The existence of God - Page 19

Russ · 02-04-2009, 23:30

Maths please

mischievious · 02-04-2009, 23:38

well depending on how you see things i.e. math (american typically) or maths (uk typically)..... The original link wich I believe was on page 15 of this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7955846.stm

suggests from several experts that there may well be a higher calling.... the possibility is God not probability. My job is easy I accept that I am open to both sides but I love thought provoking ideas and the idea that math(s) can prove that there are things we just don't know inc the possibility of the divine.

Russ · 02-04-2009, 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischievious

well depending on how you see things i.e. math (american typically) or maths (uk typically).....

This is a UK forum so americanisms (in place of our own perfectly acceptable versions) should be left at the door

Gary L · 02-04-2009, 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischievious

well depending on how you see things i.e. math (american typically) or maths (uk typically)..... The original link wich I believe was on page 15 of this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7955846.stm

I think they're not taking into account the Big Bang. God wouldn't have survived the Big Bang.
unless he was after the Big Bang. but if he was after the Big Bang then some say that it was the Big Bang that created the earth. and if that is the case then God didn't create it so there can't be a God?

Russ · 02-04-2009, 23:47

Some suggest the Big Bang was the moment God said "Let there be light" - that's the theory I prefer

Gary L · 02-04-2009, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Some suggest the Big Bang was the moment God said "Let there be light" - that's the theory I prefer

I prefer the "Let there be noise" theory. it's more convincing

frogstamper · 03-04-2009, 00:06

Well folks I think I'd opt for "Let there be Dawkins".

mischievious · 03-04-2009, 00:09

Gary:
I don't think the "Big Bang" was a literal noise definition. I think it meant an explosion of matter from a concentric point. Also you assume that God didn't create the phenomenon..... Also your comment seems to assume that god is/was/"would be" negatively affected by such an event.

I assume therefore that your comments were purely jovial?

Gary L · 03-04-2009, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischievious

Gary:
I don't think the "Big Bang" was a literal noise definition. I think it meant an explosion of matter from a concentric point.

It might have been quiet from down here, but you would have heard it up there.

Quote:

Also you assume that God didn't create the phenomenon..... Also your comment seems to assume that god is/was/"would be" negatively affected by such an event.

I don't know if he was even around at the event. but surely something colossal as the earth being created it would mean that anything outside/within/around it wouldn't survive?

Quote:

I assume therefore that your comments were purely jovial?

No they were dead serious.

---------- Post added at 01:28 ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Well folks I think I'd opt for "Let there be Dawkins".

Wasn't he the non fictional author?

mischievious · 03-04-2009, 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

I don't know if he was even around at the event. but surely something colossal as the earth being created it would mean that anything outside/within/around it wouldn't survive?

Since I have to point out the obvious.....?

Why?

Also, you consider EARTH as collosal, I was expecting the universe...

lucy7 · 03-04-2009, 07:11

Even scientists are now going against the big bang therory.
Stephen Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time" could be one to read for this, but it will take you ages and gets a bit confusing at times!
There is no evidence to prove the world was created in a big bang, not that I have found anyway!
Most who subscribe to this therory have very dogmatic view points on it, but the more they say it, does not make it correct!

We once thought the world was flat.
This was proved incorrect!

Russ · 03-04-2009, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

I prefer the "Let there be noise" theory. it's more convincing

Now you see, a good example of me willing to accept some of your theory but you not willing to accept any of mine.

downquark1 · 03-04-2009, 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucy7

Even scientists are now going against the big bang therory.
Stephen Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time" could be one to read for this, but it will take you ages and gets a bit confusing at times!
There is no evidence to prove the world was created in a big bang, not that I have found anyway!
Most who subscribe to this therory have very dogmatic view points on it, but the more they say it, does not make it correct!

We once thought the world was flat.
This was proved incorrect!

Where in a brief history of time does Hawking's criticise the big bang theory?

lucy7 · 03-04-2009, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Where in a brief history of time does Hawking's criticise the big bang theory?

Never said it did!!

**Chris** · 03-04-2009, 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Where in a brief history of time does Hawking's criticise the big bang theory?

Lucy doesn't say that Hawking criticises it. She says that some scientists do, and refers us to Hawking's book for further information on that point.

Let's face it, the Big Bang is the creation myth of Hawking's religion, he's not about to start dissing it ...