God

@ C/a/boose,

I'm in your camp. I describe myself as Agnostic. It is definitely possible that deities exist, although the different religions have clearly got wrong information as their stories contradict fact and don't support each other. I would not be surprised if Thor, Jesus, Horus and and Vishnu were all real people at some point in history, possessing knowledge and technology beyond their time period, and that their stories have just been exaggerated since. However, until hard evidence comes in, I make no commitments except to the Heart of the Cards.

@ Heimdall,

Ignore Potus. What you have is good, though I'm surprised you picked Catholicism (let's face it, they're not very popular at the moment).

@ POTUS

Leave them alone. They don't fight Evolution or Gay Rights, so they're cool.

@ Bunny,

Faith is fine if it works, but logic always catches up sooner or later.

calhoun1389 wrote:If we're given the choice to worship him or not, then why should we be punished for all eternity if we chose to not give a crap about the whole thing? The bible is pretty much stating that God is trying to strong arm people into worshiping him by threatening us and killing those who chose a different idol. That doesn't sound like free will to me, instead it sounds like God is just acting like a bratty, spoiled rotten child who abuses his power any time he doesn't get what he wants yet pretends to not care by saying that everyone has the right to chose.

That was basically the short form of my essay that I posted like three times.


The interesting thing about this point, is that it does disprove god, so long as it's the judeo-christian biblical god. Once we know enough about something, there can be paradoxes and disproofs. But to say that its indubitable proof against god would be rash and impudent. *sigh*

Potus-Mat wrote:Anyone else find it odd that an Aesir is Catholic?

Halberdier wrote:

calhoun1389 wrote:If we're given the choice to worship him or not, then why should we be punished for all eternity if we chose to not give a crap about the whole thing? The bible is pretty much stating that God is trying to strong arm people into worshiping him by threatening us and killing those who chose a different idol. That doesn't sound like free will to me, instead it sounds like God is just acting like a bratty, spoiled rotten child who abuses his power any time he doesn't get what he wants yet pretends to not care by saying that everyone has the right to chose.

That was basically the short form of my essay that I posted like three times.


The interesting thing about this point, is that it does disprove god, so long as it's the judeo-christian biblical god. Once we know enough about something, there can be paradoxes and disproofs. But to say that its indubitable proof against god would be rash and impudent. *sigh*

I only read the first like 10 pages, and you and Occult seem to be the only people here not arguing for the sake of arguing because your beliefs are being told wrong by science. Eventually, God will be disproved, and yet religious people will still not accept it, so this whole argument seems to be going nowhere.

I just love pointing out the flaw in the idea that God gave us free will and the choice to believe or not. Its like the Supernatural version of Greek Gods, they didn't create anything, but they gain their power from prayer. Once the prayers stop, they become powerless. So to stop this from happening, they strike fear into the hearts of those who won't pray to them.

You know, if the government tried to control it's people through fear and murder, they would eventually be overthrown. But not God, no, he's perfect so any evil action he does is actually good because we can't understand it. If God were really there and killing for the greater good, the human race would have been wiped out long ago due to our killing of this planet.

Determinism being able to scientifically find a person's future actions through neurological monitoring will kill dualism etc.

I always laugh whenever I see God threads on forums.

Halberdier wrote:Determinism being able to scientifically find a person's future actions through neurological monitoring will kill dualism etc.

Determinism is trumped by the Uncertainty Principle and Incompleteness Theorem. All you need to kill Dualism is an MRI.

Uncertainty is what we perceive with the inability to monitor things at a finite enough level.

The Uncertainty Principle isn't just a flaw in our measurement, it's an innate property of the universe. The classic example is trying to measure the position and velocity of a particle. The more accurately one is known, the wider the range of possible values for the other. As particles do not actually adopt definite properties until they interfere with other particles, this means that it holds all possible values. Even an omniscient being will be limited by the Uncertainty Principle, as the unknown property does not have a definite value for them to observe.

In fact, we can disprove the existence of a literally omniscient being with the Two-Slit Experiment. The experiment involves a particle emitter, a screen, and a piece of cardboard with two slits in it. The particle emitter fires 1 particle at a time. Experimentation has shown that the particle behaves like a particle if observed at any point on its journey, in that it goes through one or other slit and hits the screen the same way a ping-pong ball would. However, if you DON'T observe it, it behaves like a wave, passes through both slits at the same time and creates an interference pattern on the screen.

Any truly omniscient beings must observe this system, causing the experiment to fail.

The dilemma here is that god is supposed to be this perfect character who created the universe. However, if this were true, instead of only existing in subtle signs in nature and themes, he would actually DO something to change the nature of mankind and the actions of people alike. When you explain this to a believer, prove their beliefs wrong in some way, the generic response will be "god works in mysterious ways." These sick manipulative ways contradict his own very description, therefore another strike against this "god."

Regarding stuff like Wave-Particle Duality Theory, aren't waves PROBABILITY waves? i.e. Something that an omniscient being need not use, but instead a concept that may be an approximation used by humans. If there is someone omniscient, they'd have something better than this around (just deal with particles, no need for probability waves). Also, if they needed to observe something, they'd be able to do so without affecting what it is they're observing (simply check their memory for a specific time). I don't see how not observing something would change the outcome. Saying particles don't adopt definite properties may be fine if it it's something humans cannot see, but every property would be definite to someone who is omniscient.

Regarding the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle... It's limitations on what HUMANS can do that causes the uncertainty. An omniscient being would not have such constraints. There's also the fact that there do not seem to be null methods, i.e. observing the system INTERFERES with the system, i.e. it affects what's actually going on. Again, omniscient beings need not do this.

As for God being perfect and the way he behaves, you'd need to read through my previous posts for what I think.

Im Christian as well,therefore,I do believe in God.

calhoun1389 wrote:

Badass_Bunny wrote:Proving that God exists or that God doesn't exist completely contradicts the whole point of a term called "God". Humans were given free will so that they might choose what to believe in, having proof of God Existing/Not Existing completely contradicts the point of "Faith"

If we're given the choice to worship him or not, then why should we be punished for all eternity if we chose to not give a crap about the whole thing? The bible is pretty much stating that God is trying to strong arm people into worshiping him by threatening us and killing those who chose a different idol. That doesn't sound like free will to me, instead it sounds like God is just acting like a bratty, spoiled rotten child who abuses his power any time he doesn't get what he wants yet pretends to not care by saying that everyone has the right to chose.

I do not believe what I just read...

I am not Christian so I don't know what the Bible says exactly, however. Your question is "Why give is free will if we are going to be punished?" Well, take points of Heaven and Hell, they are two realms where people will spend the afterlife. If we were not given Free Will than there would be no need for Heaven and Hell. Also humans are given free will so that they may differ from other Creations of God namely Angels who have no free will. You are trying to understand God's reasoning which is incredibly stupid to even attempt.

I try to stay away from this topic as much as possible because discussing term "God" is practically impossible but sometimes I feel like posting here is necessary.

Asherpotter wrote:I always laugh whenever I see God threads on forums.

why?

But lets face it everybody,how many of us really respects our relegion and follows all the "rules"? How many of us are true believers?

Umm i know, 2 % out of 100.

Badass_Bunny wrote:

calhoun1389 wrote:

Badass_Bunny wrote:Proving that God exists or that God doesn't exist completely contradicts the whole point of a term called "God". Humans were given free will so that they might choose what to believe in, having proof of God Existing/Not Existing completely contradicts the point of "Faith"

If we're given the choice to worship him or not, then why should we be punished for all eternity if we chose to not give a crap about the whole thing? The bible is pretty much stating that God is trying to strong arm people into worshiping him by threatening us and killing those who chose a different idol. That doesn't sound like free will to me, instead it sounds like God is just acting like a bratty, spoiled rotten child who abuses his power any time he doesn't get what he wants yet pretends to not care by saying that everyone has the right to chose.

I do not believe what I just read...

I am not Christian so I don't know what the Bible says exactly, however. Your question is "Why give is free will if we are going to be punished?" Well, take points of Heaven and Hell, they are two realms where people will spend the afterlife. If we were not given Free Will than there would be no need for Heaven and Hell. Also humans are given free will so that they may differ from other Creations of God namely Angels who have no free will. You are trying to understand God's reasoning which is incredibly stupid to even attempt.

I try to stay away from this topic as much as possible because discussing term "God" is practically impossible but sometimes I feel like posting here is necessary.

There is no need to punish people if you could simply prove to them that there is in fact a god. The whole concept condemns those who think for themselves and rewards those who just mindlessly follow orders. If you utilize your "god given" free will, you're doomed unless you use it to just trust the church to be telling the truth.

I personally refuse to worship any deity that sits on their rump all day every day and refuses to help solve basic problems like world hunger.

Badass,

If angels have no free will, how did Satan rebel? Free Will is innate to a sentient being, by virtue of them being able to think. The fact that angels can comprehend human speech and relay ideas contradicts the idea that they don't have free will, unless they do not have minds and are simply God's mouthpieces.

A better question about Free Will is why we have the ability to hurt others with it. Most of us cannot choose to attack our children with chainsaws, because we love them and don't want them hurt, so why did God not extend that to all other humans?

JDC,

Electrons, photons, etc. are both waves and particles. They exhibit properties unique to waves, such as the interference pattern, and also properties unique to particles, such as not creating the interference pattern. In reality, they are both waves and particles, and a complete picture cannot be formed without considering both aspects.

Your Wikipedia link has, at the bottom of the third paragraph, the following text:

"The uncertainty principle states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology."

So, like I said, the uncertainty is a part of what the omniscient being is looking at, and thus they cannot get around it by being omniscient. It would be the equivalent of trying to get both sides of a see-saw on the ground at the same time - the lower one side is, the higher the other, and therefore you will fail. And this is an indestructible see-saw, so you can't just break an end off in order to cheat.

Regarding the statement you quoted, this is what I was talking about earlier. Humans use measurements that actually interfere with the system being observed, and this is the key point to bear in mind. The techniques humans use for observation alters a variable not being measured, in a way humans cannot know. When your measurement attempts actually interfere directly with the system, then of course there is going to be uncertainty. That's what the Uncertainty Principle seems to be about. An omniscient being would not need to use methods that affect things in ways a non-omniscient being cannot measure. They can observe it by simply checking their memory, as it does NOT interfere with the system itself.

I'm not too surprised science has come up in a religious debate, but I didn't expect quantum physics and the like.

I see this thread is like the energizer bunny. So much for you all to debate here. I sentence you all to debating until you can debate no more!!!!!

JDC,

How would the information get into their memory in the first place? They must have observed it at some point. Besides, the particle's velocity (when measuring position) does not hold a definite value, but rather every possible value. Even if they could observe the system without disturbing it, the knowledge they obtain would be of no use to them.

Most religious arguments arise from a lack of scientific knowledge. I'm surprised that nobody else has considered the possibility that the creation of the universe is not an event at the beginning of time, but rather an ongoing process. That, at least, would conform with our current theories of how time becomes meaningless at the Big Bang, thus ruling out the possibility of earlier events.

Occultdude17 wrote:JDC,

How would the information get into their memory in the first place? They must have observed it at some point. Besides, the particle's velocity (when measuring position) does not hold a definite value, but rather every possible value. Even if they could observe the system without disturbing it, the knowledge they obtain would be of no use to them.

Most religious arguments arise from a lack of scientific knowledge. I'm surprised that nobody else has considered the possibility that the creation of the universe is not an event at the beginning of time, but rather an ongoing process. That, at least, would conform with our current theories of how time becomes meaningless at the Big Bang, thus ruling out the possibility of earlier events.

I assume you have already looked into why the Bible is scientifically accurate from other peoples understanding and research of it.

DarkRiku wrote:I assume you have already looked into why the Bible is scientifically accurate from other peoples understanding and research of it.

The Bible, quite by sheer chance, makes one or two statements that sound correct when taken out of context. However, it also states that rabbits chew cud, bats are birds and the world was made in 7 days. It is not a science textbook.

Occultdude17 wrote:

DarkRiku wrote:I assume you have already looked into why the Bible is scientifically accurate from other peoples understanding and research of it.

The Bible, quite by sheer chance, makes one or two statements that sound correct when taken out of context. However, it also states that rabbits chew cud, bats are birds and the world was made in 7 days. It is not a science textbook.

You are not a scientist.

CheyMcFly wrote:You are not a scientist.

1) Oh am I not? This is the internet, for all you know I could be your neighbour.

2) Your comment is irrelevant, as it's an argument from authority.

Occultdude17 wrote:

CheyMcFly wrote:You are not a scientist.

1) Oh am I not? This is the internet, for all you know I could be your neighbour.

2) Your comment is irrelevant, as it's an argument from authority.

Not arguing, just saiyan.

Occultdude17 wrote:

DarkRiku wrote:I assume you have already looked into why the Bible is scientifically accurate from other peoples understanding and research of it.

The Bible, quite by sheer chance, makes one or two statements that sound correct when taken out of context. However, it also states that rabbits chew cud, bats are birds and the world was made in 7 days. It is not a science textbook.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

I guess all this is wrong then or taken out of context.

I do agree that the Bible is not a Science Book.

Finding coincidences that list where the bible is scientifically true become far outweighed for when its scientifically false.

So thanks for the point there ;o

I'd add my two cents to some of the things said here if it were my purpose to convince anyone of one thing or the other. However, to answer the question: yes. I am Christian, and proud of it. I do not, however, have any intellectual respect for what I have come to call "Churchianity".

Chiaki,

Good for you.

Chey,

What on Earth makes you think I'm not a scientist?

Riku,

1) The Bible does not refer to "dinosaurs", the comparison is not made until modern day. We could just as easily claim that Elasmosaurus is the serpent Jormungandr from Norse mythology. Also, note that the behemoth is stated to eat grass like an ox, while dinosaurs never ate grass because it hadn't evolved yet.

Also, are you seriously saying that you believe in dragons?

2) Stars are not THAT different from each other. Also, the Moon does not emit light. Job 28:25 says NOTHING about fluid dynamics, unless the passage provided is woefully incomplete.

I'm kind of bored from reading all that, so I'll let somebody else finish debunking this rubbish.

I'd offer insight onto the Hebrew word used in the book of Job for "behemoth" if I had my Strong's Concordance... it's all the way over on the shelf and I am too comfortable. I've seen it rendered "leviathan" so I would presume it refers to an uncommonly massive beast.

Occultdude17 wrote:I'm surprised that nobody else has considered the possibility that the creation of the universe is not an event at the beginning of time, but rather an ongoing process. That, at least, would conform with our current theories of how time becomes meaningless at the Big Bang, thus ruling out the possibility of earlier events.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there has to be a universe for there to be time because time is relative to space. So even if their is something before the big bang. The big bang would still occur at the beginning of time.

How would the information get into someone's head? Actually, let's take this further, how would stuff exist at the beginning of time, including the possibilty of an omnipotent being that is also omniscient? That, I don't think anyone can answer, except someone who is omniscient. As far as being omnipotent is concerned, that can be used as a tool to get information into someone's head, even if they were not omniscience. Part of being omnipotent would be superpowers, magic etc. So, even without omniscience, a method that does not involve interfering with a system could be used to measure something, e.g. some magic divination spell. Bear in mind that this is something unavailable to humans. How such things work would be unknown, but if there is an omnipotent being out there, then as that person could do anything, magic would be very much real; but with so little of it observed, it is hard to approach scientifically. The 1st verse of the entire bible contains the most use of magic that I have ever seen in a book. There is also the problem of a lack of a clear definition of the word 'magic'. Superpowers that many superheroes in comics use could be classified as this, for example.

Speaking of the first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1, there have been many interpretations of the bible, some allowing for a much longer time period for the Earth to have existed. One possibility is Genesis 1:1 involves God using the Big Bang at the beginning of time by creating this ultra-dense particle in space using magic, which is probably actually the best term I can come up with. I will admit, however, that if you read Genesis 1, it won't seem like that to most people, and the Earth will turn out to be several millenia old at most according to the interpretation of many people.

Ultimate Lol,

Time would not exist beyond the Big Bang singularity, so the concept of something existing "before" is as ridiculous as asking, "What's north of the north pole?"

JDC,

Genesis 1 involves the Earth and plants existing before the Sun. This is inconsistent with the evidence, and thus nothing in that chapter can be considered legit.

You cannot transfer information without energy, and removing energy from the system would disturb it. Even with magic powers, you are interfering with physical matter that obeys strict rules. And if you break those rules, logic falls apart. Without logic, nothing holds, including the existence of omnipotent beings.

Occultdude17 wrote:Ultimate Lol,

Time would not exist beyond the Big Bang singularity, so the concept of something existing "before" is as ridiculous as asking, "What's north of the north pole?"

JDC,

Genesis 1 involves the Earth and plants existing before the Sun. This is inconsistent with the evidence, and thus nothing in that chapter can be considered legit.

You cannot transfer information without energy, and removing energy from the system would disturb it. Even with magic powers, you are interfering with physical matter that obeys strict rules. And if you break those rules, logic falls apart. Without logic, nothing holds, including the existence of omnipotent beings.

So are you able to explain to me how time and existence just happen when their is nothing to cause it?

What bugs me the most is people talk about the Big Bang started it all but it had to have had something to cause it.

DarkRiku wrote:So are you able to explain to me how time and existence just happen when their is nothing to cause it?

What bugs me the most is people talk about the Big Bang started it all but it had to have had something to cause it.

If you can believe that God's existence can come about without anything to cause it you can believe in the possibility of something of lesser matter like the Universe to exist.

nsanejokr wrote:

DarkRiku wrote:So are you able to explain to me how time and existence just happen when their is nothing to cause it?

What bugs me the most is people talk about the Big Bang started it all but it had to have had something to cause it.

If you can believe that God's existence can come about without anything to cause it you can believe in the possibility of something of lesser matter like the Universe to exist.

I can agree with that.

I cannot cite any particular verse from memory (meaning with the verse number included) but there are a handful of Scriptures that plainly say that God had no beginning. While our human minds cannot comprehend how that is possible, there is only one possible answer to the question: God has always existed.

Using a basic truth: cause and effect, we've traced the cosmos to a single spectacular event: the "Big Bang". Shall we assume that the effects of the event: the universe - came to be without cause? We have seen mention that it is reasonable that Time did not exist until the start of the universe, either. Time is simply space betwixt two events that would otherwise have to occur simultaneously - because there is nothing to differentiate the happening of the two events.

Therefore, we can reason that God is separate from time - eternal (the word rendered LORD in the Old Testament is easily rendered "The Eternal" from the original Hebrew). If we return to the cyclic chain of cause and effect, we should arrive at First Cause. I wonder, dear friends, what might be First Cause?

Our human reasoning on the subject will not change whether God exists or not; to stop the journey of discovery for truth at the question of how a being can have no beginning doesn't seem fair to the person themselves...

Incosistent with what evidence exactly? God may have done things differently for Earth and this solar system, even if he did go for the Big Bang (the way Genesis 1 is written makes it seem more like he just placed stuff in a way that makes it look like there was a Big Bang). As far as energy is concerned, God would have an infinite supply of it. Removing energy from God would still leave God with an infinite amount to work with. Basically, subtracting a real number from infinity will still leave you with infinity. I don't see how conservation of energy/mass is being messed with here. One more thing that's more food for thought, the laws that apply to this Universe may well have been set up by God, and they may not apply to him.

There is evidence to suggest that the Big Bang Theory is true, but that does not make it true. Saying that Genesis 1 contradicts this does not render Genesis 1 invalid. If Genesis 1 was to conclusively contradict a TheorEM, then there would be an issue.

It seems to be a common idea that Genesis is the start of all the universe. I direct the readers to John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Reading onward through that book reveals more about this verse, if one is... willing to read and meditate on it.

1) Time and the Universe were not "caused" per se. Singularities are points of infinite density, and thus they warp space/time infinitely. At a singularity, space and time would be indistinguishable, destroying cause and effect. Instead of objects moving in 3D space over time, you have paths through 4D space with the object occupying every point along it. These paths would end at the singularity.

That is how it works inside a black hole. The Big Bang is basically a reversal, with everything in the universe emerging from the singularity instead of being pulled into it. As such, cause and effect would not be defined until a certain distance from/after the Big Bang singularity. Technically the only reason we even observe cause and effect is because our brains evolved to process and store information as time passes. If the accumulation of thought and memory was random, then we would observe time very differently.

2) The Doppler effect means that light from objects moving away from us is stretched, while light from objects coming towards us is squashed. This creates Red-Shifts and Blue-Shifts respectively, as the wavelength of the light is altered. Distant galaxies are red-shifted in all directions, which means they are moving away from us in all directions. This suggests that the universe is expanding, and must therefore have been together at some point in the past.

The Big Bang Theory explains this phenomenon. Genesis 1 does not. At any rate, I was referring to the formation of the Solar System, not the Big Bang. The Sun formed, then the Earth, then land-dwelling plants evolved about 4 billion years later. There is a mountain of evidence supporting this, which I advise you to go research yourself.

3) Doesn't matter how much energy God has. It's the observed system we're talking about. In order to obtain information about something, you must remove energy from the system, which disturbs it. Doesn't matter if God is outside the Laws of Physics, because the universe isn't.

1) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself; answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-5)

Which do you think I chose?

Chiaki wrote:1) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself; answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Proverbs 26:4-5)

Which do you think I chose?

The one that isn't loaded, obviously.

I believe everything always has been and always shall be, forever shifting, forever changing.

Beginnings and Ends are so limited.

To be clear I never denied the Big Bang Theory. In fact I think that might have been the method God picked to create a beginning. I don't remember the Bible telling the method he used.

Imadjinn wrote:I believe everything always has been and always shall be, forever shifting, forever changing.

Beginnings and Ends are so limited.

If the universe has been around an infinite amount of time, it must also be infinite in size because time and space are the same thing viewed differently. If it's infinite in size, every line of sight must eventually end on either a star or a piece of matter that has absorbed enough radiation over its infinite lifetime to glow like a star. The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the sun proves that the universe is not infinite in either space or time, and thus you are wrong.

Occultdude17 wrote:

Imadjinn wrote:I believe everything always has been and always shall be, forever shifting, forever changing.

Beginnings and Ends are so limited.

If the universe has been around an infinite amount of time, it must also be infinite in size because time and space are the same thing viewed differently. If it's infinite in size, every line of sight must eventually end on either a star or a piece of matter that has absorbed enough radiation over its infinite lifetime to glow like a star. The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the sun proves that the universe is not infinite in either space or time, and thus you are wrong.

If the universe is indeed expending. Than every line of sigh could end up on a particle without the universe being finite. As if particles accelerate/expand fast enough it could go fast enough for its light to never reach us in human lifetime.

Ultimate lol wrote:

Occultdude17 wrote:

Imadjinn wrote:I believe everything always has been and always shall be, forever shifting, forever changing.

Beginnings and Ends are so limited.

If the universe has been around an infinite amount of time, it must also be infinite in size because time and space are the same thing viewed differently. If it's infinite in size, every line of sight must eventually end on either a star or a piece of matter that has absorbed enough radiation over its infinite lifetime to glow like a star. The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the sun proves that the universe is not infinite in either space or time, and thus you are wrong.

If the universe is indeed expending. Than every line of sigh could end up on a particle without the universe being finite. As if particles accelerate/expand fast enough it could go fast enough for its light to never reach us in human lifetime.

If the light hasn't reached us, then for all intents and purposes it is not in our line of sight.

Occultdude17 wrote:

Ultimate lol wrote:

Occultdude17 wrote:

Imadjinn wrote:I believe everything always has been and always shall be, forever shifting, forever changing.

Beginnings and Ends are so limited.

If the universe has been around an infinite amount of time, it must also be infinite in size because time and space are the same thing viewed differently. If it's infinite in size, every line of sight must eventually end on either a star or a piece of matter that has absorbed enough radiation over its infinite lifetime to glow like a star. The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the sun proves that the universe is not infinite in either space or time, and thus you are wrong.

If the universe is indeed expending. Than every line of sigh could end up on a particle without the universe being finite. As if particles accelerate/expand fast enough it could go fast enough for its light to never reach us in human lifetime.

If the light hasn't reached us, then for all intents and purposes it is not in our line of sight.

Then how would this proof the Universe is finite?

Ultimate lol wrote:

Occultdude17 wrote:

Ultimate lol wrote:

Occultdude17 wrote:

Imadjinn wrote:I believe everything always has been and always shall be, forever shifting, forever changing.

Beginnings and Ends are so limited.

If the universe has been around an infinite amount of time, it must also be infinite in size because time and space are the same thing viewed differently. If it's infinite in size, every line of sight must eventually end on either a star or a piece of matter that has absorbed enough radiation over its infinite lifetime to glow like a star. The fact that the night sky is not as bright as the sun proves that the universe is not infinite in either space or time, and thus you are wrong.

If the universe is indeed expending. Than every line of sigh could end up on a particle without the universe being finite. As if particles accelerate/expand fast enough it could go fast enough for its light to never reach us in human lifetime.

If the light hasn't reached us, then for all intents and purposes it is not in our line of sight.

Then how would this proof the Universe is finite?

Fact A: The universe is expanding.

Conclusion A: At some point in the past, all the matter in the universe was together.

Supposition B: The universe is infinite in size.

Conclusion B: Given Conclusion A and Supposition B, the universe's beginning must have been an infinite amount of time ago.

Conclusion C: Given an infinite amount of time, all the light in the infinite universe would have reached us by now.

Conclusion D: Due to Conclusion C and the fact that every line of sight in an infinite universe ends on a star, the night sky would glow like the Sun.

Fact E: The night sky does not glow like the Sun.

Conclusion E: Supposition B is incorrect.

DarkRiku wrote:To be clear I never denied the Big Bang Theory. In fact I think that might have been the method God picked to create a beginning. I don't remember the Bible telling the method he used.

He apparently divided the sky and the water from a singular pre-existing body of "chaos," and then worked from there.

Halberdier wrote:

DarkRiku wrote:To be clear I never denied the Big Bang Theory. In fact I think that might have been the method God picked to create a beginning. I don't remember the Bible telling the method he used.

He apparently divided the sky and the water from a singular pre-existing body of "chaos," and then worked from there.

No, he divided the water above from the water below and used the sky to separate them.