Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[freedomfromforum]

Or (if you're female) would you appreciate having guys fight for you and the winner got to mount you?

I dated that cheating slut for a year! Had to kick a lot of ass to hold her that long. Great ass though!

[Searching4truth]

Wouldn't have been worth it to me

[Zazzy]

Zazzy, I believe in science and also in human error (on so many levels the latter) I don't think science contradicts a Creator, rather it strengthens my belief in one. I don't know why some act as if God and science cannot coexist. Maybe science as we know it can't prove God as we know Him? just a theory.

Science cannot have any position on a supernatural being, because scientific method relies on natural laws to allow experimental direction. If something is not bound by natural law, it can't be studied using the tools that rely on natural law. So the standard idea of god is outside of the purview of scientific exploration. We can certainly explore certain claims of religious texts (worldwide floods, an Earth created as Genesis tells) and use science to evaluate these claims. But a god itself? No.

I am happy to know you can reconcile science with your religion.

[Mystical]

I don't think science contradicts a Creator, rather it strengthens my belief in one.

Care to share your insights?

[popeyespappy]

Shit happens. Therefore God!

[snowtracks]

biblically we do know that God is not ushered along with the one-directional cause and effect defined cosmic timeline since He can compress or accelerated the time velocity of it, and can initiate a cause on it that's in the past. so by logical necessity He has access to at least one other time dim, and possibly access to a plane of time that would connote access to multiple time dim's.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense, in the English language. Do you know when and how the past tense is correctly used ? Did you go to Grade School ? You also forgot to mention exactly how you know that "biblically", and you that, and you just happened to have left out the demonstration that the humans who cooked it up actually meant it, or had any conception of that notion. Proof by assertion is worthless.

Every single concept/idea in the Bible, is 100% culturally dependent. Every notion, law, proscription, and utterance.
There is no instance anywhere in the Bible, in which "de novo", concepts are presented, which did not exist, a priori, in the culture or within cultures with which they had contact. What you propose in that bullshit, something that is completely irrational, then you attempt, intellectually dishonestly, to make it sound like it could fit in the some universe as rational discourse, by throwing around terms you clearly have not a clue about. You also failed to demonstrate the mechanism. Time compression or dilation, would neither make something possible "in the past", or "reverse" the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The direction remains the same, regardless of velocity. Do consider, obtaining for yourself, an education.

duel revelation has been given: nature and scripture. harder to believe the existence of God if you only garner information from nature but it can still be done.

[freedomfromforum]

---

That sentence makes absolutely no sense, in the English language. Do you know when and how the past tense is correctly used ? Did you go to Grade School ? You also forgot to mention exactly how you know that "biblically", and you that, and you just happened to have left out the demonstration that the humans who cooked it up actually meant it, or had any conception of that notion. Proof by assertion is worthless.

Every single concept/idea in the Bible, is 100% culturally dependent. Every notion, law, proscription, and utterance.
There is no instance anywhere in the Bible, in which "de novo", concepts are presented, which did not exist, a priori, in the culture or within cultures with which they had contact. What you propose in that bullshit, something that is completely irrational, then you attempt, intellectually dishonestly, to make it sound like it could fit in the some universe as rational discourse, by throwing around terms you clearly have not a clue about. You also failed to demonstrate the mechanism. Time compression or dilation, would neither make something possible "in the past", or "reverse" the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The direction remains the same, regardless of velocity. Do consider, obtaining for yourself, an education.

---

duel revelation has been given: nature and scripture. harder to believe the existence of God if you only garner information from nature but it can still be done.

And the Magic 8 Ball™ says...

[snowtracks]

[quote='snowtracks' pid='525121' dateline='1381807152']
[quote='Bucky Ball' pid='524167' dateline='1381700607']

Did you go to Grade School ?
Do consider, obtaining for yourself, an education.

===================================
and you, really aren't as smart as you think you are.

[daandaan]

Shit happens. Therefore God!

Hail Sterquilinus !!

May His Holy Effluence Become Upon the Unbleievers !!!

---

Zazzy, I believe in science and also in human error (on so many levels the latter) I don't think science contradicts a Creator, rather it strengthens my belief in one. I don't know why some act as if God and science cannot coexist. Maybe science as we know it can't prove God as we know Him? just a theory.

Science cannot have any position on a supernatural being, because scientific method relies on natural laws to allow experimental direction. If something is not bound by natural law, it can't be studied using the tools that rely on natural law. So the standard idea of god is outside of the purview of scientific exploration. We can certainly explore certain claims of religious texts (worldwide floods, an Earth created as Genesis tells) and use science to evaluate these claims. But a god itself? No.

I am happy to know you can reconcile science with your religion.

@Zazzy


yeah, but the only thing u r forgetting is that THEY claim the supernatural to be REAL..

now, if the surpenatural was REAL...it would be part of our NATURAL world and therefore detectable..
well it isnt ..becouse it doesnt exist ..

and therefore god as well.

the science of logic proves again gawd doesnt exist .

---

That sentence makes absolutely no sense, in the English language. Do you know when and how the past tense is correctly used ? Did you go to Grade School ? You also forgot to mention exactly how you know that "biblically", and you that, and you just happened to have left out the demonstration that the humans who cooked it up actually meant it, or had any conception of that notion. Proof by assertion is worthless.

Every single concept/idea in the Bible, is 100% culturally dependent. Every notion, law, proscription, and utterance.
There is no instance anywhere in the Bible, in which "de novo", concepts are presented, which did not exist, a priori, in the culture or within cultures with which they had contact. What you propose in that bullshit, something that is completely irrational, then you attempt, intellectually dishonestly, to make it sound like it could fit in the some universe as rational discourse, by throwing around terms you clearly have not a clue about. You also failed to demonstrate the mechanism. Time compression or dilation, would neither make something possible "in the past", or "reverse" the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The direction remains the same, regardless of velocity. Do consider, obtaining for yourself, an education.

duel revelation has been given: nature and scripture. harder to believe the existence of God if you only garner information from nature but it can still be done.

@snowtracks

``biblically we do know that God is not ushered along with the one-directional cause and effect defined cosmic timeline since He can compress or accelerated the time velocity of it, and can initiate a cause on it that's in the past. so by logical necessity He has access to at least one other time dim, and possibly access to a plane of time that would connote access to multiple time dim's.``

thanks for confirming that god is nothing more as a strawman combined with an argument of authority to make ur lies fit .

now prove all thing u ve stated backed by science ...

if human science isnt sufficient, feel free to use godscience ..like godmath godphysics godcosmology godquackmechansics and the religious string - of - lies theory..

[Tonus]

Well in terms of God, believers accept that He can't be explained by laws of science, thus an always existing God doesn't go against the initial belief of God that is accepted through Faith. On the other hand since we don't know how/what/(possible even when) the bing bang happened, doesn't it also need a considerable amount of faith to believe in??

It would require some faith to decide that the Big Bang is the start of the universe in the face of a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary, yes. It would require "a considerable amount" of faith to decide that an undetectable creature who always existed and curiously avoids leaving any physical evidence of his actions (though he is said to have done so frequently in the distant past) fashioned an entire universe from matter he either found lying around (where did that come from?) or that he simply produced from nothingness.