Huge!

[sissco]

https://atinyglimpse.ytmnd.com/

Talking about the universe and how it is created is a subject that never ends as we see in this thread 

[pianistimo]

that's awesome.  i didn't think nil's would allow anything else that big to appear without some kind of warning. 

10 million years.  hmm.  so when are the textbooks going to be rewritten? this is really big.  perhaps it proves that God is capable of doing whatever He wants?  and, under no timeframe whatsoever.  it makes me wonder if our earth and 'heavens' is what was created in six days.  our sun, moon, stars.  basically our galaxy. 

[sissco]

But we are not the only ones in this black eternity, it can't be true

[pianistimo]

'when i consider the heavens, the work of Thy fingers - the sun, moon, and stars ...'  that was david back then.  now, we have so much more to see and still have not discovered other life forms.  that is why david wrote 'what is man?  that You are mindful of him?'  yet, He knows all the hairs on our heads. 

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

There is nothing spectacular about it. Would be boring if it was small wouldn't it. Pianistimo, don't say that God created the universe without proving it.

Best.

[lagin]

Debussy symbolism, don't say God didn't create the universe without proving it.

[prometheus]

I once heard an astronomy teacher say that scientists in the field now thing it is probable the actual universe is a gazillion times bigger than the observable universe.

[lisztisforkids]

I once heard an astronomy teacher say that scientists in the field now thing it is probable the actual universe is a gazillion times bigger than the observable universe.

 Ahh yes, and I am sure that you know of dark matter, apparnetly the universe is made up of 90% of this stuff and we cant even detect it.

[debussy symbolism]

Debussy symbolism, don't say God didn't create the universe without proving it.

I see your point, but must offer you an opinion that the universe was probably not created by God for one underlying reason. "Back in the day", humans thought that a comet was a sign of heavenly powers. Similarly, because of lack of understanding of nature, we took everything out of the ordinary as somehow divine. As we learn more and more about ourselves and world, we begin to disprove those once debated theories as not natural.

Due to this observation, it is more plausible to point out that the universe was less likely have been a product of divine intervention, but of a natural phenomenon.

We can't of course rule out the divine theory, but we have to acknowledge that we have answers that previously we didn't have.

Best

[soliloquy]

I see your point, but must offer you an opinion that the universe was probably not created by God for one underlying reason. "Back in the day", humans thought that a comet was a sign of heavenly powers. Similarly, because of lack of understanding of nature, we took everything out of the ordinary as somehow divine. As we learn more and more about ourselves and world, we begin to disprove those once debated theories as not natural.

Due to this observation, it is more plausible to point out that the universe was less likely have been a product of divine intervention, but of a natural phenomenon.

We can't of course rule out the divine theory, but we have to acknowledge that we have answers that previously we didn't have.

Best

I'm on a hotel computer and I couldn't find any of my "DRAMA WH0RE" ones so you get this.

[pianowolfi]

it makes me wonder if our earth and 'heavens' is what was created in six days.  our sun, moon, stars.  basically our galaxy. 

Nowhere in the bible is written that the days in the creation did also have only 24 hours. I think that are huge dimensions and what a day is in the mind of god might be 10 million years for us.

[pianistimo]

excepting that He said 'and there was evening and there was morning, one day.'  that is way back in genesis 1:5.  now, one could probably still argue - but what if the day was a thousand years (because God mentions that a thousand years are but a day to Him).  i stand by the day that we understand to be a day - because He keeps making a point after each day.  (the second day, the third day...) and, since He is a precise God as a watchmaker would be - if it was a thousand years or more - He would say it.  if time does not limit God - then a day would be plenty of time to get done whatever He wanted to get done.  perhaps He already had the plans ready and all He had to do was talk the whole day.  'Let it be...'  (did you know that john lennon read the bible - and was converted to christianity during an attempted suicide at a tokyo hotel?  he actually wrote a few songs from that period - but they were not published).

but, i also believe that if genesis 1:1 says 'and darkness was over the surface of the deep' then the earth could have been flooded several times - and a recreation was what happened. 

as far as believing the universe was a 'big bang' - i think that is MORE preposterous.  nothing coming from nothing is harder to believe - than something preexisting (albeit from eternity) and creating it.  agreed that i do not understand the concept of alpha and omega - beginning and last.  how could something BE that was not created?  it's like arguing with myself - but -God says that He was, always was, and always will be.  who am i to argue.  perhaps that is the real thing (besides the vastness of the universe) that is the hardest to swallow.  faith makes it possible - as we see the heavens and their ORDER.  if it were random - i would believe evolution and the 'big bang' theory.

constellations for instance.  perhaps God was telling us a story in the sky.  perhaps it reminded adam not only of the calendar - but of specific things that were to come.  perhaps the sky even tells of the Messiah.  why else did the wise men see a 'sign' (some of them were possibly astrologers) - the star - and follow it to the exact location of where Christ was?  take a look here:  www.worldofchristmas.net/actual-christ-birth.html
there are other prophecies in the bible that confirm He was to be born in the middle of the week. 

ps the cat would work - were it in real life.  i get sidetracked by kitties.

[pianistimo]

psalm 147:4 'He counts the number of the stars; He gives names to all of them.'  isaiah 40:26 'lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars, the One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power not one of them is missing.'

genesis 1:14 'let them be for signs and for seasons...'

here's a site that explains possible 'signs' or stories that God is telling:  www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c019.html

another site is:  www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2004/prince.html

[pianistimo]

.

[pianowelsh]

Debussy symbolism..im not a stupid person but I didnt actually see an argument in what you said back there just something about a created comet and something about how that proves that God didnt do it??  One question. Who made the comet??? you cant make something from nothing.. there had to be something there in the first place. Christianity is not the only world religion that would adhere to a creationist stance. In fact many scientists believe it is more rational to believe in creationism of some degree than to follow any kind of outdated big bang theory.  you realise too that science keeps changing all the time. the bible dosent and science still hasnt been able to say the bible just got it wrong... when it comes down to it - we tiny little human beings trying to work out how the universe and beyond is created and sustained - we havent got a hope, we would need brains that are much bigger just to be able to compute the awesomeness of whats out there. Our proff in science was really honest with us in class and told us we are teaching in secondary school know what phd scientists didnt even understand 20 years ago, and we cling to it like is somekind of truth.. science never tells us anything categorically its all theory on how we think this thing works.  Im sure God just laughs and says in a loving way 'bless them, when will they get it - i can do what i want, today it does that because i say so - if i choose my mind i could make the sky bright green in the middle of the night - that would keep them guessing for a few hundred years!'.  What I think is awesome is that there are galaxies and vast collections of stars and things we cant even name that are there just to display the Glory of God.  This is the God who we offend when we sin and who we will ultimately all give an answer to.. in an appropriate way we should be afraid.  Thanks be to jesus who has opened up for us the way of salvation.

[prometheus]

Ahh yes, and I am sure that you know of dark matter, apparnetly the universe is made up of 90% of this stuff and we cant even detect it.

One could say that the universe is bigger because it contains more matter but that was not what I meant.

The size of the observable universe has nothing to do with the actual size(except maybe that the actual size has to be equal or larger, obviously). The size of the observable universe is as large as the universe is old. We can only see as far as there has been time for the light to reach us.
 
So I was talking about actual size, what lies beyond that what we can see. It may be the factor of a proton(the visible universe) and a the observable universe(the actual universe) bigger. Absurdly bigger. The universe already had absurd sizes. But this means the actual universe may have 2.5*10^53 instead of  4*10^22. That's 31 more zero's.

Why is this? Let me first say that this is a wild idea at the cutting edge based on complex ideas in physics.

We don't understand the forces of physics that well. Yes, we can make computers that work. But when it comes to the beginning of the big bang our understanding of the forces of nature aren't good enough.

The idea is that at some point there may have been too much energy in the universe for it's own size. And that this caused an exponential inflation. This is something different from the natural expanding of the big bang itself.

So we have a very short inflation and then a slowly increasing explanding of the universe. So this is exactly the conservative model of the big bang but plus an inflation phase in the first 10^-35 seconds. This inflation must have been caused by dark energy.
The 'dark energy' that caused the inflation stopped at one point and decayed into all the matter we know now.

Now I don't understand this well and this was explained to me in 'incorrect ways' to make sure I was able to understand at least some of it. So here is the wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory

This theory solves some problems with the old big bang theory. It also can explain the nature of the matter and energy in our universe.

This idea can also propose that the total energy of the universe is 0. This means the universe may have originated out of nothing.
Something exists out of nothing all the time through virtual particles. This theory is quite hard and Feynman got the Nobel prize for it. A proton and an anti-proton appear out of nothing, exist for a very short time, and then they destroy each other again. Or an anti-electron and an electron. Etc.

The whole universe may be similar, but on a totally different scale.

[prometheus]

Debussy symbolism, don't say God didn't create the universe without proving it.

Since you added a smilie I suppose you already realise that it is logically impossible to prove something did not happen.

Nowhere in the bible is written that the days in the creation did also have only 24 hours. I think that are huge dimensions and what a day is in the mind of god might be 10 million years for us.

The people that wrote Genesis 1 and 2 had no idea about what a sun or a star is. What the heaven or the galaxy is. Or what the afterlife is may there be one.

Because the view of the world of these people is totally different from ours we have to forget our views, and then from their point of view we can try to find out what they meant.

They clearly did not mean 10 million years. And never the 13.7 billion years that is now quite accurately claimed to be the age of our universe.

They did think and meant God created everything in a week. Look at sabbath passages. We work 6 days and rest one because that's what God did.
You are quite forced to assume that when they talk about a day they mean an actual day and not a few billion years. But they even clearly suggest it is exactly the same day as well.
There is no way around it. The bible claims God created everything in 6 days, rested one, about 6000 years ago.

as far as believing the universe was a 'big bang' - i think that is MORE preposterous.  nothing coming from nothing is harder to believe

Absolutely. Everything science has produced the last one hundred years sounds absolutely nuts. It all is extremely counter-intuitive. No one can believe it and no one does. It's just that observation suggests these things are true. It's not an issue of believing. It is about knowing.

Also, the fact that you can read my message proves that these absurd ideas can be true. Quantum Mechanics is totally nuts. But if it wasn't true then our computers wouldn't work. So the fact that you are reading this proves you wrong.

Than something preexisting and creating it.

As I said above in quantum mechanics something can be created from nothing. But if that is what happened with the universe we do not know. It is now thought it may be a possiblity.

In the standard big bang theory this part is a mystery. But we do know everything originated from a singular point. Or maybe, God created the universe looking like it originated from a singularity. But do you want to believe in a trickster god?

How could something BE that was not created?

The fact that we are here proves it is possible. In your mind 'God Is'. So in your mind God also needed to be created. If so then who created God?

The fact that something exists seems to mean that something can just BE.

but -God says that He was, always was, and always will be.

God didn't say that. The bible did. If I argue agains these points you may claim I shouldn't argue with God. But I am not. I argue against your interpretation of the current Bible.
And even if I was arguing against God, why not? Doesn't a good teacher always love that student that is smart and sharp and questions the things he says?

faith makes it possible - as we see the heavens and their ORDER.  if it were random - i would believe evolution and the 'big bang' theory.

If it were random you wouldn't believe the theory evolution of evolution because if Evolution happens you would expect to see order.

As for the organisation of matter and energy into particles, atoms, molecules, etc. It just happens. Why the laws of nature are the way they are we do not know. But they seem to be very special because they naturally lead towards organisation(though that does take energy, but there is energy).

Maybe you want to believe that God created a tiny singular dot that expaned into all that what we see now. First, energy, particles, atoms, molecules, stars, supernovae, planets, seas, organic molecules, single cell life, more diverse single cell life, multi-cellular life, animal and plant life, fish, reptiles, mammals, hominids, and then homo sapiens. It would be much more amazing then creation according to the bible.
But there is no basis for a belief like this. The only thin that it has going for it is that it doesn't contradict reality, like the creation myth of the bible does.

[prometheus]

You cant make something from nothing.

You can't. I can't. But nature does it all the time.

there had to be something there in the first place.

Actually, the big bang theory claims that there was a singularity. It doesn't say 'we' all come from nothing. The standard big bang theory isn't able to explain where the singularity came from. Maybe it did came from nothing. Eventhough we do not know it is considered as a possiblity.

Christianity is not the only world religion that would adhere to a creationist stance. In fact many scientists believe it is more rational to believe in creationism of some degree than to follow any kind of outdated big bang theory.

This is a crude lie. You should really be ashamed for saying this. There is no science that deals with creation. Creation today is exactly the same as it was when the bible was written. No process is made. And no progress will ever occur. There is no theory of creation at all.
Those scientists that are creationists are often IDers who do follow the big bang. And almost exclusively they have to be outside of biology. Just like you can believe the earth is flat if you are a CEO of a multinational. But if you are a aircraft pilot and you believe in a flat earth you will crash.
In the same way a creationist in biology will crash. But if this person is a physicists there will be no problem. And this person can be very succesful if this person is talented enough. But it is also totally impossible for a cosmologist or an astronomist to believe creation. All competition of the big bang theory have been refuted. Read the history of this. It is interesting to see how well scientific method worked.

I won't even ask you to back up the things you say because I know it cannot be done. But if you want to prove me wrong anyway, go ahead.

You realise too that science keeps changing all the time.

Of course it does. Our knowledge increases all the time. See how the Big Bang theory was refined by the cosmic inflation theory. Big bang theory still holds but was improved.

...the bible dosent...

Yes, this is because the bible will never make any progress.

...and science still hasnt been able to say the bible just got it wrong...

Uuh, pardon me? The bible claims the earth is 6000 years old and that God created everything through speech in 6 days. This is obviously wrong. The list of evidence is absurdly large. And the things we can explain through our current views and that become a mystery again with biblical creation is even larger. Just turn on your TV on a snow channel. You will see radiation from the big bang itself.

when it comes down to it - we tiny little human beings trying to work out how the universe and beyond is created and sustained - we havent got a hope, we would need brains that are much bigger just to be able to compute the awesomeness of whats out there.

If that is true then you wouldn't be able to read my message. Do you know how complex the science behind everyday equipment is?

Our proff in science was really honest with us in class and told us we are teaching in secondary school know what phd scientists didnt even understand 20 years ago, and we cling to it like is somekind of truth...

Theories are rejected in science everyday. But biblical creation has been hold unto for 4000 years eventhough it contradicts reality. So when will one reject the biblical myth?

Science never tells us anything categorically its all theory on how we think this thing works.

A theory is a model of reality. I don't understand what you mean.

What I think is awesome is that there are galaxies and vast collections of stars...

So you do accept that we can observe these? But you don't accept the concequences that naturally follow from this? For example, red shif in the light of stars?

[zheer]

 O my god thats big, this concept of infinity is possibly to difficult to understand. It is'nt that hard to believe that other life forms are out in some galaxy far away, possibly similar to earth, and whay not.

[jas]

Oh, for god's sake. Can we just once have a thread that doesn't turn into another bloody religious debate? This dead horse has been well and truly flogged on this forum recently. There are some of us here who'd like to contemplate such things and want to discuss them without the thread being taken over by argumentative religious debaters again.

Greetings.

There is nothing spectacular about it. Would be boring if it was small wouldn't it.

Christ, you're hard to please! That image was one of the most captivating and just plain amazing things I've ever seen. I'm not even going to try to wrap my brain around such scale. And it looked absolutely gorgeous.

[zheer]

! That image was one of the most captivating and just plain amazing things I've ever seen.

  For sure, but you know i remember when i was like seven and living in Iraq i would look into the sky and see thousands of stars at night, but looking out the window now i cant see a single F*ck*ng star,you cant see  them in london Why?

[debussy symbolism]

Debussy symbolism..im not a stupid person but I didnt actually see an argument in what you said back there just something about a created comet and something about how that proves that God didnt do it??  One question. Who made the comet??? you cant make something from nothing.. there had to be something there in the first place. Christianity is not the only world religion that would adhere to a creationist stance. In fact many scientists believe it is more rational to believe in creationism of some degree than to follow any kind of outdated big bang theory.  you realise too that science keeps changing all the time. the bible dosent and science still hasnt been able to say the bible just got it wrong... when it comes down to it - we tiny little human beings trying to work out how the universe and beyond is created and sustained - we havent got a hope, we would need brains that are much bigger just to be able to compute the awesomeness of whats out there. Our proff in science was really honest with us in class and told us we are teaching in secondary school know what phd scientists didnt even understand 20 years ago, and we cling to it like is somekind of truth.. science never tells us anything categorically its all theory on how we think this thing works.  Im sure God just laughs and says in a loving way 'bless them, when will they get it - i can do what i want, today it does that because i say so - if i choose my mind i could make the sky bright green in the middle of the night - that would keep them guessing for a few hundred years!'.  What I think is awesome is that there are galaxies and vast collections of stars and things we cant even name that are there just to display the Glory of God.  This is the God who we offend when we sin and who we will ultimately all give an answer to.. in an appropriate way we should be afraid.  Thanks be to jesus who has opened up for us the way of salvation.

Up until recently has mankind been able to exalt himself from the confounds of our planet, and into the space. Consequently, with an increase in knowledge, we should be able to know just exactly lies out side of space, whether nothing or everything.

By saying that only God has the power to make something come out of nothing is preposterous. That would mean that God is nothing as well, and that otherwise God would be positioned somewhere in the nothing, which kind of contradicts the "nothing". If there is infact nothing in the nothing, then we can assume that the universe wasn't a birth due to divine intervention.

Those vast galaxies and stars aren't the product of divine intervention (most likely), but a product of the creation of the universe, which was a product of nothing, and as speculate, if its nothing, it can't possibly be something.

This leads me to a next point, that God is just a hypothetical figure for "nothing". That "nothing" might as well be immortal (fitting in as "devine" if you will); timeless(again falling under the theory of God); and everpresent.

This leads to my conclusion that if God does exist, he appears as "nothing". However, how can "nothing" lead into something? We already established that in order for something to be created, something must create it, but that something is nothing, hence, there must be another bit of evidence about "nothing" that we do not yet know.

To recapitulate my argument, I would state that we are perpetually advancing and learning more about the world, so logically, in due time, we would understand just how exactly "nothing" creates something. This debate is greatly implored in arts as well, but for the sakes of this argument, I will stick to the consecration of facts.

[debussy symbolism]

O my god thats big, this concept of infinity is possibly to difficult to understand. It is'nt that hard to believe that other life forms are out in some galaxy far away, possibly similar to earth, and whay not.

You have somewhat answered your question. If lets say there are other species in distant galaxies, they too might wonder about other species. Alas, here we are. We are wondering about them, they are wondering about us; much like this debate.

[zheer]

  O yes the big bang, every thing seems to start with a bang.

[thalbergmad]

  For sure, but you know i remember when i was like seven and living in Iraq i would look into the sky and see thousands of stars at night, but looking out the window now i cant see a single F*ck*ng star,you cant see  them in london Why?

Coz the sky ain't dark enough.

Too much light pollution old chap.

Thal

[pianistimo]

not this again.

[zheer]

Coz the sky ain't dark enough.

Too much light pollution old chap.

Thal

 O thanks, did'nt know that, light pollution hmmmmmmmm.

[thalbergmad]

not this again.

Often used for your posts

[pianistimo]

if people would drive every four months and have bed-in's every day like john lennon and yoko ono - then we wouldn't have this problem.  only a couple people would have to know about this 'big...very big' problem.

ps i could look at that piece of sky for four months and still not see anything.  maybe when you look at something long enough?

never did find out what the curry was for?

[pianowolfi]

I had to learn Beethovens op. 109 several years ago for one of my performance exams. I had just made a recording of it and had taken my minidisk player for a walk to listen to it outside. The same evening i watched the stars. .Suddenly I had the thought, if i played this piece like the harmony in the star constellations... that would be the right approach. Hard to explain that, but i had a feeling like: The relations in the star constellations are so perfect harmonic, like in that Sonata. It needs to be similar then it's played well. I found the stars very inspiring because I saw a harmony up there that could be like an example for a good interpretation.

[prometheus]

If only a couple of people listened to classica music we would also not have this 'beautiful... very beautiful' problem.

Ps. I can press the C key on a piano for four months and still I will not hear anything beautiful. Maybe when you play even longer?

[prometheus]

Often used for your posts

If she didn't help start this all over again I would have had time to say something about dark matter. But now I had to battle against the ignorance of these few religious people.

[pianistimo]

saint-saens studied astronomy and when i hear or play his 'allegro appasionata' - it inspires me to think of the stars, too.

[Derek]

I see your point, but must offer you an opinion that the universe was probably not created by God for one underlying reason. "Back in the day", humans thought that a comet was a sign of heavenly powers. Similarly, because of lack of understanding of nature, we took everything out of the ordinary as somehow divine. As we learn more and more about ourselves and world, we begin to disprove those once debated theories as not natural.

Due to this observation, it is more plausible to point out that the universe was less likely have been a product of divine intervention, but of a natural phenomenon.

We can't of course rule out the divine theory, but we have to acknowledge that we have answers that previously we didn't have.

Best

We don't have more answers. We have a large system of description. Symbols, correlations, tables of data.  We do not have answers. Can you tell me what an electron is?  OH, its a subatomic particle! WOW now I understand.  wait a minute, what is a sub atomic particle?  its a point of energy? OH SO THATS WHAT IT IS....  wait...what is energy?  A mathematical formula?  no.  It is a word to describe a natural phenomenon which we do not understand.

Personally...I think it is odd we have progressed from faith in god to lack of faith in god. We didn't know about DNA before, now we do.  DNA has made life  far, far  FAr more mind bogglingly complex and amazing than it was before....why aren't we MORE convinced there is a God?  I don't get it.

Anyway the bottom line is---since we CAN'T know whether there is a God or not,  it is quite obvious that  if you progress from  faith to lack of faith or from lack of faith to faith BECAUSE of science...it is ENTIRELY subjective and THEREFORE----

you cannot simply say:  "SCIENCE!  THEREFORE, NOT GOD!"   


That's what your argument and so many tens of thousands of other arguments boil down to.

addendum:

(note that it is assumed you will read my post and get my point that from a religious perspective, I can't say "SCIENCE! THEREFORE GOD!"  either.)

[johnny-boy]

"It is a word to describe a natural phenomenon which we do not understand"

Mind if I use this quote occasionally Derek? That sums it up so well.

Best, John

[thalbergmad]

If she didn't help start this all over again I would have had time to say something about dark matter. But now I had to battle against the ignorance of these few religious people.

Save the battle for another day old chap.

Lets have some dark matter, and throw in some superstrings for good measure.

Nowadays, you won't get burned at the stake.

Thali

[Derek]

"It is a word to describe a natural phenomenon which we do not understand"

Mind if I use this quote occasionally Derek? That sums it up so well.

Best, John

Go right ahead John! I assume you're on my side then?

[debussy symbolism]

Science is all the time finding out the "stuff" of which the universe is made of. Not such a while ago, we didn't know what DNA was; we didn't know what atoms were; we didn't know alot of things. What makes you think that we would suddenly stop and not understand the basics, such as the meaning of energy, as you previously mentioned?

As was previously mentioned, science makes advances, whilst religion doesn't. That implies that what you believe is for granted: whatever the writ is, you belive. You have no proof that what the Bible says is true. You have no proof that God exists. You have no knowledge of who has written the Bible. You don't even know if the Bible text is the original, and given the endless emendations in it, is is entirely possible that the word of God, might well be the word of an yearning potentate seeking power.

The whole belief in God relies only on the fact that the system has been inculcated to you via countless teachings, so it is not too improbable that you should reject my opinion. Science disproves and proves things all the time. There have been wrong theories presented yes, but the field in general tends to shift to the actual gaining of knowledge. Should the Bible be indeed the voice of God, then every myriad detail presented in it would come to being, a feat that didn't come to its full known potential, as mentioned somewhere else in this thread, I am sure you know.

Again, to remind you: what we don't know now, we will know sometime in the future, given that we constantly learn things since the beginning of time. You yourself admitted that God might not exist, so wouldn't that contradict the whole notion of beliving? To belive something that doesn't exist? On a whole different aspect, where would the God exist? We have yet to locate in in space, and given that the outside of space is "nothing", it would be hard to prove something existing in that "nothing". Given that God is eternal and omnipresent and immortal, we could say the same for that "nothing". That would most probably mean that that "nothing" is God, and that would naturally mean that God is nothing. Unless God exists somewhat elsewhere, we cannot pinpoint God as a true existing entity.

Best.

[pianistimo]

if that is so, why did the dead sea scrolls turn up and confirm the texts that we already had?  they were word for word.  and, a few prayer books in ireland dating back to who knows when - confirm the psalms to be word for word.  just as music is note for note.

also, if you go to each place of the bible - it either is STILL there or WAS there.  there is no 'disproof' of bible text and history.  in fact, if anything - bible history is today still being uncovered. 

if people followed the discoveries of dna to it's true outcome - we would know TODAY (and probably knew yesterday) what the true migration of people on this earth was.  the national geographic has given some estimation - but we would see that it really did all come not from the the continent of africa - but from the middle east  - basically right around where a war is being fought today. 

and, if the bible were not important - why is jerusalem such a hot spot.  when there are 'armies surrounding jerusalem' we are told that Christ's return is emminent.  how come these prophecies are proving true - just as every other prophecy did. 

Christ was prophecied to come in Isaiah 53 - and he did.  exactly as was prophecied.  now, we know, he is prophecied to return.  i don't think there will be any surprise to Christians when the world falls majorly apart first.  we are told 'for then shall be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.  and, unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, those days shall be shortened.'

[debussy symbolism]

if that is so, why did the dead sea scrolls turn up and confirm the texts that we already had?  they were word for word.  and, a few prayer books in ireland dating back to who knows when - confirm the psalms to be word for word.  just as music is note for note.

So what? So what that the dead sea scrolls match up perfectly word for word. They are only pieces of paper, and only that. I don't care if you find scrolls coming from every ancient country affirming the Bible's content. They offer no concrete information that could be proven.

also, if you go to each place of the bible - it either is STILL there or WAS there. there is no 'disproof' of bible text and history. in fact, if anything - bible history is today still being uncovered.

So what? Does the discovery of certain events descirbed in the Bible a confirmation of existence of God? Not necessarily. For all we know, Earth might have been populated by species of creatures that were very advanced. A proof of this is the enigmatic crystal skulls found in certain cites of peru. Made of crystal quartz, they hold vast information and their origin is uncertain. According to our knowledge of the skulls, the skulls are meant to be a guiding force for humanity. To me, that denotes a civilization capable of comprehending the possible outcomes of human behavior, and our history. That same civilization might have written the Bible.

if people followed the discoveries of dna to it's true outcome - we would know TODAY (and probably knew yesterday) what the true migration of people on this earth was. the national geographic has given some estimation - but we would see that it really did all come not from the the continent of africa - but from the middle east - basically right around where a war is being fought today.

So what? For all I know, we could have come from anywhere, and that still, would not prove the existence of God.

and, if the bible were not important - why is jerusalem such a hot spot. when there are 'armies surrounding jerusalem' we are told that Christ's return is emminent. how come these prophecies are proving true - just as every other prophecy did.

Christ was prophecied to come in Isaiah 53 - and he did. exactly as was prophecied. now, we know, he is prophecied to return. i don't think there will be any surprise to Christians when the world falls majorly apart first. we are told 'for then shall be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall. and, unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, those days shall be shortened.'

Many things were prophesized. We have Edgar Cayce, Nostradamus, the holy priests of Peru, you name it. For all we know, prophesy might be a result of knowledge of patterns and logic, not of holy intervention. Again I must mention the particular crystal skulls unearthed not too long ago.

Best.

[mike_lang]

You're right, Debussy.  And here I was thinking life had meaning.

[debussy symbolism]

I am in no way suggesting that our life doesn't have meaning. On the contrary, I am suggesting that religion stifles the meaning of life, capable on only forcing the believer into various habits and patterns of life. Much like a totalitarian society. Censorship.

[prometheus]

Pianistimo, if you really believed more in God than in science you wouldn't trust in your computer to send your messages to us. Instead you should just write them down on paper and then kneel down in front of them and pray to God so she sends them over to us.

Otherwise, you really do believe more in science than in God, even if you do not realise.

[prometheus]

We don't have more answers. We have a large system of description. Symbols, correlations, tables of data.  We do not have answers.

Science tries to create models that fit reality. It cannot answer why reality is the way it is.

Personally...I think it is odd we have progressed from faith in god to lack of faith in god. We didn't know about DNA before, now we do.  DNA has made life  far, far  FAr more mind bogglingly complex and amazing than it was before....why aren't we MORE convinced there is a God?  I don't get it.

I don't get this. What does God have to do with DNA? Also, DNA is extremely basic. DNA is so simple people could not believe it contained genetic material. They were looking for some protein. Then when they did figure out that it was DNA they still did not realise that the base pairs were responsible for the actual code.

The more complex life is the more logical it seems to me that life was made using many many very small steps. To create all this in one shot just seems impossible.

You need to realise that it is a fact that our universe has very special rules that make it possible for things to automatically order themselves. Be it atoms, molecules, everyone accepts that. But when one proposes that life can also form all by itself some people suddenly have problems with that because of their religion. This handles the 'argument from complexity'-thing.

And then of course we have Darwinistic evolution, one of the strongest, powerful and most succesful theories in all of science. We have now discovered that 'darwinistic design' is more effective than 'intelligent design' (I mean ID by men, not by gods.) We are now using Darwinism to design stuff.

Now I don't remember if you were hinting at God causing all this through laws of nature of through a miracle or if you are undecided. Reality is pretty clear about how life came into existence. As for why this happened, why the universe is the way it is; those are the real questions but those are also questions that are outside reality, it seems.

Anyway the bottom line is---since we CAN'T know whether there is a God or not,  it is quite obvious that  if you progress from  faith to lack of faith or from lack of faith to faith BECAUSE of science...it is ENTIRELY subjective and THEREFORE----

you cannot simply say:  "SCIENCE!  THEREFORE, NOT GOD!"   

The problem is that religion is often based on ideas that contradict reality and that this was made clear by science. It is not that science says something about god. It is that science refutes some of their religious ideas.
 
So it is either science or the bible.

[Derek]

I don't think it is that simple, personally. I'm one of the rare individuals (apparently) who both has faith in God and believes that it is quite compatible with evolution, scientific theories, etc. etc. etc.  I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.  Many scientific and religious people seem to believe they are.  That doesn't make any sense to me.   Religion is just another way for us to find truth in the universe---a way which Science cannot give us. It is personal, intuitive, and deals entirely with truths that cannot be scientifically proven or revealed.  If there is anything external to the universe (like God),  we could not possibly scientifically observe him or even observe miracles as described in religious texts.  That is where faith comes in.

Debussy, to answer your post (you said, why do I think we will stop discovering things),  I do not think we will stop discovering things;  but I do not think we can discover how the universe began scientifically.   The farthest we can go is to bounce tiny subatomic particles off of other subatomic particles.  That is the smallest unit of matter/energy we can use for observation.  It is not possible to get smaller than a quark (unless there are smaller particles I suppose, but you can see by induction that the same reasoning would apply),  or  to shrink ourselves down to the size of an atom and look inside and see what is really going on.  We can't get "external" to the universe.   Since that is the case, we will never know WHAT energy or matter really is.  We can only mathematically describe how it behaves. That is,  once we have developed ways of measuring physical phenomena (which is also arbitrary and redundant, since those devices themselves use the very matter and energy we are trying to understand),   we know about consistent laws about how much "energy"  is released from a certain amount of "matter." (for example)  The universe obviously obeys laws.   But finding out these laws

does not tell us WHAT the universe is made of.  Science has not ever answered the question: "what."   It merely labels things.  If someday science does answer a "what?"  question,  THEN I will begin to believe we will find the answers to everything.

To assume or believe science has answered any "what" question is to take science for granted equally as much as fundamentalists take their religion for granted.

[thalbergmad]

if that is so, why did the dead sea scrolls turn up and confirm the texts that we already had?  they were word for word.  and, a few prayer books in ireland dating back to who knows when - confirm the psalms to be word for word.  just as music is note for note.

also, if you go to each place of the bible - it either is STILL there or WAS there.  there is no 'disproof' of bible text and history.  in fact, if anything - bible history is today still being uncovered. 

Well, I am no expert by any means but i have read a bit on this subject and i think your assertion that they confirmed texts word for word is stretching the imagination a bit. If memory serves, some of them did rather the opposite, but i doubt if you would be interested in those. Probably the work of Satan.

I think "WAS" there is also very important. The Bible is the most edited book ever. It now says what the church wanted it to say. Much has been left out and dropped.

I must have a dig around in my library.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

I'm one of the rare individuals (apparently) who both has faith in God and believes that it is quite compatible with evolution, scientific theories, etc. etc. etc.  I

So I'm not alone in this huge universe.

[thalbergmad]

Again I must mention the particular crystal skulls unearthed not too long ago.

Best.

When the Museum of Mankind was still open in London, I went to see the crystal skull that they apparantly bought from Tiffanys at the end of the last century.

Call me a crank if you will, but it was the most disturbing thing i have ever looked at. It seemed to be almost alive.

According to one of the curators, it had to be covered up after closing time, as the cleaners refused to go into the room where it was on display.

Thal

[pianowelsh]

I dont often get peeved BUT it so happens that I lodged with a masters level quantum physiscist who was a Christian and I happen to know several active scientists who do believe in 'creationism' so it isnt something I have just made up! These are highly intelligent people and ususally I drop out after the first 5 mins of conversation because I understand very little of science but they all conlude that there is no conlusive proof for the big band in fact they suggest that it is Highly unlikely and point out many inconsisencies in the theories. the concur that it is much more rational to hold to a biblical view of Creation, which whilst not giving all the detail, gives a much more solid starting point for development - in their view.  So before you go calling folks ignorant you should check your sources a bit better.  If you dont want Christians to put forward biblical views on topics the bible speaks clearly about then you need to organise the heading of your threads better. Like 'a secular discussion of the big bang theory - no fundaentalist Christians allowed' - is one possible title.  I was under the misapprehension that this was an open forum??!

[prometheus]

I don't think it is that simple, personally. I'm one of the rare individuals (apparently) who both has faith in God and believes that it is quite compatible with evolution, scientific theories, etc. etc. etc. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive. Many scientific and religious people seem to believe they are.  That doesn't make any sense to me. 

As I said before, orthodox religion, meaning most of religion, makes claims in areas that are part of science. And almost exclusively they contradict each other. So in that sense religion is incompatible with science. Christianity is, Islam is, etc.

Another thing is if you seperate believing and religion, and its traditions and dogmas, then one can believe in something you call god but without doing all the things religion usually does. This can be viewed as an Einsteinian view of God. Einstein used the word of god to descibe the mystery of the universe but he didn't actually believe in a God. Or maybe a Spinozan God. actually quite similar. A god that is not a person. So it's not a 'real' god.

But if you believe in God while rejecting religion while you do believe in a real god, so not in the sense of Einstein or Spinoza then what do you believe exactly?

Also, if you believe in something for which there is no evidence then how do you unite that with other views and other ideas for which there is no evidence. Why believe in one while not believing in something else? Why not believe in a scientific hypothesis which has no emperic basis? You see the problem? A person that believes in God must make an exception and not apply his or her usual everyday-logic to be able to do so.

Religion is just another way for us to find truth in the universe---a way which Science cannot give us.

Ok, then what are your answers? And why are they any good? Why does this universe exist? Do you have an answer to a question like this one? Why does this universe have special laws? And if you beliee in God then does she exist? How? Why? Does religion really give you any good answers to these questions that are beyond science?

You don't  mean you just accept the dogma based on the ideas of bronze age philosophers that were totally ignorant of the world and had ethics worse than the Taliban, right? So how do you get these answers?

Or do you just make up an answer you like and then you start to believe in it? But then you don't know if this answer is any good. Do you think it is acceptable to take those questions you think can never be answered and just fill them up with myth? If so, how do you know which questions can be answered and which cannot be answered? Because you are doing the same as those people that came up with all those creation myths we know now are terribly wrong so that it isn't even funny.

So to conclude.
-I can see how you can use the world 'god', as a non-person, for the mystery in the world.
-I know some people just make a hole in their logic and allow God to slip past. But why would this be justified? And would it be a sign of good science?
-What kinds of answers that science can't answer has religion answered? And how do we know how good these answers are? And if we can't know then what use are they?

That puzzles me is why some people just have to do everything to put religion in their life. I could understand that if you are someone in a world you don't understand you can come up with things that are just not there. But I don't understand that when we know religion is largely a delusion you put God in the hole science has left just because something is unexplained. Why not accept some things are a mystery? Wouldn't you find it strange if I said that I believe that a invisible homosexual pink unicorn is behind all this? But that I refuse to think about how this has happened? Which would mean you have no way to attack my idea, which is obviously silly?

Why?