Big bang theory?

[Debunker]

This is in fact my intention to expose that the traditional and orthodox claims of "God" are severely incorrect and their meaning is very wrong.

Science gives new meaning to the thing we call as "God" as like the Big-Bang gives us a new explanation of the creation day.

Creationist do not give the point of creation to be 6000 years ago. Speak for yourself and not for orthodox religious people. Orthodox religion recognizes eternity as a quality of God and God inhabits eternity. That is the orthodox belief in God. Science is good but it does not tell us anything about the creation date except that it took place before the other Big Bangs that could have happened in eternity. Know it all, don't you watch Arnold Murray?

 

[Debunker]

There seems to be many agnostics in here. I don't like conflict but as a creationist I will try to give my opinion. I love Science, and the scriptures. I am no expert and I don't have the answers to how the universe began... no one does, only faith in something wether it be in God or accident. I personally believe that the primordial atom theory (big bang) is accurate.

Scriptures do support the fact that a day of creation was more than 24 hours, and they also support the idea that Adam and Eve were not the only people on Earth (in their day). You are going to ask me to support this by telling you where in the scriptures it supports it, but I am in the process of writting a book about this subject so I am not going to give away the information at this time. Oh and by the way, it also tells us when Dinosaurs existed, but you have to combine science with the scriptures to see it because the scriptures don't use the name "dinosaur"... and no I am not refering to the book of Job when it talks about the leviathans.

Bottom line is that I believe God exists and created the universe... how? I don't care... how long did he take? I don't care...

We all believe in something... even if it isn't a belief in God. There is a design to the Universe, and where there is a design, there is a designer.

I look forward to reading your book but I hope you do not base your book on the assumption that conservative, Bible thumping Christians like me don't know about the things you are going to be talking about. My mother-in-law died listening to Arnold Murray telling her all about the same facts you mention. Murray is a Bible thumping Christian, a real fundamentalist. There are many creationist who are experts in theology and philosophy and these have already published your secretes so your book may have to collect dust if you plan on beating others to the punch of your theories.

 

[Debunker]

But creation ex nihilo implies "from nothing." There are no indications that the Big Bang event occurred "from nothing" -- in fact, there is every indication that it didn't thanks to the conservation of energy.

Here comes one of those big "if's" back at you. You assume that existence, pure existence, is nothing but if you recognize existence is something, the problem is solved and there is no contradiction. Your two sock's theory does fall flat without the if.

 

[Gloone]

what good reason do we have to believe that God was not necessary at the point of creation whenever it occurred? Was Hawking there at that time?

Because some people are high on life while others are lost in space. :thud:

 

[Debunker]

Hebrew is the "caged Lion" that is not translated well.

Gematrios, purposely missing or misspelled words, protruding lines or crowns, even the recent bible code are examples of "translation" issues.

Be that as it may, the Torah has been studied by Sages throughout the history, lets refer to a 12th century sage and his description (Rashi or Ramban:cant remember):“ The Holy One, Blessed is He, created all creations from absolute nihility, We do not have any word in the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) to express the idea of bringing forth something out of nothing except for the word ‘bara’ usually rendered to create. Now, nothing that is “made under the sun” or above it, initially comes into existence from nothingness; rather, God brought into being from complete, absolute nihility an exceedingly fine primary essence with practically no substance. But this essence is the potential for bringing forth other things, ready to receive from and to emerge from the potential to actual. This is the primary substance called by the Greeks ulh (hule). This is called tohu in the Holy Tongue and the form that this takes on is bohu. So tohu is the created substance that bohu is made from. And after this hule (tohu) God did not create anything out of nothing; rather he “formed” and “made” things (into bohu)....”

This is not bad for 12th century "torah" scholars.
I personally will go on their translation before any others, I mean really, its their language, they studied it for years and it matches science pretty well don't you think.

Hi Onlooker. Great job bother. It seems to me that there was a post on the RF that explained how the creation of matter came about from existence or ontology. Matter was created from something that was not cosmological. This makes sense to me just like saying that God created the scientific method so man could navigate in the cosmological universe that dabar created. What is your take on this?

 

[Debunker]

Hebrew is the "caged Lion" that is not translated well.

Gematrios, purposely missing or misspelled words, protruding lines or crowns, even the recent bible code are examples of "translation" issues.

Be that as it may, the Torah has been studied by Sages throughout the history, lets refer to a 12th century sage and his description (Rashi or Ramban:cant remember):“ The Holy One, Blessed is He, created all creations from absolute nihility, We do not have any word in the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) to express the idea of bringing forth something out of nothing except for the word ‘bara’ usually rendered to create. Now, nothing that is “made under the sun” or above it, initially comes into existence from nothingness; rather, God brought into being from complete, absolute nihility an exceedingly fine primary essence with practically no substance. But this essence is the potential for bringing forth other things, ready to receive from and to emerge from the potential to actual. This is the primary substance called by the Greeks ulh (hule). This is called tohu in the Holy Tongue and the form that this takes on is bohu. So tohu is the created substance that bohu is made from. And after this hule (tohu) God did not create anything out of nothing; rather he “formed” and “made” things (into bohu)....”

This is not bad for 12th century "torah" scholars.
I personally will go on their translation before any others, I mean really, its their language, they studied it for years and it matches science pretty well don't you think.

Hi Onlooker. Great job bother. It seems to me that there was a post on the RF that explained how the creation of matter came about from existence or ontology. Matter was created from something that was not cosmological. This makes sense to me just like saying that God created the scientific method so man could navigate in the cosmological universe that dabar created. What is your take on this?

 

[Debunker]

Having the "Big-Bang" as God's creation day does not mean any other aspect or attribute needs to be dropped or changed.

An identical event does not have to include an identical cause or purpose or whatever.

You repeat about calling a pair of socks as God but that is your own degradation and no realistic logic would give such a comparison.

And calling God as the Universe is equivalent to God as "nature" or "mother-earth" which are long standing doctrines, Link 1 and Link 2.

Einstein was correct in saying: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind".

:clap

Let me give you a tip Know it-all. Most of these post on threads like this one, the posters have a well designed agenda. Most of the responders here are atheist, agnostics, pure cosmologist, etc., all people interested in taking God out of the explanation of what is really real. They will talk to you about God but their definition will be that of a God created by a cosmological reality. They are humanist in general when it comes to ethics and they are not interested in a moral code that they or society did not create. In fact they eliminate ontology as ontology proper.

If you are going to push you ideas you should try to better understand the difference between ontology and cosmology, the source of knowledge, and what is the nature of ethical behavior, etc. We all have weaknesses in our world views but you do not seem to have any consistent world view that explains what you are trying to say. I see you are trapped in the two sock theory here in your post. My only suggestion to you is to stop wearing socks.

 

[Debunker]

:clap:clap:clap

the big bang was an incredible surge of light in the form of electromagnetic radiation. From the light beams of the big bang came protons and neutrons and electrons etc, these produced helium and hydrogen and so forth... all the elements came together to form matter and voila, the rest is history.

and just as the writer of genesis so eloquently put it, 'God said let there be light, and there was light'

And, of course, the Big Bang is a great argument for God as the first cause theory. I too :clap:clap

 

[McBell]

Although Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God his discoveries induced a reverential attitude in him. He admitted: "You will hardly find one among the profunder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. Religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of the law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beeings is an utterly insignificant reflection".

In other words this unverse is too wonderfully made to be the outcome of a random explosion !!!

Have a nice day.

Now let us assume for one minute that Einstein was a die hard fanatical theist.
Let us assume that he believed in god and fire and brimstone, etc.

How would his belief in god prove God exists?
That's right.
It doesn't.
It is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy.

“There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair”
(Albert Einstein, circa. 1954)

 

[McBell]

what good reason do we have to believe that God was not necessary at the point of creation whenever it occurred? Was Hawking there at that time?

Occam's Razor comes to mind.
Of course, that would mean you would need to show a good reason for god being necessary at the point of creation.

 

[Debunker]

Occam's Razor comes to mind.
Of course, that would mean you would need to show a good reason for god being necessary at the point of creation.

Reasoning does that. You get nothing from nothing but you get something from something. Existence is the something from which cosmology comes. To be scientifically believable, creation needed ontology.To believe God did not create the universe takes more imagination and faith than to believe the universe just poped up from nothing.

 

[outhouse]

Reasoning does that. You get nothing from nothing but you get something from something. Existence is the something from which cosmology comes. To be scientifically believable, creation needed ontology.To believe God did not create the universe takes more imagination and faith than to believe the universe just poped up from nothing.

the universe did not come from nothing, because we dont know exactly does not mean it came from nothing.

belief that a magic man said "poof there it is" is not even on the table as far as reality is concerned

 

[Gloone]

the universe did not come from nothing, because we dont know exactly does not mean it came from nothing.

belief that a magic man said "poof there it is" is not even on the table as far as reality is concerned

I take that you take you the creation story literally. You should really try to apply all that knowledge you boast about.

 

[Debunker]

the universe did not come from nothing, because we dont know exactly does not mean it came from nothing.

belief that a magic man said "poof there it is" is not even on the table as far as reality is concerned

See Know-it-all, I told you the atheist will not recognize an ontological existence created the universe. Creationist do not believe in a magic man but that is the only rebuff they can come up with when put to the test.

 

[outhouse]

because science cannot see past 14 billion years there has to be a magic man that did it???

 

[outhouse]

the bible account of creation is obvious fiction.

We can see no intervention of ole magic man who created man in "OUR" image in the last 14 billion years! so why should we beleive he only did domething before 14 billion year ago????

for 200,000 years man has made up gods and spirits for questions he could not answer, rain gods, fire gods, smoke spirits, sun gods ect ect ect thousands of gods in fact. because we cannot answer the question of how the universe was formed, why YOU want to revert back to a primitive belief pattern of ancient man is beyond me.

 

[Debunker]

the bible account of creation is obvious fiction.

We can see no intervention of ole magic man who created man in "OUR" image in the last 14 billion years! so why should we beleive he only did domething before 14 billion year ago????

for 200,000 years man has made up gods and spirits for questions he could not answer, rain gods, fire gods, smoke spirits, sun gods ect ect ect thousands of gods in fact. because we cannot answer the question of how the universe was formed, why YOU want to revert back to a primitive belief pattern of ancient man is beyond me.

Yes, it is beyond you. still you offer no alternative to my reasoning on creation,yet the best you can do is your magic man theory. My, my, what a logical argument? With such strong facts you'll probably be able to turn the world to atheism.

 

[outhouse]

With such strong facts you'll probably be able to turn the world to atheism.

I dont care what people believe, that is your mistake.

still you offer no alternative to my reasoning on creation

I have stated all the facts there are pertaining this.

your creation account is what??? when did magic man step in?

]all creationist are different and none beleive the same so please share

 

[outhouse]

One thing is certain and a unavoidable fact

religion has no place in science what so ever

 

[Debunker]

One thing is certain and a unavoidable fact

religion has no place in science what so ever

But then, why did God create science? Did you ever hear of the philosophy of science? Probably not.