Atheism leaves too much room for error.

[dry land fish]

If an atheist can't prove a universal negative - that means God can mathematically be proven.

And we know mathematics is an exact science.

What do you say about that atheists?

Wow...you are a moron. Physics? HAHAHAHAHAHA You don't know physics.

God said 'Let there be light' before the Sun was created. What light was God talking about? The explosion of particles, big bang?

Well first you have to prove that there is a God and that God said that. I could write a Bible and say that God said a lot of crap. Just because a bunch of stories are old...doesn't mean they are accurate.

Before the Sun was created? What in the WORLD are you talking about? Just stop babbling because you are really making yourself look stupid.

[Rhizomorph13]

Truth,

You got it wrong! There is a unicorn that created it all, and she is invisible and pink.

Here is a picture:

















And here is the website that proves she exists:

http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/

The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know
this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based
upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically
know that she is invisible because we can't see her.

@Dotard - lol

Rhizo

[Kyuuketsuki]

God said 'Let there be light' before the Sun was created. What light was God talking about? The explosion of particles, big bang?

So let me get this straight ... you are claiming that your bible is a science book, that the one line, "Let there be light", is the equivalent of the following (and trust me on this) which is a very, very, very, very simple overview of what is suppose to have happened:

The Universe "Explodes"
Approximately 13½ billion years ago the universe was compressed to a point with no dimensions. This, in lay terminology, was the moment before time and space existed ... there was no matter/energy, time, or space, literally NOTHING. Then the universe started.

At this point the universe was highly ordered, immensely hot and spinning ... it was in the lowest state of entropy the universe has ever been and ever will be again.

The entity, known as a singularity, expanded very rapidly. Sometimes this is called an "explosion", but this is misleading. In a typical explosion, matter and energy expand into space. But there was no space to expand into. Instead, space itself expanded very rapidly. Although there is evidence (background radiation and more) there is no way that we mere humans can conceive of the immensity of that "explosion" or the energies and temperatures involved. Suffice it to say that in the first thousandth of a second the universe expanded from sub-atomic to something just over a thousand metres in width

The major forces (strong & weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity) didn’t exist initially and only in the first fractions of the first second (10^–43) did they appear forming themselves into a combined super-force. The first particles began to form photons, positrons, neutrinos and their corresponding anti-particles began to form and most of these were destroyed in the fury around them. It is sobering to consider that the surviving particles (less than 1 in a billion) went on to form the physical universe we know today.

With matter and radiation inseparable (an ionised plasma) the universe expanded until, at 100th of a second old, neutrino decay began on a massive scale, allowing for free electrons and protons to combine with other particles and the formation of deuterium (heavy hydrogen). Few of these particles could survive long (a few nanoseconds at best) due to intense bombardment from electrons. Due to the density of the exploding mass no light was visible in the “cloud.” Finally, during the “epoch of last scattering,” the major forces could exert their unique influences.

With matter and radiation inseparable (an ionised plasma) the universe expanded until it was 100th second old at which point neutrinos began decaying on a massive scale, allowing for free electrons and protons to combine with other particles and the formation of deuterium (heavy hydrogen). Few of these particles could survive long (a few nanoseconds at best) due to intense bombardment from electrons and the density of the exploding mass means that no light was visible in the “cloud”. Finally, during the “epoch of last scattering”, the major forces are allowed to exert their unique influences.

At the end of its first second, the universe having cooled to a mere 10 billion degrees, photons and electrons are no longer capable of disintegrating newly formed particles and by the end of the third second, at a billion degrees Kelvin, nucleosynthesis is able to start. Helium nuclei begin to form at a rate that will eventually form our universe with around 25% helium. Thirty minutes later conditions dictated that electron-positron pair annihilation allowed for an increase in the rate of formation of photons and some scientists believe that our universe could not have formed the way it has if it weren’t for the fact that the universe contains slightly more electrons than positrons.

Over the next 300,000 years the universe cools to around 10,000 Kelvin, helium nuclei acquire electrons and form helium atoms, hydrogen undergoes fusion with helium to form lithium. Radiation and matter can now separate and visible light can now be seen.

Evidence Supporting the Big Bang
So what evidence do we have to support the theory of the big bang?

After its invention in the early 19th century, spectroscopic analysis revealed that the sun and nearby stars have similar spectral lines (Huggins, 1863). Meanwhile others were able to detect hydrogen, sodium and magnesium in many stars (Kirchhoff and Bunsen). Another physicist theorised that, like sound, light waves would vary in frequency dependent on the motion of the observer relative to the object in question (the Doppler shift) and in 1848 the French physicist Armand Fizeau demonstrated that as cosmological objects moved away their visible spectrums were shifted towards the red.

It was established that cosmological “red-shift” is not Doppler shift but, like it, is measurable. Doppler shift is caused by the expansion of light emitted by an object that is moving rapidly away from us. Red-shift is caused by the expansion of space itself (and the light that moves through the expanding space) so the more distant an object is the faster it appears to be moving away from us. Using the same techniques Huggins demonstrated that Sirius’ spectrum was “red-shifted” and moving away from us at around 30 miles per second.

As part of research carried out by the Lick Laboratories at the end of the 19th century the relative speeds of some 400 stars and other celestial objects were measured and a few years later papers were published revealing the relative speeds of 14 nebulae. Nearly all of them were moving away and featured red-shifted spectra (Slipher, 1910). Research continued and in 1924 Hubble demonstrated that the galaxy M31 was separate from our own and very distant. Later Hubble reported that the Andromeda galaxy was some 900,000 light years distant and also noted correlations between the radial velocities of galaxies and their relative distances. He confirmed previous astronomers’ findings that galaxies in general were moving away from us and the light we received from them was red-shifted. He noted that the greater the relative distance of these galaxies the greater their relative speed and logically concluded that if then they were moving away, at some point in the distant past they must have been closer. Hubble had finally obtained conclusive proof that the universe was expanding.

Astronomers began to build their models of the universe taking into account Einstein’s recently developed general/special theory of relativity. Despite his personal beliefs that the universe was of heterogeneous, uniform nature Einstein calculated that the universe was an oscillating one with the potential to expand or contract. His calculations revealed the universe to be a four-dimensional closed construct.

More astronomical models were developed: a universe without matter but predicting red-shift (de Sitter); a forever-expanding universe (Lemaître) and a static universe based on Einstein’s cosmological constant (Friedmann). Friedmann’s work was dismissed by Einstein until Hubble, in 1932, proved beyond doubt that the universe was expanding. An expanding universe begged the question of a beginning, an origin for the expansion and, in 1931, Lemaître published a paper incorporating Einstein’s General/Special Theory of Relativity, based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and an assumption of an increasingly disordered universe originating in a singularity. It was not well received.

Gamow (1947) expanded on Lemaître’s work using recent discoveries in quantum theory and developed the concept of a giant nucleus that rapidly broke down and expanded allowing all the universe’s elements to form very early in the universes life. Flaws were found in this theory (notably that the atomic masses 5 and 8 could not have been constructed in this way). Now known as “the big bang”, a term coined by Fred Hoyle, Gamow’s universe began to lose ground to the religiously adopted steady-state theory. Steady State defined a universe where young galaxies formed in the voids between the more mature ones and it was only abandoned when evidence of radioactivity was found in galaxies and was consistent with an expanding universe based on a big-bang cosmology. Refinements of George Gamow's (1947) calculations indicated that if the universe were compressed to the size theorised in the "big bang," "explode" and then cool, some 13 billion years later the temperature would be around 3 Kelvin. According to Planck's law all bodies emit energy and, depending on the length of the wave, can register any radiation between X rays and radio waves. A celestial body’s energy emission depends on its constituent elements, the surface area and the surface temperature. The body that emits the greatest amount of energy is termed a black body. Penzias & Wilson (1965), whilst tuning a new antenna, detected static (persistent radio noise) where there should have been none. In a paper, for which they won the Nobel Prize in Physics, the two scientists revealed data showing the universe glowing in the microwave spectrum. They interpreted these findings as the remnant glow of the "big bang".

Essentially, that the "big bang" actually occurred is supported by observable phenomena i.e. an expanding universe, a background radiation of around 3 Kelvin, ratios of hydrogen to helium etc.

Current Thought
According to modern cosmological theory (based on Einstein's Theory of General Relativity) at the time of the Big Bang space did not exist or rather the big bang occupied the whole of space. Subsequent to the big bang the universe has expanded and as it does so it creates (becomes) the space into which it is expanding.

Evidence of this is that distant galaxies are not moving at high-speed through space but move slowly relative to their neighbouring counterparts and as space expands the wavelength of light lengthens (as earlier stated this is commonly referred to as "red-shift").

Space is infinitely elastic and does not expand into anything.

One scientist, Robert Dicke theorised that a temperature in excess of a billion Kelvin would be required to create our universe. Using Planck's Black Body Curve as a guide he calculated that the Cosmic Background Radiation of the Big Bang should be about 3° above absolute zero (Dicke).

Dicke also suggested that our universe may have been created from the remains of a previous one and that infinitesimal amounts of radiation would be detectable if this were so. This possibility represents a modification to the big bang theory and also suggests that one day our universe may stop expanding and begin to contract. If so it is possible that our universe may contract to a point as small as the original singularity that formed our universe, an event that has been termed “the big crunch”.

Returning to the early expanding universe ... at 3000 Kelvin, helium and hydrogen (25% to 75%) would have been the major constituents of the galaxy and that is reflected in the constituents of stars today (Peebles). Peebles further predicted that had the big bang occurred in the manner described it’s background temperature would be around 3 Kelvin and more recent precision measurements have revealed that the universe is bathed in radiation that fitted a "black body curve" for an object with a temperature of 2.735K.

Can you really (I mean truly really) be THAT fucking stupid?

Kyu

[The_Truth]

I'm sorry, but I don't debate people that copy and paste from a website and then claim "it's their argument". And especially copying and pasting that much information, and then topping it off with a slew of smiley faces is hardly worthy of debate.

[Rhizomorph13]

Wow Kyu,

It looks like you successfully laughed "The_Truth" right off the forums.



Rhizo

Damn I spoke too soon

[Darwinian]

I notice that you've ignored my post. Not surprising as you probably have no answer to it. Does that mean I win?

[Rhizomorph13]

I notice that you've ignored my post. Not surprising as you probably have no answer to it. Does that mean I win?

The_Truth works in mysterious ways, oddly enough none seem to line up with his forum name.

Rhizo

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Go on then moron ... prove it!

Ahem.I think that's a personal insult.Personal insults are not permitted ,truth is not a defence. I think you should apologise to the m----.

[Tiberius]

I'm sorry, but I don't debate people that copy and paste from a website and then claim "it's their argument". And especially copying and pasting that much information, and then topping it off with a slew of smiley faces is hardly worthy of debate.

He never claimed it was his argument. He pasted a very detailed description of what actually happened (to put it in perspective) and compared it to your Bible's statement of "Let there be light".

[dry land fish]

I'm sorry, but I don't debate people that copy and paste from a website and then claim "it's their argument". And especially copying and pasting that much information, and then topping it off with a slew of smiley faces is hardly worthy of debate.

I don't debate the existance of God with anyone. I just point and laugh at people like you.