As requested: Racr's thread.

[racrguy]

What created God? He just exists? So in order for the "Big Bang" to have happened, there would have needed to be a creator of such things right? By this logic how can God exist without a creator?

God doesn't have a creator, he is eternal.

[Ch3rnobyl]

And do you think, based on the design of everything, from our universe, down to our free thinking (and everything in between), was nothing more than chance and chemical reations over billions upon billions of years? Even whatever people think blew up (or in) on some big bang had to have something to start it off, right?

Or does logic lead you more towards a Creator of such things? Keep in mind everything that is needed to support basic life, let alone a creature like us with a brain like we have.

Do you think if one thing was out of whack, life would exist? Something started with creation.

What created God? He just exists? So in order for the "Big Bang" to have happened, there would have needed to be a creator of such things right? By this logic how can God exist without a creator?

[racrguy]

For those of you who do not believe in God (or however you would phrase it):

If the Bible were to be proven real, and God/Jesus were to be proven real, with facts/science what then? At that point would you choose to follow what the Bible says, or would you choose to live your life the way you are now?

I'm not talking about a "christian scientist" finding proof, I know that wouldn't float with you. I'm talking about Neal deGrasse Tyson or some other scientist that you respect finding proof. Irrefutable proof to your standards, whatever that may be.

I realize you would say this will never happen, nor am I suggesting that I think it will, but give it a few minutes of though and tell me what you would do. Would you then ... "believe" in God. Would you change the way you live?

I don't know any of you personally, but I honestly get the impression you would not change the way you live. Just because God in this hypothetical case, was proven true/real, it doesn't mean that you would have to believe any of it or obey what the Bible says. You could absolutely go on about your life the same way you have.

I'm not really trying to make a point here, just asking a question.

Only the claim(s) that were proven to be true would be accepted as true. Just because god exists in your hypothetical situation does not give him the ability to dictate how I run my life, just like the theory of evolution or the big bang theory do not, and are not capable of telling me how to run my life.

If god had a valid justification for instituting a rule, then sure, we can do that. But if he said "Do X because I said so" doesn't fly. Each claim and request must be evaluated individually. Let's say that the creation myth was proved to be true, just because the creation myth is true does not make the entire bible true.

[BMCSean]

I'm going to live my life how I see fit, and so is anyone else. The justifications for why are nothing more than back ground noise, and everyone comes up with their own "reasons," be they divine intervention, upbringing, mental deficiency and/or sociopathic tendencies. I don't need any one to tell me how to live my life, and that includes elusive low self esteem having deities.

Exactly! Call it the golden rule or whatever you want, but I treat others how I want to be treated and it has never done me wrong. You can thank god, thank scientists, or thank the devil, I really don't care. What bothers me is people passing judgement on others in an attempt to make themselves feel or look superior.

I'm going to live my life how I see fit, and so is anyone else. The justifications for why are nothing more than back ground noise, and everyone comes up with their own "reasons," be they divine intervention, upbringing, mental deficiency and/or sociopathic tendencies. I don't need any one to tell me how to live my life, and that includes elusive low self esteem having deities.

[BMCSean]

[slow06]

For those of you who do not believe in God (or however you would phrase it):

If the Bible were to be proven real, and God/Jesus were to be proven real, with facts/science what then? At that point would you choose to follow what the Bible says, or would you choose to live your life the way you are now?

I'm not talking about a "christian scientist" finding proof, I know that wouldn't float with you. I'm talking about Neal deGrasse Tyson or some other scientist that you respect finding proof. Irrefutable proof to your standards, whatever that may be.

I realize you would say this will never happen, nor am I suggesting that I think it will, but give it a few minutes of though and tell me what you would do. Would you then ... "believe" in God. Would you change the way you live?

I don't know any of you personally, but I honestly get the impression you would not change the way you live. Just because God in this hypothetical case, was proven true/real, it doesn't mean that you would have to believe any of it or obey what the Bible says. You could absolutely go on about your life the same way you have.

I'm not really trying to make a point here, just asking a question.

[racrguy]

Some concepts I see in here laid out pretty matter of factly amd well explained (not all). Then you see that response that just makes you want to drop you're head on the desk.

I actually did this last night when I read one of his responses.

[exlude]

I buy that you're good at math it's one of the more straight forward sciences. But even in your "variable" contention you show a lack of understanding of scientific principles and processes.

I'm not attacking your intelligence, you seem like a reasonably smart guy. And its good to be a critic in scientific matters. But you've past that with your blunt disdain for scientific theory, and refusal of consideration. It reminds me of "discussing" evolutionary concepts with Wild Bill.

I've never been one to pretend to be nonchalant and cool as a guise for intellectual superiority...I'd rather just throw it at you. Especially when in cases like this where the cool attitude just makes it seem like you are incapable

Some concepts I see in here laid out pretty matter of factly amd well explained (not all). Then you see that response that just makes you want to drop you're head on the desk.

[The King]

The duet has consistently failed to provide evidence of whence the "singularity" at the heart of the big bang came, or offer any explanation of how it might of just "appeared" out of nothing. Sounds like faith in their theory to me.

[4.6coupe]

U don't HAVE a soul, you ARE a soul. You have a body. Yet as stated before we will all find out in the end. Unfortunately for many it will in fact be to late... There will not be any turning back. Laugh and snicker all you want, its all a game of snatching souls. The evil one is the master of lies and deceit.

[Denny]

So far, all I see is a couple of Bible bashers saying that this reverse calculation of exploded parts of the universe can trace the blast back to an approximate time of explosion/implosion waaaaaay in the past to come up with the universe's birthday.

If I'm missing something, please tell me. If not, I'm still calling this shit you call a logical find, complete hogwash.

Maybe the universe is expanding. Maybe the universe is doing so as a result of some explosion. Now let me throw some variables at you to fuck up your already fucked up theory... In order to bring this all back to an exact moment, you're going to need the point of the explosion/ implosion. Can you point that one out. You're also going to need to know for sure that this mass that exploded/imploded was the first and only thing in existence. Can you assure that?

I love how you guys try to attack my intelligence when I don't agree with what you lay down and accept. I'm pretty sure I can science with the best of them. I can math with the smarties. I just can't reason with man's assumptions. I can see in the posture of your posts when I really start getting to you.

[exlude]

There is one thing we can all know at this point in this thread. Denny can't science.

Seriously, your understanding of the basics in science (theory, proof, evidence) are so fucked it's no wonder you are having such a hard time with this. You're good at playing it nonchalantly, but you can only do that because you don't realize how fucked your understanding of such basic concepts is, even after repeated explanation. I'm not saying your faith is a bad thing, but you have vehemently pigeon holed your mind to where it struggles or fails to conceptualize otherwise. You'd probably call that being a good Christian, and hell maybe it is, but it's also incredibly dumb especially for a guy who doesn't seem so dumb otherwise. It's as if a related subject comes up and a switch flicks in your head where rationale and logic goes out the window because "faith is all you need".

[Maddhattter]

Can I see your work? Now you've sparked my interest.

You don't need to. The process they've used is laid out. You use the same process any time that you extrapolate a pattern from the information you currently have. The calculations are the same.

Edit: Besides, my work hasn't been peer reviewed, so it would not be worth anything as support.

There would be no support that I followed the procedures or used the same controls that they did in the original experiment. So, you would be right in being suspicious and dismissing my work because there's been no process to check it.

[Denny]

Can I see your work? Now you've sparked my interest.