Creation

How is that possible when you yourself claim that the creator is invisible? And we're talking about evidence. No it isn't. There is no evidence for a creator - and by your own ideas about your creator, there can never be any.

That doesn't answer the question. I confirm that I am in a boat from which no creator can be detected. I'm asking how YOU can claim that there is evidence for a creator when YOU also claim that the creator is invisible. That's irrelevant here because you're claiming that there IS evidence. Of course there can be. There can be evidence for anything that exists.

Paul did:

quote:

---

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

---

The author of Job did:

quote:

---

Job 9:11 Were He to pass by me, I would not see Him; Were He to move past me, I would not perceive Him.

---

quote:

---

Evidence supporting the Big Bang theory includes the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation, visual observation of redshifted objects and the abundance of primordial elements found throughout the universe. link

---

quote:

---

Evidence supporting the Big Bang theory includes the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation, visual observation of redshifted objects and the abundance of primordial elements found throughout the universe. link

---

That is not how assumptions are defined in science. For example, the "assumption" that radioactive decay rates do not change has been tested thoroughly.

Unseen and invisible is the same thing. Apparently Jesus was not telling the truth, since He was visible and His Father was not.

No it isn't. It says nothing about duration. God did not "create" darkness. He separated the light from the darkness -i.e. He separated the day from the night. That has to do with the rotation of the earth, not the Big Bang. It is not possible to scientifically support creation "by God" unless you can support scientifically that God exists - and you can't. That's right. YOU don't get to redefine how science defines assumptions. No, it's perfectly fine to use different definitions of words in different contexts. For example, the word "unity" has a different meaning in politics than it does in mathematics. If you think it was different, you'd have to show that it was different AND you'd have to show what caused it to change. Without evidence of a change, we can't pretend that there was a change. We can test the aftereffects, if any. We don't have to "be there" when a murder is committed to observe that the body is dead and that there is a bullet-hole in it.

That doesn't apply in this context. If Jesus and His father are one, you can't have one being invisible and one being unseen.

quote:

---

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

---

Since Jesus was visible and God is not, clearly they are not one and the same.

Light is not the only form of energy. I'm not calling God a liar. I'm saying Isaiah was wrong. Darkness is not a "thing" that can be created. There is no objective evidence that God exists. The root word is irrelevant. When new things come along, we have to use old root words to describe them. New meanings come from old roots. For example, the word "plane" was around long before there were flying vehicles. And that is what science does. An assumption in science is not, "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof," as you claimed in Message 1303. The conclusions from one set of observations become the assumptions for the next set of conclusions; they are all based on fact.

According to John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time...." Either Moses was wrong or John was wrong.There is no such thing as a "spiritual manifestation" and your god doesn't exist either. Whether you believe in Him or not does not make any difference.

At 10 billion degrees K it would be well beyond the visible spectrum. It wasn't. Even ultraviolet light, which is just barely beyond the visible spectrum, is dark - because, guess why - it's beyond the visible spectrum. On the contrary, everything was dark until it cooled down enough to be visible. Who said there was objective evidence for that? The difference is that the Big Bang is the best explanation for the objective evidence that we do have. God is not. You're being dishonest. I bet you have used the word yourself exactly in that context. If you were honestly looking for answers, you could have googled that yourself. For example:

quote:

---

Technically, these are all assumptions, but they are perfectly reasonable ones that can be tested. The scientist performing the experiment described above would justify many of her assumptions by performing additional tests in parallel with the experimental ones. For example, she would separately test whether substance B affects bacterial growth to check that it was indeed inert as she'd assumed. Other assumptions are justified by past tests performed by other scientists. For instance, the question of whether or not bacteria can grow on the growth medium would have been studied by many previous researchers. And some assumptions might remain untested simply because all of our knowledge about the field suggests that the assumption is a safe one (e.g., we know of no reason why bacteria should multiply faster when their dishes are marked with a red, rather than a green, pen). All tests involve assumptions, but most of these are assumptions that can and have been verified separately. link

---

That's why the Big Bang is still a hypothesis. It is not (yet) a thoroughly tested theory, like evolution or the age of the earth, until the assumptions can be confirmed. Dictionary definitions are the first layer of understanding, not the last. Argumentum ad dictionarium is a fallacy used by schoolboys. Adults should have grown out of it.

You do it all the time under the umbrella of belief. Why is it different when I do it? No you haven't. You have experienced "something" that you interpret as "spiritual manifestations" - most likely because some pastor has told you that's what it was. You have it backwards. YOU can define "spiritual manifestation" in such a way as to make your interpretation true. But different people will define it in different ways: ghosts, demons, gods, etc. How can a belief be "wrong", unless it actually defies objective evidence? My belief is just as valid as yours - AND it's supported by a complete lack of evidence for yours.

That statement has no value. You could say the same thing about the Tooth Fairy. If there was a god, he would be more likely to judge you on your behaviour than on someting as petty as belief.

I'm saying that Genesis talks about visible light - i.e. the difference between day and night. The authors of Genesis could not "see" the cmbr and had no way of knowing that it existed. The difference is that we are actively looking for objective evidence, so yes, we do require objective evidence and we don't call something a theory until there is objective evidence to support it. Believers, on the other hand, just make excuses for not having any objective evidence for their beliefs. No. As I said, those events are not considered as fact until they are supported by evidence. No. The Big Bang is the best EXPLANATION for the evidence that we do have. Of course we have evidence for the Big Bang - the cmbr for example. No, I'm not. I'm arguing that assumptions are tested and shown to be valid. Google. As I said, it's the first layer of understanding. People like you, who regard the dictionary as the be-all and end-all repository of knowlege, never get beyond the first layer. Of course not. But people working in specialized areas can fine-tune definitions to fit their needs.

quote:

---

hammer
2. a metal ball, typically weighing 16 pounds (7.3 kg), attached to a wire for throwing in an athletic contest.

---

Be sure not to use yours for anything else.

They were your words, in Message 1333.

We didn't discover photons beyond the visible spectrum until quite recently. When the Bible was written, light was either sunlight or moonlight or lamplight, all definitely visible. If you want to be picky about the definitions of Hebrew words, you can't impose modern definitions on them. And he might have come down on a skateboard but we have no reason to think that he did. I don't demand anything. I conclude that since you don't show any objective evidence, you don't have any. And I conclude that since you're not actively looking for objective evidence, you don't think there is any. Been there; done that: cmbr, redshift, etc. If you want to know what I'm saying, you could try paying attention to what I'm saying instead of making it up in your own head. I didn't say that the universe doesn't exist. I said that the event of its "beginning" is not fully understood - yet. If a baseball appears in your back yard, you don't question its existence just because you don't know exactly how it got there. No, I'm inclined to keep Hawking's idea and scrap yours. I didn't ask you to google the first instance you could find of the Big Bang being called a "theory". Try being honest and googling for it being called a hypothesis.Edited by ringo, : capitAlization.Edited by ringo, : moAr capitalization - @#$%ing sHift keY!