Where was God on 9/11?

Originally posted by BackFire
Last I'll say, next time instead of using 'blind' to preceed 'faith', perhaps use 'pure'. The meaning would be more accurate and clear, and you'd emphasise that there is nothing more to it.

No your point is fine, though I don't agree with it. I don't think faith is inherently bad.

You mentioned that you don't need faith to do good, you also don't need faith to do bad.

The only problem is when people don't understand the limits of faith, and begin thinking their belief is something more. The people who understand that their faith is just that, and accept that, then there is no reasonable problem that I can see with them.

I see the "ok" faith as tacit support of the idea, which makes it an eventual statistical inevitability that others will go too far. Even good faith, like I said, the faith isn't needed for the good, and it's still groundless in terms of evidence, so I still see it as irrational. It's just harmless irrational instead of dangerous irrational.

But, for example, if there wasn't well-meaning intelligent priests, there would never be ill-intentioned irrational followers to take that faith and do stupid things with it (or for it). And sometimes its the priests too...just look at middle America.

And you're right, you don't need faith to do bad. But a concept that naturally leads to it isn't as good, as opposed to using reason and logic for believing (or not believing) things. A "logical" person could still do great evil, but there's nothing inherent in logic that leads to it. Not so for faith.

It would only be irrational if they don't understand the limitations of their beliefs, and present it as something more. There's nothing inherently irrational about simply believing in something, just so long as you understand that it is pure belief and faith. Bringing about that there is no evidence is a worthless argument unless the person you're arguing against is saying there is evidence for their faith.

And I don't think it's fair nor reasonable to hold well-meaning, well-doing people of faith responsible or as support in any way for those who would misuse faith as a red-haring to justify and excuse their evil. The people who use faith as an excuse are folly, and they are putting the blame on a falsity -- they would still do evil for other reasons if the concept of faith did not exist. Faith does not create evil, it is simply one of near infinite channels which gets blamed and is can be twisted to support it.

Lastly, there's again, nothing at all to support or suggest that faith inherently leads to evil, no more so than something like movies, it's all just an easy target for those who are not willing to look past the aesthetic, skin-deep reasons for the deed, rather than the deeper more complex reason of human nature and the human condition, which inherently leads to evil more consistently than something like faith.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Please, do not allow your mind to wonder and begin making assumptions; I understand that you meant well, but the situation is simple. The thread that I submitted deals with theology, and there are issues about theology that I understand, misunderstand, agree, and disagree with; and my having faith in God has nothing to do with theology. Theology is merely--in some cases--complimentary, while other revelations push my faith to the limit. As I have stated on other threads, my faith in God was something that I was inherently born with; this belief in God was nothing I could touch or quit understand, but I knew--very strongly--that I believed in God. It was only after serving in the Army did I pay attention to my--seemingly natural urge--to pursue God in some way, shape, or form. I studied and prayed (spending roughly 500 dollars in the process). But what really attracted me to religion, Chrstianity more specifically, was prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the coming Messiah and the case for the resurrection. Naturally, I was apprehensive, and only after learning of the Dead Sea scrolls did I learn to appreciate scripture, at least prophecy and the case of the resurrection; theology is something I still have trouble with today, but I remain neutral and continue to study. Often times I saw deeper meaning in difficult Bible passages once I laid aside knee jerk reactions based on emotion. In any case, we can make charges about God and the Bible, but that doesn't change the disposition of the world; the world contains hard working people simply raising families, and others are aborting babies at high school prom dances and cooking dogs in ovens after robbing home owners. Despite my doubts about theology, at times the Bible simply makes more sense than the world we live in.

YouTube video

every1 is born with the ability and "need" to trust other and love others and to be trusted/cared for in return and loved in return. these true things, in my oppinion are the basis for any real FAITH{whatever it may be in} . trust and love combine to create FAITH{i.e beleiving in sumthing or sum1 fully} . you were not born with faith IN the god of the bible , you were just born with the desire to have the conponents of what constitute faith. what you chose to have faith IN just happened to be christianity due to whatever reasons in your life. i admit, god himself coming and being benevolant enough to die ont he cross at face value seems like a wonderful thing in the world and fits in well with the love-trust thing i described before. after all, who can you love more than a being who created you out of loves{again remember that i am referring here to specific descriptions in the bible and not wholistic ones} without reason, gave you free will and blessed you with an earth, took the pain of your rebellion against him without retribution and even then came down to take the pain on HIMSELF when he didnt have to just so that the rebelling and egnorant people might have a way out of their suffering without even having done anything for themselves to reduce or take away their sin. i mean, its all prett fantastical isnt it 🙂 . BUT, the problem is that{other than lack of evidence, which i think isnt sumthing you are commented on here} that you forget that THAT isnt all there is to christianity. its a very large and contradicting dogma with many many many many places where THIS basic philosophy of selflessness and love is very much contradicted by the basic cruelty, illogical reasoniong and egotism of god. and the WORLDLY implications of following the bible as a whole{as most christians wud } would be dire indeed and are very negetive. hence, this wonderful, part of the bible is very much compromised practically. THAT is the problem with many dogmas, they have good things and bad things but their overall effect individually has been generally detrimented to an unwarranted degree. WHICH is why we have to stop following our heart all the time and start looking with our brain and study boring things like science and theology to try and REASON out beleif as being overall false or completely true in its wholeness. to me christianity like may other does not pass the test. infact many PHILOSPHIES are not specifically harmful even in parts and i really do not oppose them even with complete lack of evidence, but large organised relegions like christianity actually ARE{ever heard the expression "good people and bad people have always existed in this world. but for good people to do bad things, you need relegion"}
. also, it is easy to lose faith in humanity by loking around at the suffering surrounding you{as u mentioned with the examples which i wont debate} but it wud simply be a wishful thinking to say that sumthing HAS to exist which is divinely good or just. furthermore, if this philosophy as a whole is infact very negetive in itself in many places.

i personally beleive in many mystical phenomenon and sumthing/s DIVINE and/or mystical/trancendant in existance. but i do not define them by any traditional conception or follow them with present negetevities.

if you wanna have faith in sumthin, find humanity, or helping others, or a significant person or people or hapiness or sumthing.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
My argument centered on the cause of 9/11, which was indeed blind faith.

9/11 was a statement against the US Government.

---

The term "blind faith" implies that religious people are a bunch of mindless sheep incapable of independent thought. However the term definately applies to those terrorists who blow themselves up when someone orders them to. If some guy claiming to be a man of God told me he needed me to strap a bomb to myself and go kamikaze in a resturaunt, and doing so would be "God's work", I'd write him off as a nutcase.

But I guess you don't share D'souza's view that a "believer can be just as skeptical of their faith as a scientist is of the natural world"?

Originally posted by BackFire
It would only be irrational if they don't understand the limitations of their beliefs, and present it as something more. There's nothing inherently irrational about simply believing in something, just so long as you understand that it is pure belief and faith. Bringing about that there is no evidence is a worthless argument unless the person you're arguing against is saying there is evidence for their faith.

You're splitting hairs here. If they understand its without evidence, we should support that person (or at least not question them)?? That's akin to saying something that doesn't make sense shouldn't be challenged simply because it's not harming anyone. The truth is its own ideal.

Originally posted by BackFire
And I don't think it's fair nor reasonable to hold well-meaning, well-doing people of faith responsible or as support in any way for those who would misuse faith as a red-haring to justify and excuse their evil.

Not the people, but the concept of faith. I thought I made the distinction clear.

Originally posted by BackFire
Lastly, there's again, nothing at all to support or suggest that faith inherently leads to evil.

Well, on this we disagree. I think I've shown exactly why I believe that and supported it sufficiently. Though, technically I don't actually believe in something having moral value to it, but I think we can agree on societally accepted ideas of good/evil.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
9/11 was a statement against the US Government.

---

The term "blind faith" implies that religious people are a bunch of mindless sheep incapable of independent thought. However the term definately applies to those terrorists who blow themselves up when someone orders them to. If some guy claiming to be a man of God told me he needed me to strap a bomb to myself and go kamikaze in a resturaunt, and doing so would be "God's work", I'd write him off as a nutcase.

But I guess you don't share D'souza's view that a "believer can be just as skeptical of their faith as a scientist is of the natural world"?

The first statement is your own opinion, and doesn't validate itself nor invalidate others.

BF and I had the semantics discussion about blind faith earlier. Please refer to it, and my conclusion to drop the former of the two words, rather than simply trying to impose your own definition on the situation in order to seem more correct.

And I also answered Dsouza's quote earlier, but you've ignored me in the past so I'm not exactly surprised.

How am I splitting hairs? I simply don't agree that it is inherently irrational to believe in a religion or have faith in something. I know this because I know some very rational, logical people who believe in God. The two do not have to go hand-in-hand. That's not a good comparison, either, because for it to work we have to agree with the assumption that believing in God doesn't make sense, which is highly disagreeable subjective.

Well, according to the actual definition of the word 'inherent' it becomes fact that faith does not lead inherently to evil. Inherently means that it will always occur in every case -- that it is an unavoidable and essential part of something. Since it is possible to separate the two, that is, you CAN have faith in something without committing evil deeds, it is not inherent. It's a poor argument to make because the word is so strong that all it takes is one instance of someone having faith in a God and not doing something evil to prove it false.

Originally posted by BackFire
How am I splitting hairs? I simply don't agree that it is inherently irrational to believe in a religion or have faith in something. I know this because I know some very rational, logical people who believe in God. The two do not have to go hand-in-hand. That's not a good comparison, either, because for it to work we have to agree with the assumption that believing in God doesn't make sense, which is highly disagreeable subjective.

Well, according to the actual definition of the word 'inherent' it becomes fact that faith does not lead inherently to evil. Inherently means that it will always occur in every case -- that it is an unavoidable and essential part of something. Since it is possible to separate the two, that is, you CAN have faith in something without committing evil deeds, it is not inherent. It's a poor argument to make because the word is so strong that all it takes is one instance of someone having faith in a God and not doing something evil to prove it false.

It's inherent to the concept. Individually, no, not usually. But take a step back and look at the macrocosmic effects of faith on religion and society and yes, it's inherent.

And yes, you can be incredibly rational and believe in God. I never claimed they are mutually exclusive. But no one's rational faculties take them all the way to God, which for anyone and everyone requires a leap of faith. It's just a smaller leap for those who back their beliefs with some form of reasoning, but that reasoning doesn't eliminate the need for it. Or if they think it does, their logic is skewed.

And as before, this is taking the sane, rational people and turning it into a tangent to my main point, which is the evil that faith can and DOES cause when it is all-too-easily misplaced and misued. I'm not pressing this point again and again to be beligerent...it's because I see it as an evil and something that should be stopped.

But the concept -- believing in something without any evidence, can work without evil existing, it's possible. The problem is that the concept when used by human beings becomes inherently connected to evil because evil is inherent to humanity. As such, any concept used by human beings: faith, logic, etc, is inherently connected to evil because evil is inherent to humanity.

How do you know that no one comes to the stance that there is a God based soley on logic and rational thinking? It is totally possible to use nothing but valid logical thinking and reason to come to the conclusion that they believe God exists. You can use your rational faculties to back up something that has no physical evidence and give validity to the idea simply by having good logic and thinking abilities -- many philosophers have done this.

And again, faith does not CAUSE evil, it is something used, it is a channel, a tool, an excuse, that already evil people use to justify their deeds to themselves. Faith isn't going to take a good person and make them evil. All the people who have ever done evil deeds in the name of 'faith' would still have done their evil deeds had the concept of faith not existed, they would have just used a different channel, and latched on and abused another concept to justify it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
not at all. however, i know for a fact that the oppinions expressed by you previously are unnbeleiveably far away from the truth and biased to a degree not generally seen on kmc.

Wait...so now you're saying that my opinion on Extreme muslims hate Americans is far away from a truth?

Oh wow!

Originally posted by BackFire
But the concept -- believing in something without any evidence, can work without evil existing, it's possible. The problem is that the concept when used by human beings becomes inherently connected to evil because evil is inherent to humanity. As such, any concept used by human beings: faith, logic, etc, is inherently connected to evil because evil is inherent to humanity.

How do you know that no one comes to the stance that there is a God based soley on logic and rational thinking? It is totally possible to use nothing but valid logical thinking and reason to come to the conclusion that they believe God exists. You can use your rational faculties to back up something that has no physical evidence and give validity to the idea simply by having good logic and thinking abilities -- many philosophers have done this.

Many have tried. There's a difference. But I suppose it's not one I'll convince you of, since it's a matter of opinion.

But tell a logical person to kill someone and they'll want a darn good reason. "Because Allah says so" will not work. Tell the same thing to a person of (Islamic) faith, and they may in fact do it. Tell a Christian the Bible says gays are bad. Some won't accept that, but many will. The faith allows for the acceptance of evil, because the faith overrides concepts like tolerance and respect for life. Not in all people (of course) but it has the potential to. Thus, release it (faith) in the world and it will inevitably happen. Inherent.

Not to paint an entirely bleak picture, a person may say "my religion tells me to love everyone, so I will" without providing further justification. Much more benevolent, but the same acceptance of a position based on faith. Good instead of evil, but it still displays the point.

A logical person may kill, or hate gays, or whatever else, but there is nothing built into the idea of logic that allows for such decisions more easily than if logic wasn't present. If he does so, it is not related to his logic....he may deduce a logical reason for killing, but the very act of being logical doesn't make that outcome more likely than deciding not to. If it happens, it's incidental, not causal. The same cannot be said of faith.

All fine/fair points, Digi. Though your last one is still one I don't agree with. If someone kills in the name of faith, faith is incidental, the cause for their evil wouldn't be their faith, but the fact that they are of the human race. They'd be inclined to kill without faith.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Wait...so now you're saying that my opinion on Extreme muslims hate Americans is far away from a truth?

Oh wow!

no, many muslims{perhaps even a majority but a very large minority does NOT} hate america. but to say that they are just jealous and spiteful of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and "CAPITALISM" is just downright mornic. many of the muslims who do hate america hate it for the kind if things america does. you wont find a lot who will hate canada or sum european countries or china so very passionately. america does indeed do a lot of harm to the world and doesnt care as a whole, people in palestine and other places suffering diectly and indirectly as a result of america actions can and shud hate america in their situation. you shud also know that muslims{the vast majority} have nuthing against democracy and infact the islamic system of managing state and econommics and rewards IS capitalistic {the reason why it is often even criticised just like capitalism itself is vastly criticised by a sizeable portion of the world and intellectyuals as a wrong system}. to just paint them as FREEDOME HATING savages who will continue to be jealous of and hate americans for no better reaosons other than them being{as it is being directly impled} EVIL and brutes, is completely based on ethnocentrism and egotism, nothin logical. i can assure u of that.

Switched to his 'Allah' director's chair for the day.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, many muslims{perhaps even a majority but a very large minority does NOT} hate america. but to say that they are just jealous and spiteful of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and "CAPITALISM" is just downright mornic. many of the muslims who do hate america hate it for the kind if things america does. you wont find a lot who will hate canada or sum european countries or china so very passionately. america does indeed do a lot of harm to the world and doesnt care as a whole, people in palestine and other places suffering diectly and indirectly as a result of america actions can and shud hate america in their situation. you shud also know that muslims{the vast majority} have nuthing against democracy and infact the islamic system of managing state and econommics and rewards IS capitalistic {the reason why it is often even criticised just like capitalism itself is vastly criticised by a sizeable portion of the world and intellectyuals as a wrong system}. to just paint them as FREEDOME HATING savages who will continue to be jealous of and hate americans for no better reaosons other than them being{as it is being directly impled} EVIL and brutes, is completely based on ethnocentrism and egotism, nothin logical. i can assure u of that.

....

Originally posted by BackFire
All fine/fair points, Digi. Though your last one is still one I don't agree with. If someone kills in the name of faith, faith is incidental, the cause for their evil wouldn't be their faith, but the fact that they are of the human race. They'd be inclined to kill without faith.

Fair enough. It seems that's about all the further we're going to get toward a compromise.

😉

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Wait...so now you're saying that my opinion on Extreme muslims hate Americans is far away from a truth?

Oh wow!

well they, but you phrased it more to say all muslims.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no it is not. it comes firmly in the realm of physical sciences. as does the grand unification theory and both are interconnected

there are configuratyions that are dimensionally impossible{i.e. ones that can not be built due to spatial impossibilities like trying to put a large ball through the mouth of a small battle without breaking the bottle} and then there configuration that ARE possible. given enough tries with the basic building blocks available{as carbon and other molecules are for dna and life and as other interacting higher dimensional phenomenon and super strings were possibly for our universe} anything can and most probably WILL be formed without intelligence. as for outside the universe, i admit, there probably is. but see, ever since higher dimensions were proposed, the UNIVERSE has lost a lot of the significance people associated with it. when initially peopl said UNIVERSE, they meant EVERYTHING which "existed" . but now our universe is just PART of a bigger existance. to say that there are things outside the universe which created it wud probably be correct, but the question of a great entity that that created ALL of those higher and lower things is the realm of god now. otherwise god wud just be a higher dimensional alien or sumthing and there wud be sumthing greater than HIM to in all of existance.

as for infinite regreassion, WHY is it impossible. if everything must have a cause then why is this "certain sumthing which must exist PERIOD" is exempt from the rule? why is it then that you find it so hard that the universe/multiverse/existance may also be exempt from that rule. after all, all we have ever seen are things TRANSITIONING from one form to another, no1 has ever seen anything CREATED from nothing inside our observable realities so how can we then say that the universe must have been CREATED? maybe it has always existed in one form or another and has been continually TRANSITIONING?

but what do you mean by GREATER??? it is true that OVERALL, man has not created a brain with enough average thinking and reasoning and learning capacity to rival its own. but as far as individual processing goes, most computers are known to have a basic processing capacity far higher than the brain in their individual functions. similarly, man has created many machines which are stronger, faster and can perform maany functions that man's body can not survive. we have set up things like the internet and what not. most of them can be cosidered more COMPLEX than us in many ways. furthermore, an average igneous rock has a very COMPLEX{i.e comlicated structure}, as it wud be very complex for you to know the ocnfiguration of every sand particle after haphazardly making a rough mound of sand. comlication WITH underlying functional structure is what you are talking about, and i think the above examples suffice to prove my point there too.

as for the clockmaster analogy, it isnt very effective because those can easily be attributed to higher dimensional functions which are as predictable as the laws of the universe. ther wud be no SENTIENCE required there.

no i have never heard of the monkey equation.

You are basing your evidence of higher dimensions and outer universes with metaphysical theories and speculations. We don't know that these such things exists. If anything the whole parallel universe scheme is merely something for the philosophical mind to chew on, not the scientific one. Show me some evidence to support that there is in fact an outer dimension and something outside our universe and I will address it then. I have not been able to find anything to support your claim.

However even if such outer dimensions do exist your are only regressing and not answering the topic at hand. In theory infinite regressions are possible. In fact, if you do find evidence to support the "outside the universe" claim and "everything happened by chance", you will see what little there is to support it is merely philosophical numbers that work only in theory. We know as a fact that infinite regressions do not work in reality. We apply this to our universe because it has a beginning. Infinite regressions do not. So knowing that this universe had a beginning, and nothing brings itself into existence, nor can it move itself, of be contingent in it of itself, or even give itself existence, then there must be something that has no beginning, is/has been already moving, already had existence, and is contingent. We know this something to be God. We can also tell by the complexity and intelligence behind this universe, must have been a creator at least equally complex and intelligent. Furthermore we define this something to be God because God is, by definition God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. Existence in reality is a better than existence in one's imagination. Ergo God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Here read this: monkey theory

Originally posted by King of Blades
You are basing your evidence of higher dimensions and outer universes with metaphysical theories and speculations. We don't know that these such things exists. If anything the whole parallel universe scheme is merely something for the philosophical mind to chew on, not the scientific one. Show me some evidence to support that there is in fact an outer dimension and something outside our universe and I will address it then. I have not been able to find anything to support your claim.

However even if such outer dimensions do exist your are only regressing and not answering the topic at hand. In theory infinite regressions are possible. In fact, if you do find evidence to support the "outside the universe" claim and "everything happened by chance", you will see what little there is to support it is merely philosophical numbers that work only in theory. We know as a fact that infinite regressions do not work in reality. We apply this to our universe because it has a beginning. Infinite regressions do not. So knowing that this universe had a beginning, and nothing brings itself into existence, nor can it move itself, of be contingent in it of itself, or even give itself existence, then there must be something that has no beginning, is/has been already moving, already had existence, and is contingent. We know this something to be God. We can also tell by the complexity and intelligence behind this universe, must have been a creator at least equally complex and intelligent. Furthermore we define this something to be God because God is, by definition God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. Existence in reality is a better than existence in one's imagination. Ergo God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Here read this: monkey theory

How do you know that the universe had a beginning? All we really know is that the universe is expanding. You are assuming that there was a beginning. Does a circle have a beginning?

I believe that the universe is eternal and ever changing, like a flashing light in the nothingness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know that the universe had a beginning? All we really know is that the universe is expanding. You are assuming that there was a beginning.

It's also an assumption that the universe is eternal.

However, I'm pretty sure astronomers have found "echoes" of the Big Bang.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does a circle have a beginning?

Any circle that must be created does.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know that the universe had a beginning? All we really know is that the universe is expanding. You are assuming that there was a beginning. Does a circle have a beginning?

I believe that the universe is eternal and ever changing, like a flashing light in the nothingness.

Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age.

* "Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University
* "As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." CalTech
* "The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University
* "Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan
* "The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan
* "The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked: THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE! THE BEGINNING OF TIME!" Terry Herter, Cornell University
* "That radiation is residual heat from the Big Bang, the event that sparked the beginning of the universe some 13 billion years ago." Craig Hogan, University of Washington
* "Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." University of Illinois
* "The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University ()
* "The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University
* "Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles
* "Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University
* "A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama
* "Now, after decades of observing and thinking, we have come to answer confidently the question of the origin of our universe... with what is known as the "big bang"." Yuki D. Takahashi, Caltech
* "The theory is the conceptual and the calculational tool used by particle physicists to describe the structure of the hadrons and the beginning of the universe." Keh-Fei Liu, University of Kentucky.
* "The three-part lecture series includes: "How the Universe Began," "The Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy" and "Cosmic Inflation: The Dynamite Behind the Big Bang?" (Lectures by Michael S. Turner, Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner at Penn State University)
* "Travel back in time to the beginning of the Universe: The Big Bang" Douglas Miller, University of Arizona
* "Beginning of the Universe 20.0 billion yr ago" Charly Mallery, University of Miami
* "At the beginning the universe was extremely hot and dense (more about this later) and as it expanded it cooled." Syracuse University
* "THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF SPACE ARE EXPANDING FROM A BIG BANG BEGINNING" Center for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago
* "Gamow realized that at a point a few minutes after its beginning, the universe would behave as a giant nuclear reactor." Valparaiso University, Department of Physics and Astronomy
* "I'll also include what the time is since the creation of the Universe, and an estimate of the temperature of the Universe at each point." Siobahn M. Morgan, University of Northern Iowa.
* "The Universe is thought to have formed between 6-20 billion years ago (Ga) as a result of the "Big Bang" Kevin P. Hefferan, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
* "The dominant idea of Cosmology is that the Universe had a beginning." Adam Frank, University of Rochester Department of Physics & Astronomy
* "The hot dense phase is generally regarded as the beginning of the universe, and the time since the beginning is, by definition, the age of the universe." Harrison B. Prosper, Florida State University
* "One of the major hypotheses on which modern cosmology is based is that the Universe originated in an explosion called the Big Bang, in which all energy (and matter) that exists today was created." Eric S. Rowland, UC Santa Cruz
* "Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God." Stephen W. Hawking "Origin of the Universe" lecture

You were saying?