I'm not talking about God. If you start talking about God, then idiots around the Globe will start to claim ownership of Him, and will dictate to you what He means and how you must live your life in order to appease him. I don't know if there is a dictatorial "god" who created us and wishes to enforce some kind of master-slave structure, with a "believe in my infinite love or be consumed in the fires of my rage" kind of ego-trip; or if we are collectively part of the Creator, expressing itself objectively from a trillion different standpoints; or if the Spirit is something entirely different, altogether. I simply don't know, and I am deeply suspicious of anyone who purports to instruct me that they do know. But what I do strongly believe is that we are here by design. It's a belief based on faith, and so has no grounding in fact.
It’s just bad full stop. religion is used to justify it. I know you’re a fairly religious bloke. But your religion is possibly slightly more bollocks than the others. Though I will add I despise all of them with equal measure. I’m not saying you’re a bad person. I happen to think you seem like a good egg. But you do lean toward the extreme and make excuses for extremists.
If you mean "God" as in the Biblical Yahweh, then, no. I do not believe in creationism. I do no have any religious beliefs. My beliefs are entirely spiritual, based on my own observations of the World, and certain experiences that I have had.
Only coz it winds up certain folk. I can count on one hand serious discussions. I do agree the "cover ups" for ****s committing atrocities doesn't do religion generally any favours. However I do think to even entertain that religion "allows" things like the bumming of kids is far fetched mate
Sorry mate, but the weight of evidence says that those theories are based in pseudo science. Physics and astrophysics has a long enough established paradigm of testing and trying to disprove theories to give them enough credibility to be sound working theories. Yes, they are just theories, but they are the best explanations that we have to describe our cosmos. The electrical universe theory doesn't stand up as far as I can see, but I'm willing to read a bit more
There are theories that the Universe is constantly expanding, then shrinking, then expanding again. In a big bang/big crunch way. So the idea that the universe suddenly sprang up out of nowhere for no reason isn't the logical conclusion of the big bang theory. The Human race likes to give things meaning, because our brains are wired to try and understand and make sense of the world around us, but that's not to say it actually has any meaning, other than what we ascribe to it. My personal view is that people put a design/creator slant on understanding the cosmos because it helps them to make sense where none otherwise exists.
The Big Bang Theory starts off with the premise that, in the beginning, there was nothing. Then, it exploded, and there was something. It is absurd. You will never get an astrophysicist argue this point with you, because they cannot. As for the idea of expansion and contraction, there is absolutely no evidence for it, whatsoever. The "evidence" that used to be relied on has been utterly discredited. You can argue with me all you like, but all you are doing is projecting onto me the same ignorant garbage that you were taught in school, forgetting that I have had my eyes opened. You are comforted by the lies. It is best that you remain blind to the truth.
I would say that you are happily delusional. So if that brings you comfort then nobody can argue against it for you
No, you don't understand. You're just getting upset because I'm skeptical of theories that are based in pseudo science. I'm open minded, I'm just not willing to unquestionably accept theories that have very little credibility. Talking of which, where's this credible evidence for advanced civilisations on Mars you promised us ?
I have used that argument many times and it has never had a decent rebuttal. Let me put it to you the other way, there was nothing then God created things The fact is we will never know how it all started, even if a God created what we see/know, where did he come from, another universe that came from nothing?
Exactly. We will never know. If we could know, there would be no need for faith. Faith is about believing in something without any direct evidence. Some people choose to believe that there is no Creator or design to our lives, and they do that without evidence. Therefore, they hold that believe as a matter of faith. I choose to believe that there is a Creator and that there is a design to our lives, and I do so without evidence. Therefore, I hold my belief as a matter of faith. The arrogance of agnostics is that they think their belief is based on science and is, therefore, more valid. It isn't. It is based on faith, just as is the belief of those who believe in a divine purpose.
You are not a sceptic. Study how philosophy defines the Sceptic movement. You are about as far from being a sceptic as you can get. "Scepticism" is a much-misused term, primarily used by those who set out with the intention of debunking ideas that do not accord with what they believe. That is not scepticism. A true sceptic is open to everything and holds to nothing. A true sceptic would read Lerner's book and would, in line with its basis premise, seriously question the claims made by those who preach the modern cosmological paradigm, and question why a raft of evidence that disputes its tenets is dismissed and hidden. I am far more a sceptic than you. That is the irony in your boastful scoffing, Pix.
The big bang theory actually states that before the big bang the premise of its theory has no measurable working hypothesis, so it doesn't attempt to explain it. What it does do is competently explain the structure of the cosmos after a singularity. So in those terms it's a good working hypothesis. What science doesn't do is try to explain events that it cannot offer credible evidence for, so naturally people fill in the blanks with all sorts of fanciful ideas. Some people then try and use scientific discipline to support their own belief systems i.e 'Well, if you cannot disprove that God/Creator/Deity doesn't exist, then you have to entertain the idea that he/she created the universe, because the big bang theory cannot explain how the universe came into existence' This is a total misnomer. Trying to apply the laws of scientific proof to suggest that the absence of proof, therefore gives carte blanche to suggest that the most fanciful ideas must also be equally weighted, is disingenuous and misleading. It's like saying 'You can't disprove that the Moon isn't made of cheese because you've never been there to find out for yourself'
Like I said, we will never know. Science and religion are trying to start something from a definite "no start" point.
1. Actually Agnostics believe that the existence of God cannot either be proven or disproven. They do not rely on any scientific theory to reach any conclusion on that. You're confusing that with Athiesm which takes a direct stance that God doesn't exist. 2. This explains why you believe that Spurs are a big club.
