Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[_ Old Earth _] BANG!
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Nick
Member
Ok, but I want you to share as well? ;)Sparrowhawke said:
----
Well at the moment, I'm thinking that it's not impossible that the Big Bang happened, and scientifically speaking, I don't think I've got any reason not to believe it.
The Bible tells us what happened - God created everything. The Bible doesn't really specify exactly how it happened. The Big Bang could be the how.
Heheheh... yep!
I was just looking on a newly favorite website with this in mind. They speak of the universe as "bounded" and "unbounded". It's very informative. Here you go: -----> Lookie Lookie <-------
~Sparrow
I was just looking on a newly favorite website with this in mind. They speak of the universe as "bounded" and "unbounded". It's very informative. Here you go: -----> Lookie Lookie <-------
~Sparrow
I've personally considered different "theories" including the "Gap Theory" and the "Day Yom" theory, and also other thoughts as well, but after reading this article I feel like the Lord is drawing me back into the truth of what He declared in the beginning.
So, to answer your question, Nick - yes! They do have the refreshing view you've mentioned.
Here's another quote from the same article:
As 1 Corinthians 8:2 says: 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.'
May I encourage you to read the full article later when you get a chance? I think it's worthwhile and persuasive and also of the Lord.
~Sparrow
So, to answer your question, Nick - yes! They do have the refreshing view you've mentioned.
Here's another quote from the same article:
As 1 Corinthians 8:2 says: 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.'
May I encourage you to read the full article later when you get a chance? I think it's worthwhile and persuasive and also of the Lord.
~Sparrow
Nick
Member
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I did read the article. What it proposes is interesting.Sparrowhawke said:I've personally considered different "theories" including the "Gap Theory" and the "Day Yom" theory, and also other thoughts as well, but after reading this article I feel like the Lord is drawing me back into the truth of what He declared in the beginning.
So, to answer your question, Nick - yes! They do have the refreshing view you've mentioned.
Here's another quote from the same article:
As 1 Corinthians 8:2 says: 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.'
May I encourage you to read the full article later when you get a chance? I think it's worthwhile and persuasive and also of the Lord.
~Sparrow
Glad to hear it!
Even though that article did spend some time in refuting their opponents opinion in the beginning it does later show more about the specifics. When I read it through the first time I wasn't exactly sure what the point was but understood it better toward the end.
One of the more persuasive portions to me was this observation, "Lured by the promise of 'scientific respectability' through no longer defending what Ross regards as an impossible absurdity (the young age of the world which a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates), many Christians overlook the Gospel-related dangers of such compromise (such as having to accept billions of years of death, bloodshed and disease before Adam)."
There are many articles worth mentioning as would reasonably be the case with AnswersInGenesis, yes?
~Sparrowhawke
Even though that article did spend some time in refuting their opponents opinion in the beginning it does later show more about the specifics. When I read it through the first time I wasn't exactly sure what the point was but understood it better toward the end.
One of the more persuasive portions to me was this observation, "Lured by the promise of 'scientific respectability' through no longer defending what Ross regards as an impossible absurdity (the young age of the world which a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates), many Christians overlook the Gospel-related dangers of such compromise (such as having to accept billions of years of death, bloodshed and disease before Adam)."
There are many articles worth mentioning as would reasonably be the case with AnswersInGenesis, yes?
~Sparrowhawke
VenomFangX
Member
All the evidence is there for the existence of the big bang creating this Universe. Scientists seem fairly confident of the conditions the first few seconds after the event but not sure of the few microseconds at the start. This begs questions of what, why,...I know who? To me this is my God. What was the conditions before the event; these questions defy human reasoning at the moment and we cannot visualise concepts outside of our own three dimensional way of thinking. The famous quantum physicists Richard Feynman who worked on the atomic bomb and the thermonuclear bomb, theorised other dimensions using math but could not visualise it. The reality of the atomic model is also not readily discernable by us as it is mainly mathematical in nature. There is much to know but one thing for sure is that is Gods doing. :amen
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
The whole "Bang" theory was made popular back in the day (1980's) by Carl Sagan who was an American astronomer and a very charismatic highly televised proponent of the theory. The idea of the "Big Bang" theory came from a mathematical model and when I was young the "debate" centered on "The Big Bang" vs. "The Steady State" theories.
Now the "Steady State" theory is something that I might talk about at some future point in time but it's a really strange theory that calls for the universe being in a constant state of creation. It isn't as popular as it once was so there isn't much need to discuss it at any depth.
But the "Big Bang" theory was characterized by the supposition that the universe hasn't always been the same size as it is today. It can be observed that the observable matter in our universe is universally moving away from us, expanding radially outward from an imagined "center" or starting point and the speed is governed by Hubble's Law. Defined simply, in physical cosmology Hubble's Law and Hubble's Constant in brief state that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the Earth (from the observer) is proportional to their distance from us.
There were many math models that were developed to explore the "character" of the universe in the supposed "time" prior to and right after the "event". During the early stages of the theory the term "bang" had not yet been popularized. There were other differences too. The original size was supposed to be the size of a solar system. Can you imagine all the matter in the observable universe and beyond being compacted into the size of our solar system? If you need to stretch to understand how big the universe is, I can't blame ya, me too! Perhaps this youtube vid would be helpful:
[youtube:vyio1781]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KEoTwkNIzU&feature=related[/youtube:vyio1781]
or this one:
[youtube:vyio1781]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QGU0m7T9Q4[/youtube:vyio1781]
Now, we try to imaging the "cosmic egg" so called. All the matter in the entire universe is no longer surmised to have started out as big as our solar system. No. The current theory wants us to think that the origin of the universe starts with a speck the size of a mere electron. Talk about near infinite self gravitation! Now that would be some kind of dense matter. If a Black Hole (and remember there are many, many "black holes" thought to be in our universe) has sufficient density and gravitational pull that not even light could escape it --> what about this unimaginable ultra-dense "egg"? Consider teh fact that this "cosmic egg" is supposed to have been stable for at least some period of time.
Now that we have a slight picture about what we are talking about, about the size and density of the "cosmic egg", now, what was it that swung the popular opinion (other than the natural charisma of Carl Sagan) toward the Bang theory? Well, the math models that were developed to support the theory predicted that there should be some background radiation resulting from such an "event" as the "bang". It predicted that the radiation should be isotropic (all around us) and when a weak black body radiation of about 3° Kelvin was "discovered" it lead to a wide spread acceptance of the theory.
The questions about how all the matter in the universe could have become concentrated into so small of a space weren't a problem then. The thought was that the universe went through a cycle of contracting then expanding. We heard the term, "The Ever Expanding, Ever Contracting Universe." The thought about why, if all the matter of the universe were to be collected into the space about the size of an electron -- and if that were somehow "stable" -- then how come this teeny, tiny cosmic egg didn't behave like a black hole and become permanently stable? And what was so powerful as to overcome the immense gravity - when we had other theories about black holes and gravity that seemed to contradict it even in concept - but if even these black holes and all other matter had somehow collected and gravity had been neutralized and they or it or whatever somehow exploded?
Later we realized that there wasn't enough mass in the expanding universe to slow let alone stop the outward expansion. But by then the idea of a "bang" had already taken root and had achieved wide acceptance. So the question about how or why all the matter in the universe had been collected into the teeny, tiny egg was never answered. Another question arises though. If the "egg" were stable then what happened to destabilize it? What outside force acted upon this teeny, tiny, leetle eggy to make it go BOOM?
It must have been acted upon by some outside force to cause it to become unstable but "they" say (conveniently) that the Laws of Physics known today do not apply. How else can "they" overcome insurmountable problems?
Now the "Steady State" theory is something that I might talk about at some future point in time but it's a really strange theory that calls for the universe being in a constant state of creation. It isn't as popular as it once was so there isn't much need to discuss it at any depth.
But the "Big Bang" theory was characterized by the supposition that the universe hasn't always been the same size as it is today. It can be observed that the observable matter in our universe is universally moving away from us, expanding radially outward from an imagined "center" or starting point and the speed is governed by Hubble's Law. Defined simply, in physical cosmology Hubble's Law and Hubble's Constant in brief state that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the Earth (from the observer) is proportional to their distance from us.
There were many math models that were developed to explore the "character" of the universe in the supposed "time" prior to and right after the "event". During the early stages of the theory the term "bang" had not yet been popularized. There were other differences too. The original size was supposed to be the size of a solar system. Can you imagine all the matter in the observable universe and beyond being compacted into the size of our solar system? If you need to stretch to understand how big the universe is, I can't blame ya, me too! Perhaps this youtube vid would be helpful:
[youtube:vyio1781]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KEoTwkNIzU&feature=related[/youtube:vyio1781]
or this one:
[youtube:vyio1781]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QGU0m7T9Q4[/youtube:vyio1781]
Now, we try to imaging the "cosmic egg" so called. All the matter in the entire universe is no longer surmised to have started out as big as our solar system. No. The current theory wants us to think that the origin of the universe starts with a speck the size of a mere electron. Talk about near infinite self gravitation! Now that would be some kind of dense matter. If a Black Hole (and remember there are many, many "black holes" thought to be in our universe) has sufficient density and gravitational pull that not even light could escape it --> what about this unimaginable ultra-dense "egg"? Consider teh fact that this "cosmic egg" is supposed to have been stable for at least some period of time.
Now that we have a slight picture about what we are talking about, about the size and density of the "cosmic egg", now, what was it that swung the popular opinion (other than the natural charisma of Carl Sagan) toward the Bang theory? Well, the math models that were developed to support the theory predicted that there should be some background radiation resulting from such an "event" as the "bang". It predicted that the radiation should be isotropic (all around us) and when a weak black body radiation of about 3° Kelvin was "discovered" it lead to a wide spread acceptance of the theory.
The questions about how all the matter in the universe could have become concentrated into so small of a space weren't a problem then. The thought was that the universe went through a cycle of contracting then expanding. We heard the term, "The Ever Expanding, Ever Contracting Universe." The thought about why, if all the matter of the universe were to be collected into the space about the size of an electron -- and if that were somehow "stable" -- then how come this teeny, tiny cosmic egg didn't behave like a black hole and become permanently stable? And what was so powerful as to overcome the immense gravity - when we had other theories about black holes and gravity that seemed to contradict it even in concept - but if even these black holes and all other matter had somehow collected and gravity had been neutralized and they or it or whatever somehow exploded?
Later we realized that there wasn't enough mass in the expanding universe to slow let alone stop the outward expansion. But by then the idea of a "bang" had already taken root and had achieved wide acceptance. So the question about how or why all the matter in the universe had been collected into the teeny, tiny egg was never answered. Another question arises though. If the "egg" were stable then what happened to destabilize it? What outside force acted upon this teeny, tiny, leetle eggy to make it go BOOM?
It must have been acted upon by some outside force to cause it to become unstable but "they" say (conveniently) that the Laws of Physics known today do not apply. How else can "they" overcome insurmountable problems?
VenomFangX
Member
There is much that is not known and it is interesting if scientists can bring the fragments together to make a workable theory. Of course it is not an explosion as we imagine TNT exploding but a metaphor.
Red shift is a fact which shows the galaxies are moving apart from each other which implies they were all together at a single point in space at one time in the very distant past, about 14 billion years ago or whatever. It is hoped the CERN accelerator will give more insights.
We live in a 3 dimensional space time continuum, but at the edge of the Universe it is hard to imagine that there is nothingness beyond the confines of this cosmos. It is also hard to imagine the nothingness before the cosmos was created, when God started the Big Bang and all the physical constants that there are.
VFX
Red shift is a fact which shows the galaxies are moving apart from each other which implies they were all together at a single point in space at one time in the very distant past, about 14 billion years ago or whatever. It is hoped the CERN accelerator will give more insights.
We live in a 3 dimensional space time continuum, but at the edge of the Universe it is hard to imagine that there is nothingness beyond the confines of this cosmos. It is also hard to imagine the nothingness before the cosmos was created, when God started the Big Bang and all the physical constants that there are.
VFX
Re: LIGHT!
So Venom, your position is that in the beginning there was God and matter?
I'm not sure how to understand your statement in light of the scriptures, "It is also hard to imagine the nothingness before the cosmos was created, when God started the Big Bang and all the physical constants that there are."
Do you mean to espouse the popular opinion that God was the starting force of some otherwise random event and that random events have since then shaped and formed the world as we know it? I don't have a problem listening to opinions of the world but when it comes to their implications about God? That's where "they" cross the line. My personal belief demands a God that loves the world that He created so much that He sent His son Jesus as our redeemer, that He planned and prophesied it telling us about the end from the very beginning.
John 1:1-5 NKJV
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- He was in the beginning with God.
- All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
- In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
- And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend (FN #1: or overcome) it.
John 1:6-36 NKJV
- There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
- This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
- He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
- That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. (FN #2: Or That was the true Light which, coming into the world, gives light to every man.)
- He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
- He came to His own (FN #3: That is, His own things or domain) (FN #4: That is, His own people) , and His own did not receive Him.
- But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
- who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
- And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
- John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.' "
- And (FN #5: NU-Text reads For) of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.
- For the law was given through Moses, [but] grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
- No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son (FN #6: NU-Text reads only begotten God), who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him].
- Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
- He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
- And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
And he answered, "No."
- Then they said to him, "Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?"
- He said: "I [am] 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Make straight the way of the LORD," ' (FN #7: Isaiah 40:3) as the prophet Isaiah said."
- Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees.
- And they asked him, saying, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
- John answered them, saying, "I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know.
- It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose."
- These things were done in Bethabara (FN #8: NU-Text and M-Text read Bethany) beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
- The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
- This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.'
- I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water."
- And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.
- I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
- And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."
- Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples.
- And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"
__________________________________________
NKJV FootNotes:
So Venom, your position is that in the beginning there was God and matter?
I'm not sure how to understand your statement in light of the scriptures, "It is also hard to imagine the nothingness before the cosmos was created, when God started the Big Bang and all the physical constants that there are."
Do you mean to espouse the popular opinion that God was the starting force of some otherwise random event and that random events have since then shaped and formed the world as we know it? I don't have a problem listening to opinions of the world but when it comes to their implications about God? That's where "they" cross the line. My personal belief demands a God that loves the world that He created so much that He sent His son Jesus as our redeemer, that He planned and prophesied it telling us about the end from the very beginning.
John 1:1-5 NKJV
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- He was in the beginning with God.
- All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
- In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
- And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend (FN #1: or overcome) it.
- [list:26tpb1rc]Gen 1:1-4 NKJV
- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
- The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
- Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
- And God saw the light, that [it was] good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
John 1:6-36 NKJV
- There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
- This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
- He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
- That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. (FN #2: Or That was the true Light which, coming into the world, gives light to every man.)
- He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
- He came to His own (FN #3: That is, His own things or domain) (FN #4: That is, His own people) , and His own did not receive Him.
- But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
- who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
- And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
- John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.' "
- And (FN #5: NU-Text reads For) of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.
- For the law was given through Moses, [but] grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
- No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son (FN #6: NU-Text reads only begotten God), who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him].
- Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"
- He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
- And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
And he answered, "No."
- Then they said to him, "Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?"
- He said: "I [am] 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Make straight the way of the LORD," ' (FN #7: Isaiah 40:3) as the prophet Isaiah said."
- Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees.
- And they asked him, saying, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
- John answered them, saying, "I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know.
- It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose."
- These things were done in Bethabara (FN #8: NU-Text and M-Text read Bethany) beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
- The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
- This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.'
- I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water."
- And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.
- I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
- And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."
- Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples.
- And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!"
__________________________________________
NKJV FootNotes:
- (John 1:5) Or overcome[/*:m:26tpb1rc]
- (John 1:9) Or That was the true Light which, coming into the world, gives light to every man.[/*:m:26tpb1rc]
- (John 1:11) That is, His own things or domain[/*:m:26tpb1rc]
- (John 1:11) That is, His own people[/*:m:26tpb1rc]
- (John 1:16) NU-Text reads For.[/*:m:26tpb1rc]
- (John 1:18) NU-Text reads only begotten God.[/*:m:26tpb1rc]
- (John 1:23) Isaiah 40:3[/*:m:26tpb1rc]
- (John 1:28) NU-Text and M-Text read Bethany.[/*:m:26tpb1rc]
VenomFangX
Member
Re: LIGHT!
-
I do mean to say it was God who started it all, and his wisdom is above us all: he gave us thoughts, feeling and the intellect to understand his Universe.
Your personal belief is that as you mentioned: it is personal and your own, which is respected. I clearly have a different point of view to you and do not hold to mysticism. There is magic but it is in your heart and love of what is really out there: this is the Universe God and his son Jesus wanted us to behold.
His word is is the great book.
If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:31,32.
Hear, 0 Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" Mark 12 :30,31 .
If there is dispute between christians maybe there are teachings of Jesus that were not recorded or discounted in the council of Nicea, or maybe he our Lord did not want us to be stuck in a time warp for thousands of years but progress with our intellect with he in our hearts. We choose our own path, but thank you for sharing your thoughts with me: this is indeed the wonder of this great place to talk.
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
-
I do not think I said that or implied that at all, that is your interpretation of what I said: I said in a non direct way there was God. Where the matter came from is not known at this point.Sparrowhawke said:
I do mean to say it was God who started it all, and his wisdom is above us all: he gave us thoughts, feeling and the intellect to understand his Universe.
Your personal belief is that as you mentioned: it is personal and your own, which is respected. I clearly have a different point of view to you and do not hold to mysticism. There is magic but it is in your heart and love of what is really out there: this is the Universe God and his son Jesus wanted us to behold.
His word is is the great book.
If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:31,32.
Hear, 0 Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" Mark 12 :30,31 .
If there is dispute between christians maybe there are teachings of Jesus that were not recorded or discounted in the council of Nicea, or maybe he our Lord did not want us to be stuck in a time warp for thousands of years but progress with our intellect with he in our hearts. We choose our own path, but thank you for sharing your thoughts with me: this is indeed the wonder of this great place to talk.
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
It seems that we are agreed then, in that we hold different points of view. I do not and simply can not agree with nor condone mysticism. Why do you bring this up? Oh, wait! You're trying to be subtle, aren't you? You're implying that I am believing in "mysticism" because we don't agree about the origins of the universe, aren't you?
I see now. Well, the clear word of Scripture is not "mysticism". I hope you can bring yourself around to that fact some day.
I see now. Well, the clear word of Scripture is not "mysticism". I hope you can bring yourself around to that fact some day.
VenomFangX
Member
I did not say that scripture was mysticism, but suggested some people use scripture as a means to invoke that emotion and actuality. We do not disagree with the origin of the Universe as the origin is unknown by every mortal: this will be known when the Lord reveals it. It is our God who gave us intellect and understanding of his Cosmos. If you wish to suggest God did not do this then that is fine.
If I were to balance any and if any anomalies of the scripture to the truth the Lord my God has given me
I will tend to reside with the truth. This is not to denigrate you nor any one: but the message is clear.
Seek the truth for the truth shall set you free. :amen
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
If I were to balance any and if any anomalies of the scripture to the truth the Lord my God has given me
I will tend to reside with the truth. This is not to denigrate you nor any one: but the message is clear.
Seek the truth for the truth shall set you free. :amen
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
Sir Pwn4lot
Member
Nick_29 said:
I've always found it strange how people ask "Is it possible?" when discussing an omnipotent being lol.
That's the beauty of cosmology, it makes God possible, but it also makes him not possible. There's no problem with believing that God started it all (Although I find it rather futile in the face of Occam's Razor).
There's no point in disputing what we know about what you'd call his creation, I see no reason for you to get fussed over it lol.
Physicist
Member
My standard nitpicks
We also have the background radiation discovery that won Penzias and Wilson the Nobel Prize. This is the leftover radiation from the BB.
There is no 'edge' to the Universe. (For illustration, there is no edge on a sphere)
Einstein showed that it was wrong to adopt the Newtonian model of absolute space and time. Time, or more properly space-time is a property of the Universe.There is no time before the BB just as there is no Temperature below zero Kelvin. The BB represents a singularity in our cosmological models.
VenomFangX said:
We also have the background radiation discovery that won Penzias and Wilson the Nobel Prize. This is the leftover radiation from the BB.
First, we live in a 4 dimensional space-time continuum (or 10 dimensional if String Theory is correct).
There is no 'edge' to the Universe. (For illustration, there is no edge on a sphere)
Einstein showed that it was wrong to adopt the Newtonian model of absolute space and time. Time, or more properly space-time is a property of the Universe.There is no time before the BB just as there is no Temperature below zero Kelvin. The BB represents a singularity in our cosmological models.
H
happyjoy
Guest
H
happyjoy
Guest
John said:Just mybut...
Isn't that a assumption based on the presupposition that there was a Big bang event?
Well there are only two options. Either the universe had a beginning or it is eternal. An eternal universe doesn't need a creator. The big bang says the universe has a beginning in the finite past. Thus the big bang says the universe was created and not eternal.