Subjective Evidence of Gods

Let's look at this comment first. You said, "different Christian religions," as if to imply irreconcilable differences. Is that what you meant to imply? That would be like trying to say don't buy your gas at Quik Trip because there are so many Quik Trips, who's got the "real gas?" The fact of the matter is that they are all selling the same quality of gas. There are only minor differences in the style and layout of the different stores which doesn't effect the main and plain thing. Likewise if they are really "Christian" (meaning followers of Christ) then they all have the same thing. The differences are all minor things that don't effect the main and plain thing. Your absolutely right. But Straggler asked for some examples of subjective evidence for God and I provided one. It's "subjective" in that we can't physically examine it. However we cannot just dismiss it either, because so many who made the claim seemed so willing to suffer so extreme for what they claimed they saw. In my analogy of the space ship, it employed a single historical event. Whereas your "editing" of my analogy seems to incorporate many historical events over vast and various times.If you want to discuss a topic on the inconsistencies and fallacies of various religious claims, then I suggest you consider starting such a thread.

Yeah ... in retrospect, the differences are so minor they were hardly worth burning one another alive over.

Hello Dawn, The currently offered two possile alternatives of IamJoseph -1. Intelligent design by a single God as outlined in the Jewish Bible.2. Natural causesFor a start, natural causes could mean many different things. The Big Bang theory has a few different mechanisms suggested. There is the Steady State Theory, not well supported anymore but still out there. There is a cyclical universe theory (New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang). The Big Bang Tehory is currently the best of what science has but no one is saying that it cannot be improved upon or totally scrapped if we a better theory. There are also theories regarding multiple universes, multiple dimensions etc. Cavediver would be a much better person to ask about these things.The second option given is the creation of the universe by God (specifically the God described in the Old testement)Other options -How about every other religious creation myth?Babylonian Creation MythAfrican Creation Myth - OloriNavajo Creation MythNorse Creation MythCreation Myth from IndiaJapanese Creation MythComanche Creation MythChinese Creation MythChelan Creation MythPima Creation MythMayan Creation MythMiwok Creation MythScandinavian (Norse) Creation MythsSalish Creation MythAustralian Aboriginal Creation MythHopi Creation MythTahitian Creation MythYokut Creation MythComanche Creation MythEgyptian Creation MythsAfrican - Mande, Yoruba Creation MythsMicmac Creation MythLakota Creation MythChinese Creation / Flood MythAssyrian / Babylonian Creation MythMaori Creation MythAztec Creation MythDigueno Creation MythApache Creation MythDakota Creation MythHungarian Creation MythIroquois Creation MythInuit Creation MythHuron Creation MythHawaiian Creation Myth(source : Forbidden)There are those alternatives.There are also alternatives to INTELLIGENT design.How about non deity intelligent design, non intelligent design, or accidental creation.Non deity intelligent design - What if our universe was created by an intelligent alien entity or entities from another universe or dimension?Non intelligent design - What if our universe was created by an all powerfull figure with godlike abilities who was actually an idiot? My 14 month old daughter randomly put four lettered blocks on top of each other that read the word 'star'. This is unintelligent design. She has created something, but with no intent or the intelligence to realise what she has done.Accidental design - what if a God figure does exist? What if he/she/it did actually create the universe by accident? What if it was an accident that he/she/it is totally unaware of and we have just made up religions in order to give some meaning to our lives. He/she/it could be somewhere else, anywhere else as Gods can exist in the no space/no time that existed before the universe was created without knowing or caring about this universe at all.There is also the possibility that we have not come up with the correct answer yet.So, there are around 50 different alternatives. I have not attempted to solve anything. I have not claimed to have solved anything. I have not purported to solve any mystery. This comment is an attempt at shit slinging.I pointed out a logical fallacy. The false dichotomy fallacy. That is all.Just to let you know, that is a fallacious appeal to the past. Just because people have been pushing something for thousands of years, does not mean it has any more credibility to an idea from today.Are these enough alternatives to show I do know what I am talking about? Or are you of the mind that the only two possibilties for the creation of the universe is the process outlined in the Jewish bible and natural causes. Even though 'natural causes' is unspecific and could mean many things including theories as yet unthought of. To refute natural causes you would have to claim that any future theories are also incorrect without them actually existing yet.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Sure, for starters though lets unpack your multifaceted question into bits that can be chewed up. So since you first seem to reject the Bible's authorship, let me ask you a simple question. If I told you that the works of Homer of Iliad were all actually really written much later by an unknown author, then wouldn't you require (no expect) me to support my claims with documented evidence? The answer is, of course you would. So I expect the same courtesy. If you have evidence that the Bible was written by "an unknown source," then please do tell.Of course you have a big task at hand. First you have to explain away the evidence that says it (NT) had to have been written in the first century, within 30 years of the actual events? Evidence such as the thousands of manuscript copies that date as early as within 65 years, and spread so vastly around the world. Or the fact that the text has Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple 40 years before it happened, yet makes no mention of its actual fulfillment. (Liars trying to propagate a new faith most certainly would have mentioned such a grand fulfillment.) So if you are unable to show that it was really written much later, then you must now explain why something so openly proclaimed, does not have a single piece of writing from that time period referencing any refutations of it as all lies or at least inaccurate? Not one. And also you have to explain away the extra-Biblical sources that collaborate with the officially accepted authorship? Also I would point out that these types of evidences are what historians use all the time to piece together other ancient texts. To exclude the validity of any of these tests, of authenticity and authorship simply because they also support the Bibles authorship, is just plain intellectual suicide.Next your comments suggest that the witnesses didn't really die for what they claimed, implies that the authors lied or embellished the story. Here's an analogy to help point out the problem here. If I claimed that last week I was on the court with Lakers NBA player Matt Barnes, and I smoked him... don't you think that there would be plenty of people who would stand up and say, "No, it didn't ever happen!"? The problem with lying about current events is the fact that they are still current. If I were preaching this lie in every town and city I came to, then I think there would be plenty of news papers making my lie very well known. But if it did happen then not a single refutation would emerge. So if the apostles were preaching and writing that eye witnesses who observed the resurrection were being executed, I think the people of the time would have said, "No, it never happened." But they didn't. In fact there are plenty of extra-Biblical sources from the first century that attest to the fact that the Christians were being executed. Not even a single record of one backing down and saying he or she lied.Thirdly you implied that you reject some sources. I would ask which specifically (name a couple commonly used) and why? Then I would ask if you use the same scrutiny on all ancient pieces of literature?

quote:

---

Where is the premise of creation? That is the evidence I am asking for.
The so called X factor does not mean creation. Where is any evidence of creation, rather than natural causation. GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE

---

Your question is poor. There is a dfference between proof and evidences; the former is not available to any premise, thus it cannot be proposed by any party. The evidence is against your arguement, namely that a complexity is not based on a random or causeless factor - this is unseen anywhere in the universe and not a science premise. There is no such thing as nature; as a state of being, it is clearly post-universe and cannot be considered as a causative factor of the universe itself.

You miss the point entirely. Ill try and be specific and very logical. Butterfly there can be no other alternatives, because it would involve a logical contradictionEvery single example you provided falls squarely within one of the alternatives. If you think I am wrong present the one you think is another alternative and Ill show you why it is not.Logically there can only be the eternality of a being or the eternality of matter. No discovery ever made or will be made will change that situation. Think about it hard and you will see that conclusion. If you think I am wrong, do what I asked you toExistene itself is the issue, not the universe. existence will only allow certain possibilites. It is true only one is correct, because both cant be. However the duality as IMJ describes it is the issueHere is an example, On the enterprise on one occcasion, Mr Spock stated to the Captain, "Captain there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, ther are unwilling to respond."No matter the reason, it will fall sqaurely within those limited possibilites, or it will be a combination of both, but no more. Thats all existence will allowExistence, reality and logic will only allow to alternatives to the cause of existenceTest me with your alternatives you gave and see if it is not correct. Each time you present an example it will involve only the eternality of a being or the eternality of matterYou know why, theres nothing else. Purposing that there is involves a logical contradiction.Its like saying theres a round square, or square circleWhen I say only two alternatives I dont mean choices of WHO, but what existence will allow from a physicaland logical standpointEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hey Joseph, I like your thinking here. Would you call the fact that no one has ever observed something come from nothing, a scientific observation? Anything that has a beginning is by definition "finite." So since the universe began, as you so aptly pointed out, this means the universe came from something else. If there were ever a time when there were absolutely "nothing" then nothing would still be here because something cannot come from nothing. So the fact that something finite is here now tells us clearly that something infinite must exist from which the finite originated. Wouldn't you say we could arrive at that conclusion based on "scientific" observation?However that still leaves us wrestling with the question of, "What is It?" What is that infinite "thing" from which the universe sprang? Is there another observation that can be drawn from science that can help? For example is "IT" just a mindless force of infinite energy like on Star Wars (the force be with you Luke. Lol) Or does "IT" possess intelligence. This must be important when discussing evidence for God because the most basic of human definitions of God is: a supreme, infinite, intelligent creator of the universe. Without proving intelligence we are left with a mindless "force."So this means we need to know a clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence. Something that works in all situations no matter what. Well how about we take a look at what scientists already use as their "intelligence detector." For example marine biologists use specific patterns in dolphin communication to determine levels of intelligence. I am told that they even think that dolphins may name each other like humans do. Or in the field of archaeology, the scientist looks for specific recognizable patterns or function to tell if an object is natural or man made. Also SETI scientists search for specific narrow bandwidths in radio signals which have never been observed occurring naturally, and would indicate extraterrestrial intelligence.That's three very different fields of science, but all which have one thing in common when looking for intelligence. They all use specificity as the indicating factor. Specificity can be defined simply as: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. The question always arises as to how do we scientifically identify rather or not something is specified. Here's the simple explanation: Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.
When the marine biologist recognizes a pattern in the dolphins communication and sees that it always brings about the same exact response with all the dolphins raised in that group, then they know they are observing "specificity" in Delphinus delphis communication. The same can be said for the archaeologist and the SETI scientist. Specificity is the key to detecting intelligence, and to date not a single case of something specified has ever been observed occurring naturally.I said all of that to point out that the DNA "code" in all living creatures in so highly specified that it makes the most complex and sophisticated of specified computer programs look like mere children's crayola scribbles in comparison. That means the only conclusion is that all life observed in the universe must have come from intelligence. Therefore the infinite "IT" that we scientifically demonstrated to exist above must also be intelligent.
What was the term again for an infinite, intelligent, creator of the universe?

quote:

---

Anything that has a beginning is by definition "finite."

---

So I ask those who discuss the universe origins to first place their preamble: finite or infinite. None do so.

quote:

---

So since the universe began, as you so aptly pointed out, this means the universe came from something else. If there were ever a time when there were absolutely "nothing" then nothing would still be here because something cannot come from nothing. So the fact that something finite is here now tells us clearly that something infinite must exist from which the finite originated. Wouldn't you say we could arrive at that conclusion based on "scientific" observation?

---

I don't think there is a choice factor here for science to disagree. If we agree the uni is finite, it refers also to everything contained in the universe, including the premise of nothing, which is merely a counterpart of something: one cannot have nothing unless there is something! The only exception may be something else, which does not exist in this universe, and is totally unconnected and non-transferable, can exist outside the universe. I cannot even spell it.
Genesis answers this issue in its opening four words: 'In the beginning Gd'. Hey, at least its an answer and its not outside of science. The issue here is not that we can or cannot disprove this declaration, but that how Genesis boldly came up with a declaration which cannot be challenged with a counter. Knowing this dif is a reveation in itself.

quote:

---

However that still leaves us wrestling with the question of, "What is It?" What is that infinite "thing" from which the universe sprang? Is there another observation that can be drawn from science that can help? For example is "IT" just a mindless force of infinite energy like on Star Wars (the force be with you Luke. Lol) Or does "IT" possess intelligence. This must be important when discussing evidence for God because the most basic of human definitions of God is: a supreme, infinite, intelligent creator of the universe. Without proving intelligence we are left with a mindless "force."

---

Again, I got the best answer of this enigma from Genesis - and I am not religious. The IT cannot be a singularity; it must be a duality [Genesis]. No action can occur with an irreducuble and indivisible lone item. This is the most underated wisdom from Genesis.

quote:

---

So this means we need to know a clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence. Something that works in all situations no matter what. Well how about we take a look at what scientists already use as their "intelligence detector." For example marine biologists use specific patterns in dolphin communication to determine levels of intelligence. I am told that they even think that dolphins may name each other like humans do. Or in the field of archaeology, the scientist looks for specific recognizable patterns or function to tell if an object is natural or man made. Also SETI scientists search for specific narrow bandwidths in radio signals which have never been observed occurring naturally, and would indicate extraterrestrial intelligence.

---

Its not an issue of intelligence when it comes to origins. We did not exist yet and the mechanics of origins cannot apply to a post-universe mechanics when elements existed. There is nothing wrong with our minds, the origins of everything is just barred to our mind's wiring, and cannot be had voluntarilly. A seperation threshold is placed which we cannot overcome. One day we will be able to move Jupiter 5% to the left - yet be helpless when it comes to the origins of anything whatsoever: this gives great credence to Genesis, every honest mind realizes it, but disdains it nonetheless.

quote:

---

That's three very different fields of science, but all which have one thing in common when looking for intelligence. They all use specificity as the indicating factor. Specificity can be defined simply as: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. The question always arises as to how do we scientifically identify rather or not something is specified. Here's the simple explanation: Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.
When the marine biologist recognizes a pattern in the dolphins communication and sees that it always brings about the same exact response with all the dolphins raised in that group, then they know they are observing "specificity" in Delphinus delphis communication. The same can be said for the archaeologist and the SETI scientist. Specificity is the key to detecting intelligence, and to date not a single case of something specified has ever been observed occurring naturally.

​

I said all of that to point out that the DNA "code" in all living creatures in so highly specified that it makes the most complex and sophisticated of specified computer programs look like mere children's crayola scribbles in comparison. That means the only conclusion is that all life observed in the universe must have come from intelligence. Therefore the infinite "IT" that we scientifically demonstrated to exist above must also be intelligent.
What was the term again for an infinite, intelligent, creator of the universe?

---

Science is post universe. Laws came before science, and science is an explanation of those laws.

Hello Dawn, The creation of the universe is the specific action I was discussing. Not existence. The creation of the universe. I have no desire to get into any existential debates about existence. There are unending debates already occuring regarding this issue. For example, if humans were not here, would the universe exist? Something like if a tree falls in the forest and noone was around, would it still make a sound. I find these philisophical discussions boring and ultimately pointless.The issue i was discussing is the creation of the universe.Specifically, two possible options.1. The creation story as outlined in the Old Testement.2. natural causes.The creation myth of the OT is one of many different creation myths. Thus it is not the only option with regards to supernatural creation theories. Natural causes can refer to any number of known and unknown theories. Thus it cannot really be used as a single option.I could change the options to be thus -1. The creation story as outlined in the Old Testement.2. The creation story as discussed in Hindu mythology (Brahma, the Hindu God of creation).This is another example of the false dichotomy fallacy as it gives only two options when others exist. I will always applaud a Star Trek reference.However, there is a third and forth option not considered by Kirk or Spock. The third option is : They are responding in a manner that we cannot understand or detect. The forth option is that the subject of their communication is unaware of the original communication and is not aware it needs to respond to anything.For example,the third alternate : I have recently studied chemical plant communication. This is only a relatively recent discovery. Plants have been communicating with one another (even different species) all this time and we have not known about it. Lets say that we have been communicating with a plant and it has been responding by way of chemical communication in the air. We have not known of this method and we have not known what it meant until very recently.Example of the forth alternate : if aliens came to Earth in the 1st century AD and blasted communications to us using standard radiowaves, humanity would never have known. They may have said we were unable or unwilling to respond. This is not the case, we would not have known that any communication was even being attempted.I reckon Picard would have known this but I am biased. But enough Star Trek.The two options given were not the only alternatives.The first option is one very specific method of creation by a very specific type of entity for very specific reasons.There are other options to this including other Gods, other beings who are not Gods, other methods of creation, other intentions and even no intentions for the creation.The second option was very non specific. Natural causes covers many different options. It also covers options yet to be discovered.At the very least, the absolute very least, to be logical, there could be three options.1. Creation as outlined in the Old Testement by God.2. Currently known natural causes.3. Unknown causes as yet established.You cant assume that at this point in time, we have all of the possible options known to us.I do understand what you are talking about with regards to eternality of a being or the eternality of matter.However, this is not the issue I was talking about.I was specifically talking about the two options given.PS. I hope you dont mind me adding one of your comments to my signature. It seems fitting and it is poor form to make up your own nickname.

For example, scientists have already looked at the DNA "code" in all living creatures and concluded that it was produced by an unintelligent process. This means that if you are going to take "what scientists already use" as your "clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence", you must conclude that it was not in fact produced by intelligence.If you want to conclude the opposite, you must in fact do the opposite of what scientists have already done.

Hello Just Being Real,You make a large number of assumptions throughout this post to get to your conclusion. Lots of steps with lots of assumtions leave lots of other possible answers, not just the conclusion you have reached. I dont know about IMJ but you are correct. Not seeing something is a scientific observation. Testing a drug to see if it works and finding nothing is a result. It all depends on how you word your hypothosis. This holds up until you choose to introduce a God who is capable of anything. If the God of the Bible is capable of anything, he is certainly capable of creating an infinite universe. If God is indeed all powerful, then the words 'in the beginning' do not prove a finite universe. God could have created an infinite universe 'in the beginning'. Unless you belive that God is not capable of doing this. This is a bit of a leap. What exactly are you referring to as being finite and infinite? Are you talking about a resource of some kind, time maybe? We know that finite things exist now, but how does this prove that something infinite existed beforehand. Is it not possible that the finite 'thing' you are discussing did not originate from a previous finite thing? I would not, no. From this point on, you are discussing ideas based upon unreliable premises.The idea of using current known methods to test for a Godlike intelligence is problematic. It is possible to see patterns in clouds, this does not prove that the clouds were created by an intelligent force. This is a slightly different wording of the arguement from design or the teleological arguement.Complexity does not prove design. Complexity does not prove there is a God. A percieved purpose to an object or animal does not prove intelligence, intelligent design or the existence of god. This is an appeal to ignorance. Just because something is so complex we dont understand it, does not mean that there is a God. The only conclusion is not an intelligent creator. That is one option. Another option is that we have not performed enough research (or been imaginative enough) to have other options. Just because we have not fully worked it out yet does not mean that God did it. Who has scientifically demonstrated this? Who has scientifically demonstrated that an infinite 'it'exists? Can you site your sources? That could be any number of different deities. Pick a religion at random and you will find a name or names that fit that description.You have reached this conclusion through a number of logical leaps, fallacies and the all important faith.This proves nothing really.

Deleted by Panda.CBA.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

When the validity of any religions "creation" story comes into question, there is an important question we must ask ourselves. How can we tell if it is a story with any merit? I mean if it was truly handed down to us from a divine all knowing God, how do we tell? The answer is to re-ask the question this way, "How can we tell if was not from a divine all knowing God?" In other words, if we could determine that something for sure was not from an all knowing God, then we should be able to reduce much of your list very quickly.Here's the test that I like to use to weed out the fakes. Babylonian Creation account claims that the earth is made of half of the corpse of the god Tiamat, and the sky is the other half. Therefore it violates test 2. The Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation MythAfrican Creation Myth says that the earth is a female deity, and that there is a "milk lake" under the earth which is absorbed by the grass and that is where the cows and goats get milk from. -violates test 2. DENICdirect-Informationsseite - DENIC eGNavajo Creation Myth describes a woman named "Changing woman," who married the literal sun and had two offspring from that marriage. Needless to say... -again violates test 2. ForbiddenNorse Creation Myth says that the earth is the actual dead body of a giant named Ymir, father of all giants. -again violates test 2. Norse Creation MythCreation Myth from India says that the deity Purusha formed all of the elements and then was sacrificed. His body parts made up the Indian people and also the sun, moon, and stars. violates test 2. http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00875/text/IndiaC.htmJapanese creation myth says that the Island of Onokoro is the result of a god stabbing the formless earth with a jeweled spear and the drops of blood that fell from the spear coagulated into the island. violates test 2. Common Errors in English Usage and More | Washington State UniversityComanche Creation Myth- Wow having this one in the list demonstrates to me that you are not even looking at your own rebuttals. The Comanche have not myth of the creation of the earth or the universe. Only the creation of their people. http://www.indigenouspeople.net/commcrea.htmChinese Creation Myth says that the universe began as a black egg in which the Chinese god Pangu emerged. The clear part of the egg became heaven and the heavier part became the earth. When Pangu died his breath became the wind and thunder and his eyes became the sun and the moon. http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00875/text/ChineseC.htmI could go on with your entire list but I'm tired... and bored.

...and the christian creation account violates all 4 and is therefore a 'fake'.Cool - we agree on something.p.s.
Could you identify which of those tests the Islamic creation account fails?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : typoEdited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Just be real,You are missing one key issue.You are missing the common creationist habit of altering the story to fit with known science.I could quite easily twist most of the stories to mean whatever I wanted them to mean to match current scientific theory. I could even say some bits are metaphorical.the first example you used - This does not violate the second rule. Tiamat was made of earth (he was a god so he can be made of anything). So this actually proves the Babylonian myth to be true. The Earth really is made of earth, Tiamat was made from Earth. Scientifically proven to be true.the second example... You have read the scripture incorrectly. How closed minded of you. Again, the female deity in question was made from earth. This supports the story. What is actually meant by milk lake, we now know from correct interpretation is merely water. We know that it was underground water that is absorbed by the grass where cows and goats eat it to create milk. This is scientifically verifiable also. How amazing is that. How did these ancient people know about how plants used water and the cows ate the grass and this is how they made milk. This is almost like a prophesy come true. Scientifically verified facts. It does not violate condition 2 at all.Your third example... You have misinterpreted the scripture again. We now know that this story (which is actually fact because it has been around for thousands of years and heaps of people believed it) refers to the first people. Like Adam and Eve, except that the Christian myth is just a copy of this myth and not true. The lady did not marry the actual sun, how silly would that be, she married her son. Then they had lots of children. It does not violate condition 2.your example 4... You really need theology lessons. You keep getting the interpretation wrong. This is metaphorical. The giants in question are actually the large solar bodies that ended up making our solar system. The largest body is Ymir, which means 'all of the stuff that made up the solar system' in the local tongue. Is that not amazing? How did these ancient people know that the earth was a planet among many planets. This was way outside any possible knowledge they had. This is 100% verifiable proof that this is the correct creation story.Your 5th example... This one you have pretty close to right. Purusha was not really a person. It was the name given to all of the elements that made up the earth. including the elemenst found in humans today. Is that not amazing. How did these ancient people know that humans were made up of the exact same elements as everything else. This is 100% scientific proof that this is the correct myth.your 6th example... You are missing the point entirely by your incorrect interpretation of scripture again. The jeweled spear was actually lightning and the drops of blood was actually lava. The island is volcanic. Isnt that amazing. How did these ancient people have such an amazing understanding of volcanology? It even says that the tears (lava) coagulated into the island. That is exactly how it was formed. This proves with 100% scientif certainty that this is the correct myth. Correct. I read through a few of them and they were the same sort of bullshit. I stopped checking them after the first few. My rebuttal is still solid. You have only covered a very small part of my post.your 7th example... This one is totally correct. The universe was black. there was no light. And the egg represents the beginning of life (not a real egg silly). Pangu actually did not just change the egg into the world. First of all Pangu said 'let there be a seperation of the land and the sky'. And it was so. Then he said 'let there be light' and then he seperated the lights into the sun and the moon. See how close that matches the Big Bang Theory. This shows witrh 100% certainty that this one is the correct myth.I cant belive how blinded by your beliefs you are to the truth.I will pray for you and one day you will see the truth as I have.One day, (insert random god figure here) will save you and you will be taken to (insert random afterlife here) forever.I could go on, but you are tired and bored.Will you be dicussing anything else from my post?