Praise White Jesus.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The Big Bang for example may have been one of millions of similar explosions and we don't know it yet because we haven't come across the evidence that proves that theory to be sound. The truth is we haven't found any proof against that theory either.

We have found proof of the Big Bang. Primarily, radio "echos" predicted by the theory are evident to properly tuned telescopes.

@ the mister.

I get what you're saying, but a 'theory' that has no empirical backing of any kind isn't a theory, it's still a hypothesis. you can't put theories like evolution and graviation that provide mechanistic explanations for known fatcs in the same bag as string hypothesis. without eviednce, anything is just speculation. problem with metaphysical hypothesis is that not only do they lack supporting evidence, but are impossible to verify, many rely on things that all evidence says is impossible and a good deal are just absurd.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You should listen to some end of the world and conspiracy theories and then you'll understand what I meant. A theory is not always a "very high standard". I appreciate the science community that doesn't have an "agenda". I'll let you know that you're right about me being closed-minded when it comes to the scientific explanations of God and his ways, and the extended history of earth but that's about it. I actually accept what the science world says about the things that it can interact with. The very distant past is not one of those things and I only mean that in that they cannot be as certain about some things as they sound. The Big Bang for example may have been one of millions of similar explosions and we don't know it yet because we haven't come across the evidence that proves that theory to be sound. The truth is we haven't found any proof against that theory either. Some theories can sound great even if they are wild ass guesses. 😮‍💨

Conspiracy theories are not theories. That is like calling a McDonald's happy meal, fine french cuisine. All scientific theories are peer reviewed, and are held to a high standard.

Also, we can look into the past. If you look into the sky, on a clear night, you are seeing the past. The reason for this is because light takes time to travel across the universe. We know this speed, and we can calculate the distance to stars by looking at the spectrum of the light from the star. There are other ways to calculate the distance to stars, and we can cross reference between the many different ways. What we find is that the further you look into space the more thing are moving away from us. If you run this backward, then in the past, they were closer. That is the big bang, and nothing more. It is like looking at a car driving down the road. If the car is going to the right, it must have come from the left. We don't have to see the car come from the left, we only have to see were it is going.

You really should look at the evidence before you discount it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but I don't understand your question.

So, if you believe that humans cannot know everything about the universe, I would agree with you. We do the best we can. However, the bible was written by humans and therefore falls under this same idea. A person can't say that science is wrong, and that the bible is right without giving enough evidence to prove their case. What happens over and over again is that when Christians are pressed on what evidence they have, they resort to faith. Faith is fine on a one to one basis, but to convince others, you must spend your time supporting your case. Putting down science is not supporting your case. To most people, it is just a diversionary tactic that appealed to emotions, and leads to suspicion that you cannot support your case.

Originally posted by The MISTER
You're right and I don't want to be grouped in with those christians for they anger me. I'll share this with you because you have an open mind. The thing that really confuses me about the science of time is that in the Bible there is an accurate description of a mosasaur (called Leviathan) and either a Brontosaurus or Brachiosaurus (called behemoth and stated to have a tail like a cedar tree unlike elephants and hippos). The descriptions are in Job and they seem very accurate to me. How is it possible to describe these creatures in such detail and yet have no awareness of them. That combined with containing the golden rule has led to me trusting the Bible and believing that it contains the truth. I must admit that this requires huge faith on my part but it's not blind faith. I really enjoy science and think it coincides with the bible for the most part. Even the big bang makes sense. In the beginning god created the dark matter(heaven) and the solid matter (earth) Then he said "Let there be light" (Big Bang!) 😮‍💨

The people of the past were not stupid! They knew about these creatures in the same way we now know about them. They found bones in the ground, articulated in the form of animals. They didn't get it all right, we don't even get it all right.

There is no connection between the big bang and a creation. There is no way to know what happened before the big bang, but that doesn't stop people from speculating. A creation, in this case, is pure speculation. There is just as much of a chance that the big bang was just a change from something earlier. For example, if we were really inside a very large black hole, we would not be able to see outside the black hole. To us, we would think that the birth of the black hole we are in, was the creation of the universe. But from outside the black hole, we would know that there used to be a star there.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The people of the past were not stupid! They knew about these creatures in the same way we now know about them. They found bones in the ground, articulated in the form of animals. They didn't get it all right, we don't even get it all right.

There is no connection between the big bang and a creation. There is no way to know what happened before the big bang, but that doesn't stop people from speculating. A creation, in this case, is pure speculation. There is just as much of a chance that the big bang was just a change from something earlier. For example, if we were really inside a very large black hole, we would not be able to see outside the black hole. To us, we would think that the birth of the black hole we are in, was the creation of the universe. But from outside the black hole, we would know that there used to be a star there.

I'm not suggesting that they were stupid just not capable of discovering mosasaur bones. The Big Bang is connected to creation. If it bothers you that I stated that this way then realize that it's just as bothersome when you state that it is not. Neither of us can prove what we are saying is true so as it stands we believe different things. That doesn't mean that we can't get along though and point out the reasons for our beliefs.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm not suggesting that they were stupid just not capable of discovering mosasaur bones. The Big Bang is connected to creation. If it bothers you that I stated that this way then realize that it's just as bothersome when you state that it is not. Neither of us can prove what we are saying is true so as it stands we believe different things. That doesn't mean that we can't get along though and point out the reasons for our beliefs.

All I am saying is, sense we cannot know anything before the big bang, because we were not there, and we cannot see from outside, then any statement about what happened before is pure speculation. That means the burden of proof is on you. Please prove that the big bang was the result of a creation event.

How can you say that people in the past were not capable of finding fossil bone in the Earth. To me, that is simple saying they were too stupid. What does it take to discover fossil bone in the ground? Children have found fossil bones.

If you take the bones of a protoceratops, and rearrange them, you get a griffin. If you take the bones of a mammoth, and rearrange them, you get a cyclops. We have found the bone of a mammoth reburied in a Greek tomb. Why did they do that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I am saying is, sense we cannot know anything before the big bang, because we were not there, and we cannot see from outside, then any statement about what happened before is pure speculation. That means the burden of proof is on you. Please prove that the big bang was the result of a creation event.

How can you say that people in the past were not capable of finding fossil bone in the Earth. To me, that is simple saying they were too stupid. What does it take to discover fossil bone in the ground? Children have found fossil bones.

If you take the bones of a protoceratops, and rearrange them, you get a griffin. If you take the bones of a mammoth, and rearrange them, you get a cyclops. We have found the bone of a mammoth reburied in a Greek tomb. Why did they do that?

Originally posted by The MISTER
The mosasaur is an ocean dinosaur. The fact that it was described as a living creature is confusing. I could understand if the description was of a mythical creature but the description is scientifically accurate. You're suggesting that not excavating and identfying prehistoric animals makes for a stupid people. Isn't that a little harsh? Job was written in BC. As for the burden of proof being on me I feel as though orderly existence is proof of purposeful creation. Also our ability to create ideas and imaginations endlessly
seems to be unique to humans as well as accountability for our actions. As the only creatures who have the ability to make choices that impact the environment we are accountable but what for? We've been put here on purpose is a reasonable theory to me and the proof is that we are aware of the fact that something is infinite and had no beginning. That something being our inferior intellectually seems very arrogant. 😮‍💨

The description in the bible does not reach the level of scientifically accurate. The bible could be talking about a myth, and not something that lived long ago. What you are saying is speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you know what you are doing. I think you are getting the two confused.

Also, you can't just dismiss burden of proof. You can believe whatever you want, but if you want to communicate with others, then you have to present proof. I'm ok with you believing what you do, but this is a debate forum.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The description in the bible does not reach the level of scientifically accurate. The bible could be talking about a myth, and not something that lived long ago. What you are saying is speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you know what you are doing. I think you are getting the two confused.

Also, you can't just dismiss burden of proof. You can believe whatever you want, but if you want to communicate with others, then you have to present proof. I'm ok with you believing what you do, but this is a debate forum.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Well stated. The scientific law that energy can neither be created or destroyed remains unchanged I believe. If that is the case then it provides scientific proof that there was a time previous to the big bang as the big bang was powered by energy that was not created and therefore existed previously. The evidence that energy is here is constant. The alternative is the absence of energy and for that absence to remain constant. Scientifically speaking the alternative is far easier to see staying the course of infinity and disproving any supernatural involvement. Hypothetically nothing would have ever happened and nothing would ever happen. Instead we have something. Either the law of energy being incapable of being created has been defied or we exist in an infinite reality that mysteriously appeared for no scientific reason at all. The other possibility is that the power that caused what we who speak english call the "big bang" ( I'm sure it's many translations sound interesting), is not within the confines of the scientific law and however mysterious that power is it's existence sustains the ability of the universe to manifest and maintain unbreakable laws indefinitely. Though this power source may be impossible to investigate it's existence is supported by the current scientific law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. 😮‍💨

Trying to describe extremely advanced cosmology using nothing but high-school level physics is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Trying to describe extremely advanced cosmology using nothing but high-school level physics is ludicrous.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Well stated. The scientific law that energy can neither be created or destroyed remains unchanged I believe. If that is the case then it provides scientific proof that there was a time previous to the big bang as the big bang was powered by energy that was not created and therefore existed previously. The evidence that energy is here is constant. The alternative is the absence of energy and for that absence to remain constant. Scientifically speaking the alternative is far easier to see staying the course of infinity and disproving any supernatural involvement. Hypothetically nothing would have ever happened and nothing would ever happen. Instead we have something. Either the law of energy being incapable of being created has been defied or we exist in an infinite reality that mysteriously appeared for no scientific reason at all. The other possibility is that the power that caused what we who speak english call the "big bang" ( I'm sure it's many translations sound interesting), is not within the confines of the scientific law and however mysterious that power is it's existence sustains the ability of the universe to manifest and maintain unbreakable laws indefinitely. Though this power source may be impossible to investigate it's existence is supported by the current scientific law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. 😮‍💨

If you take into account entropy, then you would realized that an equilibrium state cannot be maintained. Quantum fluxuations will occur. The big bang may have been one of these Quantum fluxuations but on a cosmic scale.

Imagine the cosmos in a entropy equilibrium state. Because of Quantum fluxuations there will be places in this equilibrium state where the entropy is above the equilibrium line and some places below. Because of the unpredictable nature of Quantum fluxuations, the amount and intensity of these fluxuations can very greatly. The big bang could have been one of these Quantum fluxuations in a much larger cosmos. On the larger scale the cosmos is still at a entropy equilibrium state, but this universe may just be a Quantum fluxuation were the entropy is very low. We are now experiencing the return to an entropy equilibrium state that is the normal for the cosmos.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you take into account entropy, then you would realized that an equilibrium state cannot be maintained. Quantum fluxuations will occur. The big bang may have been one of these Quantum fluxuations but on a cosmic scale.

Imagine the cosmos in a entropy equilibrium state. Because of Quantum fluxuations there will be places in this equilibrium state where the entropy is above the equilibrium line and some places below. Because of the unpredictable nature of Quantum fluxuations, the amount and intensity of these fluxuations can very greatly. The big bang could have been one of these Quantum fluxuations in a much larger cosmos. On the larger scale the cosmos is still at a entropy equilibrium state, but this universe may just be a Quantum fluxuation were the entropy is very low. We are now experiencing the return to an entropy equilibrium state that is the normal for the cosmos.

Whether you like it or not a universe that "just is" is as fantastical as anything a religion might suggest and there is still the burden of proof that you spoke of earlier that has not been met. ( Not to say that I've done much better.) At the end of the day, the statement that time began with the big bang doesn't comply with known science, and the ideas that the universe "just is" and/or God "just is" require similar FAITH as the burden of proof for either idea is equally impossible to attain. I'm done. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by The MISTER
I was checking this out online and I found this.... ' As it turns out, quantum fluctuations in a flat universe which contains exactly zero energy (such as our universe just happens to be) will always produce something, rather than nothing and that is exactly why the argument of the same name, so often flung in your face by the very people who understand its implications for their religious credulity the least, in-fact stands as the solid gold proof which is needed, in order to show that the universe did not require a deity—Thor, Zeus, Mithras, Odin, Yahweh or otherwise—for any of it to be magically brought into being. The universe simply is, it is not a question of being either on or off, depending on a divine willing it into existence or not.'

Whether you like it or not a universe that "just is" is as fantastical as anything a religion might suggest and there is still the burden of proof that you spoke of earlier that has not been met. ( Not to say that I've done much better.) At the end of the day, the statement that time began with the big bang doesn't comply with known science, and the ideas that the universe "just is" and/or God "just is" require similar FAITH as the burden of proof for either idea is equally impossible to attain. I'm done. 😮‍💨

I know, but I don't like the zero state universe. To me, it is as much speculation as a creation. Sure, there is math to show that a zero state universe would create a universe of something, but how do you get from a low entropy state to a zero energy state in reverse. There seems to be a broken symmetry here. I think it is a simpler answer to say that there was some different state before the big bang (before doesn't necessarily have to apply).