whole universe as a living organism, not a machine. I should point I have a very different concept of matter or the building blocks of reality than probably you do. I view the basic building blocks of reality as actual entities, which are actual occasions of momentary experience. See, I am viewing mind and matter as one reality, not two separate worlds. I believe that all things, in all their aspects, consist exclusively of minds. Geeze, I didnt' mention this to you before, did I? If so, sorry. I correspond with many people and can't always remember to whom I said what to.