'not really a Christian'

[fccool]

Quote:

Which evidence are you pointing to?

Evidence that you are in fact irrefutably correct

Quote:

The atheistically driven insistence that everything must be explained from a naturalistic viewpoint?

No, they'll accept supernatural evidence if it's not presented in a form of mythology... and I understand.

Quote:

Please point to some "external evidence" that is "absolutely unbiased and irrefutable". :-)

Hmm... do you want me to present you with unbiased and irrefutable evidence for existence of God? I think my point was that our faith/belief is not based on external evidence, but rather on trust in a Book that really provides very little of it.

Yet, you are trying to carry over these faith based arguments to people who prefer facts to make up their mind. There's no irrefutable fact that you can provide that would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of Christian God. Likewise, the burden of proof rests on you.

So, how are you going to do that?

Once again, Bible was not meant to be textbook on systematic theology. Stop using it that way. You are not going to have a bunch of loving folk that follow a systematic dogma. What you'll end up having is a bunch of dogmatic folk that think that they are better than everyone else and in position to teach everyone else how to be better through dogma.

Sure, we do believe that God for some odd reason decided to hide himself from people by not revealing himself today directly. Neither He chooses to help directly to alleviate the unnecessary violence. He chose to reveal Himself through us... not in dogmatic and condemning way, but in loving and forgiving way.

Love speaks about God better than any systematic theology with all of its proofs. When you take some food and conversation to a desperate person, there's a hope that there's still some good in this world for them. And no atheist will have a problem with that, if you do it in a way that does not in exchange require them to listen to your sermons. Love is the best sermon.

When you (you being the mindset of our evangelicals) suit up in your suit, and pay thousands to fly over to teach them systematic theology when many of them starve and suffer... and then come back with some pictures to show in your nicely air-conditioned church of "how blessed we are", and "how thankful we should be that it's not us".... where's God in that?

Instead, we choose to reveal God by means of systematic theology that will "save" people if they pass our "spiritual math test". Don't you see something wrong with that picture?

[Twilight]

I could probably do so, though this is the wrong medium for equations. You seem to have obsessed on gravity, but I'm talking electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, space and time as well.

Video evidence is clearly a ridiculous demand. The evidence is in the location and red shift of the galaxies, and in the cosmic background radiation. Based on the evidence in this thread so far, you seem not to believe the cosmic background even exists. With that evidentiary arm tied behind my back, no I can't provide evidence for the events of the Big Bang, including the emergence of gravity.

You did say that Gravity did not exist in the early stages of the Big Bang, now you are stating it is electromagnestism instead...

Your argument is getting more and more inconsistent as it is examined.

So when did Gravity "start" exactly Bravus?

And you do you know that electromagnetism did not exist before the expansion, in Laymans terms please. :-)

The reason I am not leaving this point is because it is vitally important as this is where your argument falls over flat.

--------

As to video evidence, as you state you know that the Big Bang was a "fact", then the only way you could know that was if you had actually been there...

Extrapolation from multiple theoretical arguments does not make eye witness evidence Bravus...

The only eyewitness evidence we have is what God has provided, and He hasn't mentioned anything about gravity/electromagnetism not being there.

That derives only from athiestically motivated naturalism as an argument and not from God.

You can keep arguing "the athiests are right, the athiest are right, so I will insert God here..." but I am not buying it Bravus...

The athiests are wrong, unfortunately it appears you cannot discern between science and "science falsely so called", because you keep buying into their theories and confusing them with fact... :-)

[Twilight]

I never said he did not have to defend the claims. I said defending them was pointless and impossible in the face of the irrational arguing tactics that have been the hallmark of all you interactions in this thread. There's a fundamental difference. Once again, try reading what I write and responding to that, rather than to your own mental projections, and we might have the beginnings of a rational debate.

Maybe you have not been able to deal with my arguments, therefore the only charge left is one of "irrationality".

Why is asking someone to back up their claim "irrational"?

You seem to be arguing from a bias again, that precluded me having a right to argue the point...

Dismissing my argument as irrational, without explaing your rationale for doing so, is irrational...

[Twilight]

Try taking just the set of prophecies relating to the Second Coming occurring before those present died. They're right there in the Bible, and the link Rich provided showed chapter and verse. What further defense is required. The Bible prophesied something would happen, and it did not. What more I'd there to say?

Are you a Christian Bravus?

[Twilight]

Quote:

Which evidence are you pointing to?

Evidence that you are in fact irrefutably correct

Quote:

Hmm... do you want me to present you with unbiased and irrefutable evidence for existence of God? I think my point was that our faith/belief is not based on external evidence, but rather on trust in a Book that really provides very little of it.

Have you considered Jesus' example?

Many Christian's believe mistakenly that Christianity does not require proof, just faith.

Yet Jesus consistently provided confirmable evidence, that He was who He said He was.

He "proved" His identity.

How?

Through signs and wonders.

But the most comprehensive, is through the prophecies themselves of Himself...

That was how He taught the disciples.

If we provide the same evidence, then faith can be built on fact.

Have you ever considered that?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

It is strange to me, how often some "Christians" want to defend those that are openly and actively trying to destroy other Christians Faith...

They can pull down the faith of the frail believer, whilst their "friends" protect their right to do that.

I find it disgusting and contemptible behaviour.

No wonder there is so much disunity amongst the believers.

We keep giving the enemy the highest place to sit at the table, mistakenly thinking we are being "loving and accepting".

First of all, cardw is not enemy and he is not trying to destroy christianity, He is asking YOU to defend with real thought and reasoning your belief system. You are on the defense and have been rather weak at it, hense your accusations. Bravus, myself and others do not feel threatendby his questions. We defend his right to ask them and to be recieved in a Christian manner!

Did you not read what his own stated intention is?

To warn others away from Christianity.

Do you think that is okay?

If that does not make him an enemy of Christianity, I am not sure what does?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Are you a Christian Bravus?

So you answer is to assume something about someone that isn't to your liking?

You are exhibiting the behavior that cardw finds so contradicting. You are suppling the fuel for his disdain.

And you sir are making assumptions under the misguided notion that you need to protect those that attack the validity of the bible and Christianity it seems...

It was not an answer out of spite, it is a genuine question.

The only difference I can see between Cardw and Bravus' position, is that Bravus is claiming to be a Christian.

He keeps making the same arguments and agreeing with everything Cardw says, even when it comes to denying the validity of the bible.

I am curious as to whether Bravus is in fact a Christian, or whether I have made a wrong assumption, as he keeps arguing the athiestic position.

[Bravus]

You didn't answer my very simple question about prophecy, Twilight.

[Twilight]

You didn't answer my very simple question about prophecy, Twilight.

You haven't answered my query as to why one minute you were saying gravity did not exist...

...then claiming that you were arguing electromagnetism was what you were talking about.

You also did not answer the question as to how you know that that is the case.

That gravity/electromagnetism did not exist in the singularity (if that even existed of course, which is doubtful).

But of course, you will have to make your mind up about what you are arguing, as you seem to be changing your arguments now.

As this question has been hovering from before you asked your question, it is for you to explain your inconsistency, before we branch off away from this topic.

Unless you are trying to avoid a simple refutation of your argument by distraction? :-)

[Bravus]

And I didn't say 'electromagnetism instead of gravity' I said 'electromagnetism (and about half a dozen other things) *as well as* gravity'.

Stop blustering and accusing and misdirecting, and start reading.

As to answering the question, I already have, but will again. I know[1] that the fundamental forces of the universe (including gravity) and space and time emerged in the first instants (10^-34 seconds or so) of the Big Bang based on patterns in the cosmic background radiation. Like it or not, that is the actual answer.

[1] One more time, I *never* said the Big Bang is 'fact', as you claim. I have consistently said that it is our best current understanding of the origin on the universe, that explains the most of the existing evidence, but that it is subject to change in the future. That is the nature of scientific explanations, and your trying to make them something more is no reflection on either them or me.

[Bravus]

We seem to be several layers deep in 'I won't answer your question until you answer mine' with Twilight, though in fact I have answered each of his questions - just not with answers he likes.

But here's one more. Yes, I am a Christian.

Now, please answer the simple question about prophecy. Not with accusations, but with truth. The Bible prophesied something that did not in fact occur. You have claimed that it is precisely the Bible's record of accurate prophecy that allows us to have faith in the Bible, so this is a real issue.

Please answer the question.

[Twilight]

And I didn't say 'electromagnetism instead of gravity' I said 'electromagnetism (and about half a dozen other things) *as well as* gravity'.

Stop blustering and accusing and misdirecting, and start reading.

As to answering the question, I already have, but will again. I know[1] that the fundamental forces of the universe (including gravity) and space and time emerged in the first instants (10^-34 seconds or so) of the Big Bang based on patterns in the cosmic background radiation. Like it or not, that is the actual answer.

[1] One more time, I *never* said the Big Bang is 'fact', as you claim. I have consistently said that it is our best current understanding of the origin on the universe, that explains the most of the existing evidence, but that it is subject to change in the future. That is the nature of scientific explanations, and your trying to make them something more is no reflection on either them or me.

[Twilight]

Quote:

The only difference I can see between Cardw and Bravus' position, is that Bravus is claiming to be a Christian.

Quote:

It was not an answer out of spite, it is a genuine question.

You already know the answer! So for you to ask him again, insinuates you don't believe him because his view points are different than yours. My view is different than yours also. Would yo like to 'question' my christianity as well?

I found his answers so astonishingly defensive of athiestic doctrine, I had to double check.

So no, I did not know the answer, because his answers caused me to doubt so I needed to double check.

At this point I am challenging the imbibed athiestic doctrine he is espousing as compatible with Christianity.

So it was a fair question.

[Twilight]

We seem to be several layers deep in 'I won't answer your question until you answer mine' with Twilight, though in fact I have answered each of his questions - just not with answers he likes.

But here's one more. Yes, I am a Christian.

Now, please answer the simple question about prophecy. Not with accusations, but with truth. The Bible prophesied something that did not in fact occur. You have claimed that it is precisely the Bible's record of accurate prophecy that allows us to have faith in the Bible, so this is a real issue.

Please answer the question.

You have not answered my question yet.

How do you know that gravity did not exist until after the expansion?

Where is your evidence?

[Bravus]

For the fourth (or more) time, the evidence is in the cosmic background radiation and in the current organisation of the universe, which we know through telescope (light and radio) images of stars and galaxies combined with red shift information from those telescope data. Let me post a link to something, since it's not really something that can be posted in a couple of sentences on a forum.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

This should be enough to be going on with. Once you've read this entire document, and as many of the things referred to as you can manage, then come back and ask questions about evidence and the Big Bang.

Let me also note that, in the second piece you quoted above, as everywhere throughout this discussion, I have been explicit about the fact that my views on origins are theistic through and through. God exists and is infinite. Within, through and beyond space and time and this universe. Before the universe began, I AM. Every subatomic particle in this immense universe is under His *constant* attention. He is the cause of the Big Bang, and understands it utterly. The claim that my perspective is atheistic is simply false.

[Bravus]

Now please answer the question. Come on. Your comments so far suggest that it should be trivially easy. Yet you've posted maybe 8-10 posts since I asked it without even making the attempt.

Answer the question.

[Tom Wetmore]

Since it seems some apparently have the addled notion that one cannot be a scientist and a Christian I guess it is too much to ask that they have a go at reading Frank Tipler's The Physics of Christianity . Here is the first chapter:

Introduction: Christianity as Physics

The latest observations of the Cosmic Background radiation show that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago at the Singularity. Stephan Hawking proved mathematically that the Singularity is not in time or in space, but outside both. In other words, the Singularity is transcendent to space and time. According to the theologian Thomas Aquinas, “God created the Universe” just means that all causal chains begin in God. God is the Uncaused Cause. In physics, all causal chains begin in the Singularity. The singularity itself has no cause. For a thousand years and more, Christian theologians have asserted that there is one and only one “achieved” (actually existing) infinity, and that infinity is God. The Cosmological Singularity is an achieved infinity.

The Cosmological Singularity is God.

“But,” the average person may protest, “The ‘Cosmological Singularity’ is not my idea of God. I picture God as a kindly white-haired old man, loving but with immense power. The ‘Cosmological Singularity’ (whatever that is) is too abstract, too intellectual to be my God, the God I pray to every night. It sounds like some crazy idea some physicist would dream up. It’s definitely not the God of Judaism or Christianity.”

Not so. The Cosmological Singularity is the Judeo-Christian God. Think of it this way. Everybody knows that when you flip a light switch, the lights go on because an electrical current flows in the wires in the walls. Everybody also knows that electrons carry the electric charge whose motion makes the electrical current. I invite you to imagine an “electron” — you must have some image of an electron, since you use the word.

Now let me ask you: when you imagined an “electron”, did you imagine an excitation of a quantized, relativistic fermion field, part of an electroweak doublet? Unless you are a professional physicist, I know you didn’t. You probably imagined a little ball of some sort. Such an image is good for some purposes, even in physics. One can compute a fairly accurate value for the “drift velocity” of the electrons through the wire using the “little ball” image of the electron. But did you know that the electrons which carry the current in the wire are at a temperature of 80,000 degrees Celsius (140,000 degrees Fahrenheit)? You might wonder, “If the conduction electrons are at that high a temperature, why don’t they melt the wires? Why don’t they start a fire and burn the house down?” The reason is that the conduction electron can’t give up their high temperature energy to the wires. But to understand why the electrons can’t give up their energy, one has to go beyond the “little ball” image of the electron. (One has to think, “quantized fermion.”)

Similarly, everyone has an image of “God,” but to really understand what God really is, and how He could interact with the universe, one must use a theory beyond everyday common sense physics. Contrary to what many physicists have claimed in the popular press, we have had a Theory of Everything for about thirty years. Most physicists dislike this Theory of Everything because it requires the universe to begin in a singularity. That is, they dislike it because the theory is consistent only if God exists, and most contemporary scientists are atheists. They don’t want God to exist, and if keeping God out of science requires rejecting physical laws, well, so be it.

My approach to reality is different. I believe that we have to accept the implications of physical law, whatever these implications are. If they imply the existence of God, well, then God exists.

We can also use the physical laws to tell us what the cosmological singularity — God — is like. The laws of physics tell us that our universe began an initial singularity, and will end in a final singularity. The laws also tell us that ours is but one of an infinite number of universes, all of which begin and end in a singularity. If we look carefully at the collection of all the universes — this collection is called the multiverse — we see that there is a third singularity at which the multiverse began. But physics shows us that these three apparently distinct singularities are actually one singularity. The Three are One.

There is one religion that claims that God is a Trinity: Christianity. According to Christianity, God consists of Three Persons: God the Father (the First Person), God the Son (the Second Person) and God the Holy Ghost (the Third Person). But there are not three Gods, but one God. Using physics to study the structure of the Cosmological Singularity, we can see that indeed the three “parts” of the Singularity can be distinguished by using the idea of personhood. In particular, physics can be used to show how it possible for a man — Jesus, according to Christianity — can actually be the part of the singularity that connects the initial and final singularity. So the Incarnation makes perfectly good sense from the point of view of physics.

Traditional Christianity has always claimed that “miracles” do not violate ultimate physical law, though a miracle may violate our limited knowledge of physical law. Thus, if we know ultimate physical law — and if indeed our Theory of Everything is correct, we do — we should be able to explain all the miracles of Christianity.

And so we can. The Miracle of the Star of Bethlehem was a supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy. The Miracle of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the virgin birth of a male, is plausible if we use modern knowledge of exactly how DNA codes for gender. One expects that in a virgin birth, all the DNA in the child would come from the mother alone. This is possible if Jesus were a XX male. In the US population, one male in twenty thousand is a XX male. Using modern DNA technology, it is a simple matter to test whether a male is a XX male. A DNA test was performed on the Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial shroud of Jesus, and the Oviedo Cloth, claimed to be the “napkin” that covered Jesus’ face in his tomb. The DNA on both relics is just what one would expect if it were the DNA of a XX male.

According to Christians, Jesus rose from the dead in a “resurrection body,” a body that we will all have at the Universal Resurrection in the future. This “Glorified Body” was capable of “de-materializing” at one location and “materializing” in another. Modern particle physics provides a mechanism for “de-materialization”: conversion of the matter of an object into neutrinos, which are elementary particles that interact very weakly with normal matter, and thus would be invisible. Reversing the de-materialization process would result in apparently “materializing” out of nothing. If this was the mechanism of Jesus’ Resurrection, there are several tests that could demonstrate it. In fact, some of the tests are so simple that an ordinary person could carry them out. The image of Jesus on the Turin Shroud has certain features would expect to arise in the neutrino de-materialization process.

Christians claim that Jesus will come again, at the end of human history. Two developments in physics suggest that human history will end in about fifty years: computer experts predict that computers will exceed human intelligence within fifty years, and the de-materialization mechanism can be used to make weapons that are to atomic bombs as atomic bombs are to spitballs. Such weapons and super-human computers would make human survival unlikely, and in his discussion of the Second Coming, Jesus said he would return when human would face a “Great Tribulation” of such magnitude that we would not survive without his direct intervention. We will face such a Great Tribulation within fifty years.

From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.

[cardw]

And that's what bothers me the most about the arguments presented here to "prove" to Cardw that God is in fact real, and that he is mistaken. You can't bring an intellectual argument to the table that would prove to people that God exists. There is no such intellectual argument that would carry the irrefutable proof. None of you can do that right now. If you could, then there would not be agnostics or atheists.

Christianity was never meant to be a systematic theology by which means we "win" the unbelievers with our creeds and dogmas. Christianity is essentially a belief in a potentially better humanity by following the two perhaps obvious ideas - loving God through loving our neighbor as ourselves. That's the idea behind restoring the lost order described in the Biblical narrative and that culminated in Christ's teachings... not merely do or die systematic theology that was built around Biblical narrative (Bible is not a text book on theology)

If not for Christ's teachings, then we would have ended up with a rigid, and very violent religion that likewise reflects the God who is rigid and violent. Christ in fact pointed out that this is not the case, and perhaps there's other dimension behind violence that is unknown to us.

So, how about being intellectually honest for once... huh?

I appreciate your honesty here. To me this is an authentic expression even though I don't agree with the conclusion. I can understand how one might choose to view the world this way. And in practical ways I think both of us would treat others the same based on a common practical ethic.

I agree that the narrative of the life of Jesus is essential for the western understanding of the whole of humanity. It is a unique evolution of religious and cultural thought. As a narrative it has highly influenced the development of humanism, democracy, the value of humans as individuals, and the move away from the tyranny of governments, kingdoms, and corporations.

It's a great story. It's an appealing story and particularly so if you believe that it really happened. Just like the Greek myths it has its inconsistencies if you take it literally and frankly I don't think the very earliest Christians took the narrative literally. I think the gnostics were the first Christians and that Christianity came out of Alexandria through the international trade unions such as pre-masonic groups blended with messianic Jewish philosophers.

I think we are at a fork in the road. How do we maintain the break through in the understanding of what it means to base our ethics on empathy and the equality of all men without the literal narrative of Jesus?

It may happen simply because the results of that narrative become a cultural assumption. In many ways it already has. I think Christians have confused the narrative with the truths that it represents. I think the truths exist without the Jesus narrative, sin, salvation, and all the legal details of what it means to be a Christian. It just happens that Western culture needed this particular narrative to understand them. I don't see any evidence that this process was directed by the god of the Bible, but I wouldn't deny that there might be some higher order or consciousness providing the environment.

I think it is going to be harder and harder to hold on to the idea of a literal Jesus, God, and Holy Scriptures. We know a lot more about the world than when the Bible was written. We need a narrative that includes this new knowledge in a way the preserves the ethical breakthroughs without descending into superstition.

[cardw]

I note you have sidestepped both of my queries Cardw.

You seem to claim to be a champion against false Christian claims, but you do not seem to think that you have to defend your points...

[fccool]

Quote:

I think it is going to be harder and harder to hold on to the idea of a literal Jesus, God, and Holy Scriptures. We know a lot more about the world than when the Bible was written. We need a narrative that includes this new knowledge in a way the preserves the ethical breakthroughs without descending into superstition.

The Biblical claim is not really from epistemological level, but rather from ontological one. Biblical narrative is brutally honest about its innate incoherence when viewed from epistemological angle. This is in fact the very defense that would be used against you anywhere you go.

And that's the problem you will encounter when you will begin to approach the realm of philosophy from the scientific angle. Philosophical ideals are not constant. These can't be measured and systematized.

Likewise, the ontology of reality can't be explained by merely scientific principles, therefore there are theories that are formulated to explain certain phenomena that otherwise can not be proven through experimentation... i.e. scientific method.

These theories, if we are being absolutely intellectually honest here, constitute a belief in certain ontological reality that we perceive using our 5 senses, and measurement instruments that enhance these, yet in the end... it is our brain, and sub-conscious functions that take over the interpretation of the ontological reality (i.e. the reality as it really is).

A very simplistic example of this would be our perception of color. It does not exist in reality, except through our interpretive function of brain. If we dig even deeper, to the level of atomic and sub-atomic particles... the nucleus of the atom constitutes 0.000,000,000,000,001% of its space. Likewise, the nucleus itself might be 99.999,999,999,999,999% of empty space based on quantum theories. The only reason we don't pass through solids is because of magnetic fields that we literally levitate on. And if we dig even deeper, the scary reality is that the atoms should not even hold together if not for some mysterious and incomprehensible "strong force".

So, our perception of ontological reality is quite a bit different than what it really is... empty space filled with tiny particles moving around insanely fast. So, what we see is a mere blur of reality... that these particles reflect. We are used to the idea of colorful and solid objects, yet there's nothing solid about empty space held together and pushed apart by immense amount of never-ending magnetic energy. And this is only tiny speck of what I'm talking about.

Even with all of our knowledge, and our best of theories... if we are completely honest, we don't know the true nature of reality. We merely filling the gap with theories that take the place of "God does it".

Yet, the very things that make us human is in fact the very things that we can't explain through atomic interaction of electrons. There's no way to explain abstract concepts of love, hate, justice, freedom, honor... through these concepts. There are huge gaps that you would have to fill with "I don't know"... yet this is not what science does today. It boldly claims to know, while it knows next to nothing compared to the infinite amount of questions that plague our existence.

Even more so, which is very ironic, the best solution and idea of societal progress turns out to be through leadership of megalomaniacs and narcissists, because we mistake the boldness and confident arrogance with leadership.

The human need for God, as Tolstoy would point it out, is a need for template of perfection which is worthy to follow. You can perhaps argue that God of the Bible is not a good fit for such template, but I don't think you can argue against our need for it without pragmatically trying to fit an alternative that would be a worthy replacement.

What makes us human is in fact something that we've yet understand the mechanics of outside of philosophical attempts. There's no inherent need for love on purely biological level. Biologically things just grow and die. Human psyche is what makes our experience more than simple mechanical existence. Thus, the God-theory is a valuable explanation of reality from perspective of purpose and order. It should not be abandoned imply because people hijack it and systematize it for their benefit. Scientists do that quite a bit with their constant theoretic fights likewise. Science is not a religion, yet it certainly based on faith assumptions.

Without abstract concepts ... as one of my favorite movies would point out ... human heart is just a clock ticking.

[fccool]

On top of that you have to consider the nature of human subjectivity. A scientist who is seeking to prove his theory is in a way comparable to self-fulfilling prophecy idea of religion.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

[cardw]

Quote:

I think it is going to be harder and harder to hold on to the idea of a literal Jesus, God, and Holy Scriptures. We know a lot more about the world than when the Bible was written. We need a narrative that includes this new knowledge in a way the preserves the ethical breakthroughs without descending into superstition.

The Biblical claim is not really from epistemological level, but rather from ontological one. Biblical narrative is brutally honest about its innate incoherence when viewed from epistemological angle. This is in fact the very defense that would be used against you anywhere you go.

And that's the problem you will encounter when you will begin to approach the realm of philosophy from the scientific angle. Philosophical ideals are not constant. These can't be measured and systematized.

Likewise, the ontology of reality can't be explained by merely scientific principles, therefore there are theories that are formulated to explain certain phenomena that otherwise can not be proven through experimentation... i.e. scientific method.

These theories, if we are being absolutely intellectually honest here, constitute a belief in certain ontological reality that we perceive using our 5 senses, and measurement instruments that enhance these, yet in the end... it is our brain, and sub-conscious functions that take over the interpretation of the ontological reality (i.e. the reality as it really is).

[Twilight]

For the fourth (or more) time, the evidence is in the cosmic background radiation and in the current organisation of the universe, which we know through telescope (light and radio) images of stars and galaxies combined with red shift information from those telescope data. Let me post a link to something, since it's not really something that can be posted in a couple of sentences on a forum.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

This should be enough to be going on with. Once you've read this entire document, and as many of the things referred to as you can manage, then come back and ask questions about evidence and the Big Bang.

Let me also note that, in the second piece you quoted above, as everywhere throughout this discussion, I have been explicit about the fact that my views on origins are theistic through and through. God exists and is infinite. Within, through and beyond space and time and this universe. Before the universe began, I AM. Every subatomic particle in this immense universe is under His *constant* attention. He is the cause of the Big Bang, and understands it utterly. The claim that my perspective is atheistic is simply false.

As soon as the article began to discuss dark matter and dark energy as the basis of proof for the big bang, I had to stop...

There is no evidence either exist, but this article assumes they do and uses that in its "evidence"...

So immediately we can see that the article relies on unprovable assumptions.

It is once again "conjectural" theories that have no basis to claim authority other the origins of the universe.

Let me ask my questions again Bravus.

How do you know that gravity did not exist in the beginning?

How do you know that the galaxies were not created fully formed?

[Twilight]

Now please answer the question. Come on. Your comments so far suggest that it should be trivially easy. Yet you've posted maybe 8-10 posts since I asked it without even making the attempt.

Answer the question.

Which question Bravus, please also be explicit in your question.

[Bravus]

From 3 pages ago:

Try taking just the set of prophecies relating to the Second Coming occurring before those present died. They're right there in the Bible, and the link Rich provided showed chapter and verse. What further defense is required. The Bible prophesied something would happen, and it did not. What more is there to say [in defense]?

Edit: For your further convenience, here's the link: http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm

And here is just one of the specific prophecies and scriptures:

Quote:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus states that all the signs marking the end of the world in Matthew 24 would be fulfilled before his generation ended. That generation ended 2000 years ago, and the world has not come to an end, neither has all those signs been fulfilled.