Look, I don't know how to explain it any better. God is not constrained by the physical laws of the universe. Causality does not apply to God. God does not exist in "time" as we measure it. He has always existed, and always will. He is omniscient, "above science".
Why is it so hard for you to accept that evolution is fact?
Sort:
May 14, 2024
0
#123
huh.
why am i changing my opinions suddenly
like
without a creator(or pure chance) then the big bang couldn't have existed
which means that the plausibility of this all fits
idk
i hope many religions can be true at once
like
it's a real possibility
i'm not saying that this is new
it's been thought of many times before
May 14, 2024
0
#124
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
evolution is part of the process of life, not life itself.
if that's the case then evolution is fact.
May 14, 2024
0
#126
200 How can anything be “above science”? Science is simply knowledge, logic, theories to explain the world around us based on given information. For something to exist it has to have evidence, but by saying god is “above science” you are basically saying there is no reason to think he exists.
RevenantTheCleansed wrote:
You aren’t in the Official OTF club.
Optimissed wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
The scientific hurdles that must be crossed for a naturalistic universe to exist take far more faith to believe than that there is an omnipotent being who created it.
Great point. However, it's a statement about the human condition and not about the real process, whatever that was, which caused the universe. If it means that it's easier to believe in a divine creation than in the scientific complications that would be necessary, that isn't in itself a statement concerning what it was that caused the universe.
It's only a statement about how many or some humans prefer to think.
Yeah good point, I do realize that but the reason I said that was because evolutionists are always attacking creationists for their "faith" in the place of "science"
Brain wrote:
200 How can anything be “above science”? Science is simply knowledge, logic, theories to explain the world around us based on given information. For something to exist it has to have evidence, but by saying god is “above science” you are basically saying there is no reason to think he exists.
Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand? Science points to a creator, but God can act above the laws of science.
Optimissed wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
According to Einstein's math, the Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. Yet we see almost no antimatter.
Einstein didn't originate the Big Bang theory, which is a creationist alternative for miraculous creation. The Big Bang is obviously a miracle. A ne-off, childish explanation for the universe. The credulous believe that the expansion of the universe proves the Bong Bang but it tends to disprove it, since the existing acceleration of expansion tends to disprove it, since the Bing Bang can't account for it. There's so much that's wrong with the Bang Bang that many physicists now discount it. My son has a PhD in quantum physics and he disbelieves in the BB, last time I checked with him. Some laypeople, like Elroch (a statistician) tend to argue very strongly for a theory that's on its way out.
It will only take slightly stronger telescopes than we have at the moment for parts of the universe to be discovered that are further away than the distance light could have travelled from there (at the speed of light through a vacuum) in the time that is assigned to the age of the universe as Predicted by the Big Bang Theory. That means it will probably be discredited in 20 years.
In my opinion, of course. I'm not a physicist but I've always been interested in it and cosmology and such.
I realize this too, but in the scenario of a Big Bang using Einstein's equations, equal amounts of antimatter and matter would be created. I agree, the Big Bang likely won't be around soon, but it will probably be replaced by something even more ridiculous.
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
According to Einstein's math, the Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. Yet we see almost no antimatter.
Cosmologists believe that 99% of the energy produced by the big bang was annihilated in matter/antimatter collisions. All the matter that remains in the universe now is the result of a tiny imbalance in the ratio between matter and antimatter that happened while the universe cooled slightly unevenly.
TomPEsquire wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
According to Einstein's math, the Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. Yet we see almost no antimatter.
Cosmologists believe that 99% of the energy produced by the big bang was annihilated in matter/antimatter collisions. All the matter that remains in the universe now is the result of a tiny imbalance in the ratio between matter and antimatter that happened while the universe cooled slightly unevenly.
I suppose that's plausible, but they are simply speculating to make the theory work. There is no evidence for such an event other than that a Big Bang universe needs it to exist.
Yeah
Some cosmologists, yes.
Optimissed wrote:
TomPEsquire wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
According to Einstein's math, the Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. Yet we see almost no antimatter.
Cosmologists believe that 99% of the energy produced by the big bang was annihilated in matter/antimatter collisions. All the matter that remains in the universe now is the result of a tiny imbalance in the ratio between matter and antimatter that happened while the universe cooled slightly unevenly.
That tends towards being another argument against the Big Bang, as a matter of fact. If they needed to postulate the annihilation of 99% of what was produced in the origin of the universe, according to a dodgy theory for which there is no evidence, in order to "balance the books", that points to the dodgy theory being wrong.
Occam's razor
Optimissed wrote:
TomPEsquire wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
According to Einstein's math, the Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. Yet we see almost no antimatter.
Cosmologists believe that 99% of the energy produced by the big bang was annihilated in matter/antimatter collisions. All the matter that remains in the universe now is the result of a tiny imbalance in the ratio between matter and antimatter that happened while the universe cooled slightly unevenly.
That tends towards being another argument against the Big Bang, as a matter of fact. If they needed to postulate the annihilation of 99% of what was produced in the origin of the universe, according to a dodgy theory for which there is no evidence, in order to "balance the books", that points to the dodgy theory being wrong.
If they were making it up, they would have done a better job. Therefore, it must be true. (Literally an argument to defend the New Testament, btw.)
Could you lend some academic support to your claim that many cosmologists no longer accept the big bang theory?
TomPEsquire wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TomPEsquire wrote:
BewareOfFallingCoconuts wrote:
According to Einstein's math, the Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe. Yet we see almost no antimatter.
Cosmologists believe that 99% of the energy produced by the big bang was annihilated in matter/antimatter collisions. All the matter that remains in the universe now is the result of a tiny imbalance in the ratio between matter and antimatter that happened while the universe cooled slightly unevenly.
That tends towards being another argument against the Big Bang, as a matter of fact. If they needed to postulate the annihilation of 99% of what was produced in the origin of the universe, according to a dodgy theory for which there is no evidence, in order to "balance the books", that points to the dodgy theory being wrong.
If they were making it up, they would have done a better job. Therefore, it must be true. (Literally an argument to defend the New Testament, btw.)
This is a complete misunderstanding of the argument. I have heard people argue for the credibility of the NT based on that, if it were faked, the people writing it would have played it safer. For example, the first people to see Jesus after his Resurrection were women. Women were not recognized as reliable witnesses in Jewish custom. So, if they had faked the story, the first people to see Jesus almost certainly would have been men.
HOW WOULD an eye have evolvoed so perfectly? give me proof. and who created the matter in the big bang then? If there is no creator, life would not be here. It takes for faith to be an atheist.
In that case, then God would have to have a creator.
Who was it?
This argument comes from a misunderstanding of Biblical theology. God does not need a creator; God has always existed. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-powerful, infinite, and he exists outside of our laws of causality.
And the same with the Big Bang.
We can't see clearly what was there before it happened.
Neither can you see how God was created.
The Big Bang, for us atheists and non-religious people, is the God of our world. It is the creation of everything, the only reason why we exist.
In my POV, that "God" still exists.
It exists in the form of the entire Universe.
If this is truly what you believe then you have made evolution a religion, you do believe in a "god" of sorts, and calling yourself non-religious isn't even true. If you are willing to accept the Big Bang despite the scientific impossibilities, you must have more faith than a Christian.
God not being "created" is also a scientific impossibility.