Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:What caused the big bang? I don't know; all I have are a bunch of guess.

Ken

Then please enlighten us on your guesses and from each guess where did the substances come from that cause it?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:What caused the big bang? I don't know; all I have are a bunch of guess.

Ken

Then please enlighten us on your guesses and from each guess where did the substances come from that cause it?
-
-
-

My guess is that the Universe has always existed. Many substances that make up the Universe have always existed thus are first causes, other substances may have been created when some of the first causes combined with each other. I would guess there was never a point in history when absolute nothing existed. The singular that expanded in what we call the "Big Bang" was the Universe as well We just didn't know what the Universe was like prior to the Big Bang, and scientists currently have no way of finding out.

Ken

Kenny wrote:
My guess is that the Universe has always existed. Many substances that make up the Universe have always existed thus are first causes, other substances may have been created when some of the first causes combined with each other. I would guess there was never a point in history when absolute nothing existed. The singular that expanded in what we call the "Big Bang" was the Universe as well We just didn't know what the Universe was like prior to the Big Bang, and scientists currently have no way of finding out.

Seriously Kenny? Did you actually think about any of this? Many substances that make up the universe have always existed thus are first causes? Multiple first cause? You expect people to take you seriously? Never a point in history when absolute nothing existed?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
My guess is that the Universe has always existed. Many substances that make up the Universe have always existed thus are first causes, other substances may have been created when some of the first causes combined with each other. I would guess there was never a point in history when absolute nothing existed. The singular that expanded in what we call the "Big Bang" was the Universe as well We just didn't know what the Universe was like prior to the Big Bang, and scientists currently have no way of finding out.

Seriously Kenny? Did you actually think about any of this? Many substances that make up the universe have always existed thus are first causes? Multiple first cause? You expect people to take you seriously? Never a point in history when absolute nothing existed?

I could just as easily say; Seriously Rick? 1 God that is outside the Universe that is the first cause? And you actually expect to be taken seriously? Anything can sound silly when it is outside of what you believe. BW asked me to enlighten you guys with my guesses which I did. Now if you take issue with any of my guesses, feel free to explain why.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
My guess is that the Universe has always existed. Many substances that make up the Universe have always existed thus are first causes, other substances may have been created when some of the first causes combined with each other. I would guess there was never a point in history when absolute nothing existed. The singular that expanded in what we call the "Big Bang" was the Universe as well We just didn't know what the Universe was like prior to the Big Bang, and scientists currently have no way of finding out.

Seriously Kenny? Did you actually think about any of this? Many substances that make up the universe have always existed thus are first causes? Multiple first cause? You expect people to take you seriously? Never a point in history when absolute nothing existed?

I could just as easily say; Seriously Rick? 1 God that is outside the Universe that is the first cause? And you actually expect to be taken seriously? Anything can sound silly when it is outside of what you believe. BW asked me to enlighten you guys with my guesses which I did. Now if you take issue with any of my guesses, feel free to explain why.

Ken

We did explain to you why your answers aren't logical. But you keep repeating the same illogical stuff.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
My guess is that the Universe has always existed. Many substances that make up the Universe have always existed thus are first causes, other substances may have been created when some of the first causes combined with each other. I would guess there was never a point in history when absolute nothing existed. The singular that expanded in what we call the "Big Bang" was the Universe as well We just didn't know what the Universe was like prior to the Big Bang, and scientists currently have no way of finding out.

Seriously Kenny? Did you actually think about any of this? Many substances that make up the universe have always existed thus are first causes? Multiple first cause? You expect people to take you seriously? Never a point in history when absolute nothing existed?

I could just as easily say; Seriously Rick? 1 God that is outside the Universe that is the first cause? And you actually expect to be taken seriously? Anything can sound silly when it is outside of what you believe. BW asked me to enlighten you guys with my guesses which I did. Now if you take issue with any of my guesses, feel free to explain why.

Ken

We did explain to you why your answers aren't logical. But you keep repeating the same illogical stuff.

Which page and post did you do this?

Ken

Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

And each time I pointed out the flaws in the explanations. thus my point still stands. Now if you want to try again; feel free.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

And each time I pointed out the flaws in the explanations. thus my point still stands. Now if you want to try again; feel free.

Ken

No, I think I'll pass. It's like talking to a wall. You can't understand the most basic things. Or you refuse to understand.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

And each time I pointed out the flaws in the explanations. thus my point still stands. Now if you want to try again; feel free.

Ken

No, I think I'll pass. It's like talking to a wall. You can't understand the most basic things. Or you refuse to understand.

Unfortunately I think this might be the case. Kenny has shut himself out from the truth. I hope not, but he certainly doesn't accept some fairly basic explanations. And yet he believes in some big bang theories that are entirely against the grain of modern thinking.

ryanbouma wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

And each time I pointed out the flaws in the explanations. thus my point still stands. Now if you want to try again; feel free.

Ken

No, I think I'll pass. It's like talking to a wall. You can't understand the most basic things. Or you refuse to understand.

Unfortunately I think this might be the case. Kenny has shut himself out from the truth. I hope not, but he certainly doesn't accept some fairly basic explanations. And yet he believes in some big bang theories that are entirely against the grain of modern thinking.

Precisely why I withdrew from any conversations with him. It is simply pointless. Unfortunately he somehow takes that as a sign of triumph. Fine with me.

ryanbouma wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

And each time I pointed out the flaws in the explanations. thus my point still stands. Now if you want to try again; feel free.

Ken

No, I think I'll pass. It's like talking to a wall. You can't understand the most basic things. Or you refuse to understand.

Unfortunately I think this might be the case. Kenny has shut himself out from the truth. I hope not, but he certainly doesn't accept some fairly basic explanations. And yet he believes in some big bang theories that are entirely against the grain of modern thinking.

Really??? And what modern thinking says the Big Bang was caused by your idea of God? And from a scientific standpoint, what makes your explanation more credible than mine?

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

And each time I pointed out the flaws in the explanations. thus my point still stands. Now if you want to try again; feel free.

Ken

No, I think I'll pass. It's like talking to a wall. You can't understand the most basic things. Or you refuse to understand.

You should never assume that because I disagree with you, that I just don't understand.

K

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

And each time I pointed out the flaws in the explanations. thus my point still stands. Now if you want to try again; feel free.

Ken

No, I think I'll pass. It's like talking to a wall. You can't understand the most basic things. Or you refuse to understand.

You should never assume that because I disagree with you, that I just don't understand.

K

No one needs to assume anything. Your posts are proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Every one of your illogical assertions has been explained to you. If you're not going to pay attention and take these conversations seriously, what's the point?

And each time I pointed out the flaws in the explanations. thus my point still stands. Now if you want to try again; feel free.

Ken

No, I think I'll pass. It's like talking to a wall. You can't understand the most basic things. Or you refuse to understand.

You should never assume that because I disagree with you, that I just don't understand.

K

No one needs to assume anything. Your posts are proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

Actually, I think our young friend ought to be the one assuming something (or stop assuming something, as they case may be) -- he ought to assume that his disagreement points to a failure to understand some very, very basic ideas. But, of course, that's the hallmark of a fool . . . the assumption of their own enlightenment only serves to keep them in the most arrogant darkness imaginable. And, like you, that's why I withdrew some time ago. It's one thing to have a conversation with someone seeking the truth. But this is a great demonstration of Prov 26:4.

So fine, let him continue in his delusion. It only serves to highlight how he's made a mockery of himself. And besides, you can't do anything about it anyway, and to try to, well, see Prov 26:4 again.