If mathematics teacher made a mistake, would it mean mathematics itself is wrong! (page 6)

Big bang theory is not an ultimate theory with no flaws. It was proposed because scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

You also say I have “tried to sidestep but failed, of "who designed the designer."

But this is already addressed in my reply, and this question is no longer valid one after the introduction of first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy energy. Designer is conscious energy which cannot be created nor destroyed.

punkofnice

Venus - ready to take on all you atheists. I challenge you.

What for?

venus

snare&racket

You say “I am lost. Reach out to my intelligence and reason with logic.”

This is because you did not read the OP with thoughtfulness.

Try again, you will find it in it “intelligence and reason with logic.”

venus

Punkofnice,

You asked: ready to take on all you atheists. I challenge you. What for?

I was contrasting my position with that of Cofty who was often trying to escape from me diverting the subject dragging the name of some organization with which I do not have any connection.

Simply put, I was saying: “look at me, I am alone, and a woman ready to take on all you atheists.”

notsurewheretogo

6 pages...no proof...no facts...just waffle from venus...look within yourself to prove God?

Jesus f'ing Christ...

You are not "taking on" anyone because you offer nothing...zilch...zero...just like your imaginary god...

Onager

The Big Bang theory makes no claims to be the ultimate theory. It is the current attempt to explain the way things are.

Energy and Conscious Energy are two completely different things. One exists and one doesn't. You see you're trying to define a god by taking something that exists (energy) and then adding stuff to it that there is no evidence for.

What you're presenting is the irreducible complexity argument and that applies to your "Conscious Energy" as well, so the question remains: who created the conscious energy?

venus

Cofty describes me as ignorant because I do not treat evolution as a fact!

Evolution theory does not even qualify to be a grandmother’s story because it violates vital laws of Science.

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. Against this downhill trend, even God Almighty cannot make evolution possible!

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best-proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

Drearyweather

The entire discussion is like a group of people from the 9th Century discussing whether humans can travel from one continent to another in less than a day. Science of that day had not progressed and still had 10 more centuries to go before airplanes were invented that made this a reality.

Gravity, the planets and galaxies have always existed from billions of years, however, were proved and explained much recently by Science.

So the question that I have is, Does God not exist because we have no proof of his existence? or, is it that science has not progressed yet to explain his existence? Can we tell that God may exist, but science cannot prove his existence? as in science was not in a position to accurately explain gravity in the 5th century BC, but that didn't mean that Gravity did not exist then.

_Morpheus

You completely misunderstand and misapply the first law of thermodynamics.

If mathematics teacher made a mistake, would it mean mathematics itself is wrong!

Share this