How for the life of me is that evidence? Can I draw a picture of God creating the universe and say that's evidence?
There was no opinion in the article. The article ends with the authoritative statement that most cosmologists don't believe there was a singularity.
I wasn't even responding to you. And sorry your terms cause a block that makes you unwilling to objectively look at truth, reason and evidence.
Please go research scientology, hinduism, jainism, sihkism, norse mythology, et cetera and prove to me they are all wrong.
Wait so since there are a ton of cosmologists, it must be true? How is this even rational? You are a fan of science and providing a link is only trying to support your opinion. Until there is a "matter of fact" equation; then don't you agree that the statement is actually an opinion?
...and the strong force is responsible for the VAST majority of what we typically call "mass". Differentiating between the two in this case is some serious physics hair-splitting. (Nucleus-splitting?)
We both agree that god (no matter the name) is improbable based on any particular definition in any religion. But we can not assign a number to the probability because there is nothing specific to test or measure. If we ask - Is there a god, assuming that god is only the god as described by the bible as interpreted by person X from ***** religion. Then we could look at exactly what criteria has been assigned to god, and if any of those criteria can be tested, like the age of the earth. But, that is just not how the question is being framed. So, if we ask, Is god real? There is nothing to count, or weigh, or measure, to provide any statistical evidence to back up any conclusion. So if AMB or Mags, or any specific person states they believe in God, I would tend to give that notion respect until I learned exactly what they believe in connection with god. Feel free to ask them if they believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. If they say yes, then I think you could construct a very well sourced argument with plenty of evidence that their belief system is flawed. But most people I know that believe in god are not nearly as fixed into a definition of god as most religions would presume to claim.
I've researched many different religions and ideologies. I'm not going to do your work for you, if you want to know, study it yourself. If not, fine. I'm simply responding to the arguments I'm seeing given in this thread.
Did you hear the one about the Jehovah's Witness who converted to Unitarianism? He went around knocking on doors for no particular reason...
So do you not believe the big bang came from a singularity now, joining crow and a large minority of modern scientists?
Scientology is pretty easy to prove wrong. The start of the religion was based on a fictional book. I mean the actual writer clearly admits that it's fiction. There was a group that read the book and believed it to be true and ran with it. This is much different than the other faiths that published writings and called it truth, FYI. As for Hinduism or mythology; they believed in creation; which is much more logical to me than the universe just poofed out of chance from non-mass
Knowing the name of the Pharaoh is not crucial for the story being told. If the Bible were to go exhaustively into every minute detail then we'd have one large book. The Bible however IS full of names and dates and places that can be verified historically and archaeologically.
I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. I also believe the Universe is over 13 billion years old.
It is a drawing of a non-observable theory made by scientists. It is not empirical evidence, if there was some, you would give it. But so far there isn't any.
