Here are some websites where you can learn about the Big Bang Theory:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-...of-the-universe.html

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/...Big_Bang_Primer.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~y.../BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/ast...ology/inflation.html

gbrk, What physical evidence, if any, would you claim could be evident of

an actual creator/God.? And not necessarily every time you hear a new born

baby cry or touch a leaf or see the sky..

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/i...itle=God_of_the_gaps

A God of the gaps argument is one that argues that since some phenomenon is unexplained, it must be due to God. It is also a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations.

Background

Sometimes a subject such as evolution is not understood by the speaker but may be well understood by many others, such as scientists. Of course, evolution is not a theory of chance, and has well established mechanisms underlying it.

For Bill O'Reilly: The moon causes the tides, due to gravitational tidal effects as it revolves around the earth.^[1]

Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the origin of the universe), that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like "God did it". Since the "explanation" of God is more complex than the entities that are purportedly explained by God, introducing God without evidence is simply begging the question.

There is a time where people need to understand that there are certain things that we currently do not possess the technology to know about. This is where the dreaded truth must come in - I don't know.

Examples

• "Scientists can't explain how life came to be. There must have been a god to create the first life form."
• "The Big Bang theory doesn't explain what caused the Big Bang. There must have been a god to set the universe in motion."
• "The bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved through natural means. Therefore, an intelligent designer must have been involved in its formation."
• "Even if the theory of evolution is correct, it doesn't explain how the first life form arose. Perhaps God's hand created life and set evolution in motion."
• "Scientists can't explain everything about how consciousness arises, therefore something divine must be at work in conscious beings."
• "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in." ^[2]

Counter-apologetics

Unstated premise

The argument from ignorance is, at heart, an Enthymeme, a syllogism with an unstated premise:

1. I don't understand how x could have happened.
2. Anything I don't understand is caused by God.
3. Therefore, God caused x.

(unstated premise highlighted.)

Gaps are shrinking

A god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance: it boils down to "We do not know how X happened, therefore X was caused by a god." However, ignorance is never an argument for something. It merely means we do not (yet) know the cause of the phenomenon.

To see why this argument is a fallacy, we can consider similar arguments could have been made at different points in human history:

• 2000 years ago: "We do not know what causes lightning, therefore it must be a god throwing lightning bolts from the sky."
• 1000 years ago: "We do not know what keeps the planets in their courses. There must be angels pushing them along."
• 500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
• 200 years ago: "We do not know how the many species of plants and animals could have appeared, therefore God must have created them."
• 100 years ago: "We do not know how the universe started, therefore God must have done it."
• 60 years ago: "We do not know how genes are passed from parent to child, therefore traits must be imprinted upon the soul."

As new explanations emerge, the gaps in our knowledge shrink, leaving less and less room in which to fit a god. Since human knowledge keeps growing all the time, it does not seem like a safe bet to assume that any given gap will remain one for very long.

An insufficient explanation

Another objection can be made to the argument's means of ignoring the question it originally intends to answer. For example, answering "What caused the big bang?" with "God did it" still does not answer the question of origins, as the god inserted into the gap still requires an explanation.

How, not What

Theists are frequently intolerant of scientific concepts that seek to provide naturalistic explanations. It is not difficult to reach a "compromise" where the theist adopts the full scientific explanation without challenge. By asking the theist "How did God do this?", the theist generally becomes receptive to the scientific explanation.

By presenting arguments in a manner that theists can accept, they gain knowledge, which is always poisonous to theistic belief.

Wrong Premise

The real question isn't "Is it possible that God exists in the unknown?" it's "Is it probable?" We should be concerned with whether or not a thing is actually true or likely true - not whether it's possibly true.

A Leap of Faith

Even if there is some supernatural being behind what science can't explain, what proof is there that it is the God of Classical Theism rather than Zeus, or Amun Ra, or Cthulhu?

S#!] happens.

______

Yes, it does & it stinks too!

Mine don't.

Since there is no possibility that the universe was the result of creation then we must argue that it came from nothing, lets call it a  a big bang. Never mind that that premise is untested we must find evidence for a big bang from before there was a tested fact. Let us call it the facts of gaps.

We must ask ourselves how far prior to the big bang must we search for a single fact before we can conclude we have reached a point that proves there were no facts prior to a big bang?

If we argue that there existed a singularity prior to the big bang and it was a fact we must assume there were facts before the singularity and at some point prior to those facts there were no facts.

The facts of gaps.

The argument that God was a fact with no prior facts to God makes just as must sense as a singularity with no prior facts or that there are an infinite number of facts prior to either case.

The big bang cannot be considered intrinsic to the fact that the universe does exist because it cannot be demonstrated nor falsified by the scientific method.

Lets consider. Premise 1. the universe exists and embodied. Premise 2. A singularity existed before the big bang and embodied only by a rule that has a rule
which explains that rule which has a rule that explains that rule which has a rule which explains that rule and so on to infinity.
Therefore the universe exists and is equal to the singularity which exists by a rule. Premise 3. God exists and embodied by a rule which is explained by a rule
which has a rule which explaines that rule that has a rule which explains that rule and so on into infinity.
Premise 4. God and the singularity are embodied buy a rule that has a rule which has a rule that explains that rule which has a rule which explaines that rule
and to infinity.
Premise 5. Since the rules are infinite there is at some point where a rule in one catagore is equal to a rule in the other catagore.
Premise 6. The existing universe must be by some rule be the same as the singularity and God exists by some rule which is equal to some rule allowing for the
singularity then God, the universe and the singularity are the same thing by some rule that has a rule which explains that rule which has a rule which explains
that rule and so on to infinity.

Conclusion: No message is intrinsic that we can prove.

You are fascinated by Carroll's Jabberwocky but apparently not his paradox of "What the Tortoise said to Achilles".

and...I'm not claiming the big bang occurred. I deny it ever happened. I'm simply pointing out the instability of the thought processes claiming it did. These notions such as the big bang have pieces of information pulled out by some rule but that rule has rules of explanation regarding how to apply the first rule too much pulling is putting in  more information than is taken out. When is a thing not always the same. Is a meaning inherent in a message or manufactured by the interaction?

CB, your pseudo-philosophical psycho-babble is founded in a reducto ad adsurdum argument which falls apart without the baseless premise of God. 

The thought process leading to cosmic inflation (or more commonly know as Big Bang) theory is based in well document observational data from as early as 1929 and quantum mechanic mathematical models.  The observations support an expanding universe (red shift of distant galaxies), a super hot primordial universe (cosmic background radiation) and the quantum mathematical models support these observations. 

OldSalt, your thoughts on this?

http://www.worldscientific.com...42/S0218271814500588

Many Thanks in Advance.

No black holes, no singularity, no big bang.

Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not existhttp://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/

THE BLACK HOLE INFORMATION PARADOX 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...t.html#ixzz3YYIiaip1 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://scienceblogs.com/starts...-bang-wont-work-won/

http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525

Particle creation leading to Hawking radiation is produced by the changing gravitational field of the collapsing star. The two main initial conditions in the far past placed on the quantum field from which particles arise, are the Hartle Hawking vacuum and the Unruh vacuum. The former leads to a time symmetric thermal bath of radiation, while the latter to a flux of radiation coming out of the collapsing star. The energy of Hawking radiation in the interior of the collapsing star is negative and equal in magnitude to its value at future infinity. This work investigates the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the interior of a gravitationally collapsing star, in a Hartle-Hawking initial vacuum. It shows that due to the negative energy Hawking radiation in the interior, the collapse of the star stops at a finite radius, before the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole have a chance to form. That is, the star bounces instead of collapsing to a black hole. A trapped surface near the last stage of the star's collapse to its minimum size may still exist temporarily. Its formation depends on the details of collapse. Results for the case of Hawking flux of radiation with the Unruh initial state, will be given in a companion paper II.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1837

A star collapsing gravitationally into a black hole emits a flux of radiation, knowns as Hawking radiation. When the initial state of a quantum field on the background of the star, is placed in the Unruh vacuum in the far past, then Hawking radiation corresponds to a flux of positive energy radiation travelling outwards to future infinity. The evaporation of the collapsing star can be equivalently described as a negative energy flux of radiation travelling radially inwards towards the center of the star. Here, we are interested in the evolution of the star during its collapse. Thus we include the backreaction of the negative energy Hawking flux in the interior geometry of the collapsing star and solve the full 4-dimensional Einstein and hydrodynamical equations numerically. We find that Hawking radiation emitted just before the star passes through its Schwarzschild radius slows down the collapse of the star and substantially reduces its mass thus the star bounces before reaching the horizon. The area radius starts increasing after the bounce. Beyond this point our program breaks down due to shell crossing. We find that the star stops collapsing at a finite radius larger than its horizon, turns around and its core explodes. This study provides a more realistic investigation of the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the collapsing star, that was first presented in [1].

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-b...on-universe.html#jCp

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginninghttp://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

No Big Bang? New Equation Suggests Eternal Universehttp://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/06/no-big-bang-new-equation-suggests-eternal-universe/

It Turns Out Primordial Gravitational Waves Weren’t FoundIt Turns Out Primordial Gravitational Waves Weren’t Foundwww.universetoday.com/118636/it-turns-out-primordial-gravitational-waves-werent-found/

A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data

We report the results of a joint analysis of data from BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck. BICEP2 and Keck Array have observed the same approximately 400 deg2patch of sky centered on RA 0h, Dec. −57.5deg. The combined maps reach a depth of 57 nK deg in Stokes Q and U in a band centered at 150 GHz. Planck has observed the full sky in polarization at seven frequencies from 30 to 353 GHz, but much less deeply in any given region (1.2 μK deg in Q and U at 143 GHz). We detect 150×353 cross-correlation in B-modes at high significance. We fit the single- and cross-frequency power spectra at frequencies ≥150 GHz to a lensed-ΛCDM model that includes dust and a possible contribution from inflationary gravitational waves (as parameterized by the tensor-to-scalar ratio r), using a prior on the frequency spectral behavior of polarized dust emission from previous \planck\ analysis of other regions of the sky. We find strong evidence for dust and no statistically significant evidence for tensor modes. We probe various model variations and extensions, including adding a synchrotron component in combination with lower frequency data, and find that these make little difference to the r constraint. Finally we present an alternative analysis which is similar to a map-based cleaning of the dust contribution, and show that this gives similar constraints. The final result is expressed as a likelihood curve for r, and yields an upper limit r0.05<0.12 at 95% confidence. Marginalizing over dust and r, lensing B-modes are detected at 7.0σ significance.http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00612

when it comes to big bang ripples, all we have is dust in the wind. In March of last year, a team of astronomers working with the BICEP2 telescope at the South Pole caused a flurry of excitement when they claimed to have discovered evidence for primordial gravitational waves, ripples in space-time triggered by a growth spurt in the universe’s early days. However, a leaked press release has teased the results from a long-awaited joint analysis between BICEP2 and a European space telescope team, the Planck collaboration. As many had feared, the release says that the signal was caused by something much more mundane: dust.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...#jPBctJDvKLx4K1eb.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

----------------------------------

An interesting abstract.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to the complete article.

As the authors said:

"We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Old news CB, and these have yet to have any impact of Cosmic Inflation Theory.

.....no primordial waves has nothing to do with cosmic inflation? 

Inflation is dead, long live inflation! The very results hailed this year as demonstrating a consequence of inflationary models of the universe – andtherefore pointing to the existence of multiverses – now seem to do the exact opposite. If the results can be trusted at all, they now suggest inflation is wrong, raising the possibility of cyclic universes that existed before the big bang.

In March experimentalists announced that primordial gravitational waves had been discovered. The team behind the BICEP2 Telescope in Antarctica had observed telltale twists and turns in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) – the remnants of the earliest light produced in the universe.

Physicists thought the discovery was preliminary confirmation of inflation: the idea that for a sliver of a moment after the big bang there was a blisteringly fast expansion of the universe. The theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous.

But very quickly, the BICEP2 finding was shrouded in doubt, as it was revealed that the polarisation pattern could have been caused by cosmic dust. Cosmologists are waiting for space-based Planck telescope to reveal whether the dust could really make that pattern, and preliminary results released last week suggest dust might be able to.

Not to mention symmetry breaking and the universe being full of stuff and no anti stuff which would have occurred had there been cosmic inflation.

Stephen Hawking has set the world of physics back on its heels by reversing his lifetime’s work and a pillar of modern physics claiming that black holes do not exist – saying that the idea of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole --the awesome gravitational pull created by the collapse of a star will be so strong that nothing can break free including light-- is flawed. Hawking proposes that instead of an inescapable event horizon, we should think of an “apparent horizon”.Stephen Hawking has set the world of physics back on its heels by reversing his lifetime’s work and a pillar of modern physics claiming that black holes do not exist – saying that the idea of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole --the awesome gravitational pull created by the collapse of a star will be so strong that nothing can break free including light-- is flawed. Hawking proposes that instead of an inescapable event horizon, we should think of an “apparent horizon”.www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/01/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html

_____________

Wow!!  So good it had to be said twice!

Wow!  Science and scientists are able to question and refute their own work.  Imagine that!

And yet, no other coherent theory that explains all observational data has replaced Cosmic Inflation Theory.

..............besides......a cosmic inflation only re-enforces the Biblical explanation that God spoke the universe into existence which would have occurred within metrics unknown and totally foreign  to our understanding of present physical laws. It therefore is just as reliable a theory to equate cosmic inflation to "God Speake".

--------------------------------

If this is true, then it is just as reliable to say that the universe is a dung beetle's ball of dung.

If this is true, then it is just as reliable to say that the universe is a dung beetle's ball of dung.

==================

Just qdog's part.

i think it was the sun the Egyptians claimed a dung beetle rolled about. 

Also we should mention the "fine tuned" conditions necessary in such a narrow range that if varied from the tiniest fraction would have made the universe as we know it
absolutely an impossible outcome. We can only conclude an intelligent design as the source in this model. [me]

just saying.

--------------------

If the universe is so fine tuned for life, why is it that we cannot live in 99.999999.... percent of it without artificial life support systems?  There is no fine tuning, just coincidental zones where life can exist.

.....actually i don't mind what one calls God's creation big bang or whatever but it seems that the creation detractors are witnessing science describe a universe of intelligent design.

I'm quite confident scientist make their appointed rounds regardless of what gets credit.

Because it is fine tuned.

The fine tuning i was referring to was what was required for cosmic inflation.

There is no mystery to what happened in the beginning. The Holy Writ explains the beginning so simply anyone should understand it.

Let us investigate the evidence.

In Genesis 1 the Bible states: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

In this statement the term "earth" represents matter which we can see.

The term heavens represents what we cannot see.

There was no form or no geometry to anything.

The "deep" was "darkness"

The "deep" we know today was and is dark energy and dark matter that has been around always.

When the Spirit of God moved in the dark energy and matter that movement caused energy to discharge from the dark matter causally and gave off enormous sparks of energy within the visible spectrum and heat spectrum causing points in the entire dark matter to form galaxies that we observe today.

The Bible starts with dark energy and matter as being here already.

This analogy has no need for an "event horizon" no worry about "mono-poles" because dark matter likely was made of "mono-poles" and once they were disturbed by the "Spirit" [or opposite polarity] of God this lightning storm began homogeneously and is still popping galaxies into being as we speak.

It is so simple a cave-man understood it and wrote it down for us to see.

Fairy tales.  You have a creative imagination.  But it's just as valid to say the universe is merely the dream if Vishnu. 

who is Vishnu?

I beg to differ OS. I think my theory can logically answer any scientific question as to a beginning.

Wanna test my claim? Throw one out and lets see. I promise not to reply "God did it".

They will be based on scientific arguments.

Like I said, creative imagination.

And you claim you will not simply use "God did it", yet is you distill what you stated down to its fundamental form all you have is "god did it."

What, are you just another liar for Christ?

This is what happens when one believes as irreducible true the creation myth of a Neolithic Semitic people. 

In the beginning there was dark, then all hell broke loose.

All Hell broke loose when we female's were made.

so far science has left no alternative to the theory of a super entity which set in motion these likely baryons   

it is stated in Genesis that dark matter was present before creation of stuff. it likely had no mass but had a positive charge.

When the Spirit[ whatever is meant by the Spirit of God moved within this dark matter the equilibrium that was present was broken and caused a release of a force bond resulting in
that energy state giving mass to our present dark matter.

It has already been demonstrated in the lab that collisions [see LHC and proton] of certain baryons with mass can decay into all present elementary particles of which
all stuff is composed.

This model solves all problems associated with the big bang theory and certainly negates the need of the ill conceived inflation theory.

Symmetry breaking, horizon, information evaporation, baryon numbers, background radiation, gravity waves to name a few are not a problem since causal contact would be universal during the billions of energy discharges from the dark energy during the Spirit movement.

Importantly the problem of supraluminal speed of particles to communicate between particles moving in opposite directions at a greater than speed of light
strapped onto the cosmic inflation theory necessary for explaining the consistent temperatures in background radiation is gone.

I'm not making this up. It's in the Bible and is based on science.

lookie here OS  cave men posited this. We are the ones that called the darkness of Genesis dark matter. Darkness is a universal term. 

So the absence of light is dark matter?

OS there were no elementary particles as we understand them in the beginning only darkness or dark matter. Light is made of photons. Photons are one of the mass-less elementary particles. The dark matter was in a state of equilibrium. The spirit thing caused energy to be released out of this state of equilibrium. The release was vast and occurred as say in giant sparks we will say for analogy.. The spirit thing gave rise to causal interaction between the photons instantly. Photons are are the communicators necessary for a constant temperature thorough out the universe. Without causal interaction photons moving away from each other never communicate. This keeps the law of speed in tact in does not require supraluminal speeds as required in cosmic inflation. I suspect dark matter is a baryon as a proton whose collisions decayed into the elementary particles that formed galaxies.

I might also add the spirit thing action gave birth to entropy at that time.

Huh?

"I suspect dark matter is a baryon as a proton whose collisions decayed into the elementary particles that formed galaxies."

Protons decayed into what elementary particles?  What elementary particles formed the galaxies? 

Oh wait, I get it.  The baryons as protons (whatever) decayed into elementary particles (these would be quarks: Protons are made of two up quarks and a down quark), which then anti-decayed into protons.  The newly anti-decayed protons then through the electromagnetic force affixed electrons thereby forming hydrogen, which went on to form galactic clouds condensed by gravity, and finally stars.  Right?

"This keeps the law of speed in tact in does not require supraluminal speeds as required in cosmic inflation"

Law of Speed?  Whats that?  It appears here that you see the cosmos inflating through and filling space.  In fact, Cosmic Inflation states that it was and is space itself that is inflating/expanding and everything within space (the universe) is just along for the ride.  The fact that space itself is expanding is why the speed of light (in a vacuum) is an unbreakable constant.

[By Barenaked Ladies]

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery,
That all started with the big bang! (bang!)

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their a****s off)
The oceans and Pangea
See ya wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will cause the stars to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be hurt
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy)
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!!

I didn't say dark matter was protons i said i suspect it is baryonic. we don't know.

yes collisions produce quarks, gluons, photons, electrons etc.

it all happened instantly producing building blocks of elements for galaxies.

the speed i refer to is the speed of light.

p.s. anything traveling at or near the speed of light has an infinite mass therefore you are not going to accelerate an infinite mass faster than light. thats why. remember E=m? energy =mass

the universe may not be expanding after-all as several theories reveal.

GN  OS I see you have been studying. That's good.

Oh, so you meant to say "I suspect dark matter is a baryon, an example of which is a proton, whose collisions decayed into the elementary particles that formed galaxies."

Okay, lets say dark matter is a baryon, or baryonic.  There are only two baryons that are stable for more than one one-millionth of a second: protons and neutrons.  Free neutrons have a half-life of approximately 10 minutes.  Protons have an estimated half-life of approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. 

So, the neutron and all heavier baryons decay directly to protons or eventually form protons, the proton being the least massive baryon. This implies that the proton has nowhere to go without violating the conservation of baryon number, so if the conservation of baryon number holds exactly, the proton is completely stable against decay. One prediction of grand unification of forces is that the proton would have the possibility of decay, so that possibility is being investigated experimentally.  

As I said before, the cosmos is not speeding through space, it is space that is inflating/expanding dragging along the cosmos with it.  Space can inflate/expand faster than the speed of light (since space itself is the reference for the speed of light) without anything in space traveling at a speed greater than the speed of light relative to space. 

Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever

The universe just got a new speeding ticket.

The most precise measurement ever made of the speed of the universe's expansion is in, thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years).

http://www.space.com/17884-uni...hubble-constant.html

Sorry to be so long in answering your question but, unlike some, I don't check the forum daily and don't even come around for several days at times. 

To answer your question.    None!    The reason I say none is while many point to the Cosmos and other parts of Creation around us (sorry but I do believe "God Created") and see God's power it keeping it, maintaining it, and originating it I realize that the same Cosmos and existence is seen by others, differently and apart from God.  One person's view is no more valid than another's and it all goes back to faith.  Where you put your faith, who you put your faith in, and what you put your faith in.

In using faith here I'm not limiting that to spiritual connotations but rather saying that most likely none here are original in their thesis regarding how things became as they are and how they got here and are maintained.  We all rely, put our trust, in what someone else has deduced and published or stated.   Put another way I could ask what physical evidence is there that God doesn't exist?  Same answer ... None!

_________

We either believe or don't believe........both comes down to Faith. Before I have to walk that very thin line & live in fear all the time, it sure would be nice to have some proof.

The likelihood of the Genesis language which describes beginning as being that of some sheep-herding clod is inconceivable when one reckons the congruent properties of it and known science of today especially since it was recorded thousands of years prior to the present discipline.

The thing is, Semi, I think this statement, you made, is totally wrong regarding Salvation or someone who chooses to place their faith in God/Christ and accept His sacrifice and shed blood to cover us and our sins and sinfulness. 

What I mean is I don't believe Christians have to live in fear or "walk a thin line, worrying about if the next sin they commit (and they will commit many) will cause God to cancel their contract (so to say) for Salvation.  It's also not about some Spiritual insurance policy called OSAS either because I have come to believe that a person can relinquish their Salvation by choosing to reject and turn away from Christ once they have professed Him I do not believe that a person can lose Salvation because they happen to commit a certain sin.   If that was the case then what sin would that be and wouldn't there be a warning before you got to that point? 

1 Corinthians 6:11 (Amplified Bible) ^{11}  And such some of you were [once]. But you were washed clean (purified by a complete atonement for sin and made free from the guilt of sin), and you were consecrated (set apart, hallowed), and you were justified [pronounced righteous, by trusting] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:12 (Amplified Bible) ^{12}  Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power.

That is not to say that there is not penalties and repercussions to the Christian who chooses to continue to sin and choose a lifestyle that is contrary to Christ teachings.  There are penalties and punishment but our Salvation is held secure with God, through His Holy Spirit as long as we claim Christ promises and testify.   

Matthew 12:31 (Contemporary English Version)
^{31}  I tell you that any sinful thing you do or say can be forgiven. Even if you speak against the Son of Man, you can be forgiven. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can
never be forgiven, either in this life or in the life to come.

There are many opinions as to what Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is but my own opinion is that it is rejection of God's offer for Salvation through the conviction of God's Holy Spirit ,the method by which God enables a person to receive Spiritual enlightenment as to their spiritual needs.  Thus it's rejection of Christ and the Holy Spirit's calling.

Other's feel and believe that it's attributing the work of God (His Holy Spirit) unto Satan.  One thing for sure it is and that's unforgivable and extremely serious.

Hahaha semi,n LOL "walk a thin line"? you would wipe out every mail-box on a rural route the way you wobble.

There are only two choices: A God who always was or a singularity which always was. As Stanley Myron Handleman said, there's no witch who put an evil spell on a prince, it was just an everyday average talking frog.

Doesn't God sound so much more logical when you think about a singularity that had no origins, a big bang (maybe), abiogenesis, millions of species evolving by themselves within a finite space? The average talking frog looks pretty good doesn't it?

(Taken from a forthcoming brief thesis.)

Believing in any God is as logical as believing in leprechauns, or the tooth fairy, or magic. 

Except that a supernatural encounter with God's Holy Spirit is and remains proof and evidence enough, for the Christian/believer, to have confidence not only that God exist but that God is in control and that our salvation is genuine and certain.

It's been this way since God provided His Holy Spirit unto mankind as a ministry, as predicted by Christ Himself, in John and as evidence of our salvation decision. 

John 14:15-17 (New Century Version) ^{15}

  “If you love me, you will obey my commands. ^{16}  I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper to be with you forever— ^{17}  the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he lives with you and he will be in you.

          also

Romans 8:9 (New Living Translation, Second Edition)
^{9}  But you are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.)

 

1 Corinthians 2:10-14 (Contemporary English Version) ^{10}  God's Spirit has shown you everything. His Spirit finds out everything, even what is deep in the mind of God. ^{11}  You are the only one who knows what is in your own mind, and God's Spirit is the only one who knows what is in God's mind. ^{12}  But God has given us his Spirit. That's why we don't think the same way that the people of this world think. That's also why we can recognize the blessings that God has given us. ^{13}  Every word we speak was taught to us by God's Spirit, not by human wisdom. And this same Spirit helps us teach spiritual things to spiritual people. ^{14}  That's why only someone who has God's Spirit can understand spiritual blessings. Anyone who doesn't have God's Spirit thinks these blessings are foolish.

There are many scriptures that relate to the Christian God's gift and inner ministry to CONFIRM unto the Christian that their faith is in something genuine, true, and sure.

Furthermore, It is just as understandable that someone who does not know Christ, has not had that intimate encounter with God's Holy Spirit has no proof or evidence to make them think that God is true and exist.   To those who do not know Christ/God they consider those who talk about God's indwelling Holy Spirit to be delusional but yet their judgment is wrong.  It is also understandable that someone would make such dogmatic statements claiming non-existence of God because to even acknowledge the possibility otherwise would be to acknowledge that they potentially are in Spiritual danger and reveals their own error.  

My point is to basically say that I do understand the validity of saying that God doesn't exist because for the persons making that statement they have no conflicting evidence to make any decision otherwise but to extend that statement to encompass all humanity is foolish because that is saying that they know, without doubt, what everyone else is saying is false and fictional or a delusion when in truth they, you, or anyone else has no idea what happens to, or is experienced by another person.  You, they can only make decisions based upon their own experience.  Likewise my testimony is about experiences and knowledge only known and made valid unto myself and I claim that for myself I require no more evidence that God not only exist but that I am certain of my relationship with God, through faith in Christ.  

I can though speak only for myself but know that there are millions of others who claim the same thing.  As for those who claim God doesn't exist, as I stated earlier, I fully understand their position for unto them there is that void and lack of any experience or presence of God's Holy Spirit.  That can change though, immediately, as God's Holy Spirit does convict people of their Spiritual needs and when that happens a person can rationalize it away but they cannot deny that it has happened unto them thus they have to justify it away as being something else.  (I believe) God seeks and reveals Himself to those who honestly seek Him out but only for so long and that there is no guarantee that after mankind rejects God's invitation/Spirit that God will continue to offer that person the ability to find Salvation and forgiveness.

That is my own personal opinion and belief though.

Yet, my friend, you believe in that singularity that you can't tell us where it came from? You believe in that first (only?) abiogenesis that you can't tell us where it came from? No, I can't tell you where God came from, but it would seem you believe in much more than that of which you can't tell us its origins. 

_____

gbrk, I respectfully disagree with everything you said. You've made the statement many times that you will not/do not like to judge others but that is exactly what you have done to me & others that have been in my same boat.

How can you say that people who say God does not exist has not had that intimate encounter with God's Holy Spirit & has no proof or evidence that God is true & does exist? What about those people that have had that intimate encounter with the Holy Spirit? Do you think that person can't reach the decision that it was all a lie?

Why would you call it a dogmatic statement if a person claims the non-existence of God? Christians

insist upon an idea or principle, unproven/unexamined, & sometimes in an imperious or arrogant manner that God does exist. Why is it any worse for someone to say the opposite? You can't prove to me that God does exist. All you have is a story book & you prefer to believe that story is real & true.

Why am I void & lack any experience or presence of God's Holy Spirit if I say that book isn't true? 

It isn't impossible for me or any person that has been there, to suddenly after much soul searching, to not believe anymore.   

I watch & listen to those people like you & shake my head that a grown, mature adult could believe in such & swear it to be the truth. I may wonder why they don't search it out & question that story book but I would never judge you & find you lacking as you have me.

GB, another one religion has driven crazy.

Our forum poster Semi, who calls herself an agnostic at best or an atheist at worst, writes to gb:

Why would you call it a dogmatic statement if a person claims the non-existence of God?

I will take the onus to answer that question for the vocabulary challenged. "Dogmatic" means pertaining to a dogma. According to the dictionary, "dogma" means: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.

Ergo, anyone who has a stated belief either in the affirmative or negative of a thesis possesses a dogma and is dogmatic. I'm pretty dogmatic on many things, including the absolute abomination of crepe murder. Unless one is mentally challenged, one is dogmatic on many issues. 

I don't believe I've ever asked you to state your religious belief, Semi, but you seem to announce it quite frequently to all of us whose business it isn't.

I don't think, indeed I know, you won't find that I have ever told anyone he/she/it was going to hell. 

Tell you what your religious belief is? Okay. Here:

An atheist rejects all religious belief & denies the existence of God so I’m not quite to that point. I consider myself an agnostic because they are one that “questions the existence of God/Heaven, etc. in the absence of material proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation” & that’s kind of where I am.

This came up first on a search; I seem to recall your stating it more than once. The link to the topic the statement came from: https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/topic/agnostic

However, while one may be an agnostic when one first considers the concept of God, if one considers the concept long enough and continues to reject it, then in the eyes of most, he/she is an atheist.

To Semi,  You replied to me "How can you say that people who say God does not exist has not had that intimate encounter with God's Holy Spirit & has no proof or evidence that God is true & does exist? What about those people that have had that intimate encounter with the Holy Spirit? Do you think that person can't reach the decision that it was all a lie?"

How can I make that statement?   I make it simply because if a person actually comes to an intimate, real, personal, meeting of God via God's Holy Spirit I cannot conceive anyone having any doubt afterwards that would alter that person's mind or perspective from that moment on.  I mean no offense, even though I'm sure it will be taken (by some) but if someone states that they have actually had that encounter with God's Holy Spirit and yet can still doubt whether or not God is real and can reach that point where they wonder if it was really God or some other emotional event then they haven't actually had that encounter.   There is no chance of misinterpretation of that experience to assign it to simply some emotional experience.

If it could be doubted or thought to be simply an emotional experience then I submit that is exactly what it was and not an encounter with God.  There is no way to discount or doubt whether or not that Salvation meeting with God's Holy Spirit is real because it's so profound and miraculous.  I'm not trying to judge whether or not you had that actually but just saying I find it humanly difficult to understand if you actually did have that encounter that you could be in a position to doubt whether it was real or not now. 

I can though speak for myself and I can say without any fraction of doubt that God's Holy Spirit brought about a complete and total change of my whole inner being and life and has manifested Himself so many times that there is no room or reason for doubt.  I can only wish that each person could and would have that exact same experience and I believe they can but it's up to them.

________

You should have quoted it all. I said I wasn't positive of the existence/non-existence of Jesus or the truth of the Bible, & I posted that being agnostic is "kind of" where I am. I've made the statement many times that my mind is open to learning & to change if someone can show me proof.

I have never said I believed one way or another beyond a shadow of a doubt. What's wrong with my stating more than once what I do/don't believe? Even when you were here as FirenzeVeritas, you constantly questioned my post about Religion as though I were something dirty & wasn't supposed to mention it more than once. People do that on this forum, they discuss how they believe/don't believe. Many will mention it several times.

Your statement that if one considers the concept of God long enough & continues to reject it, then in the eyes of most, he/she is an atheist is ridiculous! As long as someone is open minded to learning, that is most certainly not true! Be interesting to know how many on this forum would actually agree with you. I may be wrong but I doubt if many would agree with such a ridiculous comment. 

It bothers me none if you post your religious beliefs under every topic. What I addressed was your statement: Ok, if I've told my "religious belief" to everyone, tell me what it is. You must know something I don't. I simply pointed out that you had mentioned your belief/non-belief frequently. 

As for continued agnosticism, what if a woman turns down a marriage proposal with great regularity over a ten year period, but states she's simply "unsure." How many would think she was actually giving the possibility of marriage any real thought?

There's some people you just have to block.

gb,

Good to see you again, my friend.  You said: " I make it simply because if a person actually comes to an intimate, real, personal, meeting of God via God's Holy Spirit I cannot conceive anyone having any doubt afterwards that would alter that person's mind or perspective from that moment on. "

Don't  you think people have intimate encounters with Shiva, Jupiter, Allah,,and Queztlcoatl?  Isn't it more likely that such encounters are a psychological phenomenon?  Don't you think it's more likely that the gods in which those have invested themselves make their imaginary god selves real in the investors' minds?

NSNS

NSNS, glad to see you back!!

You have falsely judged me ( in part ).  While I do believe that once a person accepts Christ as their Savior, by faith, being made aware of their Spiritual needs, their Spiritual eyes opened, so to say, by God's Holy Spirit and accepts that then I do believe their Sins are forgiven them, all their sins.

At that point, of Salvation, I believe (it is my opinion) that Scripture teaches that God's Holy Spirit is given to them (by God) as a gift as a  ministry and help to that individual Christian and as a guarantee of the legitimacy of the Salvation along with other ministries such as teaching/revealing God and the Will of God unto the Christian and guiding the Christian through life.  Continuously convicting the Christian of their being out of God's Will and assisting the Christian to live a Godly life.

The Christian, though, has freedom of choice, free will, and can continue to sin, as all people do, has temptations as all people do.  I do not believe that there is a point of sinning where God yanks a person's salvation away from them.  In other words you miss Church one time too many, you curse one time to many, you get angry one time to many etc, etc, etc.  I do not believe that our sins can rob us of our Salvation and that continuing to sin, for the Christian, puts that Christian at risk for punishment, for losing the fruits of the Spirit,  losing their Spiritual happiness and through grieving the Spirit suppresses and harms our Spiritual relationship even unto early death, killing of the body but salvation of the (inner) spirit.  (1 Corinthians 5:1-5).  The danger with a Christian living a life of Sin, after Salvation, is you are grieving God and God's Holy Spirit and trampling on Christ Shed Blood abusing your gift and Salvation.  Losing the fruits of the Holy Spirit along with jeopardizing your prayer life, potentially meaning your prayers are not answered as well as losing other Spiritual rewards, that the Christian has, can put the Christian in a position where they doubt their faith, where they doubt God and doubt everything because no longer is God's Holy Spirit alive to them and ministering to them as was the case when their Spiritual relationship with God was pure and daily forgiveness and their Christian living was in God's Will and God's Holy Spirit was unimpeded by the Christians unforgiven sins.  When a Christian no longer feels, experiences, God's Holy Spirit as they do when they are living in God's Will then they can reach that position where they could decide God is no longer their God, Christ is no longer their advocate and they think of rejecting Him (I cover this below).

I do not believe that any external force such as that of Satan or demons can remove God's Holy Spirit from the Christian's body, cannot remove God's Guarantee and Seal so I do not believe that Satan, Demons, Demonic powers, or any person can cause a person to lose their Salvation.

I do though believe that a person who has sought God's forgiveness and has accepted Christ CAN later, at some point, renounce that decision, personally REJECT Christ themselves, lose faith in Christ, at some point possibly having put themselves in a position where they no longer realize God's Holy Spirit alive within them and personally make a deliberate decision to openly deny and reject Christ.  At that point I do believe that they have (free will) made the decision to give up their Commitment to Christ and reject Christ.  At that point I do believe they may be in danger of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and in danger of forfeiting their Salvation.  I, later in my Spiritual life, came to that point of belief.

So while I do conform to some OSAS positions that last statement is clearly opposed to the traditional OSAS advocates who usually say once you make that decision then it's irrevocable, even by God.  I've moderated my belief in that area alone.   It does also seem inconsistent (in a way)  to say that our continual, unconfessed, sins can lead us to a position where we can decide to reject God/Christ yet also say that we cannot sin such that we lose our Salvation.  Those are not inconsistent though because it isn't the sins that cause the loss of salvation but rather the sins, continual unconfessed, that cloud, dirty, and ruin (stand in the way of) our Spiritual relation with God, through God's Holy Spirit.  The sins don't rob us of our Salvation but rather rob us of the benefits, fruits of God's Holy Spirit.  It is the individual's personal, knowledgeable, willing decision to reject Christ that puts their salvation in danger/jeopardy (my own opinion).  

So in that way I am NOT your typical OSAS believer.

Great to see you back as well, and welcome back, you have always been respectful and I have missed our dialogs.  I hope your absence was by choice rather than health or other more negative reasons but whatever took you away it's good to know you are doing well and wanting to be back among the group. 

As for your point, and it is a valid and good one, you state:

Don't  you think people have intimate encounters with Shiva, Jupiter, Allah,,and Queztlcoatl?  Isn't it more likely that such encounters are a psychological phenomenon?

I very much do believe people have intimate encounters with each you mention and even have very intense and personal, intimate, relationships with groups like Christian Science or the David Korish's and Jim Jones and the like.  Your points are very valid and are at some point surely on psychological levels.  People seek out God/Christ in the same way, through faith, in faith,

So what is the difference?  What makes Christianity (God, Christ, Holy Spirit) different?  What makes it different is they are not only ALIVE and present but the encounter is not just real but transcends the physical, the emotional, it is an explosion of the very being of the person.  The questions are answered the voids are filled, that thirst/hunger is satisfied permanently.  It isn't just living in and by faith but there is reason for that faith given.  God (by His Holy Spirit) actually comes, dwells, lives, INSIDE of the Christian's body, along with their inner soul/spirit and manifests (makes Himself known) unto the Christian in miraculous ways that are beyond what can be described as just psychological or mental but it totally makes a radical transcending change of the individual (mind/body/soul/spirit) all at once, instantly.  That Holy Spirit, God's Holy Spirit is ALIVE and noticeable (can continuously be perceived) by the individual Christian and continues (as long as the Christian doesn't grieve the Spirit so badly) to have God's Spirit every moment minister unto them Spiritually.    No other religion, person, group does that or has that. 

While I surely understand that you will find that potentially delusional or even boisterous I don't mean it to be rather it's the only way I know to explain it.  I can only testify to it and about it and explain how the Scriptures define and describe it.  It isn't just a relationship based on One-Way faith but it's a living, intimate, two way Spiritual relationship that is at times beyond explanation.  

There are, though, some miserable Christians!  Christians who allow sins to dirty and conflict the relationship with God.  The Christian chooses to indulge in sinful living and in doing so suppresses God's Holy Spirit's benefits and ministry and actually can and does reach a point where their lives is much more miserable than someone who never found Salvation in the first place.

You see NSNS, I do believe that every one has a Spiritual hunger within them at points in their life.  They have questions, Spiritual hunger, to seek or find that which is greater than them or (my opinion mind you, as a  believer) seeking that creator from which they came.  That everyone has that Spiritual thirst.  That thirst and hunger, those questions do lead some to Shiva, Buddah, Allah, Christian Science, Jim Jones types, David Koresh types, etc but none of those fulfill that hunger, that emptiness and none of those comes alive within the bodies/souls of the individuals interacting with them in a two-way intimate living relationship.   That's my opinion, and my take on it my friend.  Take it for what it's worth but that's my expression and belief and best way I can express it.   All be it (and I haven't changed) very long, lengthy, and expanded.  

If you would like to have Scriptures that I reference regarding each point I'll be glad to paste them but to save space and time I didn't.  I will but paste this one which kind of summarizes what I have tried to say about it:

Ephesians 1:13-14 (New Century Version)
^{13}  So it is with you. When you heard the true teaching—the Good News about your salvation—you believed in Christ. And in Christ, God put his special mark of ownership on you by giving you the Holy Spirit that he had promised.

^{14}  That Holy Spirit is the guarantee that we will receive what God promised for his people until God gives full freedom to those who are his—to bring praise to God’s glory.

gb,

Thanks for the kind words.  That said, however, I find your response to be gobble****op.  

You say I make a good point (thanks) then say that it's different for you and your club because of the nature of the relationship.  The point I'm trying to make is that Mormons have personal relationships with the living Joseph Smith, Hindus have personal relationships with the living Shiva, animists have personal relationships with the Great JuJu up the mountain.  They all speak with each other.  Or not, which is more likely true.

The common denominator is people.  People who are convinced that theirs is the correct religion; they have it figured out; everyone else is deluded.  They all have the same experiences, only different gods.  They can't all be right.

Is it just possible that there is a quality, flaw, condition, penchant of the human mind that makes many of us believe that we can communicate telepathically to the gods whose existence is otherwise profoundly unproven?

Regards,

NSNS

____

All Christians claim their God is the "real" God. Everyone else's Religion is considered a cult. If there is really going to be a judgment day there could be a lot of "Christians" find they had it wrong & will be thrown in that fire pit with the rest of us sinners.

Just be buried with a fire hose hooked to an endless water source.

Let me regroup. Your reply was in the thread.

All Christians claim their God is the "real" God. Everyone else's Religion is considered a cult. If there is really going to be a judgment day there could be a lot of "Christians" find they had it wrong & will be thrown in that fire pit with the rest of us sinners.

Just be buried with a fire hose hooked to an endless water source.

I'm considering being cremated so I can use the express lane.

 BTW, I'm not concerned about it either, seeing as how there is no hell.

Simplest way I can put it, as a Christian, is to say two Testaments, one God.

The God of the Jews is my God as well.  I do not consider Judaism a cult.

I don't think that's enough to punch my ticket to hell.

But if it is, that's my problem and no one else's.

Like ol Forrest says That's all I got to say about that. 

_______

I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was just curious.