No religion allowed.

Here's the deal. Atheists claim that the universe does not require a Creator. Well, here's your chance to prove it. All you have to do is show us how it created itself. No pie in the sky 'theories'. Just scientific data to support such an outrageous claim. I ask that no one bring religion into this debate. I want atheist science to show how the universe created itself. No deflection or insults either. Just show us the evidence. If you cant, then you must admit that your theory is based on faith. Not science.

Your assumption rests on a premise that time is linear and is fixed, with an absolute beginning and an absolute end.

We have known for over a century that times and space are neither fixed nor absolute. The predictions of the general theory of relatively are well established at this point. To assume there was a "beginning" to time is a substantial and unsupported assumption. Time may be infinite, with no beginning and no end. Any so called "beginning" of the universe may just be an artificial construct of the limited capacity of the human brain to understand nature. Time is mysterious and far more complex that the human brain is probably capable of understanding. We are just smart chimpanzees after all - we have significant limitations in comprehending nature and reality.

The bottom line is that this is an area of human knowledge for which we have no concrete answers, and maybe we never will.

One thing I do know: the Bible says nothing about a guy in white robes being responsible for the Big Bang. Any suggestion that the Bible refers to the big bang is based on guesswork, speculative interpretation, and supposition
 
There is no 'atheist science' any more than there is fantasist biblebasher science. Science deals with likelihood: there was a Big Bang, apparently. You make it? If not, what are you on about?

The bible says God created the universe in six days and that Jonah lived in the belly of a fish.

These defy the laws of physics, defy empirical observation, and defy common sense experience.

If the bible is wrong about that, what else is it wrong about?

Maybe we should just conclude the obvious: the Old Testament is a collection of allegory and parable.
And allegory does not discount the value of faith and spirituality in anyone's life. The Old Testament does not have to be put into a contest with particle physics and evolutionary biology.
 
Your assumption rests on a premise that time is linear and is fixed, with an absolute beginning and an absolute end.

We have known for over a century that times and space are neither fixed nor absolute. The predictions of the general theory of relatively are well established at this point. To assume there was a "beginning" to time is a substantial and unsupported assumption. Time may be infinite, with no beginning and no end. Any so called "beginning" of the universe may just be an artificial construct of the limited capacity of the human brain to understand nature. Time is mysterious and far more complex that the human brain is probably capable of understanding. We are just smart chimpanzees after all - we have significant limitations in comprehending nature and reality.

The bottom line is that this is an area of human knowledge for which we have no concrete answers, and maybe we never will.

One thing I do know: the Bible says nothing about a guy in white robes being responsible for the Big Bang. Any suggestion that the Bible refers to the big bang is based on guesswork, speculative interpretation, and supposition

If you had an infinite number of yesterdays, tomorrow would never get here.
 
Using the Bible to explain just why faith rests in your heart is stupid only to the foolish. Why? Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But your response is typical of a Darwinian Cultist....when you can't refute the evidence that exists in an objective format YOU ATTACK THE MESSENGER and launch an ad hominem personal attack....Alinsky 101 rules for radicals. (as the scriptures read the same for anyone that would read them....proving there is no subjective opinion but documented evidence). You have provided no objective evidence that the Bible's history is false...none.

That's not actually what you did. To lie about what you did is to demonstrate your disdain for and ignorance of the buible. I am attacking the idiocy of what you and the stupidity required to have stated it. Nothign to do with Alinksy. I have never made any claim that the bible is or isn't true; you have. You have thus far miserably failed to do so.
Debating the TRUTH of the scriptures is not based upon unproveable truth (faith)…..its based upon PRIMA FACIE evidences. Can you prove that God is not eternal.....can you refute the evidence provided via a demonstration of the Scientific Method? If you can proceed (I am not the one claiming TRUTH based upon Scientific Proof....YOU ARE) Simply prove that anything, any type of mass/matter/energy can create itself from NOTHING as suggested as truth by the greatest Darwinian Cultist mind ever to exist on earth.....Stephen Hawking.

It is based purely and exclusively on faith. There is no evidence, whatsover, that its supernatural claims are true, nor can you provide any. And I have no made any such claim about truth and scientific proof. Yet again you lie and prove yourself in direct opposition to the bible.
If you cannot prove that the Universe came about by an act of NOTHING exploding (Big Bang)…...then you must logically conclude that some force superior to nature (a Super Natural force) was responsible for the effect known as the physical universe and all its contents and the laws of physics that govern and regulate its physical existence.

The Big Bang does not claim the universe came about by an act of nothing, and every time you try and reference logic, it sodomizes you.
What is Prima Facie truth? Its a type of truth accepted in court rooms all across this nation on a daily basis. Its truth as it first appears when first looked upon (via eye witness testimony) and it stands as truth until the Objective, Reproducible evidence comes forth that can vacate that appeared conclusion of truth. ;) The record found in the Holy Bible is based upon recorded eye witness testimony.

Irrelevant to anything I've posted, and eyewitness testimony is NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate. The bible demonstrates this, as does our legal system. The record found in the bible, however, is hearsay; not eyewitness testimony

Again, you prove yourself a liar.
The Lord God declared to those inspired to record His message "You are My witnesses...." -- Isa. 43:10-11 The scriptures of record testify concerning Jesus Himself, "You search the scripture hoping to find in them eternal life; it is these that testify of Me...….." -- John 5:39-40. And the record of the acts of the Apostle Peter himself declare that eyewitness testimony best, "We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we (the apostles) made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; BUT WE WERE EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY." -- 2 Peter 1:16 Those eyewitness testimonies of record stand as prima facie truth until YOU can disprove them beyond a shadow of doubt via a presentation of objective, reproducible evidences debunking them as absolute untruths.

No, the bible claims that the 'lord god' declared that. To claim otherwise is to lie.
I accept the History of the Bible as truth because not one passage has ever been subject to refutation through Applied Science or History Actual where the scriptures can be tested by such physical laws and records. As far as the supernatural events. I can no more prove their existence than you can disprove them via application of the inferior laws of physics that can't even define their own existence and how they came to exist. There is no such test available...there is not such thing as a Super-natural-O-meter.

Yes, innumerable passages have been refuted by applied science and 'history actual', and no scripture can be tested against such laws and records.
But where the scriptures are testable and measurable via history and applied science.....they have never been refuted as truth (in other words there has been no objective, repeatable evidence to absolutely disprove one word of the Holy Bible as being a falsehood.) :bigthink:

There is nothing CIRCULAR about using the Bible as evidence....because its based upon eyewitness testimony. No more than a jury believing someone is guilty or innocent based upon the eyewitness testimony of 3 or more eyewitnesses. People are jailed and/or gain their freedom everyday in this nation based upon such testimony. Why? Because no one can disprove those testimonies beyond a shadow of doubt. The Bible is not 1 Book.....it is a collection of Books written by at least 36 different writers.....from all walks of life, from Kings to sheep herders, to simple carpenters, from physicians to tax collectors.....but they all agree in their history and record concerning the Majesty of our Lord God Creator. It is a record of things they personally witnessed in the New Testament....and a record of oral and personal eye witness testimony going back to a time before history was ever subject to recording (The Old Testament).

The bible is not based on eyewitness testimony, nor can you show that it was.

Sad that a lying whore like you would gleefully piss into the open mouth of Christ.

I just spoke to him, you know, and he said, 'I know him not'.
 
Back
Top