standing_alone

Wingnut... oh, my dear. You must be far ahead if you can forgive people so easily... Congrats, and keep it going.

It was very hard for me to love somebody. Even my family – because I frequently always asked myself: what exactly does it mean to love somebody? Give your life for him or her? Well, some people give their lives for ideas – without knowing they will ever come true or not. However, to my surprise lately I found myself contemplating an avenue full of people, and having a broken heart for them. All of them. Knowing that most, if not all, will be lost forever, lately does that to me. To my even bigger surprise, occasionally I feel my heart breaking even for people such as Dawkins, or Krauss, which I used to hate. But it’s not yet that radical change. Far from it. I engaged Alphaparticle about big bang. To my surprise, I found him adding me as a friend. While I was busy challenging him, he found the time to not only send me a good thought, but to put that thought into a deed. A small one, but significant nevertheless. So, do I really love people as I’m supposed to? Not so much, I’m afraid. But I will certainly like to hear from people that have gotten there.

Alphaparticle, so far you avoid explaining even why you, as a Christian, believe in big bang, since, again, I can hardly picture a cosmology more opposite to the Bible than this.

Alphaparticle, please start a thread, and I’ll join. To “become a believer you” certainly must not “embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science”. And it seems to me that that’s the problem with so many people, right there. Believing without skepticism all that mainstream tells them to believe. In other words, burying science while calling themselves scientific, and intellectual. But I’m even more interested in why you, as a Christian, believe in big bang, since I can hardly picture a cosmology more opposite to the Bible than this.

Joshua260, let me assure you that nobody has ever proven that “gravity affects light”, despite einsteinian propaganda. Let me also assure you that nobody has ever proven that the universe is actually gravitational, in the first place. Now, if you or alphaparticle think otherwise, then please go ahead and give me evidence that: - does not have anything to do with philosophy (or wishful thinking, to put it bluntly) - does not have alternative explanations. Also specify how much more wrong does a gravitational universe has to be before you, or alphaparticle, or mainstream, would admit that it is… wrong? Because I for one can hardly picture a more anti-gravitational universe than what big bang already is – and in fact has always been…

Simply because there's nothing in it that stands. Even when completely disregarding alternative explanations. Instead of the formal history of the universe (aka big bang), you should read the history of big bang, and then ask yourself: why exactly has it been changed both so often and so radically?

Hi, alphaparticle. Of course you would have to show me exactly what evidence supports the big bang and only the big bang. I heard that some people made a list with as far as 50 alternative explanations for redshift, for example. (People such as Paul Marmet, if I remember correctly; I haven’t actually looked into that, since I already know big bang is wrong.) It’s philosophy that makes one pick an explanation over another. And speaking of philosophy, there is one philosophical statement that big bang, and in fact almost all the cosmologies in the world (more than 99.99% of them), is based upon. One that Einstein implicitly assumed, just as almost all cosmologists that followed him, including and even foremost the proponents of big bang. A principle that meanwhile has been proven so wrong. Now, would you agree that therefore, general relativity (and in fact any mathematical effort to portray the universe) is wrong, solely for this reason? If not, why exactly not? In general, feel free to show me that it’s actual science that leads to big bang’s statements, and not philosophy. Because I can easily show you it’s the other way around. Please also explain how exactly is “diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic” (or on any topic) a good thing, and not a bad thing.

Thanks, 1x1is1.

Does anyone here believe in big bang? If so, why? I'm certainly willing (and able) to debate. Especially with the atheists. Thanks.

Shiloh357, I don’t think the question is if “The universe is simply too complex to have simply "happened" apart from a Creator.” The real question, in my view, is that the existence of anything, whether simple or complex, speaks loudly about God. Unavoidably, in fact. And thanks for supporting the faith in the Bible. Similar thanks to FresnoJoe.

Alphaparticle, the topic was about the universe. Not about Earth – although the formal science is also dead in regard to the creation of Earth too… By the way, I’m not sure how atheists, unlike you, could miss that “The growth of our knowledge is currently exponential”, since this too confirms the Bible (another fulfilled prediction). Of course, as long as by “knowledge” we mean something actually verifiable, something leading to concrete results, not speculations about so distant or so past things. And sorry but no, science doesn’t work “pretty well at what it is meant to do- understand the workings of the physical universe”. Actually, it’s because of a blind faith in science (cosmology, in this case) that people, especially the believers in big bang, don’t understand “the workings of the physical universe.” Think about most of its contents, for example. As for “whether or not one acknowledges God as the ultimate source of natural order doesn't stop them from making discoveries”, well, he (they) may not acknowledge God explicitly, but they do so implicitly. Otherwise each every claim, scientific or not, is excused from possibly being true.

Sorry to correct a valiant Christian, but actually there is only one. Those who claim differently (all the atheists in the world) would have to show me where exactly in nature is chance and chance alone, because I surely can’t find it. Ironically, atheists themselves rely on the absence of chance, otherwise they couldn’t possibly come up even with their wrong science (their speculative science), such as big bang. No descriptive mechanism could be possible, hence no theory whatsoever.

It seems to me that evolution is simply used as an (convenient) explanation for that which they (you) can't (won't) grasp. Other than that, nice to meet you and looking forward for an actual dialogue.

Rontiger, very interesting topic. And I agree: “Science will always have no power to describe the physical universe.” Your reasoning is correct, although incomplete (please excuse the unintended pun). Basically, it comes down to this: one has to already believe that he knows, in order to claim that he knows. However, (purely theoretical) science is dead not only for the reason you mentioned, but, ironically, for finding God at the end of their wild speculations. Speculations that, also ironic, in the end proclaim the death of science by themselves. And by the way, if you use scientific tools, such as “Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem”, to claim science is dead, then you obviously can’t claim science is dead. I think we Christians should avoid paradoxes. I also think we should make a distinction between actual science (applied science) and the fantasy world of endless theoretical speculations (and any theory regarding the past belongs unavoidably solely to this category), so that we don’t confuse anyone.