I think I really ought to talk about this...

Pre-College Issues High School Life
1

<p>As you may already be aware, there are alot of "God vs. Big Bang" threads...</p>

<p>Well, heres my $0.02... According to all religions (I think), God is the creator of everything, physical and otherwise... According to Physicians/Athiests/ Non-believers (and im not descriminating against anyone... um.. just categorizing), Physics/The Big Bang is the reason we exsist.... now, humans seem to have this innate argumentative trait and thus cooperation does NOT exsist... God created The Big Bang....</p>

<p>Prove me wrong...</p>

2

<p>Bumping this…</p>

3

<p>Can’t really argue with that.</p>

4

<p>You will find that most people would agree with you that existence is caused by God. The idea of God as the prime mover who began the universe is the one held by (many of) the founders of the United States. In fact, the big bang theory was initially proposed by a Catholic priest. It fits perfectly well with the religious idea of ex nihlo creation.</p>

5

<p>ugh what is up with these science vs. spiritual topics nowadays. although i confer with your theory, i think it’s pointless to emphasize it; those who believe it will and those who oppose it won’t.</p>

6

<p>^ But people who never thought about it now know I’m right. I AM right. lol. So everyone agrees so far…</p>

7

<p>First of all, you’re open challenge to prove you wrong is worthless. How could I prove that god does not exist when you do not define him except that he created everything? What evidence would disprove god?</p>

<p>And, why do you have to introduce god into the formula. Why can’t the big bang have just started everything? What is this god that you are talking about? The deistic god, the prime mover? But why do we have to introduce him, can’t we just say that we do not know exactly how the big bang started or was created.</p>

8

<p>“And, why do you have to introduce god into the formula. Why can’t the big bang have just started everything?”</p>

<p>You can’t prove either… God’s exsistence or The Big Bang… What’s the point of what you just typed? Unless The Big Bang happened last year, we don’t know much. We just assume what sounds logical.</p>

9

<p>I think more people claim to be experts on religion than they do on physics.</p>

<p>And theories like the Big Bang can be proven. Confirmation doesn’t require direct observation.</p>

10

<p>Confession: the Big Bang was all my doing.</p>

11

<p>Haha, why not have the big bang create god?</p>

<p>Have fun arguing, agnostic ftw!</p>

12

<p>there’s no S in exist</p>

13

<p>All “scientific” theories about the origin and evolution of the universe are based on the assumption that physical parameters like the speed of light and Plank’s constant are the same all over the universe and for all of time. We have only traveled a few light minutes fom our planet of origin. We are drawing inferences about the nature of the universe from data that is billions of years old (light takes that long to get here). The academic disciplines of physics and cosmology themselves start with a huge “leap of faith” that we can know anything about something billions of light years away that happened billions of years ago.</p>

<p>Prove that the speed of light is the same everywhere. Physicists just assume this and then interpret the data in light of that assumption. Dissident physicists are excommunicatd (denied their PhD). Seems like a lot of faith is involved in the “hard” science of Physics.</p>

14

<p>That’s pretty much what I believe, only I don’t think we have it 100% correct (and why would we?).</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. A vacuum has comparatively little atoms within it. If the speed of light is constant in one area, it can be logically assumed that it will be the same in another, identical, area.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Data taken from billions of years ago will be ideal for making inferences about happenings that occurred billions of years ago. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, they need to be able to prove their theories. A dissident theory that is grounded on less evidence than a conventional theory can’t be accepted because there isn’t enough evidence to support it. In addition, you’re making a false accusation. On what grounds can you possibly make that claim? Science is just as much about disproving conventional wisdom and learning new things as it is about confirming data. That’s why it’s science.</p>

<p>

You have a lot of learning to do.</p>

16

<p>^ Just curious, are you in highschool?
You seem to know alot about, uh pretty much everything ■■■■■</p>

17

<p>Argumentative thread is argumentative.</p>

<p>Legit, I hate arguing with people about most religious subjects (though I hardly see evolution as a religious subject. It’s just that most popular argument about it is made to be about religion). If you want to discuss the merits of miaphysitism vs. monophysitism, I am there. The best way to reach theosis? Totally. But this sort of thing is pointless.</p>

18

<p>Stop assuming everyone fits under 1 of 2 categories.</p>

<p>And learn more about religion and philosophy before you start arguments about it.</p>

19

<p>^What, are you talking to me? I dont need to learn anything you misinformed f**k. I was talking about two “sets” of people, the physicicsts and the pious/religious fanatics.</p>

20

<p>“there’s no S in exist”</p>

<p>I always make that mistake… well not always but most of the time. lol.</p>