If there is no god, then where did we come from?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

My entire issue with Atheism, not the people but the belief - as I've examined it - actually stems with this question.

More people will say evolution but...what came before that?
What came before the dinosaurs and the ice age?
What came before that 'big bang'.

What. Happened. Before.

Note: I'd like to say that I only say this because I see alot of atheists back their non-religious beliefs up with science - which is incomplete and inaccurate - over a scale of what we 'knew' from science even 10 years ago from now we've disproven much previously commonly believed theories with more current ones - plus its changing everyday.
The reason I say both evolution and 'big bang' even though they are two completely different things is because I hear them both in the same explainations of atheistic beliefs when they are backed by science.

Angelblaze:
My entire issue with Atheism, not the people but the belief - as I've examined it - actually stems with this question.

More people will say evolution but...what came before that?
What came before the dinosaurs and the ice age?
What came before that 'big bang'.

What. Happened. Before.

Well first of all, if you take issue with those things you aren't taking issue with atheism so much as you're taking issue with science. Like gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, heliocentrism and aerodynamics (to name but a few examples) what you cite here are generally accepted models regardless of personal religious belief. Heck, the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest.

Moving along though, you might want to do a little more research. Case in point:

Evolution concerns the change in life over time. Before that would be the origin of life, which is a topic known as 'abiogenesis'.

When you say 'before the dinosaurs', are you asking about the early Triassic period, or do you want us to go back beyond the extinction event that ended the Permian period, or perhaps beyond that time period, like in the Carbiniferous period, wherein amphibians were the dominant land animals? Or do you perhaps want us to go back several more steps to before the Cambrian period and the predominance of multicellular life? Or perhaps you're asking about the formation of the Earth? There's a LOT before the dinosaurs, you know.

Before the Big Bang: Well that's admittedly a tricky area. The conditions preceding the Big Bang are rather outside our current scope, simply due to the fact that models show physics becoming rather foreign approaching the Big Bang, which makes conclusions before that point necessarily speculative. As it stands though, we can trace the model back to about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The time before that point is known as the Planck Epoch.

Again, at the risk of sounding condesending, you would do well to put a bit more research into a topic before you speak disparagingly of it.

Angelblaze:
My entire issue with Atheism, not the people but the belief - as I've examined it - actually stems with this question.

More people will say evolution but...what came before that?
What came before the dinosaurs and the ice age?
What came before that 'big bang'.

What. Happened. Before.

Evolution is biology, big bang is astrophysics. Go ask an astrophysicist.

Asita:

Angelblaze:
My entire issue with Atheism, not the people but the belief - as I've examined it - actually stems with this question.

More people will say evolution but...what came before that?
What came before the dinosaurs and the ice age?
What came before that 'big bang'.

What. Happened. Before.

Well first of all, if you take issue with those things you aren't taking issue with atheism so much as you're taking issue with science. Like gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, heliocentrism and aerodynamics (to name but a few examples) what you cite here are generally accepted models regardless of personal religious belief. Heck, the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest.

Moving along though, you might want to do a little more research. Case in point:

Evolution concerns the change in life over time. Before that would be the origin of life, which is a topic known as 'abiogenesis'.

When you say 'before the dinosaurs', are you asking about the early Triassic period, or do you want us to go back beyond the extinction event that ended the Permian period, or perhaps beyond that time period, like in the Carbiniferous period, wherein amphibians were the dominant land animals? Or do you perhaps want us to go back several more steps to before the Cambrian period and the predominance of multicellular life? Or perhaps you're asking about the formation of the Earth? There's a LOT before the dinosaurs, you know.

Before the Big Bang: Well that's admittedly a tricky area. The conditions preceding the Big Bang are rather outside our current scope, simply due to the fact that models show physics becoming rather foreign approaching the Big Bang, which makes conclusions before that point necessarily speculative. As it stands though, we can trace the model back to about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The time before that point is known as the Planck Epoch.

Again, at the risk of sounding condesending, you would do well to put a bit more research into a topic before you speak disparagingly of it.

My main problem is actually with atheists who claim the 'big bang' or other things etcetc... without knowledge that they are theories...for example: I went on my long explanation of what exactly I believe god is and where he is located and all I got was the 'God doesn't exist, evolution' answer with no expansion or real explanation. Sorry If I came off as rude.

And I know that there was alot 'before the dinosaurs' - I say that as a figure of speech as to refer to time before human life, before we had history and could write things down - I mean to say : What came before the beginning - specifically OUR beginning as existing beings on this massive cosmic scale. Before the first few tiny parts began forming to come together and create the empty vastness known as 'space'. I should probably fix that in my original post.

Angelblaze:

Note: I'd like to say that I only say this because I see alot of atheists back their non-religious beliefs up with science - which is incomplete and inaccurate - over a scale of what we 'knew' from science even 10 years ago from now we've disproven much previously commonly believed theories with more current ones - plus its changing everyday.
The reason I say both evolution and 'big bang' even though they are two completely different things is because I hear them both in the same explainations of atheistic beliefs when they are backed by science.

That doesnt make a lot of sense. All scientific theories proven false were proven thusly with science. Ergo what youve written is:

"I see alot of atheists back their non-religious beliefs up with science - which is incomplete and inaccurate - over a scale of what we 'knew' from science even 10 years ago from now we've disproven with science - which is inaccurate - much previously commonly believed theories with more current ones - plus its changing everyday because of scientific experiment - which is inaccurate".

If science on thew whole is inaccurate surely we didnt prove anything wrong since the tool we used to prove science wrong (more science) is also inaccurate. The whole thing becomes moot. You cant critique science by pointing out that we use science to correct science. Because by admitting we made a correction youve admitted science works as a correcting tool and thus that it functions.

Science is this: Observe. Record. Predict. Repeat. If youre going to claim THAT is inaccurate id say you had no sense of reason. If youre saying the BITS scientific knowledge we have NOW is wrong id argue that we are obviously making progress because all the time more of our science becomes obviously true via application. For example a thousand years ago we had a flawed idea of what makes combustion happen. Today your car is powered because we understand and can harness combustion. We obviously DO know how it works now or else we wouldnt have the car, of combustion didnt work how we think it does your engine wouldnt start. Our concrete understanding of the universe obviously increases because we can track an increase in technology. You cant argue the science of circuit boards being false while using a computer functioning using circuit boards. It works because youre watching it work right now.

Id also argue that just because science cannot explain everything that makes it not worth your time. A belief system claiming to be 100% complete in all knowledge strikes me as obviously false. A belief system claiming to know less than 100% and promising to find out seems to be the best one to go with. I think the fact that scientific knowledge is incomplete is a good sign that science works damn well since it shows we know what we need to do. Id be wary and instantly doubtful of any belief system claiming to be 100% complete on knowledge.

Out of interest do you know anymore about the big bang and evolution than what atheists have said to you? The fact they are theories is a very good case for their truthfulness because a theory is the most powerful predictive tool we have in science. Its a different definition we have when we talk about a theory in common conversation.

BiscuitTrouser:

Angelblaze:

Note: I'd like to say that I only say this because I see alot of atheists back their non-religious beliefs up with science - which is incomplete and inaccurate - over a scale of what we 'knew' from science even 10 years ago from now we've disproven much previously commonly believed theories with more current ones - plus its changing everyday.
The reason I say both evolution and 'big bang' even though they are two completely different things is because I hear them both in the same explainations of atheistic beliefs when they are backed by science.

That doesnt make a lot of sense. All scientific theories proven false were proven thusly with science. Ergo what youve written is:

"I see alot of atheists back their non-religious beliefs up with science - which is incomplete and inaccurate - over a scale of what we 'knew' from science even 10 years ago from now we've disproven with science - which is inaccurate - much previously commonly believed theories with more current ones - plus its changing everyday because of scientific experiment - which is inaccurate".

If science on thew whole is inaccurate surely we didnt prove anything wrong since the tool we used to prove science wrong (more science) is also inaccurate. The whole thing becomes moot. You cant critique science by pointing out that we use science to correct science. Because by admitting we made a correction youve admitted science works as a correcting tool and thus that it functions.

Science is this: Observe. Record. Predict. Repeat. If youre going to claim THAT is inaccurate id say you had no sense of reason. If youre saying the BITS scientific knowledge we have NOW is wrong id argue that we are obviously making progress because all the time more of our science becomes obviously true via application. For example a thousand years ago we had a flawed idea of what makes combustion happen. Today your car is powered because we understand and can harness combustion. We obviously DO know how it works now or else we wouldnt have the car, of combustion didnt work how we think it does your engine wouldnt start. Our concrete understanding of the universe obviously increases because we can track an increase in technology. You cant argue the science of circuit boards being false while using a computer functioning using circuit boards. It works because youre watching it work right now.

Id also argue that just because science cannot explain everything that makes it not worth your time. A belief system claiming to be 100% complete in all knowledge strikes me as obviously false. A belief system claiming to know less than 100% and promising to find out seems to be the best one to go with. I think the fact that scientific knowledge is incomplete is a good sign that science works damn well since it shows we know what we need to do. Id be wary and instantly doubtful of any belief system claiming to be 100% complete on knowledge.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm trying to say is that what we know is changing everyday.

And I'm not saying science DOESN'T work or doesn't explain anything. I'm saying it's not something completely set in stone. What we know changes everyday, and it continues to change everyday. My problem is with people who use incomplete scientific THEORIES - things that even science itself claims isn't proven yet.

In the larger picture of everything, science is indeed as a whole incomplete and inaccurate. We don't know the cures to all diseases, we don't know what made us, we have a small and limited view of everything as a whole. 'Science' IE by science I mean: The complete picture of everything we CURRENTLY know, is incomplete and more then likely most of it will be disproven soon. (Example: Three hundred years ago you couldn't call someone halfway around the world within mere seconds - at that TIME, that was 'scientific' FACT. No one - Atheist or Christian - was doing this, and not many disagreed with it either. But nowadays - you can with the use of technology.)

Hope I've detailed my points enough...I need to go destroy people on SK now...

Angelblaze:

My main problem is actually with atheists who claim the 'big bang' or other things etcetc... without knowledge that they are theories...for example: I went on my long explanation of what exactly I believe god is and where he is located and all I got was the 'God doesn't exist, evolution' answer with no expansion or real explanation. Sorry If I came off as rude.

And I know that there was alot 'before the dinosaurs' - I say that as a figure of speech as to refer to time before human life, before we had history and could write things down - I mean to say : What came before the beginning - specifically OUR beginning as existing beings on this massive cosmic scale. Before the first few tiny parts began forming to come together and create the empty vastness known as 'space'. I should probably fix that in my original post.

From the way you're saying it, it sounds like you're confusing the word 'theory' with 'hypothesis'. In science the word theory is used to describe very well vetted models that provide fairly comprehensive explanations of a given phenomena. A theory is quite literally the highest form of explanation for a scientific topic, often linking several scientific laws in the process. By contrast, the word hypothesis tends to be used to describe an initial yet-to-be-supported guess, which is typically meant by the colloquial use of the word theory rather than the scientific use. This confusion likely stems in no small part from another common misconception: that a good theory eventually becomes a law. This idea is patently false. It's far more accurate to say that a theory explains a phenomena, and that the existence of that phenomena might be considered a law. This is perhaps most neatly demonstrated by Gravity, which exists as both the law of gravity (simply the observation that mass attracts other mass) and the theory of gravity (the explanation of how and why mass attracts other mass). Put a bit more simply, a law is an observation, a theory is an explanation. Both are effectively the highest form of their respective categories, but they are different categories of data.

Well, there's 2 answers to that.

Either, we happened here. Organic chemicals have proven to occur naturally on earth, once you've got organic chemicals, complex life is pretty much a domino effect under the right conditions.

Or, we happened somewhere else (most likely Venus, when it was more hospitable) and migrated here, not necessarily in space ships, but rather, as bacteria expelled from by volcanic activity.

This isn't really addressing the base issue, though. But.... To paraphrase Dara O'Brien, just because science doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean you can fill the gaps with whatever magical nonsense you want =p

A "theory" isn't a random idea, a theory is a proposed explanation to explain an observed fact about reality. If the explanation is accurate, the theory should be able to make a prediction about reality which can then be observed, thus either validating the theory or disproving it.

Your mother. Well at least for you.

I'd rather try to find out then blame it all on a god, that's the easy way out, its harder to look for an actual answer and accept that you'd probably never find one.

There is a great Intelligence Squared debate on this topic. The motion being "Science refutes god." On one side you have Dr. Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer, and on the other, Ian Hutchinson and Dinesh D'Souza. One physicists and author each. It was a great debate! They took a vote on the motion prior to the debate, and then after to see who was more persuasive.

The results will be entertaining, to say the least.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/728-science-refutes-god

Angelblaze:

BiscuitTrouser:

Angelblaze:

Note: I'd like to say that I only say this because I see alot of atheists back their non-religious beliefs up with science - which is incomplete and inaccurate - over a scale of what we 'knew' from science even 10 years ago from now we've disproven much previously commonly believed theories with more current ones - plus its changing everyday.
The reason I say both evolution and 'big bang' even though they are two completely different things is because I hear them both in the same explainations of atheistic beliefs when they are backed by science.

That doesnt make a lot of sense. All scientific theories proven false were proven thusly with science. Ergo what youve written is:

"I see alot of atheists back their non-religious beliefs up with science - which is incomplete and inaccurate - over a scale of what we 'knew' from science even 10 years ago from now we've disproven with science - which is inaccurate - much previously commonly believed theories with more current ones - plus its changing everyday because of scientific experiment - which is inaccurate".

If science on thew whole is inaccurate surely we didnt prove anything wrong since the tool we used to prove science wrong (more science) is also inaccurate. The whole thing becomes moot. You cant critique science by pointing out that we use science to correct science. Because by admitting we made a correction youve admitted science works as a correcting tool and thus that it functions.

Science is this: Observe. Record. Predict. Repeat. If youre going to claim THAT is inaccurate id say you had no sense of reason. If youre saying the BITS scientific knowledge we have NOW is wrong id argue that we are obviously making progress because all the time more of our science becomes obviously true via application. For example a thousand years ago we had a flawed idea of what makes combustion happen. Today your car is powered because we understand and can harness combustion. We obviously DO know how it works now or else we wouldnt have the car, of combustion didnt work how we think it does your engine wouldnt start. Our concrete understanding of the universe obviously increases because we can track an increase in technology. You cant argue the science of circuit boards being false while using a computer functioning using circuit boards. It works because youre watching it work right now.

Id also argue that just because science cannot explain everything that makes it not worth your time. A belief system claiming to be 100% complete in all knowledge strikes me as obviously false. A belief system claiming to know less than 100% and promising to find out seems to be the best one to go with. I think the fact that scientific knowledge is incomplete is a good sign that science works damn well since it shows we know what we need to do. Id be wary and instantly doubtful of any belief system claiming to be 100% complete on knowledge.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm trying to say is that what we know is changing everyday.

And I'm not saying science DOESN'T work or doesn't explain anything. I'm saying it's not something completely set in stone. What we know changes everyday, and it continues to change everyday. My problem is with people who use incomplete scientific THEORIES - things that even science itself claims isn't proven yet.

In the larger picture of everything, science is indeed as a whole incomplete and inaccurate. We don't know the cures to all diseases, we don't know what made us, we have a small and limited view of everything as a whole. 'Science' IE by science I mean: The complete picture of everything we CURRENTLY know, is incomplete and more then likely most of it will be disproven soon. (Example: Three hundred years ago you couldn't call someone halfway around the world within mere seconds - at that TIME, that was 'scientific' FACT. No one - Atheist or Christian - was doing this, and not many disagreed with it either. But nowadays - you can with the use of technology.)

Hope I've detailed my points enough...I need to go destroy people on SK now...

Of course science isn't set in stone but to say it changes everyday is at best partially true. Tomorrow you won't wake up, try to make tea and find that suddenly water only boils at 250°C. If anything, you may find that the measurement scale for temperature has changed to make it more convenient (hopefully something the US will realize and do one day with their crazy Fahrenheit scale). Scientific theories change to accomodate for new findings or to simplify things, the phenomena they describe are more or less constant.

The ptolemeic model with earth as the center of the universe was regarded true for a long time because it simply looked that way but it heavily relied on the existence of epicycles, the planets orbiting around an invisible center that orbits cyclical around the earth, to explain the weird movement on the sky. Kopernikus' model revolutionized the whole concept insofar as that with the sun in the center all the apparently weird movement could be explained by simple cyclical orbits around our star, which of course was later proved with better technology.
And in the 1600s Becher postulated a theoretical element called "phlogiston" to explain why things that got burnt were heavier than their ashes; a correction for the classical four element theory which could not describe the phenomenon. This explanation worked for quite a while until in the 1800s it became abundantly clear that the theory was unfit to explain metals gaining weight so finally we moved on to oxidation and reduction reactions.
Not to mention relativity pretty much beat aether theory because it could actually make proveable predictions instead of relying on a lot of assumptions.

Theories changing doesn't mean the effects they describe are wrong, just that we have found a better way to describe them. A theory can be proven wrong and will then be surpassed by another theory, but you still have to describe the phenomena, like -going over to biology- anyone attempting to disprove evolution still needs to properly and testably explain millions of fossils, genetics and physiological similarities. That's why "everything was created as it is now and fossils are the devil's temptation" is basically the same as "thunder is god having a cough".

People not being able to communicate instantly over large distances doesn't disprove anything. It wasn't possible at that time. It also wasn't thought possible that humans could fly until someone discovered the aerodynamical principles and applied them in a way that made wings possible. But there was never a "humans will never fly theory", it was simply an assumption based on current knowledge. We are currently assuming that travelling at the speed of light is impossible to reach based on relativity and a few other theories that partly dabble in that topic. Does that mean it can with 100% certainty never be reached? Of course not, just that we haven't found a way yet and based on current knowledge can't think of any that doesn't contradict other theories. Does that make the theory of relativity utterly wrong? Of course not, we've proven a great deal of it including in practical uses like GPS.

To be honest, I don't see much of a point there, all I understand is that all science is more or less useless because it's goign to be proven wrong in a jiffy anyway, like next week we might have a completely new speed of light despite what the last 40 years of physics have done. I'm also not completely sure you understand the scientific theory/hypothesis.
Also, the fact that we change our theories based on new findings doesn't in any way make one religion's god the one and only true supernatural being, if anything a book that carries values from a 4000 year old dessert tribe that are supposedly the neverchanging words of a god but are wilfully ignored by its followers to coincide with recent morals would make me more weary.

I think a better question is 'why does the universe have any order at all when it should be a chaotic mess'. Instead we find patterns that repeat at the very basic level of building. And then we have BLOODY QUANTUM.

The evolution vs creationism debate isn't a debate. The inheritance of things from the parents has been tested and proven which heavily lends itself to the theory of evolution. That being said:

There is nothing to say that some powerful entity (Please notice the lack of divine) did not set up the universe and then wander off to do other things or simply observe whats going to happen. There is also nothing to say that some powerful entity did that. Multi-dimension and universe things are sort of hard to prove.

One theory I've heard is that we're the next universe after the previous one, caused by the 'big crunch' of that universe. That seems to have fallen down slightly since the rate of the universe expanding is accelerating, not decelerating or maintaining a constant speed. But at the time it's about as provable as any gods so.

Eh.

If people say, "What created the universe," you can say, "I don't know."

If they say, "Something can't come from nothing," you can say, "Where did God come from?"

If they say, "God always existed or God created itself," you can say, "Then why did the universe not always exist, and why did the universe not create itself?"

To accept God as a special exception to "Something can't come from nothing," we must be given reasons for the exception.

Interestingly, I've heard a number of people talk about time and how it would work prior to the big bang. If time is considered a property of the universe, then prior to the creation of the universe, it isn't really useful to talk about time or causality.

Atheism is really just about not making special exceptions for God or about assuming things without evidence.

Bentusi16:
I think a better question is 'why does the universe have any order at all when it should be a chaotic mess'. Instead we find patterns that repeat at the very basic level of building.

Two things:

Natural laws like gravity, electromagnetic forces and the like with particular properties. Snow crystals form symmetrical shapes because of what a water molecule looks like and a water molecule is the way it is because it's a rather stable way for atoms to arrange themselves in a molecule. Sounds rather tautological, but unless you decide to beg the question (by inserting an intention or goals into the question, which isn't warranted), that's the answer I'd give.

Localized energy. Without things like the sun pumping massive amounts of energy into the system that is the Earth, no complexity, no life would've developed here, either. Well, except maybe near heat vents. It doesn't have to be a sun, but you do need energy input. That's why the eventual fate of the universe is believed to be the heat death, when all the localized energy has spread out evenly and no life as we understand it will be possible anymore.

There is nothing to say that some powerful entity (Please notice the lack of divine) did not set up the universe and then wander off to do other things or simply observe whats going to happen. There is also nothing to say that some powerful entity did that. Multi-dimension and universe things are sort of hard to prove.

The point is that the default shouldn't be to assume things like that if there's no evidence for it; there's no reason to. Or at least that's what Skeptics think.

Angelblaze:
My entire issue with Atheism, not the people but the belief - as I've examined it - actually stems with this question.

More people will say evolution but...what came before that?
What came before the dinosaurs and the ice age?
What came before that 'big bang'.

What. Happened. Before.

Note: I'd like to say that I only say this because I see alot of atheists back their non-religious beliefs up with science - which is incomplete and inaccurate - over a scale of what we 'knew' from science even 10 years ago from now we've disproven much previously commonly believed theories with more current ones - plus its changing everyday.
The reason I say both evolution and 'big bang' even though they are two completely different things is because I hear them both in the same explainations of atheistic beliefs when they are backed by science.

You seem to not quite get the atheistic argument. The reason why evolution and the big bang theory are important arguments used by atheists is because our current knowledge about both, even if incomplete, already disproves religious theories without a doubt. Unless not only the theories but also the evidence on which said theories are based are completely false religious claims are wrong. And than comes the big question: why believe unverifiable claims made by religions which have made claims which are proven to be false? It's a bit like believing a certifiable liar who cannot back up his claims.

And the second atheistic argument is simply: why believe something with little to no evidence?

Atheists don't claim to have all the answers (unlike theists) they just like the answers to be based on more than on claims made/written millenia ago.

If you're talking about the biological origins of humans, that's a tricky one. We're not talking about immutable laws of the universe here, but complicated organic processes that took place billions of years ago.

The reason this causes a problem is that there are multiple ways that organic life could have originated. So it's not that we don't know how it orgininated, but rather there's no way to know which of the multiple ways it could have originated that actually took place. That's what you need to be clear on. Just type abiogenesis (the term which refers to the first creation of life) into google or wiki it or whatever if you want a run down of the different possible origins.

If you mean the creation of the universe, scientists have worked through the creation of the universe back to the an infintismal fraction of time before the big bang occurred. What happened before the big bang? We don't know yet. The thing is, if someone tries to hold this up as proof that the scientific method doesn't have the answers, you just have to point out that:

- Their Grandfather would have said the same thing about the creation of the earth, which has since been worked out by scientists.
- Their great grandfather would have said the same thing about the creation of continents, which has since been worked out by scientists.
- Their great great grandfather would have said the same thing about the creation of people, which has since been worked out by scientists.

Etc, etc.

Scientists not having the answer right this second is not a viable reason why the scientific theory of how the universe is incorrect is wrong. Seeing as in a few generations we've managed to work back through 14 billions years of history, give us a little bit more time and I'm sure we'll crack the pre-big bang conditions as well.

How can anyone say that they don't know were the universe came from it says in the bible God created it and this was written before the sciene was real and nobody has disproven it yet because they cant. When yoiu aregue with people who pretend to know things ask them what was the big bang before where did all this come from? if matter cannot be created or destryoed everything in the universe must have been one big ball and then somehow got broken up by something that created everything? That does not make sense at all, and the bible says first there was darkness and then came the light. That light was God and he made us all all the worlds and the stars and things in space and then he created us to have it all.
Science will never be able to say where the universe came from but people who believe in God already know.

I don't know, but that doesn't mean much. As has been said before, you can either say "hey, I dunno so I guess some dude made it all?" or you can say "I don't know, but I'm gonna find out!". I choose the latter.

Aglynugga:
How can anyone say that they don't know were the universe came from it says in the bible God created it and this was written before the sciene was real and nobody has disproven it yet because they cant. When yoiu aregue with people who pretend to know things ask them what was the big bang before where did all this come from? if matter cannot be created or destryoed everything in the universe must have been one big ball and then somehow got broken up by something that created everything? That does not make sense at all, and the bible says first there was darkness and then came the light. That light was God and he made us all all the worlds and the stars and things in space and then he created us to have it all.
Science will never be able to say where the universe came from but people who believe in God already know.

Yes and the bible says the earth was made, what, 6000 years ago? Which has been conclusively been proven to be bollocks. Why would you take the word from a source which has been proven wrong on several occasions?

Secondly, claiming matter cannot be destroyed nor created just shows how little you know about science. Have you ever heard of Nuclear energy? Did you know that the way energy is created is by literally destroying matter? Matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa. E = MC˛

And just like science will never be able to tell us where everything started (unless time isn't infinite) neither will theists be able to tell us how God came to existence. After all, he has to be something, energy, matter, whatever, he has to be something in order to be able to do something, and if he is something he had to come to existence in one way or an other.

Aglynugga:
How can anyone say that they don't know were the universe came from it says in the bible God created it and this was written before the sciene was real and nobody has disproven it yet because they cant. When yoiu aregue with people who pretend to know things ask them what was the big bang before where did all this come from? if matter cannot be created or destryoed everything in the universe must have been one big ball and then somehow got broken up by something that created everything? That does not make sense at all, and the bible says first there was darkness and then came the light. That light was God and he made us all all the worlds and the stars and things in space and then he created us to have it all.
Science will never be able to say where the universe came from but people who believe in God already know.

generals3:

Yes and the bible says the earth was made, what, 6000 years ago? Which has been conclusively been proven to be bollocks. Why would you take the word from a source which has been proven wrong on several occasions?

Secondly, claiming matter cannot be destroyed nor created just shows how little you know about science. Have you ever heard of Nuclear energy? Did you know that the way energy is created is by literally destroying matter which creates energy? Matter can be transformed into energy and vice versa. E = MC˛

And just like science will never be able to tell us where everything started (unless time isn't infinite) neither will theists be able to tell us how God came to existence. After all, he has to be something, energy, matter, whatever, he has to be something in order to be able to do something, and if he is something he had to come to existence in one way or an other.

Thew bible does not say that and I know that you have never read it so please dont talk about the bible. and nuclear esplosions do not destroy matter it splits the atom which releases the energy contrained inside but it is not destroyed the energy exists as radiation please educate yourself about this things befoer you talk.
If you really had read the bible you would know that because God is the the beginning and then end he has always existed and always will there was never a start to him and there won't be an end just like you would say the universe always existed because before the big bang the universe was still something.

Aglynugga:

Thew bible does not say that and I know that you have never read it so please dont talk about the bible. and nuclear esplosions do not destroy matter it splits the atom which releases the energy contrained inside but it is not destroyed the energy exists as radiation please educate yourself about this things befoer you talk.
If you really had read the bible you would know that because God is the the beginning and then end he has always existed and always will there was never a start to him and there won't be an end just like you would say the universe always existed because before the big bang the universe was still something.

First of all: I went to catholic school. We did have bible study for a couple of years so don't talk about my lack of reading of the bible. And even if the age may not be explicitly be stated what about how God suddenly created humans? Evolution has clearly disproven that men suddenly came to be as we are.

And please educate yourself about nuclear Fission. Energy is released due to the loss of mass. The products of a nuclear fission are lighter than the initial components and the energy created is actually a result of that destroyed mass.

And what about anti matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

"In particle physics, antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge and quantum spin. Antiparticles bind with each other to form antimatter in the same way that normal particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron, with symbol e+) and an antiproton (symbol p) can form an antihydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing matter and antimatter can lead to the annihilation of both, in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle-antiparticle pairs. The end result of antimatter meeting matter is a release of energy proportional to the mass as the mass-energy equivalence equation, E=mc2 shows.[1]"

Now please tell me again how matter cannot be destroyed.

Aglynugga:
Thew bible does not say that and I know that you have never read it so please dont talk about the bible. and nuclear esplosions do not destroy matter it splits the atom which releases the energy contrained inside but it is not destroyed the energy exists as radiation please educate yourself about this things befoer you talk.
If you really had read the bible you would know that because God is the the beginning and then end he has always existed and always will there was never a start to him and there won't be an end just like you would say the universe always existed because before the big bang the universe was still something.

You can't use the Bible to prove the claims in the Bible; that's circular reasoning. Furthermore, we consider it an unreliable source. Please read up on apologetics and basic counter-apologetics or you'll find no joy whatsoever being on this subforum.

Aglynugga:

Thew bible does not say that and I know that you have never read it so please dont talk about the bible. and nuclear esplosions do not destroy matter it splits the atom which releases the energy contrained inside but it is not destroyed the energy exists as radiation please educate yourself about this things befoer you talk.
If you really had read the bible you would know that because God is the the beginning and then end he has always existed and always will there was never a start to him and there won't be an end just like you would say the universe always existed because before the big bang the universe was still something.

The bible actually describes a detailed liniage of all people from the days of adam and eve, also describing life spans and dates. As such by adding said dates together 6000 years is reached. You can read around this any number of ways but if the bible is 100% literal said lineages show 6000 years rather clearly. I have read the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aevanloon/Biblical_lineage

Also matter becomes energy. It isnt really destroyed, nor is it split really. Its broken up and then it becomes energy. Matter and energy are different forms of eachother.

I dont wanna get involved with your argument but these things ive posted are correct.

generals3:

Aglynugga:

Thew bible does not say that and I know that you have never read it so please dont talk about the bible. and nuclear esplosions do not destroy matter it splits the atom which releases the energy contrained inside but it is not destroyed the energy exists as radiation please educate yourself about this things befoer you talk.
If you really had read the bible you would know that because God is the the beginning and then end he has always existed and always will there was never a start to him and there won't be an end just like you would say the universe always existed because before the big bang the universe was still something.

First of all: I went to catholic school. We did have bible study for a couple of years so don't talk about my lack of reading of the bible.

And please educate yourself about nuclear Fission. Energy is released due to the loss of mass. The products of a nuclear fission are lighter than the initial components and the energy created is actually a result of that destroyed mass.

And what about anti matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

"In particle physics, antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge and quantum spin. Antiparticles bind with each other to form antimatter in the same way that normal particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron, with symbol e+) and an antiproton (symbol p) can form an antihydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing matter and antimatter can lead to the annihilation of both, in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle-antiparticle pairs. The end result of antimatter meeting matter is a release of energy proportional to the mass as the mass-energy equivalence equation, E=mc2 shows.[1]"

Now please tell me again how matter cannot be destroyed.

It is not destroyed you do not know things at all. I will explain it too you. Everything u=you said is all about how particles of something interact and create particles nothing is destroyed everything is converted into another type of particle. Everything is a physical form even electricity is physical becaise it is made of particles. They material from a nuclear explosuion is less dense and has been spread out, the materials are not destroyed they are converted to carbon and other particles they still exist.
And if you took bible study you would have respect for the bible and know it never says 6000 years.
Matter cannot be destroyed it is changed into another type of thing but you like to repeat what others have told you and maybe not think about it yourself.

BiscuitTrouser:

Aglynugga:

Thew bible does not say that and I know that you have never read it so please dont talk about the bible. and nuclear esplosions do not destroy matter it splits the atom which releases the energy contrained inside but it is not destroyed the energy exists as radiation please educate yourself about this things befoer you talk.
If you really had read the bible you would know that because God is the the beginning and then end he has always existed and always will there was never a start to him and there won't be an end just like you would say the universe always existed because before the big bang the universe was still something.

The bible actually describes a detailed liniage of all people from the days of adam and eve, also describing life spans and dates. As such by adding said dates together 6000 years is reached. You can read around this any number of ways but if the bible is 100% literal said lineages show 6000 years rather clearly. I have read the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aevanloon/Biblical_lineage

Also matter becomes energy. It isnt really destroyed, nor is it split really. Its broken up and then it becomes energy. Matter and energy are different forms of eachother.

I dont wanna get involved with your argument but these things ive posted are correct.

No Adam and eve lived in the garden of eden which was timeless and deathless and then because of the serpent the had to leave into the world and then aged but we cannot say how long that they stayed in the garden of eden it could have been centuries or millions of years you cannot say how many because only when they left would they get old and die.

Aglynugga:

It is not destroyed you do not know things at all. I will explain it too you. Everything u=you said is all about how particles of something interact and create particles nothing is destroyed everything is converted into another type of particle. Everything is a physical form even electricity is physical becaise it is made of particles. They material from a nuclear explosuion is less dense and has been spread out, the materials are not destroyed they are converted to carbon and other particles they still exist.
And if you took bible study you would have respect for the bible and know it never says 6000 years.
Matter cannot be destroyed it is changed into another type of thing but you like to repeat what others have told you and maybe not think about it yourself.

First of all, why bring up Carbon?! No nuclear weaponry or power plants have Carbon as products from nuclear reactions. Neither would Nuclear Fusion energy. Even the theoretical Thorium Fission reactors wouldn't produce Carbon.

And it is not about density, it is about mass. This is frigging Highschool physics. Mass is destroyed during the fission and that mass is transformed into energy as stated by Einsteins formula (Energy= Mass * Speed of Light˛).

And yes matter is always changed into something else. However that something else doesn't have to be matter, it can be energy. And in the case of Nuclear Fission matter is changed in less matter and energy.

ANd you have totally ignored anti-matter.

generals3:

Aglynugga:

It is not destroyed you do not know things at all. I will explain it too you. Everything u=you said is all about how particles of something interact and create particles nothing is destroyed everything is converted into another type of particle. Everything is a physical form even electricity is physical becaise it is made of particles. They material from a nuclear explosuion is less dense and has been spread out, the materials are not destroyed they are converted to carbon and other particles they still exist.
And if you took bible study you would have respect for the bible and know it never says 6000 years.
Matter cannot be destroyed it is changed into another type of thing but you like to repeat what others have told you and maybe not think about it yourself.

First of all, why bring up Carbon?! No nuclear weaponry or power plants have Carbon as products from nuclear reactions. Neither would Nuclear Fusion energy. Even the theoretical Thorium Fission reactors wouldn't produce Carbon.

And it is not about density, it is about mass. This is frigging Highschool physics. Mass is destroyed during the fission and that mass is transformed into energy as stated by Einsteins formula (Energy= Mass * Speed of Light˛).

And yes matter is always changed into something else. However that something else doesn't have to be matter, it can be energy. And in the case of Nuclear Fission matter is changed in less matter and energy.

ANd you have totally ignored anti-matter.

Energy is still a phisical thing it is very very small but it is still real and if you gathered up all the energy particles they would weigh the same but because it is so tiny and spread out we cant. anti matter is still something again that is a phisycal thing it is just the opposite of normal matter maybe you dont read what i said?

Aglynugga:

Energy is still a phisical thing it is very very small but it is still real and if you gathered up all the energy particles they would weigh the same but because it is so tiny and spread out we cant. anti matter is still something again that is a phisycal thing it is just the opposite of normal matter maybe you dont read what i said?

Energy is not a "physical thing" as it has 0 mass. A photon weighs literally nothing.
And my point about anti-matter is that it destroys matter and transforms it into energy. Energy, which is something which has 0 mass.

Aglynugga:

No Adam and eve lived in the garden of eden which was timeless and deathless and then because of the serpent the had to leave into the world and then aged but we cannot say how long that they stayed in the garden of eden it could have been centuries or millions of years you cannot say how many because only when they left would they get old and die.

Break out your bible.

Genesis 5:5 states clearly that "all the days that Adam lived were 930 years." so we know his age.

We know, of course, that "days" and "years" already were being counted by the time of Adam's creation because in Genesis 1:14 (day four of the Creation week) God mentioned both in His discussion of their relationship to the heavenly bodies. Therefore, however long Adam and Eve may have been in the garden, one thing is certain: they were not there for any time period that exceeded Adam's life span of 930 years. But there is additional information that must be considered as well. Genesis 4:25 explains that Seth was born after Cain slew Abel. Since the biblical account makes it clear that Seth was born outside the garden, and since Genesis 5:3 informs us that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, it is obvious that Adam and Eve could not have been in the Garden of Eden any longer than 130 years!

If the garden is timeless then the earth surely wouldnt age either in that time and would still be 6000 years old. Or at least appear to be so in the area that the garden covered.

BiscuitTrouser:

Aglynugga:

No Adam and eve lived in the garden of eden which was timeless and deathless and then because of the serpent the had to leave into the world and then aged but we cannot say how long that they stayed in the garden of eden it could have been centuries or millions of years you cannot say how many because only when they left would they get old and die.

Break out your bible.

Genesis 5:5 states clearly that "all the days that Adam lived were 930 years." so we know his age.

We know, of course, that "days" and "years" already were being counted by the time of Adam's creation because in Genesis 1:14 (day four of the Creation week) God mentioned both in His discussion of their relationship to the heavenly bodies. Therefore, however long Adam and Eve may have been in the garden, one thing is certain: they were not there for any time period that exceeded Adam's life span of 930 years. But there is additional information that must be considered as well. Genesis 4:25 explains that Seth was born after Cain slew Abel. Since the biblical account makes it clear that Seth was born outside the garden, and since Genesis 5:3 informs us that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, it is obvious that Adam and Eve could not have been in the Garden of Eden any longer than 130 years!

If the garden is timeless then the earth surely wouldnt age either in that time and would still be 6000 years old. Or at least appear to be so in the area that the garden covered.

No you see in the gaden of eden there was no time and so when he left is when he began to age i do not now why you dont understand this?

generals3:

Aglynugga:

Energy is still a phisical thing it is very very small but it is still real and if you gathered up all the energy particles they would weigh the same but because it is so tiny and spread out we cant. anti matter is still something again that is a phisycal thing it is just the opposite of normal matter maybe you dont read what i said?

Energy is not a "physical thing" as it has 0 mass. A photon weighs literally nothing.
And my point about anti-matter is that it destroys matter and transforms it into energy. Energy, which is something which has 0 mass.

energy has weight you do not know what to say because even electricty can be weighed and so can atoms and molecueles and how do you know photons have no weight have you weighed them can you put them on a scale? You cant but photons have weight and mass because they esist and everything that exists has a phisycal form

Aglynugga:

generals3:

Aglynugga:

Energy is still a phisical thing it is very very small but it is still real and if you gathered up all the energy particles they would weigh the same but because it is so tiny and spread out we cant. anti matter is still something again that is a phisycal thing it is just the opposite of normal matter maybe you dont read what i said?

Energy is not a "physical thing" as it has 0 mass. A photon weighs literally nothing.
And my point about anti-matter is that it destroys matter and transforms it into energy. Energy, which is something which has 0 mass.

energy has weight you do not know what to say because even electricty can be weighed and so can atoms and molecueles

Electricity cannot be weighed. Electrons can, but electrical current itself cannot. In which formula of electricity do they ever consider mass?!

And how is the mass of atoms and molecules relevant to the discussion? I was stating ENERGY has no mass.

And please state your sources which make the claim energy has a mass?

Aglynugga:

BiscuitTrouser:

Aglynugga:

Thew bible does not say that and I know that you have never read it so please dont talk about the bible. and nuclear esplosions do not destroy matter it splits the atom which releases the energy contrained inside but it is not destroyed the energy exists as radiation please educate yourself about this things befoer you talk.
If you really had read the bible you would know that because God is the the beginning and then end he has always existed and always will there was never a start to him and there won't be an end just like you would say the universe always existed because before the big bang the universe was still something.

The bible actually describes a detailed liniage of all people from the days of adam and eve, also describing life spans and dates. As such by adding said dates together 6000 years is reached. You can read around this any number of ways but if the bible is 100% literal said lineages show 6000 years rather clearly. I have read the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aevanloon/Biblical_lineage

Also matter becomes energy. It isnt really destroyed, nor is it split really. Its broken up and then it becomes energy. Matter and energy are different forms of eachother.

I dont wanna get involved with your argument but these things ive posted are correct.

No Adam and eve lived in the garden of eden which was timeless and deathless and then because of the serpent the had to leave into the world and then aged but we cannot say how long that they stayed in the garden of eden it could have been centuries or millions of years you cannot say how many because only when they left would they get old and die.

If the first human beings entered this world out of the supposed garden of eden there is still no explanation for the cave paintings such as Chauvet Cave that dates back about 30,000 years, which would be 24,000 more than biblical canon.

But anyway, I think I remember you from the evolution thread a month back as being the one with the "don't call me a monkey" attitude... I still hope you just have fun on our expense with a pretend internet persona.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked