It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Albert Einsteins general relativity... demands that the universe has a beginning.
The second law of thermodynamics... also demands a beginning to the universe.
As predicted by theory, astronomer Edwin Hubble observed that the entire universe is expanding from a single point...
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
For those unfamiliar with scripture the "God of this age" Paul referred to is Satan. That doesn't mean we have to demonize every individual atheist. But it does say we have to realize their unbelief has a supernatural source. Which explains why the very clear evidence for God and his design is so easily ignored.
Originally posted by bled_eidol
I'm an atheist, but I do not deny that a God could exist. In the same way, the universe could be a bacteria in the urine sample of a holographic mastodon. I have no reason to believe either possibility.
When you experience something profound, often it is hard to put into words.
We all can suffer from contempt prior to investigation at times!
I just don't like the God Box. The reality of most - putting God into a tight box with a lid. And anything that does not fit their definition or into their equation regarding God, cannot be right in their eyes.
Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
n that other thread you were somehow trying to conclude that because our laws of physics behave the way they do, the Christian God must exist the way the bible says.
Have you considered M theory?
What is one to make of all this? As with all scientific theories, we begin by asking for the evidence. So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn't any. As Weinberg admits, "These are very speculative ideas ... without any experimental support." Smolin is even more candid. He calls his ideas "a fantasy.... It is possible that all I have done here is cobble together a set of false clues that only seem to have something to do with each other.... There is every chance that these ideas will not succeed." I appreciate this candor, and I am reminded of that old Ptolemaic remedy for problematic data: "just add epicycles." Now we are in the realm of "just add universes."
Okie dokie, this argument is the one that officially ends all rational discussion. If satan becomes your reason for any type of disagreement, you have not only taken this thread down an alternate route, but that route happens to be a dead end.
All I ask is for you to prove to me that god exists in an intelligent thought out case without reverting to the term "faith". Not exactly an easy thing to do.
Why are you so convinced that you're right, when the only evidence of your 'faith' is a book conveniently written by the followers of said faith?