What does this have to do with absolute truth? Other religions believe that they are going to some form of afterlife. If they believe in going to a certain afterlife, and they believe in a different god or gods, who is to say who is right or wrong? To me religion is important because it gives us a sense of peace and helps us to live a good life. If one is experiencing this through a different religion, how do you know they are wrong. Believing I can go to Heaven right now doesn't prove anything because I cant come back and tell everyone, "hey guys, there's a heaven!" Most people will find your replies insulting because you tell them it is the absolute truth, even though there is no way to prove it. Again, do not use the Bible as proof because there is no way to tell that the Bible is the definite religious text. Like the term meaning of life, there's many interpretations of this statement. Who is right and who is wrong though?
you can't be trying to make a scientific argument. You aren't a physicist, you don't understand the nuances of astronomy. You don't even use theory or law properly as they pertain to science...
Like, what do you think you have proven? Go find some peer review articles that have feasible explanations for the CMB radiation that doesn't in some way involve a big bang type event.
Your cherry picking of opinions and VERY selective quotes are at best intellectually dishonest, and it is only the fact that I am sure the cosmos are completely unknown to you that I don't call you an outright liar.
This might sound harsh, but anything less is just going to turn into you throwing misquotes at me at infinitum while saying my postulates don't hold up because I cannot answer the most difficult questions in the world. I have no interest in these shenanigans, and honestly, I know you are smarter than this.
Seriously this guy's way of thinking does not make sense. He'll use the Bible as fact but wont take other's ideas into consideration. He will throw questions attacking small details of theories, but when people question why the Bible is truth he merely pulls out a quote. How do we know that these quotes are proven? They are all a matter of speculation and belief.
We HAVE ALLL went through this before with him. Trust me you are hitting your head against a brick...... no make that a STEEL wall on trying to make him understand anything.
LMAO, he was trying to link big bang theory to laws of motion and conservation fo energy. LOL............ if he knew anything, he would know that at the big bang, everything happened close to the speed of light and the laws of motion DO NOT hold at that speed. hehehehe
__________________
Thank you god for the blessing me with Chanel.
She is back with you now, so take care of her
Whose JIA? JUST KIDDING! Put your crossbow, flamethrower, and harpoon down. I was just joking. Can I be frank with you fini? I have had dialogues with you. But from day one your posts have been very abrasive towards me. I don't believe that non-abrasion should reap abrasiveness. I have not sown anger, bitterness, name-calling and so forth towards you, so my mind tells me that I should not reap it from you. I admit I am adept at getting under your skin, but it is never intentionally. I do not know if you are disposed to be ornery(naturally) or if it has something to do with a lack of genuine peace that you feel with your religion. That is why I asked you if you wanted to get born again. I was not being facetious. Anyway, I am taught by Jesus to love my enemies, bless those who curse me, do good to those who hate, me and pray for those who despitefully use me and persecute me. Furthermore, I am taught by Jesus not to repay evil for evil or to be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good. That is why no matter how hurtful your remarks I continue to respond with the love of Christ in my responses to you. I think that you genuinely feel my Christian love. What calm posts of yours have I ignored?
I read everything that you wrote. However, you have not answered my question. You stated that the Big Bang Theory has been proven. I asked you if you could provide references to this. Well, cany you?
My questions are simple. It appears based on what I have read that the simplicity of my questions are somewhat troublesome because they cannot be answered (and they are simple questions). I am not asking anyone to tell me where Jimmy Hoffa's body is located, or where the missing links can be found, or how to win the lottery at will. I am asking basic questions. If you hold some system of beliefs then you should be able to explain those beliefs to someone else without getting flustered and agitated. If you are convinced about something then why get upset when someone else asks simple questions about it that contradict what you believe? You are supposed to know that you know that you know without any shadow of doubt. Hey, that is how I am. There isn't anything that can convince me that the Bible is not true. No Da Vinci lies (I mean codes), no lies about Jesus' bones being discovered, none of that tommyrot will work on me. Well, why you ask?
Because I am satisfied.
Because I am well persuaded.
Because I am assured.
Because I am ab-so-lute-ly, pos-it-tive-ly, and un-e-quiv-o-cal-ly--convinced!
And you know what: that is how you should be about your beliefs.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
That is the problem JIA. You want us to be open to the possibility that science is wrong when you are not open to the possibility that the bible is wrong. Once you open your mind we will open our minds and then we can have a productive conversation. Until then you give us nothing, and we give you nothing. Your beliefs do not impress us because you come across as an authority that you cannot back up. Come down to Earth and admit that you don't really know, instead of trying to make us admit that we don't know.
My question for atheists, agnostics, intelligentsia, academics, scholars, the erudite, the learned, the educated, all scientists, and anyone else who wants to put their two cents in. The “Socratic Law of Causality (i.e. the Law of Cause and Effect)" states that everything happens for a reason (i.e. everything is a result of the Law of Cause and Effect). You see, every effect must be preceded by an adequate cause. For example, a fierce wind blows causing a tree, its leaves, and its branches to sway back and forth severely, suddenly the tree becomes uprooted. This is an example of an adequate cause. However, if the wind blows gently there will not be enough adequate force to cause the tree to sway back and forth violently. The wind will simply rustle the branches and leaves, but it will definitely not uproot the tree. Another example: computers don’t become infected with viruses and worms because someone spilled ketchup on them; the airplane did not fly at mach speed because it was equipped with the latest propeller. These would not be adequate causes. It is amazing to me how children grasp this concept of cause and effect. They want to know why the sky is blue, or why cats purr, or where babies come from. They just innately know that everything comes from something else or that every effect is preceded by an adequate cause. The notion that something comes from nothing or that matter came from non-matter is inconsistent with the established rule of cause and effect--not to mention exceedingly illogical. So, I said all that to say this:
What force, agent, or catalyst precipitated the Big Bang explosion—I mean expansion (some believe that the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter, but an expansion of space which carries matter with it)? The answer cannot be that it is not important. That to me is not a valid answer.
This fundamental question has yet to be answered. This is a loaded question because I intend to further elaborate my question.
Nobody says the answer is unimportant, and I have answered this
However, again
stop using science. The "Socratic law of cause and effect" is not a real scientific principal, nor does the lack of understanding of the causality of the origins of the universe refute in any way the theory of the big bang
The most convincing evidence for the Big Bang comes from the CMB radiation. Until you can postulate a theory that describes our observations of CMBR better than the big bang theory, you have no point.
The only reason scientists propose the big bang theory is because it fits the evidence without having to add in more unknown assumptions. As it stands now, there are many, such as the assumption that something must have started the big bang.
Why are you so proud that you trust a book written thousands of years ago to answer modern questions... Thats weird... But then again, I understand cognitive dissonance...
It is used more as a guideline to keep scientist's ego in check, there is always the assumption that we do know what we are doing and that past experience is comparable to current trials. Technically we don't know that 1 + 1 = 2 given the uncertainty principal.
However, I do agree that sometime, possibly with a unified field theory, we will understand more about the mechanisms of Quantum level stuff, but as far as everything we have looked at so far goes, certain behaviour seems to happen sans cause.
It was this that Einstein hated about Quantum mechanics. As his career was sort of ending and Schroedinger and Feynman's careers were taking off, he said many things about how he would rather work in a casino than be a physicist if Quantum mechanics turned out to be correct. Which they did... So far as we know
EDIT: Oh man, I think I messed this up... The Uncertainty Principal is a real physical thing, not a philosophy of science thing, right? My bad, I guess my answer here is a big shrug and nod in the direction of the people I have heard talk about the randomness of quantum mechanics.
Which Bible? The Bible has been re-written ever since it was first written. So, I ask you, which version of the Bible do you refer to? James I version, modern version, Genesis?
KMC Community Forums
Apr 12th, 2007 06:10 AM
