RE: DESTROY NOAH'S ARK
March 28, 2014 at 1:21 pm
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2014 at 1:21 pm by SteelCurtain.)
(March 28, 2014 at 12:55 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: su·per·nat·u·ral adjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
Are you able to scientifically explain what caused the "big bang"? The best theory I've gotten so far is:
Quote:Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is, there had to be. If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something.If you are intent on being willfully dismissive of anything anyone says, redirect, and not address anything given to you, how are we supposed to have any kind of discussion?
Lawrence Krauss[
Just because something hasn't been explained, doesn't mean it can't be explained. I literally listed evidence for the Big Bang. I gave you a link for evidence that non-matter can in fact be imbued with mass. The question of "Why" is another non sequitur. Something clearly happened. "How" is the question being looked into. To assume the de facto explanation is something supernatural for anything currently without an answer is a cut and paste right out of the 15th century. So congratulations on living up to that standard.
(March 28, 2014 at 12:55 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The question was what caused the "big bang"? Also I'm not redefining God the bible always has described God as light.You are taking these quotes as not metaphor? Okay. Your religious text boils an unproven concept down to photons. Now prove your god exists.
Acts 26:13
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Revelation 21:23
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
(March 28, 2014 at 12:55 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Makes perfect sense, assuming the only evidence is the circle, how can you evaluate evidence for or against, when it doesn't exist? So if I state aliens created the circle what would you base your rebuttal on?I would not claim to know anything until I EVALUATED THE FUCKING EVIDENCE. While it seems you are okay to look at something and claim to know everything about it, I would go and investigate and challenge my preconceptions. I would look at the patterns, look for a natural explanation to the observed phenomena. What if I go out there and find a piece of plywood with rope attached to it? Could I then surmise that maybe people did it? How would I know anything until I evaluated the evidence?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
