America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists.

[creed 1,637]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You referred to "cells" surviving it as if they existed concurrently with it.

True, but that could make the upright walking intelligent humans evolving from nothingness even a longer putt for the faith of the science only crowd. 
 

[homersapien 11,379]

Just now, creed said:

True, but that could make the upright walking intelligent humans evolving from nothingness even a longer putt for the faith of the science only crowd. 
 

Not at all.  Don't understand why you would even think that.

The big bang simply explains what preceded evolution.  It explains the existence of matter and chemistry - which is certainly not "nothingness".

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not sure where the "6 days" came from, since "days" didn't exist at the time of the big bang.

Presumably, it was a biblical reference.

According to verse 1 Genesis there was a beginning. Day one comes with the creation of night and day. The “beginning” could have lasted as long as God chose. 

[homersapien 11,379]

8 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

According to verse 1 Genesis there was a beginning. Day one comes with the creation of night and day. The “beginning” could have lasted as long as God chose. 

As I said, "presumably it was a biblical reference". 

Edited October 12, 2023 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

Religious faith is based on emotional subjectivity and myth.

I presume your reference includes Christianity. Respectfully, it is not irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses, who had nothing to gain by dissembling, about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and about what Jesus taught them; or, for that matter, to accept the evidence of later miracles that establish the truth of the Church that Christ founded. 

What is irrational, on the other hand, is to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of Jesus Christ's resurrection in particular. 

[homersapien 11,379]

37 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I presume your reference includes Christianity. Respectfully, it is not irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses, who had nothing to gain by dissembling, about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and about what Jesus taught them; or, for that matter, to accept the evidence of later miracles that establish the truth of the Church that Christ founded. 

What is irrational, on the other hand, is to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of Jesus Christ's resurrection in particulafr. 

Don't know if you practice criminal law, but the reliability of eye witnesses is notoriously unreliable, even when the event occurred very recently.  And the New Testament was written from 50 to 100 BC.

Bottom line, believing the resurrection actually happened based on "eyewitness testimony" is what is irrational.

As is requiring an "investigation" (would that be a scientific investigation?) for a resurrection that happened over 2000 years ago.)

But you are certainly free to believe whatever gives you comfort. Just don't criticize non-believers for irrationality.  That's clearly projection.

Edited October 12, 2023 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Don't know if you practice criminal law, but the reliability of eye witnesses is notoriously unreliable, even when the event occurred very recently.  And the New Testament was written from 50 to 100 BC.

Bottom line, believing the resurrection actually happened based on "eyewitness testimony" is what is irrational.

As is requiring an "investigation" (would that be a scientific investigation?) for a resurrection that happened over 2000 years ago.)

But you are certainly free to believe whatever gives you comfort. Just don't criticize non-believers for irrationality.  That's clearly projection.

So, everything from Easter morning to the Ascension had to have been made up by those "groveling authors," those "rogues" Thomas Jefferson referred to, presumably part of their clever plan to get themselves tortured and crucified? There is no contrary, credible evidence because the intellectuals of modern age so declare? The "wise" just will not have anything to do with miracles. Got it. 

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not at all.  Don't understand why you would even think that.

The big bang simply explains what preceded evolution.  It explains the existence of matter and chemistry - which is certainly not "nothingness".

Didn't you just say the Big Bang resulted in Matter? When I said it can't create matter, you said it wasn't a chemical reaction. Then you said it explains chemistry and matter. You loopy today. The fact is you can't explain anything about how the Big Bang created anything that wasn't already created. It requires as much or more faith to believe than Creation by Almighty God. 

[homersapien 11,379]

12 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Didn't you just say the Big Bang resulted in Matter? When I said it can't create matter, you said it wasn't a chemical reaction. Then you said it explains chemistry and matter. You loopy today. The fact is you can't explain anything about how the Big Bang created anything that wasn't already created. It requires as much or more faith to believe than Creation by Almighty God. 

Chemistry is the interaction of elements and molecules.  The creation of matter from energy - or vice versa -  is, strictly speaking, a process of physics, not chemistry.

Physics encompasses chemistry, but chemistry does not encompass (all) physics, just some.

I am not "loopy".  The problem is you don't fully understand science or it's terminology. Science requires more knowledge than it does faith. No offense intended, but you are arguing from ignorance.

[homersapien 11,379]

37 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So, everything from Easter morning to the Ascension had to have been made up by those "groveling authors," those "rogues" Thomas Jefferson referred to, presumably part of their clever plan to get themselves tortured and crucified? There is no contrary, credible evidence because the intellectuals of modern age so declare? The "wise" just will not have anything to do with miracles. Got it. 

Good.  I am glad for you.  The truth shall set you free.

Edited October 12, 2023 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,601]

22 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Didn't you just say the Big Bang resulted in Matter? When I said it can't create matter, you said it wasn't a chemical reaction. Then you said it explains chemistry and matter. You loopy today. The fact is you can't explain anything about how the Big Bang created anything that wasn't already created. It requires as much or more faith to believe than Creation by Almighty God. 

Here's a quick rundown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

The particular parts that reference your statement are early on. It took a while for the universe to cool enough for lighter elements to form, but once the first stars appeared, that's when heavier elements fused. The explosion of those stars seeded the universe with those heavier elements.

To add: none of this disproves the existence of God. It is a simple matter to incorporate this into faith, if you take some of the stories in the Bible as allegory.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Leftfield

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Is the absolute accuracy of the bible important?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good.  I am glad for you.  The truth shall set you free.

Allere flammam veritatis. 

[homersapien 11,379]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Allere flammam veritatis. 

Always! 

 

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Chemistry is the interaction of elements and molecules.  The creation of matter from energy - or vice versa -  is, strictly speaking, a process of physics, not chemistry.

Physics encompasses chemistry, but chemistry does not encompass (all) physics, just some.

I am not "loopy".  The problem is you don't fully understand science or it's terminology. Science requires more knowledge than it does faith. No offense intended, but you are arguing from ignorance.

None taken. Nice explanation but off topic. The Big Bang espouses to have created all the matter that exists in the universe. That is impossible. You said it wasn't a chemical reaction. Nobody said it was. Not me. I don't believe it at all. You then referenced chemistry as a result of the Big Bang. I just pointed it out and gave you a chance to rectify your statement. Instead you tried to baffle me with bs. There is yet to be an explanation of what or who created the matter that existed before the Bang occurred. Something had to exist before the Bang. Something did. I believe it is God. You don't believe in God. The Big Bang is another fruitless unprovable explanation or theory to explain life WITHOUT including God. One of these days, hopefully before you meet God, you will listen to your family and reconsider your position. As you are a much higher academe than me, and any other conservative/republican/MAGA/America loving/Christian, it is difficult for you to accept that you don't understand or comprehend the things that God does, because you are not on the same level as God. If you don't get it, it is not God's fault, it's yours. I can't explain everything God does. I will ask when I am judged. If I go first and can still post I will relay the info to you.

[homersapien 11,379]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

None taken. Nice explanation but off topic. The Big Bang espouses to have created all the matter that exists in the universe. That is impossible. You said it wasn't a chemical reaction. Nobody said it was. Not me. I don't believe it at all. You then referenced chemistry as a result of the Big Bang. I just pointed it out and gave you a chance to rectify your statement. Instead you tried to baffle me with bs. There is yet to be an explanation of what or who created the matter that existed before the Bang occurred. Something had to exist before the Bang. Something did. I believe it is God. You don't believe in God. The Big Bang is another fruitless unprovable explanation or theory to explain life WITHOUT including God. One of these days, hopefully before you meet God, you will listen to your family and reconsider your position. As you are a much higher academe than me, and any other conservative/republican/MAGA/America loving/Christian, it is difficult for you to accept that you don't understand or comprehend the things that God does, because you are not on the same level as God. If you don't get it, it is not God's fault, it's yours. I can't explain everything God does. I will ask when I am judged. If I go first and can still post I will relay the info to you.

Some advice: You should refrain from labeling discussion you clearly don't understand as "BS".  (At least in public.)

Otherwise, have a nice day.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

25 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Is the absolute accuracy of the bible important?

Yes.

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

26 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Is the absolute accuracy of the bible important?

Is proving it to be a myth important?

[Leftfield 2,601]

14 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

The Big Bang espouses to have created all the matter that exists in the universe. That is impossible.

How so?

[jj3jordan 2,053]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Some advice: You should refrain from labeling discussion you clearly don't understand as "BS".  (At least in public.)

Otherwise, have a nice day.

I understand you abhor being exposed. I do understand it, thus the label. Apologies, too strong, call it misinformation. Liberals understand that more easily. I will, thank you.

[SaltyTiger 7,812]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Always! 

 

So true

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

How so?

Because matter cannot be created or destroyed. According to the current laws of physics and conservation of matter. Hey I didn't make it up. It is a scientific law. The matter had to have existed before the Bang.

[Leftfield 2,601]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

Because matter cannot be created or destroyed. According to the current laws of physics and conservation of matter. Hey I didn't make it up. It is a scientific law. The matter had to have existed before the Bang.

Only holds for classical physics. Different for quantum physics. Mass-energy conversion.

Why did matter have to exist before the Big Bang? Couldn't God have created the Big Bang?

If there was another universe, prior to ours, that compressed and then became the Big Bang, then why does there need to be a God? Could it not be that the universe itself is eternal, undergoing endless cycles of compression and expansion? 

[CoffeeTiger 5,109]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So, everything from Easter morning to the Ascension had to have been made up by those "groveling authors," those "rogues" Thomas Jefferson referred to, presumably part of their clever plan to get themselves tortured and crucified?

 

Christians aren't the only people who have suffered or died for their deeply held religious beliefs though? Back in early history, sightings of Gods, miracles, and monsters were common place and could spread easily. People were highly superstitious and had little knowledge about the world and believed that Gods and miracles were all around them. The fact that the story of Christianity emerged from this time period is not surprising.  

 Later in the middle ages onward, European Christians would regularly torture, kill, and genocide other native populations around the world for refusing to convert away from their native religions to Christianity. I don't see how the early apostles being willing to die for their beliefs is any kind of proof that their beliefs must have been more true or legitimate. 

 

 

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

There is no contrary, credible evidence because the intellectuals of modern age so declare? The "wise" just will not have anything to do with miracles. Got it. 

 

Yes, when some people claims that someone they know raised up from the dead and then flew up into the clouds, standard practice is to be doubtful of the account unless other evidence surfaces. 

Large numbers of people believing in the written accounts of the resurrection isn't proof or evidence that it actually happened. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[AUFAN78 3,910]

20 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The lesson wasn't literally, never learn or experience anything

Appreciate the clarification. 

20 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Your church never taught you against the perils and dangers of humanism, sin, and outside influences?

The churches I attended taught from the bible, the Word of God, the teachings of Christ. The bible teaches not to be conformed to the world, but to discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable. 

20 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

don't see how being taught all of this type of stuff from gradeschool up until adulthood in Church doesn't foster an aversion for learning and exploration of life in most people. If 'God' is the answer and reason for everything....then what else would you need or want to know? 

One can learn and grow without being taken captive by some worldly philosophy that is not in accordance to the teachings of Christ.