Church.......
- Thread starter BlueBleedingMarine
- Start date
And who said the earth isn't round? That's right, humans.
Just offer my opinion to people who are led astray by human frailty.kay:
The rest of your nonsense :flush:
I'm a Christian but I don't go to church because I think most are spiritually asleep and about money. I'm sure there's probably a few good ones out there somewhere.
That's like not going to the gym because there are too many fat and out of shape people there.
I don't go to church.
Too f'ing expensive.
Too f'ing expensive.
Technically, science does propose what happened before the Big Bang. In string theory, time is one of the branes or dimensions. This state existed before.
Here are some nice little summary articles:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-interview-with-physicist-gabriele-veneziano/
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...y-calculations-describe-birth-of-the-universe
"Answered prayers "
Mind is a powerful thing
I see unanswered prayers every day with kids dying from cancer - and their parents preying on their knees , or Catholic Priest suckling little boys and it being covered up all the way up to the pope
Not to mention genocide , human starvation, human sacrifice etc
Guess those prayers weren't answer but "John and Betty's" prayer for their kid to get into college or score a new job is ... Well a miracle lol
What about famine and people who are brutally murdered in Darfur ? Siberia, Rwanda ?
Generations and generations of killing and famine . Why doesn't he work in ways for them ?
Epxecitng a vague "God does his own thing , everything happens for a reason , God can't control what man does "
So on and so forth
String theory is a theory that hasn't been validated nor interpreted as anything close. As I said, Scientist loved the theory of the big bang until they realized it points to creation. There are many scientist that are now believers due to it. I actually know a biology professor that teaches "evolution through creation" and he sums it up quite well.
If it has to be explained, then there's no point. As I said, there is a reason why the scientific community is desperately trying to back track on the big bang.
It has to be explained. Because I must be dumb. So explain it. Please. Tell us when and how NASA set out to disprove the Bible.
Don't be so hard on yourself. That conversation would take an hour, albeit an easy hour for me, but I don't want to make it worse on you.
You're doing an excellent job of avoiding the question. You should run for office.
Its easy to understand. Most Nasa scientist are atheist, and promote an thirst agenda. Have you ever read their journals and thesis?
Try college. It will also help with that "dumb" quality.
I am Obama. Good thing I get to retire at 40 and golf now.
Can you share a link to a study showing most "Nasa scientist (sic) are atheist?"
You still didn't answer the question. No surprise there, however. It's obvious you don't have an answer, hence the ducking and weaving and avoidance.
By the way, what is "an thirst agenda?" Does NASA not have water coolers at their offices?
Try college? Yeah, got me there. I haven't tried college since I finished grad school over 20 years ago.
An thirst agenda is an agenda that attempts to quench thirst using sand, or a liberal line of thinking.
Sure you're a grad student. Everyone on message boards is a grad student.
Try google. The overwhelming community that is "nasa" is heavily atheist. Your liberal brothers would like you to stop now. You're butchering the position.
More dancing and no answering. Sad!
Google search doesn't show me any studies or surveys that show the "overwhelming community that is "nasa"" is "heavily" atheist. I note you changed your claim from "most" to "heavily," as that does give you a little more leeway. It's still obvious that you pulled that claim out of your ***, however, just as you did with the initial claim I challenged.
PS. I'm not a grad student. I was a grad student.
More PS. What does liberalism have to do with any of this? What makes you think I'm a liberal? Yet another figment of your imagination?
Google search doesn't show me any studies or surveys that show the "overwhelming community that is "nasa"" is "heavily" atheist. I note you changed your claim from "most" to "heavily," as that does give you a little more leeway. It's still obvious that you pulled that claim out of your ***, however, just as you did with the initial claim I challenged.
PS. I'm not a grad student. I was a grad student.
More PS. What does liberalism have to do with any of this? What makes you think I'm a liberal? Yet another figment of your imagination?
I'm shocked that a bunch of scientists would believe in science and be atheists to boot.
(Although it's still up to you to prove your assertion.)
(Although it's still up to you to prove your assertion.)
Grandmas die. Kids are raped. Millions of people starve and die from preventable illness. Just the way of the world. Thank you God!!1!
Just because you say this doesnt make it true. First, you said science doesnt have anything to explain before the big bang. Yes, they do have something. Also, you obviously dont understand the word theory. Its not a guess. Its a mathematical theory.
Second, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. What you have said about string theory not being relevant is an absolute lie with no scholarly research backing your claim. Second, the big bang doesnt point to creation, nor does a single reputable organization show that. (Your employing the watchmaker fallacy or argument from design) You cant use the answersingensis as your basis for science. I dont care about your second conclusion (though wrong), what I care about is you blatantly lying about science.
Hawking's M-Theory, which ties all Super String Together, and is used daily in physics by physicists in answering
quantum physics models. Yes, string theory is still under development, it doesnt mean its a guess and most quantum physicists use string theory, so that completely debunks your claim that scientists dont know or have any idea what happened.)
"Richard Dawid of Ludwig Maximilian University in his book String Theory and the Scientific Method (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013). Dawid wrote that string theorists had started to follow the principles of Bayesian statistics, which estimates the likelihood of a certain prediction being true on the basis of prior knowledge, and later revises that estimate as more knowledge is acquired. But, Dawid notes, physicists have begun to use purely theoretical factors, such as the internal consistency of a theory or the absence of credible alternatives, to update estimates, instead of basing those revisions on actual data."
Brian Greene is an excellent read if you actually want to know more. It comes off as though your last reading of anything scientific was in the early 80's and then have relied on bible/science sites since then.
Also, according to your logic, the Higgs-Boson particle shouldnt exist.Before, it was just a mathematical theory.
And to reiterate, because you seem to have no idea what string theory is, less alone how science defines a theory. Also, good stuff having a biology professor teach quantum physics. Same thing really.
Also, your who Intelligent Design argument has been debunked, but you come in here with that crap like its today's new hotness. Your arguments were destroyed years ago.
So no objective facts to back your position.
The fact you think 'googling" is the same thing as objective data/facts is employing the same thinking as someone with an education level of a middle school child.
Here is the thing, there are people in this world who are actually educated. There are those of us who understand that data has to go through rigorous standards, not just some bibleanswers for genesis. There is a standard that people employ. Just merely saying something doesnt make it fact.
If you propose that "everything can't come from nothing, everything has to have a cause" implies, "therefore there exists this thing that doesn't have a cause," you've got some explaining to do. Like why "everything must have a cause" doesn't apply to your proposed first cause. Or why your first cause must necessarily have traits such as intelligence, potency, will, etc. that would lead it to being recognizable as something we would call a god.
Utter nonsense. Nobody's out there doing science to try to disprove your religion. Scientists follow the evidence and form theories making the fewest assumptions possible. With everything so far discovered, even if "god did it" were true, it doesn't tell us even a single useful bit of information regarding the operation of the physical universe - a fact reasonable believers are well aware of. Everything we've discovered about the operation of the physical universe shows that it behaves in accordance with mathematical laws and through measurable and predictable physical mechanisms. Science isn't setting out to "disprove" god. God is merely irrelevant to the questions being addressed.
As for the big bang, the idea that scientists loved it but now are scared it points to a god is even worse nonsense. Aside from the paranoid conspiracy theory aspect (scientists actively trying to suppress the idea of a god and running away from an idea that might point to it), there's also the fact that a Catholic priest worked out the mathematics of the Big Bang Theory so it is quite obvious that it didn't originate as an atheistic idea. Furthermore there is no "backstopping," whatever that is, the big bang is just an incomplete explanation as we have always known it to be, and we're developing further theories on the origin and development of our universe. We're searching for a unified field theory because gravity and quantum mechanics are incomplete explanations for the behavior of physical bodies, but that doesn't mean anyone is "backstopping," again whatever that means, gravity.
Utter nonsense. Nobody's out there doing science to try to disprove your religion. Scientists follow the evidence and form theories making the fewest assumptions possible. With everything so far discovered, even if "god did it" were true, it doesn't tell us even a single useful bit of information regarding the operation of the physical universe - a fact reasonable believers are well aware of. Everything we've discovered about the operation of the physical universe shows that it behaves in accordance with mathematical laws and through measurable and predictable physical mechanisms. Science isn't setting out to "disprove" god. God is merely irrelevant to the questions being addressed.
As for the big bang, the idea that scientists loved it but now are scared it points to a god is even worse nonsense. Aside from the paranoid conspiracy theory aspect (scientists actively trying to suppress the idea of a god and running away from an idea that might point to it), there's also the fact that a Catholic priest worked out the mathematics of the Big Bang Theory so it is quite obvious that it didn't originate as an atheistic idea. Furthermore there is no "backstopping," whatever that is, the big bang is just an incomplete explanation as we have always known it to be, and we're developing further theories on the origin and development of our universe. We're searching for a unified field theory because gravity and quantum mechanics are incomplete explanations for the behavior of physical bodies, but that doesn't mean anyone is "backstopping," again whatever that means, gravity.
As I understand: Christians/Jews believe in the same God and His creation of the world. They also believe sin entered the world, when in an exercise of free will, humans decided to act according to the deception of Satan. In short, we believe S was expelled from heaven. In his anger toward God, his goal is to interfere with us having a relationship with God. One of his strategies is to get us to believe God does not love us. The great deception: sin entered the world and with it death, illness, all manner of evil and S deceives us into blaming God.
We're active in our church; go every Sunday. I'm a deacon and church board secretary, older son plays drums and sings for the praise team, younger son is an acolyte and, as a 6th grader, will be starting short mission trips, and hubby will run sound on Sundays he can be there.
I don't think religion and faith are the same thing. One can have faith, but not belong to an organized religion, or one can belong to an organized religion and not have faith. It's the latter, IMO, that causes the problems in the world
I don't think religion and faith are the same thing. One can have faith, but not belong to an organized religion, or one can belong to an organized religion and not have faith. It's the latter, IMO, that causes the problems in the world
I was referring to Christianity in my post, since the OP questioned church attendance, and the discussion following centered on Christians.
You're talking about members of radical Islam. I cannot speak for them, nor will I try.