Athiest, Dead On Morgue Slab, Awakes After Meeting Jesus in Heaven...

[talisman]

My original post was a TESTIMONY... but thats ok. I didn't realize you all were going to turn this into another debate.

Have you ever had a single person tell you, that as a result of your input, that they have changed their entire philosophic outlook about the nature of the universe that it has taken them their entire life experience to arrive at?

[racrguy]

My original post was a TESTIMONY... but thats ok. I didn't realize you all were going to turn this into another debate.

Do you have anything better than testimony to present?

Also, why did you not expect this to turn into a debate, have you never seen another thread here in the theology corner? Did you expect not to have your ideas and thoughts checked for logical loopholes and outright bullshit? I understand that noticing patterns isn't your style, but really?

[The King]

Have you ever had a single person tell you, that as a result of your input, that they have changed their entire philosophic outlook about the nature of the universe that it has taken them their entire life experience to arrive at?

I like the scientific community presenting us with the big bang theory, where something appeared out of nowhere to create something out of nothing. Certainly worth changing my entire philosophical outlook about the nature of the universe over. I envision a Mickey Mouse character in a wizard hat, waving his wand and creating the stars out of fairy dust based on that learned explanation.

[Country cracker]

One thing that gets me is that god created the heavens and earth in 7 days. Then how do you explain dinosaurs? Carbon dating places them back millions of years ago but I have yet to see a human fossil from the same era.

[Maddhattter]

I like the scientific community presenting us with the big bang theory, where something appeared out of nowhere to create something out of nothing. Certainly worth changing my entire philosophical outlook about the nature of the universe over.

Except you've already been informed that this is not what the theory states.

One thing that gets me is that god created the heavens and earth in 7 days. Then how do you explain dinosaurs? Carbon dating places them back millions of years ago but I have yet to see a human fossil from the same era.

No, it doesn't. Carbon dating only goes back ~40k - 50k years at most. There are other forms of radiometric dating that can be used to date things that old, like uranium dating, but carbon dating cannot show an age of millions of years.

[The King]

Except you've already been informed that this is not what the theory states.

Prove:

(a) that this is not what the theory states.

(b) that I have already been informed that this is not what the theory states.

[Maddhattter]

Prove:

(a) that this is not what the theory states.

The theory which asserts that the universe originated a finite time ago by expanding from an infinitely compressed state. According to this model, space, time and matter originated together, and the universe has been expanding ever since.

-Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Edited by Paul Murdin, article 4801. Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing, 2001. http://eaa.iop.org/abstract/0333750888/4801

The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since.

-Jonathan Keohane, NASA Astrophysicist

See? All the actual authorities state that the "big bang theory" only states that the universe began from a compressed single point and has been expanding since then. No mention of where that point came from, because we don't know. There are current competing hypothetical models for the existence of that point, but as of yet, there are no theories.

(b) that I have already been informed that this is not what the theory states.

Here's the first example I found.

Depending on my available time, I'm not sure if I'll bother looking up any more examples, as this one fully covers it.

[talisman]

I like the scientific community presenting us with the big bang theory, where something appeared out of nowhere to create something out of nothing. Certainly worth changing my entire philosophical outlook about the nature of the universe over. I envision a Mickey Mouse character in a wizard hat, waving his wand and creating the stars out of fairy dust based on that learned explanation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Science and Philosophy give us just as many questions as answers. Anyone claiming to be "right" and trying to "correct" other peoples point of view(s) about a subject that has no definitive answer is a fool.

[The King]

The theory which asserts that the universe originated a finite time ago by expanding from an infinitely compressed state. According to this model, space, time and matter originated together, and the universe has been expanding ever since.

-Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Edited by Paul Murdin, article 4801. Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing, 2001. http://eaa.iop.org/abstract/0333750888/4801

The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since.

-Jonathan Keohane, NASA Astrophysicist

See? All the actual authorities state that the "big bang theory" only states that the universe began from a compressed single point and has been expanding since then. No mention of where that point came from, because we don't know. There are current competing hypothetical models for the existence of that point, but as of yet, there are no theories.



Here's the first example I found.

Depending on my available time, I'm not sure if I'll bother looking up any more examples, as this one fully covers it.

I am pleased to see that you invested your available time and effort in searching. Your statement "....a compressed single point" meshes adequately with my "....something that appeared out of nowhere", and your statement "the universe began with...." meshes adequately with my ".....created something out of nothing." That may just indicate that I am an authority on the subject, and I even went further by offering up a hypothetical model of the compressed single point being a cartoon mouse with a wizards cap waving a magic wand.

[Maddhattter]

I am pleased to see that you invested your available time and effort in searching. Your statement "....a compressed single point" meshes perfectly with my "....something that appeared out of nowhere", and your statement "the universe began with...." meshes perfectly with my ".....created something out of nothing."

No, it doesn't. Stating that something had an origin, and that evidence supports that there was an origin gives no statement as to what caused it to come into existence. They are two different assertions.

That may just indicate that I am an authority on the subject, and I even went further by offering up a hypothetical model of the compressed single point being a cartoon mouse with a wizards cap waving a magic wand.

No, it only indicates that you don't understand the topic being discussed.

[The King]

No, it doesn't. Stating that something had an origin, and that evidence supports that there was an origin gives no statement as to what caused it to come into existence. They are two different assertions.

No, it only indicates that you don't understand the topic being discussed.

You are only providing opinions above, which add nothing to your previous reply in this thread to my post. In fact, you are now backsliding in my opinion.

[Maddhattter]

You are only providing opinions above, which add nothing to your previous reply in this thread to my post. In fact, you are now backsliding in my opinion.

No. I'm not.

The fact that you state that "....a compressed single point" meshes perfectly with my "....something that appeared out of nowhere" when they are two different issues, shows that you don't understand the subject matter. Then, followed up with ""the universe began with...." meshes perfectly with my ".....created something out of nothing" which, again, are two different issues starts to show a pattern of now understanding the subject matter..

Now, this pattern indicates that you don't understand the subject matter being discussed. This is not an opinion any more than gravity is an opinion.

[The King]

Again, you are only posting your opinion. You are incapable of knowing what anyone, other than yourself, understands or does not understand.

Do you understand now?

[Maddhattter]

Again, you are only posting your opinion. You are incapable of knowing what anyone, other than yourself, understands or does not understand.

Do you understand now?

I've never claimed that I know what anyone other than myself does or does not understand.

I only stated that it indicates that you don't understand the subject matter. That indication could be wrong. You could understand the subject, but are intentionally dishonestly misrepresenting the subject. You might understand the subject matter and are just pretending you don't. You might understand the subject matter and are just trolling. My statement does not preclude these options.

However, the evidence indicates that you do not understand. Which is what I've said. That is not a matter of opinion.

[The King]

I've never claimed that I know what anyone other than myself does or does not understand.

I only stated that it indicates that you don't understand the subject matter. That indication could be wrong. You could understand the subject, but are intentionally dishonestly misrepresenting the subject. You might understand the subject matter and are just pretending you don't. You might understand the subject matter and are just trolling. My statement does not preclude these options.

However, the evidence indicates that you do not understand. Which is what I've said. That is not a matter of opinion.

Since your admit your stated indication could be wrong, that renders it to be only an opinion. Also you are limited to only your perception of the evidence, which again leads to your opinion. Whether your opinion agrees with mine or not means nothing.