Notice that I replied to your post within 2 minutes. And that was while alternately watching an interview on YouTube and eating a fudgesicle, so I was typing one handed. I didn't have time or need to google the answer.

Double post.

What were you doing with the other hand?



*edit*
nevermind... fudgesicle...

From your own source (Wikipedia): An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases.

So, actual scientists at the University of Michigan, as a source, suck on matters of science? Well played.



Didn't notice, don't care. You still had plenty of time to glance for "five seconds". I have no evidence whatsoever of your youTube experience nor your fudgesicle, just as you have no evidence of the state of the universe before the big bang as you've claimed. Nor do I make a habit of checking timestamps. Nor do I sit on this forum all day. Sorry.

BTW, the second half of my post was addressed to Peter, not you. If you would take the time to notice, it was HIS material I quoted. Now who's the moron?

BTW, you shouldn't ask that question, it may get answered...

Now you are just trolling. Cute, but you aren't getting fed by me.



I'll trump your source of a personal University of Michigan website based on 30+ year old research with a CURRENT NASA website.






I noticed that and I thought it was very sloppy to mix in quotes from multiple people. So I went ahead and responded to every stupid thing you said, because I wanted to.

Notice from your own quote "in the usual way that people picture explosions" as well as the operative word "usually" from the definition I supplied. So as usual, you're arguing semantics instead of facts. I guess that's what will always occur when trying to inform you religions on anything outside "The Good Book". Oh well.



As a general practice due to personal preference, I don't spam responses. I put everything I want to say in a single response, if possible. I don't expect others to do it, just the way I do things. Its not sloppy ... I think people should be able recognize their own words. Apparently, I was wrong.

not so. science has only studied the VISIBLE universe. that which we can see. we don't know precisely how the big bang occured nor do we know if this was the only big bang. it's all still theory. theory that has withstood the strict scrutiny of the science method for many years by producing predictable and repeatable results





sure, my mind is open to the possibility of god. but being as there is no evidence to test for god and much evidence to suggest that an alternative concept, the big bang, was the beginning of the visible univers it makes god highly implausible. there is physical evidence, if not proof, of the big bang. can YOU leave your mind open to the big bang when there is no 'physical proof' of god?

Well,,, It is true that there is ONLY ONE GOD and that is the FATHER of JESUS CHRIST the SON of GOD. No matter how many FALSE GOD we/you worship, generally we do only have ONE.. We just named it differently.

Why do you believe that?

I Can agree and disagree. God is another of those terms that can be very specific or very general. Lets say the creator GOD is unique and the only one. However, people worship and idolize many things in life.

Some make their country their God. Some make their flesh their God. Some make their culture ther God,,,etc,,,, and put them before the CREATOR GOD.

I agree there is one CREATOR GOD , but multiple objects of worship that people have chosen for themself.

So what is sacred to you?


wor·ship   
[wur-ship] Show IPA
noun, verb, -shiped, -ship·ing or ( especially British ) -shipped, -ship·ping.
–noun
1.reverent honor and homage paid to god or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2.formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3.adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.

God is the most sacred

followed by human life

Capital letters don't somehow make your words more valid than anyone else's, nor does repeating the same sentiments every other Christian professed on page one. Are you contributing to the conversation or ignoring it completely? I see the latter.

I kind of see agreement and disagreement as equal 'contributions',,,,,,,,,,

Why does the big bang theory make god highly implausible?

I see absolutely no real evidence for any kind of god, but i also don't see the big bang as suggesting a god to be implausible.

I see those propositions as mostly independent: We can have a big bang without a god, a big bang with a god, no big bang and yet a god, and no big bang and no god.

The big bang theory contradicts literal 6 day creationism, but I don't see that it directly contradicts the possibility of a creator of some sort.

yes the propositions are independent. i suppose plausibility comes from how one determines what is plausible in their own mind. my mind leans toward the scientific method when i think of what's plausible and what is not. the big bang makes god implausible, in my mind, for the reasons i stated; that there is vast evidence to test the theory and as the theory keeps passig these tests the theory remains plausible. perhaps one day a test will come along that alters the theory drastically or even makes it implausible as einstein did with newton's theory of gravity after more than three hundred years of science refering to 'newton's law' as the gold standard. but until that day comes science continuse to hold on to the big bang.

none of the tested evidence making the big bang plausible inhanced the theory as having anything to do with a creator so god having anything to do with creating the universe. something is plausible or it is not. if it is not plausible, the appropriat single word would be "implausible" so god creating the universe remains as implausible as santa delivering presnts to every well behaved kid in the world on christmas eve. santa and god simply do not rise to the level of theory that can be tested to produce predictable and repeatable results. at best, both are simply tales that are nice to believe. if there was no evidence to indicate the big bang happened, it too would remain a simple postulate or at best a hypothesis in which case occam's razor might apply and god and santa would make more sense as both have been altered the fewest times. but as occam's razor applies ONLY to competing HYPOTHESES, the principle cannot be applied to the big bang THEORY as to my knowledge an alternative THEORY does not exist to compete against it for plausibility. so in my mind, god, as does santa, remains implausible.

The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created because if he is of the same nature as they are, he will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him. If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing outside him causes him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self-sufficient. And if the does not depend on anything for the continuance of his own existence, then this existence can have no end. The Creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "He is the First and the Last."

God is more loving and kinder than a mother to her dear child.

But God is also Just. Hence evildoers and sinners must have their share of punishment and the virtuous, His bounties and favors. Actually God's attribute of Mercy has full manifestation in His attribute of Justice. People suffering throughout their lives for His sake and people oppressing and exploiting other people all their lives should not receive similar treatment from their Lord. Expecting similar treatment for them will amount to negating the very belief in the accountability of man in the Hereafter and thereby negating all the incentives for a moral and virtuous life in this world.

"You alone are the LORD; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You."

QFT

God is more loving yet allows people to burn for all eternity without any letting up? Sorry that doesn't work.