How do you see God and how strong is your faith?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

E=MC^2

Einstein had it as a dimension long before string theory
And string theory is a little...meh

chaoscougar1

In other words, you're suggesting the Big Bang may have been some kind of nuclear explosion that converted mass into energy?

And fine, I'll re-word that part to: "Also, according to the general theory of relativity, time itself is just a dimension. We know our observable universe is bound by time, but there isn't any reason to believe that whatever may exist beyond the observable universe is also bound by time."

If you are going by the theory of relativity now
That means time and space are one and the same
So how could anything exist outside the universe without time or space?

According to the Big Bang theory, at the beginning of the universe there was only energy. If the Big Bang was indeed some kind of nuclear explosion, then that would imply it converted mass into energy.

According to string theory, there are higher dimensions beyond the four dimensions of time-space.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

But religious people hold the belief that something came from nothing in that God existed before everything so where did God come from? To say that he was just always there means that you can't disagree with the idea that the things that caused the big bang weren't also always there or possibly came from a prior universe.

wis3boi

I believe what most religious people believe is that God is eternal, not that God came from nothing. One cannot make the same argument about the universe, however, since we know that it did indeed have a beginning, so it therefore must have come from something. 

and your god came from nothing....and make the universe from...*gasp* nothing.  There goes that useless argument

Useless straw man. Like I already said, "what most religious people believe is that God is eternal, not that God came from nothing."

So nothing substantial or remotely objective. And things that have been repeatedly refuted for centuries.foxhound_fox

And those refutations have been repeatedly refuted, and those refutations have in turn been refuted, and then those refutations refuted, and so on and so forth. There is "nothing substantial or remotely objective" about your comment.

Lol, strawman. Richard Dawkins is a scientist who agrees with the current majority that the big bang is the beginning point of the universe and it is not known what caused it (but it wasn't nothing, and it also wasn't a "God" entity). There are some scientists who believe that nothing became something (vacuum fluctuations in quantum physics) but their case isn't as strong yet.foxhound_fox

There is no straw man here. Dawkins has himself shown support for the idea that something came from nothing, in his conversations with Lawrence Krauss (arguably the leading proponent of that view) and on talk shows like this.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] So eternal burning is justice? I'm not trying to defend what people like him did. They deserve punishment, but hell is way too extreme.

Even in the bible it says that death is the debt that all men pay and that when they do so their slate is wiped clean. I'd say death is good enough. ShadowsDemon

I don't see how death is justice if that's something all of us will eventually face...

Besides, what about mass-murderers who get away without facing any punishment in their lifetime, like Genghis Khan, Josef Stalin, George Bush, etc.? 

I think it's only fair that mass-murderers at least get to feel the same pain that they inflicted upon their victims.

There is "nothing substantial or remotely objective" about your comment.

Jag85

Except that the big bang theory has observable evidence to support it, that would be classified under objective.  The same can't be said for anything you're proposing. 

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

There is "nothing substantial or remotely objective" about your comment.

HoolaHoopMan

Except that the big bang theory has observable evidence to support it, that would be classified under objective.  The same can't be said for anything you're proposing. 

Except the Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything you were even saying... Once again, there is "nothing substantial or remotely objective" about your comment.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

There is "nothing substantial or remotely objective" about your comment.

Jag85

Except that the big bang theory has observable evidence to support it, that would be classified under objective.  The same can't be said for anything you're proposing. 

Except the Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything you were even saying... Once again, there is "nothing substantial or remotely objective" about your comment.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Except that the big bang theory has observable evidence to support it, that would be classified under objective.  The same can't be said for anything you're proposing. 

HoolaHoopMan

Except the Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything you were even saying... Once again, there is "nothing substantial or remotely objective" about your comment.

And those refutations have been repeatedly refuted, and those refutations have in turn been refuted, and then those refutations refuted, and so on and so forth. There is "nothing substantial or remotely objective" about your comment.

Jag85

Dawkins has himself shown support for the idea that something came from nothing, in his conversations with Lawrence Krauss (arguably the leading proponent of that view) and on talk shows like this.

Jag85

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="caseypayne69"]I see God as a force we as humans can't even be near of. I believe Jesus was God in the flesh and he left with humanity the Holy Spirit. It's based on faith. I pray but I'm the worst of sinners too. People don't believe in God because they don't want to follow his rules. So if they go on and pretend he doesn't exist then well they can live a happy worldly life.caseypayne69

Do you think Jesus would be happy to see you displaying images of a half naked woman? :lol:

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="SNIPER4321"]LOL scientist.

what are his invention? other than stupidity,SNIPER4321

hahahahahahahaha
That was amazing

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

I believe what most religious people believe is that God is eternal, not that God came from nothing. One cannot make the same argument about the universe, however, since we know that it did indeed have a beginning, so it therefore must have come from something. 

Jag85

and your god came from nothing....and make the universe from...*gasp* nothing.  There goes that useless argument

Useless straw man. Like I already said, "what most religious people believe is that God is eternal, not that God came from nothing."

God is now the end all be all according to most religios people...'eternal' :lol:  If you can make him eternal, than it shouldn't be so scary to think the universe is eternal as well.  Classic god of the gaps fallacy

Holy fvcking shit that was the most circular, achieve-nothing argument I've ever read. All those "arguments" you posted have been refuted. The refutation of those arguments have not, because there is no objective evidence to prove the original arguments true. Vague assumptions like "it is complex, thus it must be designed" is ridiculous.foxhound_fox

And that was "the most circular, achieve-nothing argument" I've read in a while. Nowhere in your original post did you even ask for proof...

[QUOTE="Whiteblade999"]The way things are designed there is a hint of intelligent design [...]foxhound_fox

You asked for a hint, and that's exactly what I gave you. It's not my fault you "argue like a third grader."

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

And that was "the most circular, achieve-nothing argument" I've read in a while. Nowhere in your original post did you even ask for proof...

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Whiteblade999"]The way things are designed there is a hint of intelligent design [...]Jag85

You asked for a hint, and that's exactly what I gave you. It's not my fault you "argue like a third grader."

so much irony

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

and your god came from nothing....and make the universe from...*gasp* nothing.  There goes that useless argument

wis3boi

Useless straw man. Like I already said, "what most religious people believe is that God is eternal, not that God came from nothing."

God is now the end all be all according to most religios people...'eternal' :lol:  If you can make him eternal, than it shouldn't be so scary to think the universe is eternal as well.  Classic god of the gaps fallacy

According to the current Big Bang model of science, the universe is not eternal. Classic "false equivalence" fallacy.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Useless straw man. Like I already said, "what most religious people believe is that God is eternal, not that God came from nothing."

Jag85

God is now the end all be all according to most religios people...'eternal' :lol:  If you can make him eternal, than it shouldn't be so scary to think the universe is eternal as well.  Classic god of the gaps fallacy

According to the current Big Bang model of science, the universe is not eternal. Classic "false equivalence" fallacy.

the big bang says nothing of how the universe began...only how it expanded.  Tune in next week for another great episode of Tales from Jag85's Ass

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

God is now the end all be all according to most religios people...'eternal' :lol:  If you can make him eternal, than it shouldn't be so scary to think the universe is eternal as well.  Classic god of the gaps fallacy

wis3boi

According to the current Big Bang model of science, the universe is not eternal. Classic "false equivalence" fallacy.

the big bang says nothing of how the universe began...only how it expanded.  Tune in next week for another great episode of Tales from Jag85's Ass

Firstly, the idea of an infinite eternal universe became obsolete when the Big Bang theory came along.

Secondly, the Big Bang model has established the universe to be finite and has established its age as being ~14 billion years old.

And finally, stop pulling nonsense your of your "Ass".

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

In other words, you're suggesting the Big Bang may have been some kind of nuclear explosion that converted mass into energy?

And fine, I'll re-word that part to: "Also, according to the general theory of relativity, time itself is just a dimension. We know our observable universe is bound by time, but there isn't any reason to believe that whatever may exist beyond the observable universe is also bound by time."

Jag85

If you are going by the theory of relativity now
That means time and space are one and the same
So how could anything exist outside the universe without time or space?

According to the Big Bang theory, at the beginning of the universe there was only energy. If the Big Bang was indeed some kind of nuclear explosion, then that would imply it converted mass into energy.

According to string theory, there are higher dimensions beyond the four dimensions of time-space.

So now you're back to string theory. Feel free to name the one of the other 7 dimensions that M-theory currently names and its purpose... Cause from what I read at GS, people have a very very poor understanding of dimensions, their impact on us and their limitations to us living in our 4D universe

Not sure what you're trying to argue here, but the only "universe" I know is our own finite observable universe... To avoid confusion, maybe "space-time" might be a better term for what you're referring to?

As for string theory, you might find it "lame", but that doesn't change the fact that it's widely accepted by most leading physicists today, theist and atheist alike.

Jag85

And that was "the most circular, achieve-nothing argument" I've read in a while. Nowhere in your original post did you even ask for proof...

You asked for a hint, and that's exactly what I gave you. It's not my fault you "argue like a third grader."

Jag85

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

According to the current Big Bang model of science, the universe is not eternal. Classic "false equivalence" fallacy.

Jag85

the big bang says nothing of how the universe began...only how it expanded.  Tune in next week for another great episode of Tales from Jag85's Ass

Firstly, the idea of an infinite eternal universe became obsolete when the Big Bang theory came along.

Secondly, the Big Bang model has established the universe to be finite and has established its age as being ~14 billion years old.

And finally, stop pulling nonsense your of your "Ass".

Thanks for showing everyone your complete lack of understanding of the reasoning for the big bang theory to begin with

Anyone think it's odd he keeps talking about the Big bang being the end all be all but keeps touting string theory?Ace6301

every time a layperson metions string theory, the spaghetti monster kills a seal

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="Jag85"]

I don't see how death is justice if that's something all of us will eventually face...

Besides, what about mass-murderers who get away without facing any punishment in their lifetime, like Genghis Khan, Josef Stalin, George Bush, etc.? 

Jag85

I think it's only fair that mass-murderers at least get to feel the same pain that they inflicted upon their victims.