Genesis and The Big Bang

[Lenticular_J]

Plenty of theories with empirical evidence. And those would be? I wouldn't be so quick to call scientists elitists because they think BBT is better than the others you claim exist.. scientists just favour BBT because it's the most consistent and has the most evidence supporting it. Also, for someone who doesn't care, you seem to be quite interested in challenging the mainstream scientific consensus.

Two I can name off of the top of my head - plasma cosmology and steady-state.

 

The Big Bang theory rests on a few things we can't even prove yet, we know - it's just hypotheses that hold it together. Hypothetical inflation fields and so-called "dark matter", for two.

 

It just bugs me that everyone accepts it for fact - well, anything for fact - when it's just the thing that got popular. Other theories are hardly even given funding anymore.

 

And yeah, I like fighting the mainstream period. For anything, really. Rebel without a cause or something like that. Although I'm more apathetic, at least towards my non-causes.

[Hawks]

I haven't read all of the thread so if my points have been brought up I apologize.

 

Genesis is invalid because there is proof of things existing on Earth that are not mentioned in the Bible (ie dinosaurs).

 

Big Bang is invalid in my view because nothing can't explode.

 

I believe that a 'higher entity' (read: not 'necessarily' the Christian God) had to create the universe, and perhaps set the ball rolling in the creation of intelligent life. I don't completely buy Darwinism, but I don't completely discount it either. What with my very random influences, I know that according to the laws of physics, you can't get a higher life form from a lower one. Everything will eventually degrade into chaos.

[Stragomagus]

I haven't read all of the thread so if my points have been brought up I apologize.

 

Genesis is invalid because there is proof of things existing on Earth that are not mentioned in the Bible (ie dinosaurs).

 

Big Bang is invalid in my view because nothing can't explode.

 

I believe that a 'higher entity' (read: not 'necessarily' the Christian God) had to create the universe, and perhaps set the ball rolling in the creation of intelligent life. I don't completely buy Darwinism, but I don't completely discount it either. What with my very random influences, I know that according to the laws of physics, you can't get a higher life form from a lower one. Everything will eventually degrade into chaos.

 

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about "something" coming out of "nothing". All that the Big Bang states is that there was a singularity where all of the energy, mass, and other things were contained until it destabilized and began to expand.

[Hawks]

Either way I don't buy it. Random thought: even if everything existed in a small space and it expanded then what's not to say that [our known universe] isn't just another singularity which will expand eventually, (weird analogy: Dr. Seuss' Whos in Whoville - tiny civilization, then it expands to create another).

 

I can come up with all sorts of crazy random theories that make sense in some abstract way, but definitely don't make a ton of sense.

[Lenticular_J]

Haha, yeah, like imagining that we're hanging around on electrons that are atoms making up some giant people. I think about stuff like that sometimes, but it's really just flights of fancy. It doesn't really pertain to me whether or not some thumb is hovering above us until it falls, so, oh well.

[Drags8696]

In a nutshell, Genesis is a myth fasioned by very ignorant, superstitious people thousands of years ago. The big bang theory is a logical conclusion drawn from several lines of astronomical evidence. Which is more likely to be true? That should be pretty obvious to the rational observer.

I believe that to some degree you like many other people take the bible word for word. It is a book and while the main points are all the same some things were changed so people could understand it better. You can see this today if you go buy a traditional bible and a more modernized bible or even 2 of the same you will see differences in wording.

 

This brings up the problem of interpretation; what is meant to be literal and what is metaphorical? If theologians can't even seem to agree, then how are people to know what to believe? Countless wars have been fought over differing interpretations, so why, if the Bible was divinely inspired, wouldn't God see this in foresight and have the Bible be a bit more defined? Whatever the case, the Bible, along with all other religious writings for that matter, are hardly accredited source materials (unlike scientific texts), so you can hopefully understand why agnostics/atheists are highly skeptical when the only "evidence" of God existing rests on writings originating a couple thousand years ago.

 

 

Well while the time line of the bible does not go perfectly with the BBT and Evolution, it does a fairly good job of explaining all of the individual stages of each part that those theories propose. Also science that is later proven true is often called absurd before it is proven.

 

You'll have to explain this (underlined), if you will. Also, it would take a rather poor scientist to call any scientific hypothesis "absurd". The scientific method encourages open-mindedness and experimentation, so any true scientist wouldn't draw premature conclusions, anyway.

 

 

The bible is write for normal people to be able to read and understand. So the writer would want to change certain things to allow people to understand what happened more clearly. If you consider that in early civilization a day was over when you had completed a job or task, the rational reasoning for why this word now appears in biblical text makes clear sense.

 

Mhm, I understand. However, I was driving at the point that units of measure are not "relative" as the other poster was suggesting (to give an example, it would be similar to saying that 1,000 years ago, a day would last for 30 hours - that's relative and incorrect (at least for our planet)). You're talking about the measures of time used in the Bible being metaphorical (a work day or the time required to complete a single task), which I made sure to name as an exception. :P

 

1.) Yes i understand the skepticism people have. I need to check this before I proclaim anything but i believe that the bible is actually considered a strong historical reference but discount this until i have found firm evidence, I have seen this view presented with such evidence though I just need to check the validity.

 

2.) On the underlined part i was trying to say that all the phenomenon that would have occurred to produce the world we live in today are seen in the very beginning of Genesis. I must appoligise that while i am trying to find a way to express what my mind is thinking i cant find the right words so i will get back to you on this. All i can offer is that it states that there were animals and plants before man was there which would explain the dinasours. On the premature conclusions i have to call bull on that and it isn't even that hard to show i mean just look at Einstine's life early on he was considered by many of his peers to be delusional with his theories. But now we have proved many of them.

 

3.) Yes i know some parts are metaphorical, but others are written with words to try to translate a meaning that might not truly be expressed with words when the bible was written.

 

The main point I am trying to get at is there is no true means to disprove the existence of a higher power or lack there of.

[Barihawk]

I haven't read all of the thread so if my points have been brought up I apologize.

 

Genesis is invalid because there is proof of things existing on Earth that are not mentioned in the Bible (ie dinosaurs).

 

Big Bang is invalid in my view because nothing can't explode.

 

I believe that a 'higher entity' (read: not 'necessarily' the Christian God) had to create the universe, and perhaps set the ball rolling in the creation of intelligent life. I don't completely buy Darwinism, but I don't completely discount it either. What with my very random influences, I know that according to the laws of physics, you can't get a higher life form from a lower one. Everything will eventually degrade into chaos.

 

Wtf...the Bible doesn't mention anything about what life was created in the beginning, and as such dinosaurs are not ruled out.

 

Seriously, people. READ THE BOOK. Genesis is only about 100 pages long, and the relevant information we are discussing in this thread encompasses about THREE PAGES in Genesis.

 

Step 1: Find a Bible. A house without one is a sad house.

Step 2: Open bible to page one.

Step 3: Read for two minutes, then stop. You have probably passed the expulsion from Eden by this point so there's not much point continuing.

Step 4: Come back to thread.

Step 5: Feel secure arguing in the thread knowing you've done at least the minimum amount of research.

[Jeffwilson99]

Well it depends who you ask as to which is considered more valid.

 

Well one specific point I bring up is the timeline of the Earth existience. According to calculations made from the bible, I think it says that the earth is no more than several thousands of years old.

 

And despite this, we have pretty good evidence to suggest that the earth is in fact billions of years old. However this does not suggest that the Big Bang theory is valid, rather that the explaining in Genesis is invalid.

 

1.) Provide and explain this evidence.

 

 

Well before we go any further, can you try and explain your view point and/or your argument?

 

It could be argued that they are both invalid, therefore one cannot be less or more valid than the other.

 

Personally, I do not believe the bible's account of the earth's creation. This is not because I can conclusively say that what is said in Genesis is false, but because accepting the version of events in Genesis means accepting belief in God. The account in Genesis is so vague, that it is open to interpretation, which means that it can be adapting to fit in with modern scientific theory, as others have pointed out. Although arguments regarding the existience of God is an entirely different argument...

[Barihawk]

I haven't read all of the thread so if my points have been brought up I apologize.

 

Genesis is invalid because there is proof of things existing on Earth that are not mentioned in the Bible (ie dinosaurs).

 

Big Bang is invalid in my view because nothing can't explode.

 

I believe that a 'higher entity' (read: not 'necessarily' the Christian God) had to create the universe, and perhaps set the ball rolling in the creation of intelligent life. I don't completely buy Darwinism, but I don't completely discount it either. What with my very random influences, I know that according to the laws of physics, you can't get a higher life form from a lower one. Everything will eventually degrade into chaos.

 

Wtf...the Bible doesn't mention anything about what life was created in the beginning, and as such dinosaurs are not ruled out.

 

Seriously, people. READ THE BOOK. Genesis is only about 100 pages long, and the relevant information we are discussing in this thread encompasses about THREE PAGES in Genesis.

 

Step 1: Find a Bible. A house without one is a sad house.

Step 2: Open bible to page one.

Step 3: Read for two minutes, then stop. You have probably passed the expulsion from Eden by this point so there's not much point continuing.

Step 4: Come back to thread.

Step 5: Feel secure arguing in the thread knowing you've done at least the minimum amount of research.

We weren't all raised Christian...

 

You obviously weren't trained in basic research and analysis either. And also, you don't have to be Christian to do the above. It takes a few moments and can be done at a library, school, church, hotel room, wherever.

[Distracted]

Alright, I'd like to start off by stating that Genesis was not meant to be a representation of how it really was, but a way to encourage the Jews of the time (who were living under the Babylonians). The priests basically made the story to keep morale high, to promise the promised land. And to show the power of God.

 

Second of all, you'll always hit an end with logical answers: if I ask "How did the universe begin?", you'd answer "The Big Bang". If I asked "How did that begin?", you'd answer "Matter colliding (or whatever lol)". I can keep on asking and you'll eventually hit a question that you just can't answer with logic. Where did the first matter just come from? Was it just there? Was there once nothing?

 

So IMO, Genesis isn't the true story of the creation of the Earth (and IMO creationists are [developmentally delayed]ed), but the Big Bang is still a theory. And also, why can't they both (I mean Christianity here, not Genesis) be right? Why can't the Big Bang be done by the hand of God?

[warri0r45]

What a lot of people who argue that it must be intelligent design because the habitat here suits us perfectly, and the chances of it being how it is, or atleast able to support life as we know it is so slim that they think it must be a creator's work seem to miss is that the environment came first.

We evolved into the environment, it's not like we were always like this. Natural selection causes things to evolve to fit the habitat they live in. It's not like we were just thrown onto the earth and everything just happened to be like it is now.

 

I explained that terribly, but my point is, the chances of us being how we are, are incredibly slim, but if the environment was different, we would either be some other thing, or not be on that planet at all.

 

Good point. I'd like to add the possibility that we're one of many universes, each of which is "assigned" natural laws randomly. The consequence of this is that it's by sheer chance that we're the lucky ones that got the natural laws conducive to life. Any arguemnt of earth being the right distance from the sun, etc, can be countered by a similar argument - given how many planets are out there, it's no surprise that one would happen to be the proper distance from the sun.

 

I like to call it the "lotto principle" - sure, it's damn rare to win, but enough people enter the lottery to make the chance of finding a winner quite reasonable.

[Iamdan]

Why can't the Big Bang be done by the hand of God?

 

It could have, but it is next to impossible because it also could have been caused by the flying spaghetti monster, or one of the other infinite number of deity possibilities.

 

As I've said, the only thing that makes the christian god special is that the Christians killed everyone else.

[Lenticular_J]

I like the multiple universes idea. Or, infinity minus one idea. Not quite infinite, but damn close. Perhaps there is a universe where everyone wears one of those fruit hats. Everything else is the same, except obviously there is no religion or war or technological advancement. Everyone is busy balancing their fruit hats.

 

Plus, when you consider perception - your universe is really created by your brain. You don't hear or see or taste things - your brain decides you do. So, really, the way I see it, if you convinced your brain that gravity doesn't exist, it won't!

 

I read too much Hitchhiker's Guide.

[____]

The Big Bang doesn't explain why there is good and evil in this world

I just want to comment on this... the concept of good/evil is human invention and doesn't exist in the 'wild' of nature, things are just 'how they should be'.

[warri0r45]

Plenty of theories with empirical evidence. And those would be? I wouldn't be so quick to call scientists elitists because they think BBT is better than the others you claim exist.. scientists just favour BBT because it's the most consistent and has the most evidence supporting it. Also, for someone who doesn't care, you seem to be quite interested in challenging the mainstream scientific consensus.

Two I can name off of the top of my head - plasma cosmology and steady-state.

 

The Big Bang theory rests on a few things we can't even prove yet, we know - it's just hypotheses that hold it together. Hypothetical inflation fields and so-called "dark matter", for two.

 

It just bugs me that everyone accepts it for fact - well, anything for fact - when it's just the thing that got popular. Other theories are hardly even given funding anymore.

 

And yeah, I like fighting the mainstream period. For anything, really. Rebel without a cause or something like that. Although I'm more apathetic, at least towards my non-causes.

 

Steady state has basically been disproven, particularly by the discovery of CMBR in 1964 (which actually supported BBT). I'm not sure sure about plasma cosmology, so I'll have to look into it a bit more.

 

While I don't disagree in questioning the consensus position on pretty much anything, I'd urge you not to jump to irrational conclutions that a position must be wrong because it's the consensus (or that there must be some elitism going on). It would make more sense to say that a consensus position is more likely to be true, and in many cases they are, but it's always a healthy thing to satisfy yourself that this is the case.

[michel555555]

Hate the big bang/god debates since there is no way to actually prove either of them and we just keep going around in circles. I'm with nick and the few others who say that both of them are wrong.

 

Seems that the bibal part of the debate is being handled by people more capabal then myself so i'll just foccus on the big bang theory.

 

Someone mentioned on the first page that the scientist who first came up witht he idea of the big bang was a devout christian. What they failed to mention was that he wasn't coming up with the theory because he saw the red shift in light, or whatever it is that is used to justify the big bang these days, but because he was trying to prove that the universe "was" created. This led to what i believe scientists call bias in all of his following experiments. And unfortunatly the rest of the scientific community saw this as an opportunity to prove that the universe was created by natural laws and have since then set out trying to prove that the big bang did happen rather than trying to disprove it.

 

For instance, the number 1 reason that people believe that the big bang happened. The universe is expanding. How do we actually know this? We probably don't even see a googleth?? of the universe and have actually only been monitering that portion for 100 years or so. Because of that we have no idea if we are actually moving away from the center of the univers or if we are just in an orbit similare to that of the planets in our solar system and havn't had the time to actually calculate it let alone see if its changing. And on top of that do we even know where the center of the universe is? Because its a little hard to figure out your moving away from something if you don't actually know where it is.

[billybob323]

before they would be able to disperse to such a degree, the force exerted by the outward expansion of the universe would have become too weak (the kinetic energy driving the expansion would be approaching absolute zero, after all) to continue to overcome the gravitational attractive forces between the bits of matter, and the "clumping effect" would soon begin as a result (causing a Big Crunch in a matter of time).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the entire big crunch theory is based on the notion that gravity is continuously trying to pull the universe back into the point of singularity. This is obviously something that can't be tested, and we obviously can't see it now because the universe is currently expanding and it will likely be (should this theory be true) another billions of years before it begins to contract.

 

I must also say that this is the first time I have ever heard of the big crunch theory, so I am simply not experienced with it enough to debate any further. Even if I could, however, you seem to be very firm in your belief.

 

In my case, I can conceive of nothing greater than the universe itself, since it is quite literally everything.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to agree that because something exists now, there must be something that has always existed. Obviously this something is not man or anything that man can build or any tangible body in the universe, based on the second law of thermodynamics. But I think we agree that there must be something that keeps this all going. Is it not possible, then, that I simply call this something "God" and you call it "Matter X" or whatever? If that's the case, then we are simply arguing semantics. I do challenge you, however, to show me one thing in this universe that is eternal and is not "the universe itself." If, as the law of thermodynamics says, all matter decomposes into something completely useless before the next big crunch, what then does the next big bang have to work with?

 

What is "infinite" and "finite" in reference to the universe, after all? By definition, the universe consists of everything, so there is nothing "more" that can exist outside it (as there is no "outside" to begin with).

Infinite simply means it has no beginning and it has no end. In reference to the universe, you said yourself that this universe had a beginning about 15 billion years ago, so this universe is not infinite. The infinite cycle of universes is another matter though. Also, I never said God exists "outside" the universe. God simply transcends the universe, which means he is on a higher plane of being. That subject, however, is a matter of ontology.

 

One last question: Assuming there is an Architect, why would he/she/it care about Mankind?

Simply because He created us in His image for the sole purpose of loving and glorifying Him. But seeing as you do not believe in God, I can see how you would have trouble understanding this.

[Distracted]

Why can't the Big Bang be done by the hand of God?

 

It could have, but it is next to impossible because it also could have been caused by the flying spaghetti monster, or one of the other infinite number of deity possibilities.

 

As I've said, the only thing that makes the christian god special is that the Christians killed everyone else.

 

Alright, I don't want to turn this in a "Is God real" discussion, but you cannot ignore the amount of miracles that are credited to Christianity. It's not like christians just killed everyone they saw and that's why they rule the world or whatever. So many people who lost cancer or other diseases by the power of prayer alone, there are many examples, even to this day, and all of them are carefully examined by a board of bisshops and doctors. Look, I'm not a devout Christian (hell, I'm close to being no Christian at all), but I do believe in God and this has always been something that made me feel like it confirms my belief.

[warri0r45]

Why can't the Big Bang be done by the hand of God?

 

It could have, but it is next to impossible because it also could have been caused by the flying spaghetti monster, or one of the other infinite number of deity possibilities.

 

As I've said, the only thing that makes the christian god special is that the Christians killed everyone else.

 

Alright, I don't want to turn this in a "Is God real" discussion, but you cannot ignore the amount of miracles that are credited to Christianity. It's not like christians just killed everyone they saw and that's why they rule the world or whatever. So many people who lost cancer or other diseases by the power of prayer alone, there are many examples, even to this day, and all of them are carefully examined by a board of bisshops and doctors. Look, I'm not a devout Christian (hell, I'm close to being no Christian at all), but I do believe in God and this has always been something that made me feel like it confirms my belief.

 

Most so-called miracles can be explained, and for those that have no explanation, it doesn't automatically mean god did it. We don't know how something happens =/= god did it.

 

As for the power of prayer, scientific research has been mixed, and some larger studies have shown no effect. One, in which recovering heart patients were prayed for, showed a negative effect. However, I'd say that's just due to some experimental error (you wouldn't believe that god intentionally hurts people, would you?), just like the studies that have claimed to show a positive effect. If you really want to establish a new idea in science, especially such a controversial one, you need a consistant demonstration of the effect in question, and that's just not happened with studies on prayer.

[billybob323]

Anymore, I don't really believe in anything. Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and every other religious groups are too sure of themselves in my opinion.

Agnostics and skeptics are also too sure of themselves, in my opinion.

 

Oh and to Reb, I think the term you were looking for was false dichotomy, although false dilemma works as well.

In a way, yes, I suppose. There are other options and possibilities. However, what really matters is what we choose to believe before we die. And if proving God becomes successful through arguing for intelligent design, it is usually only a few more steps to convince that God is worthy of our love and praise.

 

so why, if the Bible was divinely inspired, wouldn't God see this in foresight and have the Bible be a bit more defined?

Because God created us to love Him. And you can't truly love something unless you choose to love it. This is why God gave us free will. If the Bible had been written in such a way that no one could ever possibly hope to argue against it, how would that be choosing to love God?

 

Although arguments regarding the existence of God is an entirely different argument...

I disagree. If you look at all possible explanations of the existence of the universe rationally, you will find that because something exists now, there must be at least one thing that has always existed because something can not be created from nothing. What that thing is differs with different theories, but as I said above: if proving God becomes successful through arguing for intelligent design, it is usually only a few more steps to convince that God is worthy of our love and praise.

 

I can keep on asking and you'll eventually hit a question that you just can't answer with logic. Where did the first matter just come from? Was it just there? Was there once nothing?

Again, as I said above: because something exists now, there must be at least one thing that has always existed. It is perfectly rational that something is self-existent, as opposed to something that is self-created which is absurdity. This can be traced all the way back to at least Aristotle and his theory of "the unmoved mover." Also, there could never have once been nothing, something can not be made from nothing: ex nihilo, nihil fit.

 

Plus, when you consider perception - your universe is really created by your brain. You don't hear or see or taste things - your brain decides you do.

I suggest you read up on two things: Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am") and something called "the basic reliability of sense perception." Key word in the second is "basic."

 

I just want to comment on this... the concept of good/evil is human invention and doesn't exist in the 'wild' of nature, things are just 'how they should be'.

I partially disagree. Good and evil does not exist in the "wild of nature" because animals were not given free will and act solely on instinct. I disagree that the concept of good and evil is human invention. As Drags8696 pointed out a while ago, sin existed before the fall of man and most likely even before the creation of man when Satan rebelled against God. If you do not believe in God, however, I can see why you would think evil is a human invention.

 

This led to what i believe scientists call bias in all of his following experiments.

Is it not possible in the sciences that make "theories" and "guesses" about the past based on what we see today that all conclusions are simply a different biased interpretation of the same scientific data? I have long believed that it most certainly is.

[billybob323]

As for the power of prayer, scientific research has been mixed, and some larger studies have shown no effect. One, in which recovering heart patients were prayed for, showed a negative effect. However, I'd say that's just due to some experimental error

Have you never heard that the mere observation of an experiment changes its outcome? Ahh, the quantum theory...

I'm glad you're at least open to the factor of human error.

[Distracted]

Why can't the Big Bang be done by the hand of God?

 

It could have, but it is next to impossible because it also could have been caused by the flying spaghetti monster, or one of the other infinite number of deity possibilities.

 

As I've said, the only thing that makes the christian god special is that the Christians killed everyone else.

 

Alright, I don't want to turn this in a "Is God real" discussion, but you cannot ignore the amount of miracles that are credited to Christianity. It's not like christians just killed everyone they saw and that's why they rule the world or whatever. So many people who lost cancer or other diseases by the power of prayer alone, there are many examples, even to this day, and all of them are carefully examined by a board of bisshops and doctors. Look, I'm not a devout Christian (hell, I'm close to being no Christian at all), but I do believe in God and this has always been something that made me feel like it confirms my belief.

 

Most so-called miracles can be explained, and for those that have no explanation, it doesn't automatically mean god did it. We don't know how something happens =/= god did it.

 

As for the power of prayer, scientific research has been mixed, and some larger studies have shown no effect. One, in which recovering heart patients were prayed for, showed a negative effect. However, I'd say that's just due to some experimental error (you wouldn't believe that god intentionally hurts people, would you?), just like the studies that have claimed to show a positive effect. If you really want to establish a new idea in science, especially such a controversial one, you need a consistant demonstration of the effect in question, and that's just not happened with studies on prayer.

 

You make prayer sounds like it's a steam engine. It's not something you just randomly turn on, it's not like you pray and *floop* everything just happens. Praying is something that shouldn't be done out of the pure believe that you'll get helped, but should be done to hold up a connection with God.

[EdgedThesis]

Anymore, I don't really believe in anything. Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and every other religious groups are too sure of themselves in my opinion.

Agnostics and skeptics are also too sure of themselves, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

Agnostics are too sure of their stance?

Their stance is that they can't know. So they're too sure of not knowing?

 

What the deuce.

[Rien]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the entire big crunch theory is based on the notion that gravity is continuously trying to pull the universe back into the point of singularity. This is obviously something that can't be tested, and we obviously can't see it now because the universe is currently expanding and it will likely be (should this theory be true) another billions of years before it begins to contract.

 

I must also say that this is the first time I have ever heard of the big crunch theory, so I am simply not experienced with it enough to debate any further. Even if I could, however, you seem to be very firm in your belief.

The "Big Crunch" is an integral part of the Big Bang Theory.

 

All matter exhibits some small amount of gravtitational force which attracts other matter (although the force is generally so small that only objects of very large mass can exert enough gravity for us to recognize this (e.g. planets, stars, black holes, etc...)). Now, the reason why the entire universe doesn't collapse in on itself suddenly (due to gravity), is because there are a myriad of other forces currently at work as well (two significant examples being general electron repulsion and the ongoing, outward repulsion caused by the Big Bang). However, as time passes, energy/mass will be progressively broken down (second law of thermodynamics), which will greatly decrease the effects of electrin repulsion (matter in a lower-energy state would not have as many electron shells, hence the shielding would be lessened). Additionally, the force caused by the Big Bang (essentially inertia) would decrease over time as well (since the force of the inertia would continue to lose energy).

 

Now, time would cause for the expansion of the universe to gradually slow, and the forces working against gravitational attraction would one day decrease to the point that they would no longer be able to continue to override the attraction. Once this happens, the process would begin to reverse itself as matter would start attracting other matter - forming "clumps" throughout the universe of increasing large mass which would exert more potent gravity (attracting yet more matter to each clump). In time, these clumps would become so massive that their own forces of gravity would cause them to collapse into themselves and create black holes. In turn, these black holes - scattered across the universe - would begin converging on each other into a singular point consisting of all of the mass and energy in the universe (Big Crunch). Subsequently, a Big Bang would occur, as the effect of having all available energy and mass in the universe compressed into a single point instantaneously would be quite volatile (I'm sure you can imagine).

 

 

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to agree that because something exists now, there must be something that has always existed. Obviously this something is not man or anything that man can build or any tangible body in the universe, based on the second law of thermodynamics. But I think we agree that there must be something that keeps this all going. Is it not possible, then, that I simply call this something "God" and you call it "Matter X" or whatever? If that's the case, then we are simply arguing semantics. I do challenge you, however, to show me one thing in this universe that is eternal and is not "the universe itself." If, as the law of thermodynamics says, all matter decomposes into something completely useless before the next big crunch, what then does the next big bang have to work with?

I do believe, in my own way, that the universe is "God". The only difference (in my thinking) is that the universe is not conscious.

 

As for your challenge, the answer is quite simple: Mass and Energy are eternal, as they can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted/transferred.

 

Concerning the underlined section, mass and energy cannot decompose into something "useless". They can degenerate into lower-energy states, but all that is needed for this to change is to reintroduce the degenerated material with other degenerated material so that they may share/transfer electrons and bond (covalently, ionically, etc...).

 

 

Infinite simply means it has no beginning and it has no end. In reference to the universe, you said yourself that this universe had a beginning about 15 billion years ago, so this universe is not infinite. The infinite cycle of universes is another matter though. Also, I never said God exists "outside" the universe. God simply transcends the universe, which means he is on a higher plane of being. That subject, however, is a matter of ontology.

The universe is eternal; its individual incarnations are not. And yes, the nature of God isn't exactly something that can be debated, but I would think that a supernatural being (by definition) would exist "outside"/be "incompatible" with our natural world. I understand your meaning, though; it was probably just a bad word choice on my part.

 

At any rate, it all seems like supposition to me (there existing an almighty, supernatural being paradoxically part of, and yet transcending, the universe), but that's strictly my opinion. I respect that there are many others who disagree with me.

 

 

...so why, if the Bible was divinely inspired, wouldn't God see this in foresight and have the Bible be a bit more defined?

 

Because God created us to love Him. And you can't truly love something unless you choose to love it. This is why God gave us free will. If the Bible had been written in such a way that no one could ever possibly hope to argue against it, how would that be choosing to love God?

I don't understand your point here. Wars have been fought simply because certain passages in the Bible are vague and the opposing factions interpreted them differently. Would it not have been better if God had written out everything literally or had at least provided defined explanations for the metaphorical passages? People could have still "chosen" whether to believe the Bible or not, and it would have had the added bonus of not instigating bloody conflicts amongst the believers. <--- This was the point I was trying to make in that quote.

 

Also, at the risk of opening another can of worms ( :lol: ), if God is omniscient and is our creator, then how can 'free will' exist?

[Bloodstain]

Why can't the Big Bang be done by the hand of God?

 

It could have, but it is next to impossible because it also could have been caused by the flying spaghetti monster, or one of the other infinite number of deity possibilities.

 

As I've said, the only thing that makes the christian god special is that the Christians killed everyone else.

 

Alright, I don't want to turn this in a "Is God real" discussion, but you cannot ignore the amount of miracles that are credited to Christianity. It's not like christians just killed everyone they saw and that's why they rule the world or whatever. So many people who lost cancer or other diseases by the power of prayer alone, there are many examples, even to this day, and all of them are carefully examined by a board of bisshops and doctors. Look, I'm not a devout Christian (hell, I'm close to being no Christian at all), but I do believe in God and this has always been something that made me feel like it confirms my belief.

 

So basically if I prayed to the flying spaghetti monster and I got cured of my cancer then I can attribute it to the Flying Spaghetti monster then? Flimsy.

It's not something you just randomly turn on, it's not like you pray and *floop* everything just happens.

 

So praying only works some of the time? And those times just so happen to be when they get answered?

 

Convenient.

 

If prayer doesn't work all of the time, if you have cancer, how do you know when it does work and when it is the treatments working?