Do You Think All Roads Lead To God? (Poll)

I can't find the link atm, but I remember reading about scientists who had managed to create amino acids from chemicals under natural conditions. Of course, this does not yet explain how life was created, but it is a big step in that direction.

If anyone has the link, please post it.

Also, Churchmaster, tell me why you believe in God, if you don't mind.

chessmaster1989

No. All roads lead to Rome.-Jiggles-

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"] Or, I am misunderstanding something?super_mario_128

Why do you not believe in the Christian God? Or, do you not believe in any god?Crushmaster

And let's just say I don't believe the universe 'just happened' to be.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Why do you not believe in the Christian God? Or, do you not believe in any god?super_mario_128

And let's just say I don't believe the universe 'just happened' to be.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]I just hope your right,considering you spend so much time on the faceless internet trying to change the beliefs of others to no avail. It would have been a waste of your time if there is nothing. Which frankly I do not feel you can disprove anymore than I can disprove to you your belief in god.-Jiggles-

We don't consider it a "waste of time", sharing the Gospel of salvation in Christ is our duty in service to the Lord. We do it out of love for our neighbor. In contrast, let's assume that knew that their friend was in great danger, for example they overheard another of their friends discussing how he planned to harm your friend. Which would be more loving and caring, to not tell them for fear of upsetting them or to tell them the truth?

Let's pretend that you died and went to heaven. Before you run off in the land of clouds and angels, God pulls you aside and says...

"It's good to see you try so hard to bring My holy word to all those video game nerds over the internet, but not one of them ever followed suit. In fact, your evangelizing drove some of them farther away from the truth, which I find very regretful. You should've tried spreading the truth of My love at, say, an orphanage or a hospital, where people were more willing to listen to you."

...Would you still say it wasn't a "waste of time?"

Your whole scenario is based on incorrect assumptions. Here are a few. First God is revealed in His Word and God does not act in ways contrary to His Word or change His Word therefore, your assumption regarding God's comments are impossible.

Second, Christians do not "save" anyone, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Christians are called to spread God's truth to the world. What they do with it is their free will choice.

Finally, there are only two choices. Accept Christ or reject Him. Those that reject Christ are already separated from Him. There are not degrees of separation. You are either in fellowship with the Lord or separated from fellowship with Him. It is impossidble to "drive people further from Christ". Therefore, your argument is a red herring.

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

1: Nowhere, whether it be the Big Bang theory or any other theory within science, is it ever stated that "something" came from "nothing." Any scientist worth his two cents will tell you that such statements about the Big Bang theory are not only untrue, but laughable in the academic community.

The Big Bang theory states that all matter and space was compressed into an incredibly small quantum singularity, which is a fancier way of saying, "really, really, really, really, really small particle." Never does it state that all matter just *poofed* into existance.

blackregiment

The hypothesis states that this infinitely compressed singularity occupied no place in space or time since the hypothesis speculates that both space and time came into existence at the "big bang" expansion. If something does not exist in space and time, it is in essence nothing. In addition, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. What causes this alleged singularity? Also is takes a lot of imagination to believe that the mass of a semi or the earth could be compressed into a singularity smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. much less all the matter and energy in the universe.

You're assuming, however, that there was nothing before the quantum singularity mentioned. Some scientists belief that the universe is a perpetual cycle of "big bangs" and "big crunches." These "big bangs" are the mass expansion of matter while the "big crunches" are the mass implosions of matter. It is thought that the universe starts with a big bang, will accelerate outwards at increasing speed; as matter starts to move away from itself, however, gravity will eventually pull everything back in, which is the "big crunch." Everything will be compressed into a single quantum singularity once again, and the cycle shall continue. Although I am unsure of the amount of evidence that this hypothesis has in favor of itself, it suggests that time and space has always existed, and that matter is continuously expanded and contracted continuously.

Second, I would like some proof on your part that shows that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause."

Lastly, it is very believable that all the mass of the universe could be compressed into such a small particle. Ever heard of black holes? They are regions of space that contain extreme amounts of matter incredibly compacted together; this compaction is so powerful that it's gravity sucks everything towards it's center, even light. To put it bluntly, a teaspoon of the same matter found in a black hole would share the same mass as the Earth.

The hypothesis states that this infinitely compressed singularity occupied no place in space or time since the hypothesis speculates that both space and time came into existence at the "big bang" expansion. If something does not exist in space and time, it is in essence nothing. In addition, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. What causes this alleged singularity? Also is takes a lot of imagination to believe that the mass of a semi or the earth could be compressed into a singularity smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. much less all the matter and energy in the universe.

blackregiment

The idea that time began with the Big Bang is not one of the necessary components of the theory. And the idea that space began with the Big Bang is 100% false. The theory states that space was entirely occupied by matter prior to the Big Bang, at which point both space and the matter within it expanded outwards, much as raisins in raisin bread become further apart as the bread rises. There is ample evidence in favor of this, one of the most prominent being the fact that the galaxies are all expanding outwards, indicating that they used to be closer together long ago. I have noticed that those who argue against the Big Bang tend not to give any argument against its actual evidence.

What god, then, do you believe in?Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]What god, then, do you believe in?super_mario_128

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] There is no evidence supporting God's existence, hence I do not believe in God. blackregiment

...and that life happened by chance from non-living chemicals and the complex and specific language encoded in DNA just formed itself by chance.

I can't find the link atm, but I remember reading about scientists who had managed to create amino acids from chemicals under natural conditions. Of course, this does not yet explain how life was created, but it is a big step in that direction.

If anyone has the link, please post it.

chessmaster1989

You might be referring to the Miller-Urey experiment which has been discredited. Here is a link that discusses the problems with many of the origin of life from non-life, chemical evolution speculations, including the Miller-Urey experiment.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
I see. So you believe something came from really nothing, and order came from chaos (the Big Bang)? MetalGear_Ninty

...and that life happened by chance from non-living chemicals and the complex and specific language encoded in DNA just formed itself by chance.

God is alive. He is a spirit.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

...and that life happened by chance from non-living chemicals and the complex and specific language encoded in DNA just formed itself by chance.

blackregiment

God is alive. He is a spirit.

Thank you for your response. Would it be alright if I PMed you a little tract I wrote? It's about 1,800 words long. I think you might find it interesting.:)Crushmaster

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] ...and is God living?

domatron23

God is alive. He is a spirit.

The holy definition.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]What god, then, do you believe in?Crushmaster

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] ...and is God living?

domatron23

God is alive. He is a spirit.

So on reality, blackregiment is one of the biggest advocates of abiogenesis I know -- which is merely the position that life came from non-life (God).

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Thank you for your response. Would it be alright if I PMed you a little tract I wrote? It's about 1,800 words long. I think you might find it interesting.:)super_mario_128

To Jiggles:

So, according to science, is the Big Bang Theory the beggining of the earth?ShowStopper102

Sorry for the late response, didn't see your post.

The Big Bang theory only states the origins of the early universe, about 13.5 billion years ago. The theory makes no mention of Earth.

Celestial bodies (such as planets like Earth) form when dust and debri clump together over billions of years. Think of it like making a big ball of gum: planets start out as tiny clouds of dust particles that continuously cling together over hundreds of millions of years, eventually forming a a celestial body of dust and ice.

Hopefully I explained it well enough.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

The hypothesis states that this infinitely compressed singularity occupied no place in space or time since the hypothesis speculates that both space and time came into existence at the "big bang" expansion. If something does not exist in space and time, it is in essence nothing. In addition, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. What causes this alleged singularity? Also is takes a lot of imagination to believe that the mass of a semi or the earth could be compressed into a singularity smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. much less all the matter and energy in the universe.

GabuEx

The idea that time began with the Big Bang is not one of the necessary components of the theory. And the idea that space began with the Big Bang is 100% false. The theory states that space was entirely occupied by matter prior to the Big Bang, at which point both space and the matter within it expanded outwards, much as raisins in raisin bread become further apart as the bread rises. There is ample evidence in favor of this, one of the most prominent being the fact that the galaxies are all expanding outwards, indicating that they used to be closer together long ago. I have noticed that those who argue against the Big Bang tend not to give any argument against its actual evidence.

We will just have to disagree. The big bang hypothesis does speculate that space and time began at the expansion event. One version is that the expansion started with a singularity, another version with a cosmic egg. Also, the evidence showing that galaxies are expanding outwards supports that they were once compressed, that the universe had a beginning ans is not eternal, not that space and time did not originate at the big bang event. There is evidence that even the very fabric of space, space itself, is expanding and thus had a beginning. Here is some more information.

http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses/

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Thank you for your response. Would it be alright if I PMed you a little tract I wrote? It's about 1,800 words long. I think you might find it interesting.:)Crushmaster

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

God is alive. He is a spirit.

MetalGear_Ninty

So on reality, blackregiment is one of the biggest advocates of abiogenesis I know -- which is merely the position that life came from non-life (God).

You might be referring to the Miller-Urey experiment which has been discredited. Here is a link that discusses the problems with many of the origin of life from non-life, chemical evolution speculations, including the Miller-Urey experiment.

http://www.icr.org/article/origin-life-critique-early-stage-chemical-evolutio/blackregiment

First, no offense, but that article's credibility is already hampered by the way in which it talks about "evolutionists" and how they really really want a natural origin of life. People can continue to assert over and over again that evolution discusses the origin of life, but it doesn't make it any more true than it was a hundred years ago. At least call them "abiogenesisists" or whatever.

The extent to which the Miller-Urey experiment was "discredited" is only to the extent that it was said to prove that the hypothesis regarding the origin of life that formed its motivation. It did prove that organic compounds could be formed from inorganic compounds given the right conditions, and that, like it or not, was indeed an important step - if no such compounds had been formed, the idea that life came from non-life would have been effectively completely refuted.

As it stands right now, any scientist worth their salt will say that it has not been conclusively shown precisely how life came about on Earth. However, we have ample evidence in favor of the Big Bang, and we also have ample evidence in favor of evolution, so the only real "missing link" in terms of scientific knowledge is the transition from planetary formation after the Big Bang (which we know pretty darn well) to the first signs of life on one of those planets (which we don't yet). To go from this to the conclusion that all science is wrong and that creationism is right is akin to having a jigsaw puzzle with one piece missing in the middle, and then asserting that that missing jigsaw piece proves that the entire puzzle does not exist. God and creationism are not the "default" explanations that must be refuted.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Thank you for your response. Would it be alright if I PMed you a little tract I wrote? It's about 1,800 words long. I think you might find it interesting.:)super_mario_128

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] ...and is God living?

domatron23

God is alive. He is a spirit.

God is eternal. God is a spirit and exists in a spiritual realm, outside of our temporal, natural world as we know it. His existence is supernatural in nature.

??? What definition of life are you using?domatron23

So on reality, blackregiment is one of the biggest advocates of abiogenesis I know -- which is merely the position that life came from non-life (God).

At least call them "abiogenesisists" or whatever.

GabuEx

I never stuttered so hard in my life.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

God is alive. He is a spirit.

blackregiment

God is eternal. God is a spirit and exists in a spiritual realm, outside of our temporal, natural world as we know it. His existence is supernatural in nature.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Exactly. As far as I can tell -- what is percieved as being 'God' is not living. Apparently, God was not born, God will not die, God will not eat, or respire or any of those other things.

So on reality, blackregiment is one of the biggest advocates of abiogenesis I know -- which is merely the position that life came from non-life (God).

MetalGear_Ninty

We will just have to disagree. The big bang hypothesis does speculate that space and time began at the expansion event. One version is that the expansion started with a singularity, another version with a cosmic egg. Also, the evidence showing that galaxies are expanding outwards supports that they were once compressed, that the universe had a beginning ans is not eternal, not that space and time did not originate at the big bang event. There is evidence that even the very fabric of space, space itself, is expanding and thus had a beginning. Here is some more information.

http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses/

http://www.icr.org/article/bumps-big-bang/blackregiment

No, it doesn't speculate that. You can claim that all you want, but it isn't true. The Big Bang theory speculates that all space was filled with matter, and then space expanded and took matter along with it, much as raisins in a rising loaf of raisin bread. That is quite literally all that it says. You are putting up a straw man argument and arguing against it; as a result, any conclusions you might reach from that argument are fully irrelevant.

And yes, the expansion of the galaxies does support that they were once compressed - which is precisely why it is evidence in favor of the Big Bang. Did you just agree with the idea that all of the galaxies were once compressed?

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

God is alive. He is a spirit.

blackregiment

God is eternal. God is a spirit and exists in a spiritual realm, outside of our temporal, natural world as we know it. His existence is supernatural in nature.

So... is it this one or this one?

OK; I just sent you part one.super_mario_128

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

At least call them "abiogenesisists" or whatever.

-Jiggles-

I never stuttered so hard in my life.

I have to admit that I quite like that designation; I wish creationists would use it, in fact. :P

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

God is alive. He is a spirit.

blackregiment

God is eternal. God is a spirit and exists in a spiritual realm, outside of our temporal, natural world as we know it. His existence is supernatural in nature.

Domatron, I'm fixing to send it to you.Crushmaster

That's not exactly a biological definition.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] That's not exactly a biological definition.Crushmaster

So all life is almighty?

Am I almighty?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] That's not exactly a biological definition.Crushmaster

That's good and all, but I don't see how it relates to my post. :?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] That's not exactly a biological definition.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] That's not exactly a biological definition.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] That's not exactly a biological definition.-Jiggles-

So all life is almighty?

Am I almighty?

Jiggles, do you believe the Big Bang involved intelligence?Crushmaster

Yes, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was a very intelligent man.

Also take note that he was a Roman Catholic priest--please re-read that same sentence a couple of times and say it out loud to yourself. A Christian was the creator of the Big Bang theory...

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
( Revelation 1:8 ) - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."Crushmaster

So all life is almighty?

Am I almighty?

What does that have do with a definition of life?domatron23

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
( Revelation 1:8 ) - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."Crushmaster

So all life is almighty?

Am I almighty?

Then why are you using the Bible's definition of God to explain Blackregiment's definition of life?

I'm not seeing the connection there... :|