1:1 In the beginning God created the heaves and the earth.

Originally posted by Jigtie
On the first, that is the next, day he created the firmament and called the water above the firmament:
heaven. But wasn't heaven already created? And, is the blue sky really water? And, who created the
other planets in the universe? And, who created universe itself?

"The Heavens" in this context mean the sky, we don't know exactly when God created Heaven, no the blue sky isn't water as we have went through it to go to the moon, I think we are supposed to assume that God created all of space in the first day

Originally posted by josephw
The [b]heaven is the universe.
[/b]

Isn't Earth a part of Universe?
I live in Universe, does it mean that I'm in heaven already?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Isn't Earth a part of Universe?
I live in Universe, does it mean that I'm in heaven already?

Yes Earth is only part of the universe, no you're not in Heaven, although some people use both "Earth" and "Universe" for "Earth" that may be where the confusion is coming from

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what do we know?
big bang? doesn't disprove god and it has flaws.
evolution? doesn't disprove god, supports my metaphor theory and it has flaws. (like all theories do).

so what do we know that would make us treat this as myth?

You are wrong because science has the tools to test this idea. The monotheists have made very definite claims about God and they have failed the test in lots of areas. These are two.

Does Big Bang disprove God? Well yes it does because if we did not have Big Bang or a similarly well tested model, then we would be obliged to accept the God hypothesis. The idea that this theory has flaws is just silly. It is a theory - and not an empty hypothesis - only because of the weight of support it has received in endless attempts to test it and prove it wrong. That is what science does - it does not prove things right, it tries to prove them wrong. What Big Bang does is to provide the basis for a complete description of the formation and continuing changes in the physical universe. It works staggeringly well.

Does evolution ... Yes it does - it destroys the Biblical account by demonstrating a superior model based on evidence and capable of making surprising, yet valid predictions such as the way a virus mutates. More specifically, Darwin loved the idea of Intelligent Design and was distracted for decades by finding more and more evidence against it. He had to abandon it. And of course, up to that point, the argument from design was a mainstay of religion.

So the claims of religion are falling by the wayside in the face of evidence. If a scientist could prove that the Big Bang was really something outside the laws of physics, that scientist would be a huge success and receive massive funding. There is every motive for a scientist to produce evidence favouring the miraculous. But that is just not happening. The God hypothesis - all the claims made for God - is being destroyed by the evidence.

In science and reason, what happens to a hypothesis that fails to make decent predictions, that makes predictions that simply do not stack up, is that it dies.

Originally posted by finnegan
You are wrong because science has the tools to test this idea. The monotheists have made very definite claims about God and they have failed the test in lots of areas. These are two.

Does Big Bang disprove God? Well yes it does because if we did not have Big Bang or a similarly well tested model, then we would be obliged to accept the God hypothesis. T ...[text shortened]... to make decent predictions, that makes predictions that simply do not stack up, is that it dies.

======================================
So the claims of religion are falling by the wayside in the face of evidence. If a scientist could prove that the Big Bang was really something outside the laws of physics, that scientist would be a huge success and receive massive funding. There is every motive for a scientist to produce evidence favouring the miraculous. But that is just not happening. The God hypothesis - all the claims made for God - is being destroyed by the evidence.
==========================================

What evidence would you point to to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the following statment is false?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

What is it that science knows such that this statement should not be believed ?

Originally posted by finnegan
You are wrong because science has the tools to test this idea. The monotheists have made very definite claims about God and they have failed the test in lots of areas. These are two.

Does Big Bang disprove God? Well yes it does because if we did not have Big Bang or a similarly well tested model, then we would be obliged to accept the God hypothesis. T ...[text shortened]... to make decent predictions, that makes predictions that simply do not stack up, is that it dies.

Does Big Bang disprove God? Well yes it does because if we did not have Big Bang or a similarly well tested model, then we would be obliged to accept the God hypothesis.
Well tested model? Are you high? Do you actually believe that the Big Bang is testable, let alone well tested? What a crock.

What Big Bang does is to provide the basis for a complete description of the formation and continuing changes in the physical universe. It works staggeringly well.
Statements like that are an embarrassing example of hyperbole based on conjecture, wrapped in pomposity. You have no clue what you're talking about. The Big Bang is merely a theory based on working backwards from what is known: from what we see strewn throughout the universe, we can work it backward to a single moment of explosive existence. It is far from a complete description, and the only thing 'staggering' about it is that--- for the most part--- it fits our current observations (assuming those to be true, of course). It remains problematic to this very day, for several reasons, inflation and baryogenesis to name two.

Does evolution ... Yes it does - it destroys the Biblical account by demonstrating a superior model based on evidence and capable of making surprising, yet valid predictions such as the way a virus mutates. More specifically, Darwin loved the idea of Intelligent Design and was distracted for decades by finding more and more evidence against it. He had to abandon it. And of course, up to that point, the argument from design was a mainstay of religion.
Bleh.

In science and reason, what happens to a hypothesis that fails to make decent predictions, that makes predictions that simply do not stack up, is that it dies.
Spoken like a true believer.

Originally posted by finnegan
Does Big Bang disprove God? Well yes it does because if we did not have Big Bang or a similarly well tested model, then we would be obliged to accept the God hypothesis.

Why do you think that the Big Bang disproves God? Couldn't it be that God created the Universe by using the Big Bang?

The person that put forward the hypothesis of the Big Bang (his original name for it was the primordial egg) was Lemaitre. A belgian priest. He arrived at the idea of a time in the finite past where all the energy of the Universe was concentrated at a unique point.
t his time most scientists didn't like this conclusion because they said that the Big Bang reminded them about Creation and God. Einstein was one such fellow.

Nowadays when people talk about the Big Bang they somehow conclude that the Big Bang avoids the existence of some kind of a Creator. But it does not do that.

These ideas come from different realms of human activities and should not be mixed up in order to reach any sensible conclusion. If anything they just mutually reinforce each other.

I could also present a few criticisms of the Big Band conclusion (it isn't a theory, it is just a result of a theory - the theory being General Relativity), but I won't do that... Not now at least.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
So the claims of religion are falling by the wayside in the face of evidence. If a scientist could prove that the Big Bang was really something outside the laws of physics, that scientist would be a huge success and receive massive funding. There is every motive for a scientist to produce evidence favouring the ...[text shortened]... b]

What is it that science [b]knows such that this statement should not be believed ?[/b]

Science could never disprove that statement, given that the statement isn't scientific.

Originally posted by jaywill
======================================
So the claims of religion are falling by the wayside in the face of evidence. If a scientist could prove that the Big Bang was really something outside the laws of physics, that scientist would be a huge success and receive massive funding. There is every motive for a scientist to produce evidence favouring the b]

What is it that science [b]knows such that this statement should not be believed ?[/b]

If God created the World then it ought to be the product of miraculous intervention and there must be something we can see that falls outside the laws of physics. However, there is nothing outside the laws of physics in the history of this universe having looked with great care and intensity. If there is, kindly point it out. Hence, the proposition that God made the World fails to predict correctly what we observe in our universe. By contrast, the laws of physics have been incredibly successful and as such merit our support.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Why do you think that the Big Bang disproves God? Couldn't it be that God created the Universe by using the Big Bang?

The person that put forward the hypothesis of the Big Bang (his original name for it was the primordial egg) was Lemaitre. A belgian [b]priest. He arrived at the idea of a time in the finite past where all the energy of the Univer ...[text shortened]... of a theory - the theory being General Relativity), but I won't do that... Not now at least.[/b]

You could decide that God created the universe entirely in accordance with the laws of physics but that would conflict with all sensible readings of what Christians, Muslims and Jews are claiming. It would also reduce God's scope far more than is consistent with a personal God who intervenes in great detail.

The Big Bang hypothesis guided a great deal of research - much of it in the world of mathematics - and was tested until, having established its validity in many contexts, it was elevated to the status of a well grounded theory.

These ideas are not from different realms because Christians et all make very definite claims about God's direct intervention in the history of the universe. If they make claims about the world then it is reasonable to test those claims and in particular, to question a) if the history of the universe fits their description (it does not) and b) if there is a better explanation (there is).

Originally posted by adam warlock
Why do you think ... most scientists didn't like this conclusion because they said that the Big Bang reminded them about Creation and God. Einstein was one such fellow.

The way in which Einstein used the notion of a God was totally incompatible with the Christian / monotheist concept and closest to that of Spinoza. He explicitly denied that he believed in "God" many times. If you want to adopt his version of God then I am sorry to tell you that you must abandon Christianity.

Originally posted by finnegan
You could decide that God created the universe entirely in accordance with the laws of physics but that would conflict with all sensible readings of what Christians, Muslims and Jews are claiming. It would also reduce God's scope far more than is consistent with a personal God who intervenes in great detail.

The Big Bang hypothesis guided a great deal o verse fits their description (it does not) and b) if there is a better explanation (there is).

The Big Bang neither is a theory nor an hypothesis. It is a result from a theory. The theory being General Relativity.
Saying that the Big Bang prevents the existence of God is just a mistake.

Just like any other result in physics The Big Bang has its share of successes and mishaps. If you only want to concede the existence of the sucesses than that's just you being narrow and as fundamentalist as some of the so called Christians that regularly post in here..

Those ideas are from different realms because you're mixing up Science and Theology.
Yes the Bg Bang is a much better explanation than the one can find in the Bible (hardly a victory if one takes into account what's written in the Bible for instance), but it doesn't prevent the existence of a God (I think you're right on your comments about the caring God).

Another side that you may find to be relevant: do you know what Newton thought about gravity and his theory of gravitation?

Originally posted by finnegan
The way in which Einstein used the notion of a God was totally incompatible with the Christian / monotheist concept and closest to that of Spinoza. He explicitly denied that he believed in "God" many times. If you want to adopt his version of God then I am sorry to tell you that you must abandon Christianity.

Abandon Christianity? I'm not a Christian for crying out loud. I'm an atheist/apatheist.

And the God that Einstein was talking about when he refused to endorse Lemaitre's conclusion was the Abrahamic God.

Originally posted by RBHILL
e ski has no color it just looks blue.

the ski has no color it just looks blue.

Man thats deep!

So if something looks red it may not be red? Or does it just work for blue things?

The sky IS blue.
Why is it blue?
Because short wave light is scattered more easily than long-wave.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Abandon Christianity? I'm not a Christian for crying out loud. I'm an atheist/apatheist.

And the God that Einstein was talking about when he refused to endorse Lemaitre's conclusion was the Abrahamic God.

The Christian God is the Abrahamic God is the Muslim God.

Sorry to imply you are a Christian when you are not.