It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Big Bang? More Like The Big Who Gives A #.

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
They have to be part of the same scientific explanation based on facts and empirical evidence .Oh I forgot you are not a atheist like so many scientist are but are a fence setter . a reply to: Krazysh0t




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
They have to be part of the same scientific explanation based on facts and empirical evidence .Oh I forgot you are not a atheist like so many scientist are but are a fence setter . a reply to: Krazysh0t



No that isn't true at all. The theories can be removed and new theories substituted in their place and the other theory wouldn't be effected in the slightest.

Also, fence setter? Can't you just say agnostic? I didn't know we were making up derogatory remarks about agnostics now. I thought atheists were the goto bogeymen of Christians?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
You should become a Mod then and sensor what can be shared and what can't .... a reply to: TzarChasm



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Sorry I didn't know you would take offence ,I apologize I am sorry . But yea they can swap out create new theory's that hey can get a few more miles out of if they want . I am not in such a precarious situation with the bible and have no need to change any part full cloth . a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99


How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.


Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99


the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain other than something happened. and thats exactly as specific as we can get right now without speculating.


Agreed.

...but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that given what 'we' do know - 'we' can specifically say without speculation that all available data points to it always existing...

A99


there is a difference between minute possibility and overwhelming probability.


Are you saying - that there is a 'minute possibility' that something came from nothing?

A99


Even if there was a universe, or universes, prior to the expansion and inflation that created the one we currently inhabit, it still doesn't imply that our universe in its current inception, if there were nothing prior to its expansion, was created from nothing. The singularity which rapidly expanded to create this universe was not "nothing". The singularity was the sum of everything that went into the creation of the first generation stars ~100 MY after the Big Bang in an infinitely dense, gravitational singularity. Which contrary to most peoples thoughts was not in any way an explosion. To give some context, our own solar system is a 3rd or 4th generation star. Meaning that there were 2 or 3 solar systems here comprised of different and lighter elements than our own is. The early universe consisted almost exclusively of a couple different isotopes of Hydrogen and Helium and likely a great deal of dark matter. In short, there really isn't even a minute probability that the universe was created from nothing as the singularity itself was "something".




In a nutshell (because that last paragraph sums up the limit of the information - and I appreciate the whole reply because it assumed nothing of my 'supposed' stance - on the understanding that members' posts can be searched and erroneously assessed [although I have never done this - indeed, I don't know how/don't want to know]...or because of the nomenclature used...) - it would be safe to say...there was an egg...how, or in what way this egg came about, we do not know. As far as I'm concerned, that is an adequate answer. Any rationale that can definitively place a probability or possibility upon this, is not thinking through it (because those possibilities and probabilities rely on 'something')...
I can 'leave it to the experts'...to point me to a conclusion (with the help of expansion/contraction math) that at one point, the body was a zygote...savvy?

Cheers

Å99



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Sorry I didn't know you would take offence ,I apologize I am sorry . But yea they can swap out create new theory's that hey can get a few more miles out of if they want . I am not in such a precarious situation with the bible and have no need to change any part full cloth . a reply to: Krazysh0t



But that's the thing. The fluidity makes it more believable. With a rigid belief system you end up rationalizing away or ignoring conflicting evidence to your beliefs because your beliefs have no room for error. One must be able to follow the evidence, no matter where it leads.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   


One must be able to follow the evidence, no matter where it leads.
a reply to: Krazysh0t That is what I did .I didn't let my misunderstanding about it get in the way of searching .Things I didn't understand at the time only became known to me later when I was least looking .Its like a giant puzzle that you have no control over the way you try and fit the pieces together . Suddenly you realize the place for the piece you couldn't recognize fits into the spot you are looking at . I think this teaches the believer that they need God to do the showing and revealing when He decides .



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

That isn't the same thing that I'm talking about. The bible has ready made answers for you. Why is this the case? Insert story about God doing such and such. Why is this other thing the case? Insert another story about the divine. So what happens is that you end up searching for the evidence to validate the story. In order to confirm the divinity of the story, one must authenticate every detail of said story. But since the person is only searching for evidence to confirm the given story, he fails to search for evidence that may conflict with said story. All of this is called confirmation bias.

The difference between what you do and what I do, is that I start with the (objective) evidence. I let the evidence tell its own story without bias and without human failability. Then I find more evidence and let the new evidence tell a more complete story or a different story that is better told with the new evidence. No particular story is set in stone. One adapts and drops things that are shown to be wrong. This leaves me with the best approximation of how things work. The only draw back here is that I can only follow the evidence that humans can collect. If we don't have the evidence to answer a question, then the answer remains unknown. It is a very slow process and you don't always get the answer you want, but it certainly beats being told what to believe.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   


The difference between what you do and what I do, is that I start with the (objective) evidence. I let the evidence tell its own story without bias and without human failability.
a reply to: Krazysh0t Earlier on I said something that offended you that had no offensive intention . When you did your calculations for that equation ,were you using subjective feelings or was it based solely on the objective statement that we both knew what was meant by it ? You see we both know that not all prof can be observed and some prof is purely subjective .

God works with the subjective individual and requires the individual to be truthful subjectively .Once that is settled between God and the individual ,God will reveal more in many ways .



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.


so how exactly do you determine whether god responds to these personal feelings and opinions, or is created by them?

how would you test that? please be specific with your response, thank you.
edit on 15-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The first and best I can think of is peace with God . a reply to: TzarChasm



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Except your brain lies to you ALL the time. Sometimes without you even realizing it.

Is Your Brain Lying to You?

Your brain lies to you


The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer's hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man's curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don't remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

With time, this misremembering gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.


So you may think you are telling the truth, but in reality you are completely wrong. THAT is why subjective evidence isn't worth squat.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
My subjective experience agrees with you in that ,when I was in grade 4 I noticed that some of what I was being taught as truth was not truth at all .I was told that in grade 5 that would change but it was the same old memorization and regurgitation system . They were not teaching me how to learn but what to learn . I rebelled and wouldn't by into the crap . As time went on I decided to try to learn things on my own .I was a good learner and worked at many things .

One of the things I concluded that was a problem was some of the crap that was stuck in my head weather through some of the kool aid I had drunk or through the programming from other sources ( TV) . The thing I decided to do was to unlearn all what I thought I knew and relearn again from sources I could trust . If you can't believe God then who can you trust . It's is a easy thing to be fooled by man or yourself but I put my trust in God ....I will consider most things by man but man is just flesh and is mortal and fallible . If I misunderstand God then it's a shame on me .If I believe someone who misunderstands them self it is still a shame on me .

I question both God and man and look for understanding .If a scientist or a man can not give me the understanding I need then I wont understand them . If God decides to give me understanding then I will understand . I am a work in process . a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I encountered the same problem, but when I started looking into the real truth I just discovered that what I was being told was just the whitewashed PG version of things. But it makes sense looking back on it, you cannot get too in depth trying to teach young children (I was a little perturbed that the whitewashing continued into high school, but whatever).

Though really, this problem only arose for two subjects: History and Science. All other subjects were teaching me how to do something (Math teaching me how to calculate, English teaching me how to read and write properly, etc) so they all started by teaching the basics and getting progressively harder. I forgave science for being dumbed down because science isn't simple and sometimes you need to start off with a simple explanation before you can move onto the advanced information. To this day I cannot forgive history for being too dumbed down. I understand that elementary students have no business learning that Ben Franklin was a womanizer or something, but as I got older and into higher grades, that nonsense should have tapered off. I didn't feel like I learned real history until I went to college and took a college history course.

As far as disregarding everything I learned. That is folly. The stuff they teach you in grade school is true for the most part. But grade school is also supposed to teach you how to critically think. And critical thinking is how you further your education beyond the crappy one you receive in grade school.

Though I'm not sure what any of this has to do with your brain lying to you about events that you witnessed in the past or things you read.
edit on 16-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
The first and best I can think of is peace with God . a reply to: TzarChasm



that doesnt answer my question. i asked "how would you test whether god responds to these personal feelings and opinions, or is created by them?"

now please try again.

edit: actually, never mind. its off topic. but i will remember this question and pose it to you when it is ON topic. expect it.
edit on 16-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
People can really see things that are not there .I once took '___' under a Doctors supervision .I knew my brain was lying to me even while seeing things happen that were not . You might like to check this assessment on education called A CRISIS OF COMPETENCE www.nas.org... I havent read it yet but plan to ,hopefully today . a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Yea , no problem .later a reply to: TzarChasm



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I know. That was my point for posting the articles. Your brain lies to you. I makes you think you are seeing things that aren't there. It remembers events wrong. It will filter out evidence that goes against what you believe. The brain isn't to be trusted and the brain is the source for all subjective information. Objective information comes from outside sources and only need to be interpreted not remembered.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
That is why I choose the Bible as my outside source for truth .Can't trust man and can't trust myself . a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Except you are falling for one of the very lies your brain tells you. The one that disregards conflicting evidence in favor of something you agree with. The Bible is written by men. Therefore it is subject to having lies in it. We can prove this is the case since many of the claims in it aren't true.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join