big bang

    I think what Nexus means is that science has disproven alot of what we thought was biblical, but what was actually disproven was our idiotic interpretation of the bible.

    Quote from RD

    I think what Nexus means is that science has disproven alot of what we thought was biblical, but what was actually disproven was our idiotic interpretation of the bible.

    I mean I want to say that I don't trust about the bigbang theory even if it's true but it's up to you. I belive that the bible contains real situations/happenings in our life, noone would be so dumb and write just like that! The sciense is ok from my view but the religion have an bigger impact on our lifes. Atheists that don't belive In God I mean, They have to belive in something? If you ask an Atheist where is the human from he wouldn't really answer since he doesn't really know so he can then turn to bible and read it and then he gets that's life is not what he thinks, it's far from what he thinks.

    I mean I love the sciense too, the spacetravels and space and other spaceresearch going on is all good.. But the bible is like something that allows us to know who we are. And I belive in God..

    I only don't know if the sciense is aiming to go the good way, to do good things that is good for us. I mean look the global warming is another sign

    the icebloks are smelting and the sea level can be lifted up by some years.

    Wee need something smart if we do in sciense, but if we don't care about the nature it's of course sad.

    I mean we have no other home then Earth planet.

    I think religion and sciense goes close together to eachother in a way.

    Hm.. And by sciense.. we at least got internet!

    Oh hay guys, i don't know how this works personally so GOD MUSTA DONE IT. Get out of here and don't come back until you can write coherent English or back up your ridiculously silly claims with some unbiased study that shows you're ideas aren't the tripe we know them to be.

    Quote from Pericolos0

    he means that because there is stuff we dont know -----> god (which is a ridiculous conclusion imo)

    NO IT'S NOT

    THE GOD EXISTS!

    it's not funny and not ridiculous.

    you just dont belive.

    Yet you fail to give reasoned explanations to why a person should believe in something supernatural and illogical, characterized by extreme naivism.

    Do you expect me to believe in something that was created before man knew what gravity is or that the earth is round, or the fact that christianity is not the only religion to exist on this planet? One can say that christianity itself has undergone countless evolutionary transformations while abolishing smaller and weaker religions along its path.

    Why must everything be explained? What exactly is religion and why are there so many and differing versions of how our world came into existence? What is time for that matter?

    Ignorance. Desperate attempts to explain the unknown. Attempts to create structure and meaning into our simple lives. This is where evolution once more comes in: put two groups of people in two highly different and enclosed areas. After a while you will notice two new and distinct cultures with unique subcultures, values and beliefs, ideologies, etc.

    Am I the only one that thinks that religion and the big bang can co-exist quite peacefully? I mean... if you can logically trace the history of existance back to a single atom that exploded into multiple and infinite universes... isn't that theoretically something God could do? I mean, if you have faith isn't that a good thing to have faith in? Instead of trouncing it for the sake of trouncing it?

    But hey, that's just me.

    Or have you ever considered that God is not what you think? ...which in fact has nothing to do with organized human religions?

    Most religions are really a different form of politics: a system of distribution of power, wealth and control.

    I believe in God and science but not religion.

    Quote from Izuno

    I believe in God and science but not religion.

    Same. I always thought that if God was all powerful as all those religions claim he is, why couldn't he create the big bang?

    Quote from mikezilla

    Am I the only one that thinks that religion and the big bang can co-exist quite peacefully? I mean... if you can logically trace the history of existance back to a single atom that exploded into multiple and infinite universes... isn't that theoretically something God could do? I mean, if you have faith isn't that a good thing to have faith in? Instead of trouncing it for the sake of trouncing it?But hey, that's just me.

    There seems to be four of us.

    Exactly.

    Take this hypothetical scenario for example: God wants to create life, so he creates a set of rules, designs and so on, and then needs a catalyst to start it all off - the development of which can be viewed for pleasure, or just to alleviate boredom. The bang is the catalyst. There we go.

    Quote from Nz-Nexus

    NO IT'S NOT

    THE GOD EXISTS!

    it's not funny and not ridiculous.

    you just dont belive.

    Thanks for contributing. Get out of poli-disc.

    What Mikey and others suggest is a possibility and religion isn't necessarily against anything science finds out. I would see that as a very valid opinion, although it is not my own. It at least acknowledges logic and science.

    Quote from RD

    what corner?

    I think he's alluding to it "pushing" god into a narrower and more precise definition while removing a lot of the mysticism and well, ignorance surrounding many religious assumptions. It is a valid statement and argument to suggest that all of creation explained by science is well within the powers of God(s) to create. It is not a valid or defenseable position to suggest that all evidence against biblical creation mythology or other creation mythology is false simply because it disagrees with the mythology's storyline. IE: Nexus's all-caps post of "NO IT'S NOT!" which is so much chaff in the breeze when it comes to a real argument.

    I thought this kind of belonged in this thread.

    "The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation...

    "So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."

    -H.J. Muller

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login