Big Bang Theory - Must be true because space appears to be expanding. Oh, and radiation.

*You cannot disprove theory with theory*

Burden of proof? It was not the people who said the world was flat that had to prove it. It was the people who said it was not flat.
That being said, should it not be the, according to post 29, “smarter” scientists that must prove God does not exist? It’s only rational right? Tell me, big bang supporters. The explosion that created everything… what was it that exploded and who made it? It’s hard to argue an irrational theory with you “scientists” who know so much. The Bible has answers to these and other things. It is your choice to believe them, all I can do is try to open your mind to the possibility that it might be true (something that a scientist would not have a problem with, being that a scientist cannot rule it out just because it is not proven). A scientist cannot rule out any reason without proper testing and supporting evidence. To do so would produce tainted results that show the results the scientist wanted to see in the first place. If this is the case, why argue at all. A scientist must be open to all possibilities, and follow the evidence to a conclusion. If you have evidence of our current discussion we need to get a hold of the Nobel committee… because we need to start handing out prizes to these people. That prize was handed out to people who answered far more trivial quandaries of man.

35. Xeshire says
“Science is not “man’s law” at all; it is a process that man uses to understand the workings of the universe around him.”

Not man’s law? Process? Created by whom? While I don’t disagree that questioning things around him are good practice… you cannot deny it was a process made by man.

I think you have to be more sympathetic to the fact that some people may need a GOD. To some GOD gives people hope. GOD is also used to take away fear, as a cooping mechanism and a support system. Others need GOD as a moral guidance. GOD also puts meaning into people’s life. Things that I see nothing wrong with.

I think the real problem is not weather a GOD exist or not. I think the real problem with GOD is some people stop thinking for themselves. I have problem with people who use GOD to justify their actions and when people’s faith are used against them for another person’s personal/political gain.

There are a lot of current issues in society that need to be thought out and not just discounted because the bible says. I am sure we can all interpret the Bible how we want to support any argument.

I encourage people to never stop thinking or questioning with an open mind.

The Big Bang theory does have proof. It’s called background radiation, and is present throughout the universe. It was first witnessed when we put the first sattelites up to facilitate intercontinental telecommunications, and has been used by astronomers to map the early universe. The fact that other bodies of matter in the universe seem to be moving away from us shows that there must have been some force which acted upon them, and it may well be an initial explosion which made it so that all of the matter in the universe today is not still a massive singularity.

The people who thought the world was flat were Catholic clergymen and uneducated peasants who could not read the Bible for themselves, and so believed whatever they were told. Way to go there, stating an argument against yourself ;)
It was also scientists of that age who proved these things wrong; Copernicus actually looked at the planets’ orbits and realized that they were either orbiting the sun or traveling highly unusual orbits. Galileo was the one to find out that Jupiter had moons, and that not all bodies of matter were perfect spheres.
Men of science are ordinary people, yes, but they are of considerable intelligence–the intelligence which wakes one up from blind religious belief–and take a logical approach to establishing a base of facts for further scientific work. Religion, on the other hand, states that the law and word of god are PERFECT and that everything within them is true. Why is it true? Because god dictated these things to whoever wrote it. This is known as circular logic, which is fallacious because the two arguments are interdependent and so cannot prove each other because they are both still in question, having no definite proof of their status as fact.

Yes, we will “wake up” to some new theory. Science has the advantage of being open to change when it is wrong. The Bible, on the other hand, continues to make fictitious statements long after they have been disproven. Just as one ceases to believe a liar upon discovering his habit, one should cease to believe a book full of logical fallacies and plainly incorrect statements. The new theory, though, will not only include proof of the Big Bang–background radiation and expansion of the universe evident of their movement away from the location of said singularity–but it will include what disproved the Big Bang theory. In this way, theories will only be more sophisticated and will be more inclusive to experimental results as time goes on and science continues to be practiced.

Bottom line: don’t talk about what you don’t know. You clearly only have superficial knowledge of the most popular scientific theories and have no good reason to believe in any religious dogma.

During the time of Jesus and before Saul’s influence on Christianity, one had to first be a Jew and then convert. This means that one must believe in both Jewish doctrine and that of Jesus, as he is the Messiah. That said, the old testament is just as valid as the new testament within Christianity, unless Jesus explicitly say so.

Wrong wrong WRONG!

Science is not “man’s law” at all; it is a process that man uses to understand the workings of the universe around him. Those with an agenda don’t last long, and in science - you can’t make stuff up. Hypothesis have been made that turned out to be wrong - but that’s a far cry from “making things up.”

Asa:
1) No, Jesus might have existed. As Apollonius of Tyana did. The thing is, Apollonius did not have miraculous properties as people believed back then he did (walking through walls, healing people, raising the dead… The word was that he also resurrected and ascended to “heaven” but came back and his followers saw him). I’m not confused here, but you might be (ignorance is bliss). My point is that the possibility that jesus lived here on earth says nothing about his alleged legacy or powers. Did you know that people back then thought of Pythagoras (yes, the famous one) as being able to raise the dead too? In fact, every other guy was thought to have magical powers. Come on, people were pretty much cavemen back then!

Enough is enough about Josephus! The guy was not even born when jesus is said to have died!!! Get your facts straight. Jesus is said to have lived years 1 through 33 and josephus was born on 37 and lived to 100. By the time josephus wrote his first work (year 75) some 32 whole years had passed since jesus’ death!! (75 since he was born!!!!!!) You really think that guy was writing events as they happened, not being influenced by the jesus-craze? Would you trust someone writing “first-hand” about events in 1970, today? No. You would want someone that wrote back then! Wikipedia is your friend: en.wikiped...i/Josephus

As for the burden of proof, you couldn’t be more wrong. Once again, wikipedia is your friend. en.wikiped...fallacy%29
It has nothing to do with the original claimant, but with positive assertions. Do not confuse the legal system with logic. In logic and epistemology (wikipedia is your friend, again) you start by saying “I know nothing”, and then trying to build on top of that. Now, you want to convince me that “God exists” fits in “I know nothing”?

Finally, as I said in my first post, if we are discussing a possible “force” that started it all, etc, etc, we’re on the field of deism. Then we should all be agnostics. We might never know. Maybe, or maybe not. But if we descent to the field of theism, there are empirical stuff we can check about the Christian god, or any other god that forces us to be atheists. What all theists do is disregard or twist the *facts*. [See: evolution]

May I ask, why do you not believe in Zeus? Or Ra? Or Osiris? Or Dionysus? Or Odin? Or Thor? Or Vishnu? Or Brahman? Or The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
en.wikiped...of_deities
Can you see your spot? You are one of them. Your place is side by side the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Understand that. Why do you reject all of the other gods? They are exactly as credible as yours.

Stephen F. Roberts once said:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Can you provide evidence for the non-existence of Unicorns?

Can you provide evidence for the non-existence of Santa-Claus?”

Ugh you beat me to the punch, and it’s my blog. How pathetic is that =p

“That has more to do with political structure and cultural mores than it does religion but it is still worth noting if only to promote democracy.”

There is no denying of those results. It’s a very noticeable trend.

“Does that mean that you don’t believe that Yeshua existed or that you just don’t believe He was the Son of God? ”

Does being religious give you the right to bastardize the English language? Why are you capitalizing the word “he” or “son”. I could argue that “god” shouldn’t be capitalized. The definition is a supreme beam, not an actual person or name.

P.S.
Try to examine side by side santa-claus with jesus. The big difference is that as a child you probably were told, “ok there is no santa claus”….. Think about it.

Just to clarify…Does that mean that you don’t believe that Yeshua existed or that you just don’t believe He was the Son of God? The reason that I ask is that many non-believers do not doubt that Yeshua the man existed.

Examining (side-by-side) Santa Claus with Yeshua as presented in the Gospels is quite easily done. Also, the Gospels do have to be considered as source material for they were not always part of the Bible (that came later). It would be like ignoring Josephus as source material–for even Josephus described some “far out” and “miraculous” and “supernatural” events. Why not apply the same literary analysis to the Gospels? Therefore, there is plenty of historical information and Yeshua displays quite human and natural characteristics as well as the supernatural.

Having said all of that…I do agree that one cannot prove a negative. What I disagree with is that the burden of proof lies with those who state the existence of something. The burden of proof lies with the one who is the original claimant in an argument just as in a court of law. In other words, if I am wandering about the internet and see someone say “God does not exist” and I respond with “Sure He does”, then it is still the burden of the original claimant to prove his case. At no time in the justice system do we make the defendant liable for proving his/her innocence??? No, the prosecutor (in your case the skeptic) is liable to prove his/her case. Else, why state it at all?

Oh, I almost forgot…

While not much is known about Saint Nicholas and much more is legend, nobody that I know seriously doubts that this namesake of Santa Claus did indeed exist as an historical person in about the 4th century A.D. so if I compare that to Yeshua then I am forced to conclude that at the very least, Yeshua existed as a man even if He became a “legend”. So really, your comparison falls “short”. BTW, as a child I was told (as soon as I could understand) that there was no Santa Claus (as presented as a currently living and magical being). However, I was also told the history behind Old Saint Nick and that only provided me with a deeper appreciation for the season.

Can you provide evidence that a 1mm-diameter teapot does not exist in orbit around Jupiter?

Can you provide evidence for the non-existence of Unicorns?

Can you provide evidence for the non-existence of Santa-Claus?

Can you provide evidence that a pink dinosaur obsessed with bringing bad luck to anyone who utters the words “THE PINK DINOSAUR IN AFRICA DOESN’T EΧΙST” out loud, does not exist in Africa?

You can’t. But you are an intelligent being. You say to yourself: Is there any *evidence* that the teapot exists? No. Well, it doesn’t. Is there any *evidence* that Unicorns exist? No. Well, they don’t. What about Santa-Claus? No. Same thing. He doesn’t exist. (In spite of some children ACTUALLY believing that he exists - what happens is we adults convince them he exists and they follow suit - up until we tell them “yes, we were lying!”). What about the pink dinosaur? I, for, one am not afraid to say that “THE PINK DINOSAUR IN AFRICA DOESN’T EXIST” out loud. How about you? I hope you are not afraid, too. But why? Because there is not a single shred of evidence that supports the statement that “the pink dinosaur exists”.

You see, there is something called the burden of proof. Please try to understand this issue. The one who says “This exists” *HAS* to provide evidence. NOT the one who says: “No, this doesn’t exist”. He could, but it is extremely different!!! Theists are OBLIGATED to provide evidence, exactly as someone who says that the pink dinosaur exists. Non-theists (i.e. atheists), just as non-pink-dinosaur-ians have to provide none.

If you say that that the validity of the positions of atheists and theists is the same, you must aknowledge that the validity of you position that “there is no pink dinosaur” is of the same validity as someone’s who says that there is. Totally ridiculous. There is no pink dinosaur.

Please, please, “pretty please with sugar on top (TM)”, try to understand this. Thank you.

P.S.
Try to examine side by side santa-claus with jesus. The big difference is that as a child you probably were told, “ok there is no santa claus”….. Think about it.

1) Result of 1-1
2) School children conveyance spelled backward
3) Rationalized mental attitude

Please correct me if i’m wrong.

Athiests believe “All Gods are false”, and believers in Gods must be verbally abused because of their inferior thought process, instead of helped to understand the atheistic ways. Ok, now that I have acknowleged 50% of the athiest comments on here, maybe we can cut to the chase and stop with the name calling and inellectuall gradings applied to non-athiests.

While I don’t anticipate that any posts provided on either side will sway any posters from one side to the other, I do feel it is neccessary continuing the conversation, as it seems some posters don’t understand a non-athiests reasoning.

I see it time and time again, that non-athiests are not as smart as others for believing in something that cannot be proved. This is a pride issue. Becuase a non-athiest may or may not get to heaven becuase of their beliefs, a non-athiest MUST depend on his belief that God is false to avoid any consequences after death. That being said, the athiests here make comments about intelligence and i would like to point out a few things.

1. Please tell me that you athiests didn’t fall for the comment at the end of those videos “any normal intelligent person believes…”. This again falls into the category of pride. We all like to think we are smarter than most others, and this fits that belief. Ergo, the video’s MUST be true. For cryin out loud, did you believe Al Gore when he said he invented the internet?????

2. Because non-athiests believe in something that can’t be proven, it means they must be idiots. Well, my friendly athiests, you are in the same boat as non-athiests on that one. I’ll explain…

I see here Bill is a “Scientist”. I’m sure we have many more, and I encourage them to respond. If God is not real and non-athiests are wrong for believing in him. I await any poster to show me proof that he is not. Not circumstantial or theoretical evidence mind you… I need hard evidence that scientists depend on. For example, if God is not the all powerful being that created everything, please provide the evidence for the person who did. I mean, you have the dead body of the person that created all, millions of years ago right? Anything? Clothing he wore? Anything at all, physical evidence… thats all we wait for. It’s easy to prove to yourself something isn’t the way it is without seeking proof, likewise, it is easy to prove to yourself something is the way it really is without proof. Athiests BELIEVE (or have faith) that God does not exist, even without supporting evidence… and for that Bill says, lock those crazy people up with the other 75% of the world that believes in a God. I believe Jesus died for my sins, and I’m sure I will be negatively commented for that, that’s my business. If you have serious questions as to why, ask. Don’t just bash everyone out there for not believing what you do, until you have a good understanding of their life.

I thought 18 was funny…
1.) We take it out of context
2.) That is only the old test. (Not true)
3.) Atheists don’t understand because we don’t have faith. You have to have faith to understand.

How does he know we take things out of context? Cause thats what a lot of athiests do… for example bill said, and I quote “I know there is a being so all-mighty and all-powerful…” “… What an idiot I’ve been”. Bill now believes in God from our conversation. In fact Bill does not, but becuase I took your statement, chopped prarts of your statement off and left evidence to the contrary some people may have believed it unless research was done to prove me wrong. That is a very common tactic… don’t worry, most Christians have come accross this more than once in their lives. As for the old testament, you ask questions about the bible, you get answeres accordingly, if you want to generalize about all Gods, you must refer to ALL texts from ALL religions, not just Chrisianity. Athiest Scientists should know this by know. As for number 3, the scientific community up until recently believed ulcers were caused by stress… science has recently shown it’s bacteria that causes this, but i’m sure the average american will still defend the “stress” cause until i give them supporting evidence to the contrary.

3. Finally, God is not real because bad things happen? God does not exist or is contradictory because he allowed bad things to happen?

Interesting argument, but ther is scripture to back this up, though i can’t be sure for all cultures that believe in God. If nothing bad ever happened, no one would be posting here. In fact your computer would not exist. A long time ago, man would not have needed to advance civilizations, and science would have no place in culture. After all, inventions comes from necessity… if we don’t need anything because nothing bad happens then we wouldn’t need to invent. Not only that, but i would happen to guess that no one would even bother questioning the reality of God. I doubt it would even enter anyones mind. In fact I believe it is because bad things happen that people find God. People seek answers because they hit hard times. People who don’t hit hard times don’t look for answeres. Why try to fix something that isn’t broke? That argument that bad things happens is really a joke. Hardly even close to representing something that could be construde as proof of his existance. How could someone be so full of pride as to try to explain the reasoning of a being that created nebula’s that we will never get close enough to study in our lifetime. You say we are brainwashed for believing something so asinine… well athiests do to.

Asinine:
adj.
Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.
Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.

Asenine - You believe the sky is blue. Completely disreguarding the black sky behind it that changes the color of the atmosphere below it thus changing the color we see when we look through the atmosphere.

The Christian religion is no more asinine than the “Athiestic Belief System” or “Religion” as some might interperet it. We both believe in something that cannot be proven by science… big deal. Why am I less of a person for my beliefs? Why single out Christians? Because it’s one of the biggest belief systems (Religion as some people may call it, however incorrectly)around?

You cannot possibly presume to be waking people up when you are not fully awakened yourself. You are wholly unprepared to descend back into the “darkness” of the cave and play the role of pedagogue for you are still blinded by what you perceive to be the “light” of your own logic.

Cheers