Customer Discussions > Religion forum

No One has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before The Big Bang? How did the Big Bang Come From Nothing and From Nowhere to "Create" This Universe? What happened Before Space and Time and Matter?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 6:18:55 PM PST
Ariex says:
Ben West says: "God's supreme intelligence is PROOF of His existence."

Ariex: Thanks for that, Ben. I needed a good laugh.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 7:31:57 PM PST
Ben West says:
Ben West says:

[Each of these ages is some 4.5 Billion years in length.]

Jeff:>>OK so based on that how old is the universe ?

Dear Jeff, Our Universe is some 3.7 Billion years old. 3 x 4.5 = 13.5 Billion years.

Jeff:>>Because I heard our universe is 30 billion years old. That's more than twice as old as our scientists today think.
That's a big discrepancy.

Not at all since our Universe was made the THIRD Day. Genesis 2:4 It was the SAME Day the Earth of Adam was made. Genesis 1:9-10

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 7:38:15 PM PST
Irish Lace says:
"I probably won't be responding to anymore of your posts...."

I'll try to soldier on.

"... unless you start saying things that are actually thoughtful, which is something that I have never seen you do, before. "

Kenyon's definition of "things that are actually thoughtful" appears to be "anything that agrees with me."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 7:43:19 PM PST
Ben West says:
Ariex says:
Ben West says: "God's supreme intelligence is PROOF of His existence."

Ariex: Thanks for that, Ben. I needed a good laugh.

Dear Ariex, Good. I love to see people laugh.

Notice that Genesis 1:28-31 is Prophecy since there has NEVER been a time in history when mankind had total dominion over EVERY living creature, including Sharks, Polar Bears, Viruses, etc. Also there has never been a time in history that EVERY creature was a vegetarian as Gen 1:30 shows.

This prophecy is fulfilled when the LORD returns to this Planet at the end of time. Isaiah 11:7

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 8:02:24 PM PST
I made the mistake of peeking at this post. I see that it is simply more of your usual observations about my character, instead something relevant to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 7:00:13 AM PST
God has never been in any equation used in physical theories. Science does not include or consider God or any other supernatural cause/basis/explanation/agent.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 8:39:30 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 8:50:07 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 15, 2013 8:50:29 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 8:50:07 AM PST
goblue says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 11:35:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 15, 2013 11:36:04 AM PST
Ataraxia says:
"You need to recognize your biases, Ataraxia. You ponder the possibility of multiple universes, and say smug things about G-d not existing. I ponder multiple universes, and see marvel at how much more of a rockstar He is, than even I had appreciated. "

I never say smug things about anything. I can just say things with lesser or greater degrees of certainty. But it could all be wrong. We could all wake up tomorrow and realize that everything we know as reality has been streaming into our brains from some alien science experiment. Who knows? The best we can do is only say what we think we are justified in saying, and what that justiification is.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 12:14:07 PM PST
Kenyon is very big on how everyone else ought to comport themselves, and very short on substance--unless you count cryptic evasions as somehow substantive. He also fails quite remarkably to take his own advice.

When it becomes clear that a person is unwilling to subscribe to his own recommendations, I suggest we value his advice just as much as he does... by ignoring it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 12:52:14 PM PST
"I never say smug things about anything."

Uh, yeah, ok, sure. I'll just smile politely, and back away slowly.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 1:10:30 PM PST
In fact, the only times when he *isn't* cryptic are when he is being insulting.

But at least he types complete sentences, with (mostly) correct punctuation. Thank heavens for small favors, I suppose...

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 3:40:28 PM PST
A. Caplan says:
Kenyon says: So petty, and so confrontational about it. My, my, how mature.
>He stated a fact. How is that petty and confrontational? Science does not study G-d; it neither confirms nor denies His existence. Religion addresses issues about G-d and science studies his universe. There is no conflict between belief in G-d and science. Some religious scholars and scientists insist that studying science is important in comprehending G-d.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 5:23:42 PM PST
What are you blathering about, Caplan? Are you joining the broadbrush gang, and pretending that I am a naughty science bashing religious nut?

Look just a few posts up. You'll see Ataraxia quoting a part of one of my earlier posts, in which I talk about how much science makes me appreciate what a rockstar G-d really is.

Does that sound like I believe that their is a conflict between a belief in G-d, and a belief in science?

Have you been reading my posts? I constantly say that scientific discovery is not a threat to my religious beliefs. I talk frequently about how much I appreciate what scientists have been able to teach me about His creation.

Take the time to see what I'm actually saying, Caplan.

Posted on Jan 15, 2013 5:26:07 PM PST
Spin says:
Sceince is limited to "Plank time". Science cannot explain anything further than the point of origin of the laws it adheres to...

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 5:31:53 PM PST
No, we don't really know for sure what the limits are, to what can be known.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 5:36:25 PM PST
Spin says:
Kenyon: We can know that our current explanations, be they religious or scientific, are inadequate..

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 7:46:40 PM PST
You weren't talking about 'current explanations'. You told us what you think the limits are, to what can be known.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 8:55:21 PM PST
Irish Lace says:
"Only if you assume a priori that God does not exist - which would be intellectaully lazy and projection. "

Um... goblue, why would anyone assume a priori that God DOES exist? Or, conversely, why would someone NOT assume a priori that God does not exist since there is no evidence that God exists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2013 8:58:55 PM PST
Irish, you do realize who you are talking to, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2013 6:41:36 AM PST
I was simply stating a fact. If you disagree, please provide a counterexample. It would only take one to disprove my statements.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2013 7:09:26 AM PST
An example of what? Examples of you guys attempting to place one more domino in front of the chain of causality, and pretending that this nullifies questions about the origin of causality? Because if that what you want, an example has already been provided, and met by your mindless denial.

I'm not one of those who simply says 'G-d did it'. I am one of those who believes in G-d, but would like to know all that can be known about how His creation works. Being uninquisitive, and simply saying 'G-d did it' is intellectually lazy. But simply inserting another domino at the head of the chain of causality, and trying to claim that this prove that G-d isn't necessary, is also intellectually lazy.

And the most intellectually lazy of the all, is the lazy vastard who insists on painting with the broadbrush, insisting that all religious people are intellectually lazy people who aren't inquisitive about the workings of His creation, and simply say that 'G-d did it'. That is true of very few religious people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2013 7:14:52 AM PST
Re : "G-d did it."

I so much support what you say, Kenyon.

It is all too easy to sneer "Simpleton!" at a Christian whereas the joke is on the atheist for being so simple-minded as to think this in the first place. (I typed this very quickly, showing I was worked up, K.)

Best wishes, Javana

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2013 8:39:09 AM PST
Joe W says:
" inserting another domino at the head of the chain of causality"

What does that even mean? You keep saying it like it represents something real.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  121
Total posts:  3730
Initial post:  Jan 9, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 12, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions