Captain49,914 posts
15 Sept 2014, 20:03
#41
15 Sept 2014, 20:03#41
Interesting perspective Plum. Perhaps the most intelligent thing I have read in the m any debates this Board has hosted on this subject.
Prof John Lennox rocks
Started by Beeno1268 REPLIES2,809 VIEWS· 15 Sept 2014, 14:06
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
Captain23,294 posts
15 Sept 2014, 20:10
#42
15 Sept 2014, 20:10#42
Beeno1
Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 11937RE: Prof John Lennox rocks
September 15, 2014, 15:28:54SHARKBOK IF YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER THAN EINSTEIN OR THE BIBLE GOOD YOU ARE SO VERY WRONG.
HOWEVER IT IS INTERESTING HOW GOD DEFINES A FOOL.
Beeno,
How do you know how how God defines a fool? Have you asked him? Or can you provide a passage from the bible that can be referenced for the official definition of a fool by God?You may be misquoting God and actually just putting words into his mouth. A zealot will often confuse their own opinion as the words of God.
As for Einstein I doubt he subscribes to John Lennox' theory and would not take well to his views be misconstrued.
Einstein's Views on Religion"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true".
""I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."
" "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. "
"It is indeed human, as proved by Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), who was behind the Concordat with Hitler. Since when can one make a pact with Christ and Satan at the same time?" (August 1943)"
"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws".
Einstein does not like any of his comments to be quoted out of context by religious or athiests . He is not atheist nor is he religious in the traditional view of a personal god.
To your comments: (Einstein was originally a pantheist)Einstein remains a Patheist. At no time has this changed
Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 11937RE: Prof John Lennox rocks
September 15, 2014, 15:28:54SHARKBOK IF YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER THAN EINSTEIN OR THE BIBLE GOOD YOU ARE SO VERY WRONG.
HOWEVER IT IS INTERESTING HOW GOD DEFINES A FOOL.
Beeno,
How do you know how how God defines a fool? Have you asked him? Or can you provide a passage from the bible that can be referenced for the official definition of a fool by God?You may be misquoting God and actually just putting words into his mouth. A zealot will often confuse their own opinion as the words of God.
As for Einstein I doubt he subscribes to John Lennox' theory and would not take well to his views be misconstrued.
Einstein's Views on Religion"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true".
""I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."
" "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. "
"It is indeed human, as proved by Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), who was behind the Concordat with Hitler. Since when can one make a pact with Christ and Satan at the same time?" (August 1943)"
"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church... As long as I can remember. I have resented mass indoctrination. I cannot prove to you there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws".
Einstein does not like any of his comments to be quoted out of context by religious or athiests . He is not atheist nor is he religious in the traditional view of a personal god.
To your comments: (Einstein was originally a pantheist)Einstein remains a Patheist. At no time has this changed
Captain49,914 posts
15 Sept 2014, 20:15
#43
15 Sept 2014, 20:15#43
We shouldn't bend a knee to anybody. I have met a few US presidents...a respectful handshake did the trick. This bowing the knee stuff to Royalty is out of date. No person of true quality should expect another human being to bend a knee. The Scots may be headed down the wrong path with this election...but if they go independent they should lose the whole rotten Royal family burden.
Captain26,388 posts
15 Sept 2014, 20:23
#44
15 Sept 2014, 20:23#44
Beeno, Christianity is a belief that comes from outside( The Spirit) Reason has got nothing to do with it. Reason cannot prove or disprove it. Action speaks harder than words and until the actions of the believers show the unbelievers the error of their ways, reason means nothing.
Captain18,117 posts
15 Sept 2014, 20:58
#45
15 Sept 2014, 20:58#45
Just thought I should clear something up . . . for those of you who might think that Baboon-ou is only pretending to sound this stupid, he's not. He honestly believes the garbage that he is spouting on this thread.
When having any kind of argument or debate with Baboon-ou that might include any comment on religion, note that not only is he too stupid to understand your argument, he doesn't actually hear or acknowledge anything you're saying that might contradict his naive and juvenile beliefs.
Nietzsche said it best . . . faith is for people who don't want to know the truth.
I don't really care what people believe, I just wish they'd stop peddling their religion on a rugby message board. The preachy and sanctimonious SubstantialBull is even worse than Baboon-ou in this regard.
When having any kind of argument or debate with Baboon-ou that might include any comment on religion, note that not only is he too stupid to understand your argument, he doesn't actually hear or acknowledge anything you're saying that might contradict his naive and juvenile beliefs.
Nietzsche said it best . . . faith is for people who don't want to know the truth.
I don't really care what people believe, I just wish they'd stop peddling their religion on a rugby message board. The preachy and sanctimonious SubstantialBull is even worse than Baboon-ou in this regard.
Pro4,378 posts
15 Sept 2014, 21:01
#46
15 Sept 2014, 21:01#46
Mozart, really best to avoid commenting on Britain. You get the wrong end of the stick all the time.....too much nonsense peddled on the US News Channels
That and a deep hatred of anything English, of course
That and a deep hatred of anything English, of course
Captain49,914 posts
15 Sept 2014, 21:49
#47
15 Sept 2014, 21:49#47
No Becs you should sweep away all that mediocrity. And The braw Scots should nationalize Balmoral Castle and turn it over to Donald Trump to manage.
Captain40,032 posts
15 Sept 2014, 23:12
#48
15 Sept 2014, 23:12#48
Sharkbok the fool has said in his heart there is no God is scripture read psalm 14.1.Try also psalm 53.1. The reason being is the overwhelming evidence. The heavens declare the glory of God and the heavens pour forth knowledge etc.So what have we established thus far:Stephen Hawking says there was once nothing. Rooitwit and company dont agree with him. They know better of course. Hawking, like Einstein before him, dislikes this turn of events but facts are facts.
Einstein says the universe is not eternal - That plainly implies it was created and Einstein then wanted to know how God created it.Mumble grumble from the oaks. Jeez oaks I didnt realise Einstein was as thick as Beeno I though he was supposed to be a bright guy. Pity Einstein wasn't still alive we could have straigtened him out. Beeno is too thick to straighten out but we may be able to help Albert!Reminds one of a story about Einstein. He was travelling in South America and a shepherd came up to him and said Mr Einstein I dont think your theories are right.Hahhahahahahahaha the oaks here know more than the greatest living mind today Hawking who knows the universe came from nothing as did Einstein, but can't explain it.
Then we have Antony Flew a prominent academic and the worlds leading atheist for many years who comes to the conclusion only God could have created all this based on the evidence and has the honesty to follow the science and change his mind based on evidence.But opines ou warped DUD - Flew was an old geezer and what did he know. Man I bet he was never even in the army!! Does he even know how to peel a potato! I rest my case.Hahhahahahahahahaha hilarious perfomances from all the oaks. Yes Bokbe I grant you all you say but I do recall my own father telling me evolution was only a theory much to my annoyance. However he gave me some worthwhile literature by leading academics and the cracks began to appear.But on the board the oaks are very clever and will not allow any rubbish sprouted by, for example, Einstein, Hawking or Flew to ruffle their feathers. They are just talking nonsense Beeno. Ou Albert got all his calculations wrong - trust me on this.Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
One wonders why Hawkins is battling so hard to solve the problem of a universe created from nothing. Man all he has to do is come here and be advised by ou warped DUD and rooitwit! HahahahhahahahahaMan this is first class comedy!!!!!
Einstein says the universe is not eternal - That plainly implies it was created and Einstein then wanted to know how God created it.Mumble grumble from the oaks. Jeez oaks I didnt realise Einstein was as thick as Beeno I though he was supposed to be a bright guy. Pity Einstein wasn't still alive we could have straigtened him out. Beeno is too thick to straighten out but we may be able to help Albert!Reminds one of a story about Einstein. He was travelling in South America and a shepherd came up to him and said Mr Einstein I dont think your theories are right.Hahhahahahahahaha the oaks here know more than the greatest living mind today Hawking who knows the universe came from nothing as did Einstein, but can't explain it.
Then we have Antony Flew a prominent academic and the worlds leading atheist for many years who comes to the conclusion only God could have created all this based on the evidence and has the honesty to follow the science and change his mind based on evidence.But opines ou warped DUD - Flew was an old geezer and what did he know. Man I bet he was never even in the army!! Does he even know how to peel a potato! I rest my case.Hahhahahahahahahaha hilarious perfomances from all the oaks. Yes Bokbe I grant you all you say but I do recall my own father telling me evolution was only a theory much to my annoyance. However he gave me some worthwhile literature by leading academics and the cracks began to appear.But on the board the oaks are very clever and will not allow any rubbish sprouted by, for example, Einstein, Hawking or Flew to ruffle their feathers. They are just talking nonsense Beeno. Ou Albert got all his calculations wrong - trust me on this.Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
One wonders why Hawkins is battling so hard to solve the problem of a universe created from nothing. Man all he has to do is come here and be advised by ou warped DUD and rooitwit! HahahahhahahahahaMan this is first class comedy!!!!!
Captain40,032 posts
15 Sept 2014, 23:15
#49
15 Sept 2014, 23:15#49
THE UNIVERSE COULD NOT HAVE CREATED ITSELF NOR HAS IT ALWAYS EXISTED
1. The universe could NOT have created itself
In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.
Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University) acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”1
Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."2 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”3
In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".
The universe cannot have created itself!
2. The universe could NOT have always existed
The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.
The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.
The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created.
Captain40,032 posts
15 Sept 2014, 23:26
#50
15 Sept 2014, 23:26#50
Stephen Hawking says in his latest book The Grand Design that,
Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Is it not circular logic? I mean, how can gravity exist if there is no universe? And if there is no gravity, how can it be the reason for the creation of universe?
Also, if the universe doesn't exist, how can it create itself? The very sentence doesn't make sense to me. It seems so absurd and illogical that I've never heard such sentences even in philosophy. On what ground, Stephen Hawkings claims this?
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
Captain23,294 posts
15 Sept 2014, 23:37
#51
15 Sept 2014, 23:37#51
Beeno, are you even reading the comments from Einstein and the inventors of the big bangg theory.
1. The Big Bang theory is the beginning when the piece of matter explodes to create the universe.
2. Einstein does not believe in a personal god like Christianity or Muslim. He is a pantheist which means he is spiritual, not religious.
3. If someone does not believe in a personal god like Christianity it does not mean that they are atheist.
4. The Bible used to state that the earth was flat. Heaven in the Sky and Hell under the earth.They(writers of the bible) have changed the scripture when irrefutable evidence from science proved that the earth is round.
5. Religious speakers have been trained in communication skills like persuasion. They are taking an accredited person like Einstein and bending what he said to their own ends- to say that science supports their view of reality.
6. Einstein is saying that the complexity of the universe is beyond his comprehension. He is not saying this means the bible the truth, Einstein is just aware that he is not smart enough to understand the complexity of life and the universe as a whole.
7. You quote Hawkins as supporting your belief. If anything, Hawkins is totally opposite. Some of the quotes from his book Grand Design -
"Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary
"“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
1. The Big Bang theory is the beginning when the piece of matter explodes to create the universe.
2. Einstein does not believe in a personal god like Christianity or Muslim. He is a pantheist which means he is spiritual, not religious.
3. If someone does not believe in a personal god like Christianity it does not mean that they are atheist.
4. The Bible used to state that the earth was flat. Heaven in the Sky and Hell under the earth.They(writers of the bible) have changed the scripture when irrefutable evidence from science proved that the earth is round.
5. Religious speakers have been trained in communication skills like persuasion. They are taking an accredited person like Einstein and bending what he said to their own ends- to say that science supports their view of reality.
6. Einstein is saying that the complexity of the universe is beyond his comprehension. He is not saying this means the bible the truth, Einstein is just aware that he is not smart enough to understand the complexity of life and the universe as a whole.
7. You quote Hawkins as supporting your belief. If anything, Hawkins is totally opposite. Some of the quotes from his book Grand Design -
"Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary
"“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Pro4,378 posts
16 Sept 2014, 00:04
#52
16 Sept 2014, 00:04#52
And I say again, Mozart, you do not understand !!! That last post confirms it !!!
Captain40,032 posts
16 Sept 2014, 00:16
#53
16 Sept 2014, 00:16#53
For those really wanting to get to grips on the debate about a universe from nothing go to thsi link:'http://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-creator/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss
Here you will see how the atheistic position as argued by Krauss collapses completely as he tries to prove that the universe emmeged from nothing. The poor fellow even has atheists ticking him off.
A small quote:
Here you will see how the atheistic position as argued by Krauss collapses completely as he tries to prove that the universe emmeged from nothing. The poor fellow even has atheists ticking him off.
A small quote:
Indeed, Krauss himself refers elsewhere to "the classical ontological definition of nothing as 'the absence of anything'…".[43] Krauss admits on page 152 of A Universe From Nothing that "it would be disingenuous to suggest that empty space endowed with energy, which drives inflation, is really nothing."[44] On page 172 Krauss acknowledges: "All of the examples I have provided thus far indeed involve creation of something from what one should be tempted to consider as nothing, but the rules for that creation, i.e. the laws of physics, were pre-ordained. Where do the rules come from?"[45] Thus Stephen Hawking asks:
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?[46]
Hawking’s question – sidestepped by Krauss (cf. pp.142 & 172-174) – itself sidesteps the question of what ontology can be attributed to physical laws in the supposed absence of any physical reality for them to describe or any mind/s to conceive of them. As atheist Peter Atkins comments: "You have to realize that physical laws, which are summaries of observed behaviour, come into existence as a universe comes into existence...".
Captain40,032 posts
16 Sept 2014, 00:17
#54
16 Sept 2014, 00:17#54
Man are these guys in a complete mess! Hahahahahha
Captain40,032 posts
16 Sept 2014, 00:33
#55
16 Sept 2014, 00:33#55
Hey rooitwit you atheists love to supress any dissent but sorry oak the game is up. Science has got you slak jawed Neanderthals on the run!
You should realise that when guys like Flew (who fought so vigourously against the truth of the existence of God for so many years) abandon ship the ship is sinking.
There is now no excuse for anybody to continue believing their rubbish. The evidence is there for all to see. Stop being a fool and seek the truth
Beeno waiting expectantly for some sincere thanks.
You should realise that when guys like Flew (who fought so vigourously against the truth of the existence of God for so many years) abandon ship the ship is sinking.
There is now no excuse for anybody to continue believing their rubbish. The evidence is there for all to see. Stop being a fool and seek the truth
Beeno waiting expectantly for some sincere thanks.
Captain21,007 posts
16 Sept 2014, 00:57
#56
16 Sept 2014, 00:57#56
Beeno, may I ask you an objective question in a way where I will make some statements and you tell me how you make sense of or reconcile the ideas that follow...
1) The Jews wrote the old testament.2) Nowhere in their version, which still exists today in it's original form, does the devil or hell exist.3) In the version of the bible that you read, there is a devil and there is a threat of hell.
Did you know this? I must admit that I didn't until relatively recently. It was interesting for me to discover but never really meant much as I never believed in god or the devil anyway. But for a believer, how would such knowledge impact your thinking? I take it you would first acertain the authenticity of those statements. But ultimately you would, if you were a reasonable person, have to alter your thinking in some way since new information is now suddenly on the scene. Do you ignore it and continue with your current method of belief, regardless of the fact that it is now very possible that a large amount of what you thought to be the story of god and his battle with satan could very possibly be an entirely human creation. Or do you put it down to symbolism etc?
As patronising as it sounds, I am actually interested to know how a religious person deals with these sorts of situations.
1) The Jews wrote the old testament.2) Nowhere in their version, which still exists today in it's original form, does the devil or hell exist.3) In the version of the bible that you read, there is a devil and there is a threat of hell.
Did you know this? I must admit that I didn't until relatively recently. It was interesting for me to discover but never really meant much as I never believed in god or the devil anyway. But for a believer, how would such knowledge impact your thinking? I take it you would first acertain the authenticity of those statements. But ultimately you would, if you were a reasonable person, have to alter your thinking in some way since new information is now suddenly on the scene. Do you ignore it and continue with your current method of belief, regardless of the fact that it is now very possible that a large amount of what you thought to be the story of god and his battle with satan could very possibly be an entirely human creation. Or do you put it down to symbolism etc?
As patronising as it sounds, I am actually interested to know how a religious person deals with these sorts of situations.
Captain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2014, 01:11
#57
16 Sept 2014, 01:11#57
Enlighten me Becs....but do remember I had a home in Pomerania over a period of 30 years and ra n companies in your country.
Captain18,570 posts
16 Sept 2014, 01:34
#58
16 Sept 2014, 01:34#58
Is this whole thread just an attempt by Beeno to distract from the Bok loss? I have know of stranger things.
Captain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2014, 01:38
#59
16 Sept 2014, 01:38#59
I'm trying to steer this away to the Royal family to save HasBeen from himself....but he keeps belly flopping back into the gene pool.
Club Pro691 posts
16 Sept 2014, 01:54
#60
16 Sept 2014, 01:54#60
Plum its called blind faith and it negates the need for rational though or explanations. Its a bit like you team playing poorly but only ever loosing because of Refs or cheating by the opposition.
Captain18,117 posts
16 Sept 2014, 09:12
#61
16 Sept 2014, 09:12#61
". . . the leading atheist in the wolrd (sic) in his day . . ."
How did he get to the top of the atheist world rankings, Baboon-ou? Did he win a tournament or something?
How did he get to the top of the atheist world rankings, Baboon-ou? Did he win a tournament or something?
Pro9,905 posts
16 Sept 2014, 11:18
#62
16 Sept 2014, 11:18#62
Beandip … you seem to love quoting others as a response to one’s question. I take it then you don’t have any ideas of your own?
It’s a dangerous thing swallowing everything you read as fact, especially when their so called “fact” just so happens to only be an opinion … no more. They too are clueless.
I too believe that God exists and I too believe He created everything. Unfortunately I do not know the hows and the whens and the whats of it all. Anyone claiming they do is a liar.
For example, the big bang theory could be what occurred when He said ”Let there be Light’ … can I prove it? No of course not. I wasn’t there.
Is God and science linked? Could be. I don’t know.
I don’t have an issue regarding how everything came about. What
I believe within gives me peace of mind. I can tell you what I believe but I’m
not prepared to try convince you or convert you to the way I see things. It’s a
losing battle cause I can prove none of it.
My issue is more to do with His personality and how so many
of his people feel the need to lie on His behalf. Look at all the horse shyte
your trying to sell us.
I’m afraid you, Beandip, are one of those liars.
Do you think it possible that one day you’ll stand before Him and hear Him say “Get away from Me … I do not know you?”
Up your game ...
Pro3,977 posts
16 Sept 2014, 12:11
#63
16 Sept 2014, 12:11#63
Clean, I like your take on things. It is objective.
It is simple, weather you look at things from a scientific or a religious point of view, there is so much that we don't understand, that it is incredible.
I won't argue one way or the other, but I have a few questions;
1) Why can't science and religion exist together? God could have put things in motion by creating the original particle, science can pretty much take care of the rest.
2) To the non-religious scientists, where did the original big bang particle come from?
3) To the Christians, if you say the bible is to be taken literally, then explain how all animals, including dinosaurs, insects, extinct animals and every animal as it exists and has ever existed, managed to fit on the ark? Given that the size of the ark is in the bible, there would simply not be enough space. Especially when considering that all the food for those animals would also have to be taken into account.
4) All major religions state that they are the only route to heaven. Therefore anyone practicing another religion is going straight to hell. Would a fair and just Christian God therefore send an Amazon dwelling tribesman who has never heard of any God, or a Muslim living in a remote village in Afghanistan who has never heard of Christianity, straight to hell?
5) Can the bible as it is today be trusted? Given that the church has left out scriptures and whatever other bits and pieces didn't support its agenda.
It is simple, weather you look at things from a scientific or a religious point of view, there is so much that we don't understand, that it is incredible.
I won't argue one way or the other, but I have a few questions;
1) Why can't science and religion exist together? God could have put things in motion by creating the original particle, science can pretty much take care of the rest.
2) To the non-religious scientists, where did the original big bang particle come from?
3) To the Christians, if you say the bible is to be taken literally, then explain how all animals, including dinosaurs, insects, extinct animals and every animal as it exists and has ever existed, managed to fit on the ark? Given that the size of the ark is in the bible, there would simply not be enough space. Especially when considering that all the food for those animals would also have to be taken into account.
4) All major religions state that they are the only route to heaven. Therefore anyone practicing another religion is going straight to hell. Would a fair and just Christian God therefore send an Amazon dwelling tribesman who has never heard of any God, or a Muslim living in a remote village in Afghanistan who has never heard of Christianity, straight to hell?
5) Can the bible as it is today be trusted? Given that the church has left out scriptures and whatever other bits and pieces didn't support its agenda.
Captain17,321 posts
16 Sept 2014, 12:32
#64
16 Sept 2014, 12:32#64
Captain18,117 posts
16 Sept 2014, 12:37
#65
16 Sept 2014, 12:37#65
bluebok, I'll give your #2 a bash. Sorry to answer a question with a question but why did the original particle (or singularity) have to come from anywhere?
Trying to imagine every single atom in the known universe condensed into a single microscopic and incredibly dense particle isn't exactly easy so it's not such a big stretch to further imagine a universe with no beginning and no end. One theory that makes a lot of sense to me is the oscillating universe theory. I couldn't possibly give you all the detail and evidence for this theory but in simple terms, the universe is currently expanding but will reach a point where it starts to contract again. The theory holds that the contraction will accelerate until there is a Big Crunch - for want of a better word - where all known matter contracts again into a tiny singularity. This will then be followed by another Big Bang, followed by another Big Crunch trillions of centuries later and then another Big Bang . . . thus has it ever been and always will be . . . no beginning and no end . . . no need for a "Creation" at all and no need for questions like "where did matter come from". It's always been and always will be . . . albeit in very different forms.
It's just a theory but it's the one that satisfies most of my own questions about these matters.
I'd like to see Baboon-ou or one of the other bible literalists answer your question #3. Your questions #4 and #5 are both questions that I've asked myself without ever getting a satisfactory answer.
Trying to imagine every single atom in the known universe condensed into a single microscopic and incredibly dense particle isn't exactly easy so it's not such a big stretch to further imagine a universe with no beginning and no end. One theory that makes a lot of sense to me is the oscillating universe theory. I couldn't possibly give you all the detail and evidence for this theory but in simple terms, the universe is currently expanding but will reach a point where it starts to contract again. The theory holds that the contraction will accelerate until there is a Big Crunch - for want of a better word - where all known matter contracts again into a tiny singularity. This will then be followed by another Big Bang, followed by another Big Crunch trillions of centuries later and then another Big Bang . . . thus has it ever been and always will be . . . no beginning and no end . . . no need for a "Creation" at all and no need for questions like "where did matter come from". It's always been and always will be . . . albeit in very different forms.
It's just a theory but it's the one that satisfies most of my own questions about these matters.
I'd like to see Baboon-ou or one of the other bible literalists answer your question #3. Your questions #4 and #5 are both questions that I've asked myself without ever getting a satisfactory answer.
Pro3,977 posts
16 Sept 2014, 12:57
#66
16 Sept 2014, 12:57#66
Rooinek I have heard of the oscillating universe theory, and it is possible even if seemingly far fetched. Wrapping ones mind around something just existing with no beginning and no end is not an easy concept to comprehend. Even tough we are faced with the same conundrum when explaining the origin of God. The catch 22 is this, if a Christian is able to explain God's existence by stating that he has always existed, then they should not have much trouble understanding an expanding and retracting universe that has always existed! It goes both ways.
Pro9,905 posts
16 Sept 2014, 13:22
#67
16 Sept 2014, 13:22#67
Blue ... let me also have a bash.
As one who believes in the existence of a superior being I for one would like to believe that science is very much part of creation. It needs to be. Without it nothing is possible. He designed and created science as a tool to work with.
As interesting as Rednecks theory is I must admit I find it difficult to accept that everything that is, came about accidentally ... that it wasn't deliberately designed and put in place.
Everything fits so perfectly into each other. Look how the various ecosystems depend upon one another to exist. Take one away and an eventual collapse is inevitable. Like dominoes.
That to me shows that thought went into the design and random matter and chemicals colliding and mixing can't produce something so intricate, so personal.
Regarding your number 3 ... I believe this planet has gone through many cycles ... each with it's own dominant life form. He saw it fit to give each it's beginning ... and its end ... and the remnants of each He left behind for us to discover and argue about.
Mankind and Dinosaurs never existed together. They were never alive at the same time. The thought of that is absurd and quite frankly infantile.
If you have a look at Genesis Chapter 1 vs 1 you will see the Bible speaks of the original creation ... of this planet and everything else. In verse 2 it speaks of the deep covering what was already there and how the Spirit hovered over it. What we know today started from verse 2. I believe many cycles came and went between verse 1 and 2 ... the Dinosaurs being one of them. Who knows how many years past by between those two verses.
Based on this theory of mine I'm afraid Noah never saw a dinosaur.
How the various creatures survived the 2 year ordeal is beyond me. Only thing I can throw in here is that with Him all things are possible. I'll leave it there.
Captain26,388 posts
16 Sept 2014, 13:23
#68
16 Sept 2014, 13:23#68
Blue and Rooi, the big bang/big crunch theory seems to make sense to me as well, but the really clever people like Hawking seems to have problems with it. There is some things we as humans will never know. The Bible is not supposed to be a scientific manual, but rather a spiritual guide. Organised religion are more often than not used by power hungry individuals as a means to an end. I have read up quite a bit on the authenticity of the bible and it seems that it did not change all that much through the last 1900 years. You can Google the Dead sea Scrolls yourself. Someone eluded that the flood story was nicked from the Sumerians, but then you have to consider the Annunaki BS as well. Even the Greeks and Egyptians had legends about a great flood.Evolutionists also have problems explaining the Cambrian explosion. We as humans will never know most of what happened eons ago and some things will always be matters of faith rather than knowledge.
My opinion? I believe in the Bible, but not everything in it as literal. The flood was local and not global. I believe in a creation and science as the gift to humans to understand creation. The universe as one big play pen for God's children. The six days were not 24 hour days, etc. But that is just me.
My opinion? I believe in the Bible, but not everything in it as literal. The flood was local and not global. I believe in a creation and science as the gift to humans to understand creation. The universe as one big play pen for God's children. The six days were not 24 hour days, etc. But that is just me.
Captain26,388 posts
16 Sept 2014, 13:27
#69
16 Sept 2014, 13:27#69
Pakie, excellent pic! Here's another!
Pro4,378 posts
16 Sept 2014, 13:38
#70
16 Sept 2014, 13:38#70
Oh Draad...don't post upsetting pictures
Poor dinosaurs !!!
Poor dinosaurs !!!
Captain17,321 posts
16 Sept 2014, 13:55
#71
16 Sept 2014, 13:55#71
The ark is comedy gold
There's a thread of universal myths running through the different civilizations of the world. A deluge, a predicted apocalypse, cities destroyed by cataclysm/gods (Atlantis, Sodom & Gomorra, Iram of the Pillars, etc.), lost utopias like the Garden of Eden, and many others. It's all fascinating.
There's a thread of universal myths running through the different civilizations of the world. A deluge, a predicted apocalypse, cities destroyed by cataclysm/gods (Atlantis, Sodom & Gomorra, Iram of the Pillars, etc.), lost utopias like the Garden of Eden, and many others. It's all fascinating.
Captain21,007 posts
16 Sept 2014, 14:22
#72
16 Sept 2014, 14:22#72
Someone eluded that the flood story was nicked from the Sumerians, but then you have to consider the Annunaki BS as well. Even the Greeks and Egyptians had legends about a great flood...
Nope. Sumerian myths and legends formed the basis of the common belief system that was around the middle east during the time the Jews were in Egypt. The story of the flood being one of them. Hence it was added to the Torah when the Jews wrote it. Again, they changed facts to suite their ideas. Just like everybody else has done. Unfortunately, in this case the story is actually etched in stone, a stone that still exists, and predates the Jew's version by some distance.
The above has nothing to do with Sitchin and his nutty ramblings.
Ultimately there are so many inconsistencies and studies have proven that almost no part of the Bible, be it old or new testament are original, that one can almost disregard it in it's entirety. The only way to logically believe it, is that you must find the first text ever written on a subject, and then believe that as the "word" of god. Above story of Noah as example. The problem then is that you will end up in believing in so many gods, and the majority of the stories are so vastly different from the version that you know, that you will probably just be confused.
My feeling is that people will believe whatever it is that makes them sleep better at night. Some will say the entire bible is symbolic...though the jews never wrote it symbolically at all. Others will say that every word is fact.
I t comes down to whether or not you need a comforting story about an eternal soul to help you get through life. It's tough to consider that when you go...it will be just like before you were born...nothing!
I like to think that one does have some connection to the universe. But that connection has no rules, fear does not ever come into it, and it's better to simply look inside rather than be a drone and have answers force fed to you.
From an evolutionary point of view it makes sense that religion exists. Once a species attains sentience and has a grasp of time, then the question of understanding and accepting the finite nature of life could cause disruption within populations. So it's possible, i think, that the ability/predisposition to believe in an eternal soul may have been selected for.
I'm not against the idea of a creator. Actually it makes sense that the initial conditions for existence may have been set up and then left to play out. As for souls, god angels blah blah blah. Yeah i ain't buying it.
Vanity is said to be the deviL's greatest quality, though i think it's goD's most obvious one.
Nope. Sumerian myths and legends formed the basis of the common belief system that was around the middle east during the time the Jews were in Egypt. The story of the flood being one of them. Hence it was added to the Torah when the Jews wrote it. Again, they changed facts to suite their ideas. Just like everybody else has done. Unfortunately, in this case the story is actually etched in stone, a stone that still exists, and predates the Jew's version by some distance.
The above has nothing to do with Sitchin and his nutty ramblings.
Ultimately there are so many inconsistencies and studies have proven that almost no part of the Bible, be it old or new testament are original, that one can almost disregard it in it's entirety. The only way to logically believe it, is that you must find the first text ever written on a subject, and then believe that as the "word" of god. Above story of Noah as example. The problem then is that you will end up in believing in so many gods, and the majority of the stories are so vastly different from the version that you know, that you will probably just be confused.
My feeling is that people will believe whatever it is that makes them sleep better at night. Some will say the entire bible is symbolic...though the jews never wrote it symbolically at all. Others will say that every word is fact.
I t comes down to whether or not you need a comforting story about an eternal soul to help you get through life. It's tough to consider that when you go...it will be just like before you were born...nothing!
I like to think that one does have some connection to the universe. But that connection has no rules, fear does not ever come into it, and it's better to simply look inside rather than be a drone and have answers force fed to you.
From an evolutionary point of view it makes sense that religion exists. Once a species attains sentience and has a grasp of time, then the question of understanding and accepting the finite nature of life could cause disruption within populations. So it's possible, i think, that the ability/predisposition to believe in an eternal soul may have been selected for.
I'm not against the idea of a creator. Actually it makes sense that the initial conditions for existence may have been set up and then left to play out. As for souls, god angels blah blah blah. Yeah i ain't buying it.
Vanity is said to be the deviL's greatest quality, though i think it's goD's most obvious one.
Captain18,117 posts
16 Sept 2014, 14:26
#73
16 Sept 2014, 14:26#73
Well, there's a lot of interesting stuff on here . I know we won't change one another's minds but at least there's one thing that we can all agree on . . . that Baboon-ou is the stupidest living thing on the planet.
Pro4,378 posts
16 Sept 2014, 14:38
#74
16 Sept 2014, 14:38#74
But Plum, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, says God and the Devil are one and the same..... So they would share the same characteristics
Captain26,388 posts
16 Sept 2014, 14:48
#75
16 Sept 2014, 14:48#75
Becs, where does he say that?
Captain21,007 posts
16 Sept 2014, 14:48
#76
16 Sept 2014, 14:48#76
I still love this. Beeno, maybe when you watch it you'll understand why we find religious people, most of them anyway, so full of it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc
Pro1,526 posts
16 Sept 2014, 14:48
#77
16 Sept 2014, 14:48#77
Pakie, your picture should also have a remark " Also, no woodpeckers allowed".
Pro4,378 posts
16 Sept 2014, 14:54
#78
16 Sept 2014, 14:54#78
Draad.....in his teachings
Also we are preordained for Heaven, so no matter what we do, believe or not, we go regardless.....
Also we are preordained for Heaven, so no matter what we do, believe or not, we go regardless.....
Captain10,129 posts
16 Sept 2014, 15:00
#79
16 Sept 2014, 15:00#79
Well I've got Russell Crowe's 'Noah' dvd & it says, based on a true story .
Captain21,007 posts
16 Sept 2014, 15:14
#80
16 Sept 2014, 15:14#80
Becs i am going to be the founder of my own religion too.
Clearly one can take any text and interpret it any way you like.
Mine interpretation will be as follows...
There is no GodThere is no DevilThere is no money...and you shall give all your worthless paper to me.
That seems just as rational as what Martin Luther came up with.
Clearly one can take any text and interpret it any way you like.
Mine interpretation will be as follows...
There is no GodThere is no DevilThere is no money...and you shall give all your worthless paper to me.
That seems just as rational as what Martin Luther came up with.
↓ LOAD MORE (page 3 of 7)
