[Chumbaniya]

The great thing about science is that it's a process and not a collection of doctrines. If any piece of 'scientific' information ever becomes an article of faith, it isn't science any more.

[aljolson]

(Original post by Okashira)
Imagine




So in essence, I must work from the beginning, to this current day. Instead of working from today, to the beginning. Because today, a lot of information could no longer be observable. Just like it is 100 billion years from now.

What absolute tish, so all scientific knowledge will be lost, science is not a static thing, unlike religion, but moves, adapts and changes, as new information is gathered. Theories are challenged, accepted, disbelived and accepted again, but always modified. If the big bang is proven then it will cease to be a theory, and will be a law, like the law of gravity. So in 100 billion years, the big bang will be either discarded, still a theory, or a law, but never a religion.

[aljolson]

(Original post by oo00oo)
Essentially what they are saying is that relying on scientific evidence to uncover the truth about the universe can lead you to incorrect conclusion - and by way of example, the OP explains that in 100 billion years there will be no evidence for the big bang theory as, by then, all the galaxies and stars in the universe will have accelerated away from us much faster than the speed of light, and any being in a future civilisation who tells his friends that he believes in a big bang will be called an illogical, irrational fool by his friends.

So the OP, I think, is saying that just because there's no scientific evidence to support the claims of religious people doesn't necessarily mean that their claims are false - just that they are not supported by evidence that is CURRENTLY availably (i.e. perhaps evidence existed in the past but is no longer accessible, or perhaps evidence will arise in future).

But I still say that whether or not you are currently correct in your beliefs is besides the point - I'd rather hold an incorrect belief that is supported by evidence than hold a correct belief that was arrived at in an arbitrary fashion and I happened to get lucky and be right.

Show one piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus, not the gospels, but contemporary evidence, as we are supposed to start at the beginning.

[oo00oo]

(Original post by aljolson)
Show one piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus, not the gospels, but contemporary evidence, as we are supposed to start at the beginning.

Why are you aiming this at me?

I never stated that Jesus existed... so why am is evidence for that statement being demanded of me?

[aljolson]

(Original post by oo00oo)
Why are you aiming this at me?

I never stated that Jesus existed... so why am is evidence for that statement being demanded of me?

I apologise, thought you were one of THEM, never read your final sentence til after post, sorry.

[oo00oo]

(Original post by aljolson)
I apologise, thought you were one of THEM, never read your final sentence til after post, sorry.

Very much not one of them... very much one of anti-them.

[jmj]

(Original post by jerseymackem)
The big bang doesn't really hold any great challenge for a Christian, apart from if you are a fundamentalist and believe every word of the Bible (of which there are very few). The man who first came up with the theory of the Big Bang was Christian (as was Mendel, the father of modern genetics and many more)

It depends what you mean by 'believing every word of the Bible' I'm a Christian who fully believes the bible is the infallible Word of God, but that it also has 66 different books in it with different genres (poetry, prophesy, historical narrative, apocolyptic, biographies, symbolism, songs etc). I think there are strong arguments to view Genesis 1 as metaphor and symbolism rather than a history book, just as if you went to a bookshop you wouldn't read a science book the same as a historical book or a book about poetry. Therefore I'm a Bible believing Christian who also completely agrees with the Big Bang and with evolution

[jerseymackem]

(Original post by jmj)
It depends what you mean by 'believing every word of the Bible' I'm a Christian who fully believes the bible is the infallible Word of God, but that it also has 66 different books in it with different genres (poetry, prophesy, historical narrative, apocolyptic, biographies, symbolism, songs etc). I think there are strong arguments to view Genesis 1 as metaphor and symbolism rather than a history book, just as if you went to a bookshop you wouldn't read a science book the same as a historical book or a book about poetry. Therefore I'm a Bible believing Christian who also completely agrees with the Big Bang and with evolution

Exactly, and that's how I'd view the beginning of Genesis with regards to scientific views of life and the universe - that it's more poetry/metaphor demonstrating God's power and wisdom.

[Okashira]

If Genesis is metaphor, how do you explain the sinful nature?

[Marcos135]

The Big Bang theory is incomplete and all scientists acknowledge this.

Obviously, it is nonsensical to suggest everything came from nothing. That may be a local manifestation of a bigger picture.

[Marcos135]

Btw. I am not suggesting that it is a God.... just saying that we don't know. Not knowing something is by no means the same as accepting there is a God/or that it is the work of God.