Michael
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by Michael on Aug 24, 2011 0:45:16 GMT -8
The bible also doesn't give me a good recipe for enchiladas, although that would be nice. ;D What I want to know is whether God could make an enchilada so big that he couldn't eat it all.... To boil it down, I think it still all comes down to ones's faith: to the believer in God, he sees the unfathomable complexities of the universe - and potentially what transcends it - as proof that God exists. To the one who does not believe in God, he MUST scrape together every piece of evidence and every unproven theory he can muster to demonstrate that at least it might be possible for the universe to have come into being without a First Cause. Of course, I fall into the former camp, so my opinions are skewed in that direction, and I am an admitted simpleton, but it seems to me that it requires MORE faith to NOT believe in a creator than to believe in one. |
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 24, 2011 13:45:59 GMT -8
Two things in response to Michael's post:
-Personally, as a believer, I have had personal experience of God and that alone is sufficient cause for me that a force greater than humanity or gravity or dark matter. In seeing miracles, and experiencing the efficacy of God's word (both written and to myself) that is the only evidence I need. Different believers see different things as the source of their faith: a particular community of Christians, that Christianity "makes sense" to them, and Jesus as a port of salvation in the storm of their life. I guess there's a lot of ways to approach belief.
Also there is the third option: agnosticism. That is the only completely logical viewpoint unless one actually has evidence. They simply claim that they haven't got enough evidence to make a decision. They don't have to be dogmatic about anything. Although most people do choose to be dogmatic (even about agnosticism, which is equally illogical) it isn't logically necessary to be dogmatic.
I choose Jesus (not necessarily Christianity) because the evidence I have makes that choice logical. Other people may not have the same evidence I do, so they may not come to the same conclusions I do.
However, I agree with what you say about atheism. How can anyone prove that something absolutely doesn't exist? For a long time dragons were considered non-existent, until we found some that are pretty much dragons, just a different size than was described. So to say "It is proven that X doesn't exist" is to misspeak. The best we can say is, "We haven't found any evidence of X existing."
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on May 30, 2015 8:49:00 GMT -8
I have a major problem with fiction like a multiverse being called science. If people want to imagine and postulate, so be it. Calling that science is worse than absurd, and for those scientists who believe it to denounce people of faith in the Bible and its records of origins is also patently absurd. One worldview is no more scientific than the other.
As a former atheist I used to believe the Bible was a fairy tale, or legends, or cultural stories concocted by men for population control. Now I accept it as the message of the Creator to His creation. The difference was made by an experience and testing the Word of God. Men cannot test a big bang. They cannot test for an existence of another universe when they do not even know how big this one is! Our universe may be as infinite as its Creator.
It just seems ANYTHING to get away from the notion there is a God who makes demands on His creation, and the responsibilities and accountability God places upon His creation. Man wants freedom from God. "Science" gives him an out but, it isn't science by definition. It is religious faith in a god of man's making - Time. Time is god. Given enough time, time can do anything. They worship time as the grand designer.
I used to laugh at Christians and denounce the Bible as a book of fables. Now, it makes more sense than anything I have beheld. My worldview has been changed by an experience, observation and testing.
Seems to me science should invest itself in understanding the universe in a cell before it tries to say there is a multiverse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 1, 2015 21:35:32 GMT -8
The Big Bang can be tested, that is why it has gained widespread acceptance over other theories. As to a theoretical multi-verse, the jury is still out whether it can be tested.
Big Bang theory (at least without a multiverse) is actually really compelling evidence for the necessity of a Creator. It won out against other models of the universe en vogue 100 years ago that would definitely have been contrary to the Bible's teaching on origins. This in and of itself is some evidence that the majority of scientists do want to ascertain the truth even if it is uncomfortable to them.
Multiverse theory may be a last ditch effort to avoid the theological implications of the Big Bang theory, or not. The jury is still out.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jun 5, 2015 18:30:56 GMT -8
Josh, seriously, please post evidence that shows the expansion of energy and matter from nothing and how you test that in a laboratory.
The big bang has so many detractors now, so many problems, admitted by non-theist science, because evidence denies its possibility, that secular web sites have begun challenging it. Rescuing devices abound, trying to keep the bang afloat.
The Bible says God spoke and things came into being. No immeasurable heat. No trying to figure out how everything came from hydrogen and helium. Matter of fact, gravity is yet unexplainable in a big bang cosmology. Gravity cannot pull together gas in a vacuum. Gas disperses in a vacuum. Then how did ANYTHING pull together and collapse on itself forming supposed stars, when no gravity existed, and could not pull together gas if it did.
Just because the BB implies a cause in no way implies a Creator. The Carl Sagans and Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings out there deny a creator as cause for the BB, and Hawkings says everything CAN come from nothing, without God. Don't need God. That is not science. You cannot test such a concept, you cannot repeat such a thing, you cannot make predictions on such a thing. It is a story accepted by faith.
Again, seriously, what test can be done to prove the Big Bang?
|
|
