New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
15
posted 2 days ago by Heliocentric on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +15Score on mirror )
You must log in or sign up to comment
5 comments:
WeedleTLiar on scored.co
2 days ago 4 points (+0 / -0 / +4Score on mirror )
Do you think it's unlikely that a virgin spontaneously created the exact cells inside her body needed to create a baby?

Because the chances that the universe came in to being spontaneously are significantly worse.
Censored1488 on scored.co
2 days ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror )
If I were an all-powerful God who wanted to create a universe, a singularity followed by a “Big Bang” would seem like a great way to do that.
zk3hf9dB on scored.co
2 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
The Creation myth that modern Christians believe is not found in the Bible. Specifically, there was no "ex nihilo" creation. Genesis 1 specifically states that the earth existed before the creation began. Verse 1, properly translated reads, "When in the beginning, God formed the dirt and the sky, ..."

To try and tie the Big Bang to "ex nihilo" creation is utter nonsense. Nowhere does the Bible claim that God created anything like what our modern understanding of the universe is. The "earth" wasn't anything like our modern understanding of what the Earth is. They were talking about the dirt, the ground, likely just the ground in their immediate area and the ground under people they heard about. The "heaven" didn't refer to anything but what we might call the sky. It certainly did not refer to the infinite expanse of nothingness that surrounds our planet, the solar system, the galaxy, and our galactic neighborhood.

Heck, my dad remembers as a kid when he first heard about galaxies. What his teachers told him bore little resemblance to our modern understanding of galaxies. If teachers in the 1950s couldn't understand that we live in a galaxy with 400 billion stars in it, what hope did ancient man even have of conceiving of such a thing, let alone describing anything remotely similar to it?

As far as cosmology goes, the Big Bang theory is really, really bad. However, every alternate theory is even worse. I am of the opinion that Big Bang is wrong but we don't have a better theory so we deal with it. All the other stuff depending on Big Bang -- it's all hogwash trying to make Big Bang work.

Really, we should just say "We saw some lights in the sky" and be done with it. The stellar model doesn't work on so many levels too. Again, it's a "least bad" theory. Like, there are stars on the edge of our galaxy that are way, way older than the universe itself according to the Stellar Model. Explain that please?

Physicists make fun of astrophysicists all the time because their science is hardly science. They just like looking at pretty lights and making up stories about them. Not unlike what ancient man did with astrology.
JustifiedReprobate on scored.co
1 day ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
Christians believe *creatio ex amore Dei* with John 1:3 and 1 John 4:8. It is more about motivation than how.

Creation is not a mechanical act but a self-giving act of love.
zk3hf9dB on scored.co
1 day ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
The word that we translate as "create", heck, even the English word "create", has nothing to do with the concept of "ex nihilo". Ex nihilo creation is a foreign concept to any of the authors of the Bible and pretty much anyone until Platonic reason entered into popularity.
Toast message