What was the first Religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

You have it exactly backwards.

No one is saying theists can’t believe in the big bang. That is a straw man.

The objections were in response to posters clamping there had to be a god because something came from nothing. This is the false, unsupported, and centuries old cosmological argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

You have it exactly backwards.

No one is saying theists can’t believe in the big bang. That is a straw man.

The objections were in response to posters clamping there had to be a god because something came from nothing. This is the false, unsupported, and centuries old cosmological argument.

I agree, it's not even worth arguing about. Like the person above asking why belief in presupposition is a logical flaw. The universe apparently couldn't have come out of nothing, but god could? Seems illogical to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

You have it exactly backwards.

No one is saying theists can’t believe in the big bang. That is a straw man.

The objections were in response to posters clamping there had to be a god because something came from nothing. This is the false, unsupported, and centuries old cosmological argument.

I agree, it's not even worth arguing about. Like the person above asking why belief in presupposition is a logical flaw. The universe apparently couldn't have come out of nothing, but god could? Seems illogical to me.

This may be a misunderstanding.

Obviously theists can believe in the big bang theory since a theist created the theory.

I did not say my belief in an infinite God is proven by the BB theory . I said my religious beliefs are not in conflict with science and that subsequent science has not provided a purely physical explanation for how something came from the primeval atom described by Georges Lemaître .

Plus, Many modern atheists seem woefully ignorant of the close historical relationship between religion and Western science and automatically assume combats stances that are not necessary for rational and nuanced discussions. Especially in a religion forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

You have it exactly backwards.

No one is saying theists can’t believe in the big bang. That is a straw man.

The objections were in response to posters clamping there had to be a god because something came from nothing. This is the false, unsupported, and centuries old cosmological argument.

I agree, it's not even worth arguing about. Like the person above asking why belief in presupposition is a logical flaw. The universe apparently couldn't have come out of nothing, but god could? Seems illogical to me.

This may be a misunderstanding.

Obviously theists can believe in the big bang theory since a theist created the theory.

I did not say my belief in an infinite God is proven by the BB theory . I said my religious beliefs are not in conflict with science and that subsequent science has not provided a purely physical explanation for how something came from the primeval atom described by Georges Lemaître .

Plus, Many modern atheists seem woefully ignorant of the close historical relationship between religion and Western science and automatically assume combats stances that are not necessary for rational and nuanced discussions. Especially in a religion forum.

Yes, indeed "many modern atheists" don't know much about the "close historical relationship between religion and Western science" despite the pervasiveness of religion in our society, so please don't ever consider what those ignorant, nuance-deprived atheists have to say. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

You have it exactly backwards.

No one is saying theists can’t believe in the big bang. That is a straw man.

The objections were in response to posters clamping there had to be a god because something came from nothing. This is the false, unsupported, and centuries old cosmological argument.

I agree, it's not even worth arguing about. Like the person above asking why belief in presupposition is a logical flaw. The universe apparently couldn't have come out of nothing, but god could? Seems illogical to me.

This may be a misunderstanding.

Obviously theists can believe in the big bang theory since a theist created the theory.

I did not say my belief in an infinite God is proven by the BB theory . I said my religious beliefs are not in conflict with science and that subsequent science has not provided a purely physical explanation for how something came from the primeval atom described by Georges Lemaître .

Plus, Many modern atheists seem woefully ignorant of the close historical relationship between religion and Western science and automatically assume combats stances that are not necessary for rational and nuanced discussions. Especially in a religion forum.

Yes, indeed "many modern atheists" don't know much about the "close historical relationship between religion and Western science" despite the pervasiveness of religion in our society, so please don't ever consider what those ignorant, nuance-deprived atheists have to say. /s

Hey name-caller, I’m rubber you’re glue! Lol so silly it’s sad.

You’re the same guy posting straw man arguments and evestrating entire strawman thread. No one is making the claim you are accusing them of. Just support your arguments or be prepared to be challenged. That’s how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

You have it exactly backwards.

No one is saying theists can’t believe in the big bang. That is a straw man.

The objections were in response to posters clamping there had to be a god because something came from nothing. This is the false, unsupported, and centuries old cosmological argument.

I agree, it's not even worth arguing about. Like the person above asking why belief in presupposition is a logical flaw. The universe apparently couldn't have come out of nothing, but god could? Seems illogical to me.

This may be a misunderstanding.

Obviously theists can believe in the big bang theory since a theist created the theory.

I did not say my belief in an infinite God is proven by the BB theory . I said my religious beliefs are not in conflict with science and that subsequent science has not provided a purely physical explanation for how something came from the primeval atom described by Georges Lemaître .

Plus, Many modern atheists seem woefully ignorant of the close historical relationship between religion and Western science and automatically assume combats stances that are not necessary for rational and nuanced discussions. Especially in a religion forum.

Yes, indeed "many modern atheists" don't know much about the "close historical relationship between religion and Western science" despite the pervasiveness of religion in our society, so please don't ever consider what those ignorant, nuance-deprived atheists have to say. /s

Hey name-caller, I’m rubber you’re glue! Lol so silly it’s sad.

You’re the same guy posting straw man arguments and evestrating entire strawman thread. No one is making the claim you are accusing them of. Just support your arguments or be prepared to be challenged. That’s how this works.

1. Referring to atheists as atheists does not constitute name calling.

2. Please look up logical fallacies.

3. Noting that belief in God is not in conflict with science is not a straw man argument. The theory was created by a Roman Catholic priest who contended that the theory did not contradict his faith and the church officially recognized this in the mid twentieth century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

You have it exactly backwards.

No one is saying theists can’t believe in the big bang. That is a straw man.

The objections were in response to posters clamping there had to be a god because something came from nothing. This is the false, unsupported, and centuries old cosmological argument.

I agree, it's not even worth arguing about. Like the person above asking why belief in presupposition is a logical flaw. The universe apparently couldn't have come out of nothing, but god could? Seems illogical to me.

This may be a misunderstanding.

Obviously theists can believe in the big bang theory since a theist created the theory.

I did not say my belief in an infinite God is proven by the BB theory . I said my religious beliefs are not in conflict with science and that subsequent science has not provided a purely physical explanation for how something came from the primeval atom described by Georges Lemaître .

Plus, Many modern atheists seem woefully ignorant of the close historical relationship between religion and Western science and automatically assume combats stances that are not necessary for rational and nuanced discussions. Especially in a religion forum.

Yes, indeed "many modern atheists" don't know much about the "close historical relationship between religion and Western science" despite the pervasiveness of religion in our society, so please don't ever consider what those ignorant, nuance-deprived atheists have to say. /s

Hey name-caller, I’m rubber you’re glue! Lol so silly it’s sad.

You’re the same guy posting straw man arguments and evestrating entire strawman thread. No one is making the claim you are accusing them of. Just support your arguments or be prepared to be challenged. That’s how this works.

1. Referring to atheists as atheists does not constitute name calling.

2. Please look up logical fallacies.

3. Noting that belief in God is not in conflict with science is not a straw man argument. The theory was created by a Roman Catholic priest who contended that the theory did not contradict his faith and the church officially recognized this in the mid twentieth century.

Lol you can’t be real! You called the Ames ignorant and nuance-deprived whatever the heck that is. Pejoratives. They show desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

… Astro physicists can explain how the Big Bang unfolded (even if some assumptions are being turned upside down) but not how something came out nothing.

You took an otherwise intelligent post and ruined it with this first grade level rhetoric.

You dont know that time was infinite in both directions and you can’t even define nothing.

Ok wise one - explain the Big Bang to me - how did something come out of nothing … what existed prior to the Big Bang?

You have proved that you did not read the post you are responding. You have no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang. You are making a gigantic presupposition. A bunch of them in fact, because you are assuming that there was a “before’ , that it had a cause, and that that cause was supernatural and you have no reason or evidence for any of those claims. The Big Bang might be the beginning of time.

It’s OK to say we don’t know yet. Because we don’t know yet.

.

I said that at the beginning - science cannot explain the point of the Big Bang where something came from nothing . This is a religion forum and it is also OK to express religious beliefs, which do not conflict with current scientific knowledge.

Again, you are assuming there was a “nothing “ and can’t even define it. You also assume time is infinite and there is no evidence it is. In fact that is illogical.

No I think God is infinite not time. I am fine with describing nothing as what we currently think of as nothing.

What do “we currently think of as nothing “?

For me it means the absence of something.

Similar to the fact that darkness is the absence of light rather than something in its own right, nothing to me is the absence of something that can be identified, defined and measured.

DP here: Right, in the beginning, when the big bang happened, there was no universe, no time, no space, no matter or energy. Sounds pretty much like "nothing" to me.

And no time. So nothing to measure, and nothing to come from…

….unless…..

….you presuppose a god.

Hence the fallacy.

yeah, well where did that come from?

If the presupposition of God was good enough for the main theorist for the Big Bang - Catholic priest Georges Lemaître - then it is surely good enough for me. Lemaître‘S discovery that space and the universe are expanding did not lead him to change his belief in an infinite God who transcends time and space. Presupposition of God did not interfere with his hypothesis that the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today. If the scientist theorist who conceived Big Bang presupposed the existence of God, and did not see a conflict between his religion and his science, why do you propose this represents some kind of fatal flaw in my thinking?

Because god is unnecessary in the theory and there is no evidence for one. If god was necessary for the theory he would have been included in it.

Again, if presupposition of God was assumed by the original theorist, this hardly makes belief in God a fatal flaw.

The universe itself is unnecessary by this logic.

I do concede that It is as possible for atheists and agnostics to believe in the Big Bang as it is for religious people. There is simply not a conflict there so I am not sure why you are doggedly pursuing conflict that does not exist

You have it exactly backwards.

No one is saying theists can’t believe in the big bang. That is a straw man.

The objections were in response to posters clamping there had to be a god because something came from nothing. This is the false, unsupported, and centuries old cosmological argument.

I agree, it's not even worth arguing about. Like the person above asking why belief in presupposition is a logical flaw. The universe apparently couldn't have come out of nothing, but god could? Seems illogical to me.

This may be a misunderstanding.

Obviously theists can believe in the big bang theory since a theist created the theory.

I did not say my belief in an infinite God is proven by the BB theory . I said my religious beliefs are not in conflict with science and that subsequent science has not provided a purely physical explanation for how something came from the primeval atom described by Georges Lemaître .

Plus, Many modern atheists seem woefully ignorant of the close historical relationship between religion and Western science and automatically assume combats stances that are not necessary for rational and nuanced discussions. Especially in a religion forum.

Yes, indeed "many modern atheists" don't know much about the "close historical relationship between religion and Western science" despite the pervasiveness of religion in our society, so please don't ever consider what those ignorant, nuance-deprived atheists have to say. /s

Hey name-caller, I’m rubber you’re glue! Lol so silly it’s sad.

You’re the same guy posting straw man arguments and evestrating entire strawman thread. No one is making the claim you are accusing them of. Just support your arguments or be prepared to be challenged. That’s how this works.

1. Referring to atheists as atheists does not constitute name calling.

2. Please look up logical fallacies.

3. Noting that belief in God is not in conflict with science is not a straw man argument. The theory was created by a Roman Catholic priest who contended that the theory did not contradict his faith and the church officially recognized this in the mid twentieth century.

Lol you can’t be real! You called the Ames ignorant and nuance-deprived whatever the heck that is. Pejoratives. They show desperation.

More like mild irritation …