My take on th Big Bang

I think you read way too much into what I said because I have no idea what you are talking about or why you have directed those comments towards me.

 

Please post quote of me saying my claim is dead right.

- - - Updated - - -

And who is the creator? Do you have proof of said creator outside of the Bible?

 

Theological proof is an oxymoron. Most with even below average intelligence can understand that there had to be a beginning so the Bible is just stating the obvious rather than teaching us some profound truth.

 

So what is the correct way to read the Bible? To me reading it "blindly" is to read with an open mind.

 

Oh look a simple equation:

60 x 60x24x265.25x14,500,000,000x299,792,458 = one big ass number.

If you wrote a number per second and didn't sleep or eat you would only be up to 30.75 million in a year. now perhaps you can actually deduce how many trillions of years it would take you to write it out.

 

Then you are essentially saying that the number is so darn large that no-one has ever been able to show the actual computation in standard high-school algebraic computations (minus the scientific notations). Furthermore on the subject of scientific notation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation
"
Further examples of scientific notation

• An electron's mass is about 0.00000000000000000000000000000091093822 kg. In scientific notation, this is written 9.1093822×10[SUP]−31[/SUP] kg (in SI units).
• The Earth's mass is about 5973600000000000000000000 kg. In scientific notation, this is written 5.9736×10[SUP]24[/SUP] kg.
• The Earth's circumference is approximately 40000000 m. In scientific notation, this is 4×10[SUP]7[/SUP] m. In engineering notation, this is written 40×10[SUP]6[/SUP] m. In SI writing style, this may be written "40 Mm" (40 megameters).
• An inch is defined as exactly 25.4 mm (so the number of significant digits is actually infinite). Quoting a value of 25.400 mm shows that the value is correct to the nearest micrometer. An approximated value with only three significant digits would be 2.54×10[SUP]1[/SUP] mm instead. As there is no limit to the number of significant digits, the length of an inch could, if required, be written as (say) 2.54000000000×10[SUP]1[/SUP] mm instead."

those terms highlighted in red letter indicate to me that the numbers derived are not 'accurate'... but merely guesswork. Yet some people want to make declarations pertaining to trillions of stars (uncounted) (the macrocosm) and so small as the mass of a proton (unseen) and still not able to give an accurate measurement of the mass of the Earth. It makes me believe that the system of mathematics is nothing more than an arbitrary method of expression without being able to show PROOF for the expression(s).

 

Nope. I'm not referring to the guy nailed up on the cross. He did have a nice message, however.

 

"Proof"...

In what discipline would you accept a "proof?"

A "proof" is something inside you which says, "That's true."

Evidence from various fields of inquiry may be the thing you might find convinces you that some thing is true.
Would you accept Quantum Physics as a field that evidences things you may say prove the Creator idea to you?

The Copenhagen Interpretation insists that an "Observer" would be needed to collapse the first Wave Functions of the cosmos into a material reality.
That "Observer" had to pre-exist the Universe, before the Big Bang, and would, defacto, have been The Creator.


But you will not accept that either, will you?

 

Oh,...
The son-of-man!

He was just the messiah ben Joseph who did what Rev Martin Luther king did in 1965.
The son-of-man gave his life for us to see the Truth he was preaching.

He wanted us to recognize Truth as the son-of-God.
Truth is born as the Reality unfolds from moment to moment.
Truth is our savior.

 

That point of view seems right.
But if one reads it blindly, he might be imposing things one has heard about it, as the explanation for ideas others have supplied answers for.

 

2) Today we seem to understand that the Universe was not always there, and not bounded, and expanding, etc.
But before 1940AD, science said the Universe was ALWAYS there.
It was infinite.
It was ONLY when Hubble discovered that all galaxies were fleeing from one central singularity that the Big Bang Theory became accepted.

3) So, the Bible, for 3362 years, had been stating something only confirmed by Science recently.

1) Theology is afield of human inquiry which can be right and wrong about things it studies.
It is a field just as valid as Science, but centered on the matter of God(s).
Having a dislike or lack of appreciation for it is silly whether you believe in God(s) or do not.

 

The one that can be backed by empirical evidence of a deity.

Exactly which is why religion is an individual matter of faith.

No as Quantum Physics raises more questions than it answers.

An interpretation is not an irrefutable fact. All any of us can do is guess.

No, but apparently you accept "interpretations" as proof.

 

And if one is guided that can inject a bias that skews ones interpretation of the Bible.

 

Theory is not fact... its an educated best guess. Just because a theory is accepted does not mean it is factually correct. A theory is something waiting to be proven correct or incorrect.

The Bible is a work of fiction and proves nothing.

I like theology and have an appreciation for it. What is silly to me is to try to use a theory as proof of God.

I believe in God but as I have no proof of God all I offer is my opinion...while you desperately try to prove the unprovable.

 

Are you writing the common vernacular or in a legal sense?

 

As I always say when challenged in theology... all I have is opinion... just like everyone else. If you or others would like to argue the Bible as being proof of God, then the burden of proof is upon those that make that claim.

 

Wait a minute. I ask you a question to clarify what or which context you are using a term, and then you respond with 'the burden of proof' routine. What happened to the search for 'truth'? Did you forsake that venture? Are you afraid to answer the simple question? Are you attempting to hide something?

 

So the theory of gravity isn't a fact?

 

Your question in post #65 was nonsensical. I reject the binary "common vernacular or in a legal sense" box that you have constructed. The Bible is a work of fiction and proves nothing... this is my opinion... accept it or reject it... matters not to me. If you want to play semantics you will need to find someone who is willing to follow you down that rabbit hole.

 

Ref. Post #59:

Define Truth.

 

I have already tried to get cupid dave to answer that question and all I got was fluffy generalities of no substance.

 

That's an inaccurate statement for the simple reason that we don't see the light from the Big Bang. What we see are countless fully formed galaxies at distances equivalent to 14.5 billion years. So it should be obvious that the Big Bang had to have happened (if it did) a long time before 14.5 billion years ago. It's highly doubtful that the Big Bang spewed out billions of fully formed galaxies.

 

You were the one that stated one could not use scientific notation in response. I pointed out to you how ridiculous it was to even contemplate since it would take trillions of years at a number per second to write it out. And then you condescend to explain to me what scientific notation is?

What a weird way to get one's jollies.

As for you believing mathematics to be arbitrary and does not contain proofs, apparently you are completely ignorant of the plethora of applications wholly dependent on those mathematical proofs. A plethora that you directly use and that indirectly effect your life every single day.

Fortunately most of the rest of the planet finds such notions to be idiotic.

 

You do not see countless fully formed galaxies at a distance of 14.5 billion years. One "sees" the microwave background radiation predicted by the theory. microwaves travel at the speed of light

 

Making up your own facts again?

http://www.space.com/23306-ancient-galaxy-farthest-ever-seen.html