Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Answer

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Beelzebub X on October 13, 1999 16:57:01 UTC

: Phil.o.sofir: : I think, that the law of gravity was not born during the first second of the big bang, rather the first of the laws which already exists to be applied to the re-expanding matter. This has happened before, it will happen again, each time there are different variables, and while in any phase there are surely big bangs occuring at other places throughout this infinite universe we live in. To say that the big bang and all its force and matter will be or is a completely contained explosion is a very big assumption.

: Greg: : It is not an assumption at all, it is simply the nature of Gravity. All that is required is enough mass. As matter can neither be created or destroyed, since there was once enough mass to involve the universe in being contained in a singularity, there still is, so it shall be again. The universe is not, nor can it be, infinite, it is finite. There is no sign of a fountain of creation, and without a means of replenishing the material, if the universe just kept on expanding, eventually it would just cool off and die. They expected to see the primordial universe with the Hubble Telescope, but they didn't. They can see back further then ever before, but still all they see is more galaxies, more matter.

: Phil.o.sofir: : As far as divine creation, I do not believe it, and the use of a rainbow as a sign is so much old folk lore, they existed to the human eye ever since there has been an atmoshere of any kind, for our entire atmosphere is a prizm which gives off so many rainbows that our meager senses and even extended senses (machinary) cannot possibly hope to fathom in this day and age.

: Greg: : I do not consider the Rainbow to be God's Covenant, but rather The Spectrum because of its unerring nature. The Rainbow is simply a clear and visible representation of The Spectrum that God used to point to His Covenant when He offered Inspiration to people who knew nothing about The Spectrum. The Spectrum is worthy of Being a Covenant, by God, because of its unerring nature. It is a Covenant that refers to Universal Truth however, and not one that infers that there will never be another Global Flood, since there never was one to begin with. :o)

: Phil.o.sofir: : Finally, heated argument is gratifiying, but to put others down intentionally is unnessisary and leads to a closing off of other points of view which exist in the world of this present reality. : Knowledge is great when combined with a flexible humility, and a little humor to boot gives a sweet taste to all of ones senses.

: Greg: : Beezlebub ask for arguments for the existence of God, that he could not easily disprove. I offered Him one. He could not disprove it, yet he insists on expounding upon his view that God does not exist, while continuing to ask me to prove that He does. If he will not accept the indications I offer, and he won't dispute those indications, then that indicates a closed-mind that is just being obstinate and no productive discussion is possible either way. I was not trying to put him down, but rather induce specific arguments from him. He responds by sniping my arguments, and then disputing the closing statement which was no argument at all! Give me a break! I can go to any religious forum and get that kind of debate, I come here hoping to avoid it.

Beelzebub: Which argument could I not disprove? Do you mean the big-bang? The big-bang is only a very speculative theory, when the majority of all scientists suddenly recognize it's the wrong theory then you stop to believe in God? My argumten was: You can not build up your belief on a speculation!

Or do you mean the gravity? Then you mean it's an argument for a deity that we can't explain something? The scientists can not explain why a cat purrs, that's why there must be a God? But if you want I can give you an explanation for the gravity (perhaps it's a funny theory, but it's surely more logical than to say it's God): The gravity is a distortion of the vacuum. The matter is negative vacuum - heavily compressed vacuum (dirt in the perfect nothing). This matter interacts with the vacuum and forces a distortion. This distortion is a flux of space. Near to the matter the vacuum is more compressed, that's why the matter "exists" more in the more compact vacuum, the result is a flux = gravity. Now the gravity is explained. What says God to that?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins