America is doomed

Well you've got it all wrong, I know 100% that we came from absolutely "nothing" No gas, no energy, no mass, no anything......


Simple......

*If god created the world, then what is god? Is it a thing or what? Then what created that?

*If we are a results of some big bang, then where did that come from? Is it just a result of energy? Then where did this energy come from? And where-ever that came....where did it come from?

If we go back far enough eventually we should be left with nothing. Which means that nothing created us.

And so this is why we should worship "nothing". So be fearful of "nothing". It is fact that "nothing" makes sense.

For the geniuses out there, here's my theory: x + y = x

 

And you're asking for astronomy lessons on a soccer board because...???

In this case, I can answer. Time is not a constant. Why would you expect it to be a constant under the conditions found at the beginning of the universe? Time is not independent of the physical laws which came into existence along with the universe. Hence, you are asking what's five miles north of the North Pole.

If you refuse to take my word for it, Al Gore invented something called the "Internet." There are dozens, scores, maybe hundreds, of places where you may look up this information, and even send e-mail asking for more information. But if you want to register www.agalaxyfanwasnotabletoexplainthebigbangtomysatisfactionthereforeitdidn'thappen.com, well, Network Solutions is ready when you are.

 

The Boss! Any questions?

Only if x does not equal 0 and y does!

IntheNet

 

Why is it that when creationists find that they can't really dispute evolution on biological grounds, they start talking about the universe? News flash: astrophysics is even less a place for amateurs than biology.

 

Yeah, I have a question. Who created god?

 

So is the curvature of space what happens when god sits down for too long?

 

That's the thing though, if nothing creates something. Then it has to be something itself right? .

 

Is there a Poll of how many Muslims believe in Creationism--as THEY understand it? I suspect it would be nearly 100%.

 

Hey, I didn't say God existed.

I tell you who created god......humans

 

ITN, i think you oughtta go live with the amish and leave the thinking to more sensible people.

 

I've itch for this. I let out. WMD's were not the same caliber of others. These WMD's could be construed as our own. Just like the airplanes or craft. The coalition waited a year for help from governments and involvment was just not there. Since inclusion hymned detainees, there was something like 300-500 arrest. That region did not do anything until deployment. Thats reported or not reported. Because organization took and claimed actions. That is cause of war against country. The death toll was also huge factor. Although The Genusis Book of World Records has for mass murders. It was a mexican. He worked in factory in Mexico (Henz 57). He put rat poison into bottles. That were distributed to U.S.A. He killed 8,000 or 10,000 people in midwest (New Mexico, Nevada and others). We did not go to war over this. He claimed no one and country caught him. He was put to death or is on death row. This was older version of book. The date was around 1980's or 50's.

 

YES! The answer to that is most emphatically yes! There does not have to be a conflict between a creator and the means he/she/it used to create the universe.

The conflict only arises when humans try to tell us the hows and wheres and whens of how it was done.

Horse crap.


It is possible to believe in God - even in the Christian god - and still be an intelligent, educated, open-minded and reasonable person.

It's the people who insist on calling the Bible the literal "word of god" that give spirituality a bad name.

For Christ's sake (sorry), if there is a god, we cannot even begin to describe it much less contend that we know all about what it wants us to do. That conceit lies at the heart of every single organized religion on the planet and, as a person who is willing to entertain the possibility that there was a creator, it offends me to the core. How dare we claim to know the mind of god!?

 

Sadly, I'm all out of rep for the day.

 

Because some believe that God has let them in on some secrets and told them to spread the word. Why? So that we can learn about what's going on.

Random quote from two of my friends:

"Do you think God can create a rock so heavy that not even he could lift it?"

"No, because then he'd be stupid."

 

Except, of course, the effect of god's existence, which you refuse to acknowledge must also have an external cause for your argument to bear any consistency.

 

There's the argument that a God created our God who in turn started making all of this. But then that requires the explanation of where that first God came from, the answer being another God. Infinite regression. Bleh. Not always a satisfying way to end an argument. Never satisfying if you want to be truly scientific.

But you run into the same thing in attempting to explain the origin of the universe with current scientific theories. Where'd all the matter for this come from? The Big Bang? Then where'd that speck come from? A collapsed universe? Then where'd that universe come from? And so on. Bleh. Not always a satisfying way to end an argument. Never satisfying if you want to be truly scientific.

Personally, I don't care if the answer is that the universe technically never really began. I can't really wrap my mind around something never beginning.

 

Yeah, the COBE satellite, for example, gave us an amazing map of the shape of the Big Bang explosion. This gives information of the early formation of the universe, much the same way as the way pictures taken an instant after a nuclear explosion can tell you about the bomb that made it.

 

Via the Bible? The very nature of the diversity of translation naturally leads one to conclude that the fine points of such works are far too susceptible to "spin" for reliability in terms of hearing God's voice,and not humanity's voice, in what we ascribe to God as God's specific, absolute Word.

Take 2 Corinthians 10:13, for example.

We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the field God has assigned to us, a field that reaches even to you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (NIV)

But I won't brag more than I should. Instead, I will brag only about what I have done in the area God has given me. It is an area that reaches all the way to you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (NIrV)

But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (KJV)

We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the limits of the sphere which God appointed us--a sphere which especially includes you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (NKJV)

But we will not boast of authority we do not have. Our goal is to stay within the boundaries of God's plan for us, and this plan includes our working there with you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (NLT)

But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (NASB)

We, however, will not boast beyond limits, but will keep within the field that God has assigned to us, to reach out even as far as you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (NRSV)

We, on the other hand, will not boast beyond our ligitimate province and proper limit, but will keep within the limits [of our commission which] God has allotted us as our measuring line and which reaches and includes even you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (AMP)

But we will not boast beyond measure but will keep to the limits God has apportioned us, namely, to reach even you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (NAB)

We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but according to the measure of the area of ministry that God has assigned to us, which reaches even you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (HCSB)

We're not, understand, putting ourselves in a league with those who boast that they're our superiors. We wouldn't dare do that. But in all this comparing and grading and competing, the quite miss the point. We aren't making outrageous claims here. We're sticking to the limits of what God has set for us. But there can be no question that those limits reach to and include you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (The Message)

We don't brag about something we don't have a right to brag about. We will only brag about the work that God has sent us to do, and you are part of that work.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (CEV)

As for us, however, our boasting will not go beyond certain limits; it will stay within the limits of the work which God has set for us, and this includes our work among you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (GNT)

But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to reach even you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)

By contrast we do not intend to boast beyond measure, but will measure ourselves by the standard which God laid down for us, namely that of having come all the way to you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (NJB)

We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the sphere of service God himself has assigned to us, a sphere that also includes you.
2 Corinthians 10:13 (TNIV)

Which one do you choose, and why? Or is it that they're all right? Partly right? Generally right?

And if generally right is your frame, why not take the whole book generally?

Who is translating this stuff anyway? Aren't there going to be losses in nuance, inflection, historical intent, context, etc. from not only the date of the work but the moving of the work from its original language(s) to other, modern versions of languages?

Does "even you," included in many but not all translations of the above verse, mean something? If so, how can it be absent in other versions and those version be okay?

Is there a definitive version? Says who? When folks claim to have been let in on the mind og god vis-a-vis the Bible, well, which version of God are they talking about?

To me, it's madness. Oh, I could cede the undestanding of all this over to the institutions of dogma (priest, pastor, reverend, whomever). In fact, isn't that what we're told; that we should rely on these institutions to help us figure it all out, right? That they can square all the inconsistencies irregularities and plain things that make no sense FOR us?


Indeed. Seems a bit of a mess to me, from a God that could have made clear the Intent and Wishes of the Almighty by burning the Ten Commandments into the moon, or making the Sun the shape of a Cross, or a gazillion different things to help us understand our origins. But it doesn't look like God did that.

It looks like God did leave clues, but the ones which everyone can verfiy, and get the same result, are not translated verses of the Bible, but rather laws of science.

I believe in God, and I believe that science is the way to both be in awe of God's work, and to eventually have a conversation before dying with God about the two big questions "Why did you do it all this way" and "Why am I here?" The answers I get from the Christ of the Bible seem clear to me as well, but it's an interpretation that's unverifable and one that certainly is not the prevailing opinion of the translation. Let's hope science can do more than leave us only with a type of faith (in Biblical facts, as opposed to faith in Calls to Act) as some Big Test that, to me, often seems a tactic beneath the Supreme Creator of All that Is Who Exists in All, Knows All, and Is All.

 

Yes. That's why you see all the different translations--someone isn't happy with what they have and they decide to retranslate it. The Bible, I believe, was originally inspired by God. But I can't say the same for all the translations. Every version has flaws in linguistics. So long as the Bible is translated well, I think it's worth reading.

And you see, that's how some people feel about popular science. That there are brain trusts around to figure out all these things FOR us, and all we have to do is wait to be fed the answers. But I personally feel that for whatever one is studying, you have to figure it out for yourself. You can seek help from others, and lean on their understanding until you can put the pieces together for yourself, but anything less than that, to me, just feels akin to cheating on a test.

And I'm sure you could explain most so-called discrepancies presented against popular science. I wasn't implying that you couldn't. Just that there are those in every frame of thinking that don't want to do the requisite work to understand the subject.

I understand your sentiment, but you're presuming to know God's methods, I think, and I don't know if you're in a position to do that.

I sincerely think there's good knowledge in the Bible as much as I sincerely think that the Bible has been fundamentally damaged by those who have passed it down to us. Science describes, well, science. But science doesn't describe morals, or ethics, or codes of conduct. I don't think it's meant to. Religion doesn't tell you how volcanoes erupt. Science doesn't tell you why stealing is wrong. I think religion and science can coexist in an altruistic situation like a sort-of Venn diagram, working together.

 

You are clearly rationalizing here.

Ahh, so you do remember the thread was about creationism.

Up to a point, I agree, but, and here comes the important point, if you believe in god then you are dependent upon a supernatural being for your view of nature and reality.

That is the horse crap. To someone not afflicted by the belief in the supernatural, there is no difference between a taking the bible as the literal "word of god" or the <insert whatever you want to here that is not literal> "word of god", it is all magic. If you want to try to differentiate between shades of belief in god, remember that to non-believers it is still belief in god.

Just because you believe in this voodoo, don't ask me to hide behind the assertion that it can't be understood and by extension, that it should not be tried. That is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst. Just because you want to have your crutch for when you don't want to think about things, don't damn the whole race to your particular brand of ignorance.

 

Please speak for yourself, and leave the rest of us non-believers out of your ravings. I think you'll find most of us disagree with your narrow view as much as you dismiss the intelligence of anyone who doesn't share yours.

 

Whose intelligence have I dismissed?

 

---
if i recall correctly, the substance of my part of this discussion was that science does not have a handle on where stuff came from. the fact that misguided people 300 years or more ago did things out of fear or to maintain power does not have anything to do with science's accountability to the question "where did stuff come from?".

if i may be permitted a bit of hyperbole, your thinking is similar to this: i can't believe anything that anthropologists say because of the Piltdown Man thing. how do i know that all the stuff they've dug up isn't just pig teeth and jaws? it took 40 years to uncover that fraud. if one guy fabricated something, that could mean it's all a crock.

well i don't take that view, and it would be lunacy to do so, because 'one swallow does not a summer make'.

Dan Loney in later post suggested that science can dictate what questions it must answer. "Time is not a constant", so we cannot ask questions about time using conventional thinking. "the word 'eternity' doesn't work", so we cannot ask questions about what preceded "The Big Bang". it's especially convenient in a discussion to be able to say "you wouldn't understand if i explained, so there's no point in explaining."

incidentally, to whomever made the comment, i didn't say all scientists cringe at the thought that something supernatural created the universe. i didn't say most. i didn't quantify the term. if you think for a second that it takes less faith to believe in an evolutionary theory for the existence of life, based on empirical evidence, you're fooling yourselves, ladies and gentlemen.

(BTW, i spoke to a man who works at JPL/NASA, and he said that the current theory about the existence of matter is called shpiat -- it's a Russian term. roughly translated it means something huge put it all together)

tell you what. i'll stop with the voodoo drums and the wailing on one condition. give me your best guess on where matter came from. i need a laugh.

 

True scientific theory does require less faith to believe in it than God ever will, because science has measurable. repeatable records in a billion other areas to back up its claims.