| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| More reliable source? |
| << < (36/108) > >> |
| Niblic:
--- Quote from: Rughugger on November 10, 2009, 10:35:09 AM ---So much for the Big Bang, huh? --- End quote --- The Big Bang already happened so you cannot see it, God is "suppose to be here" but you cannot see him. |
| Inv3rted:
The notion "I can't see it therefore you cannot assume it exists" comes from not the literal meaning of 'to see', but rather the concept that rational thinking cannot be accomplished when you assume things without evidence. |
| Rughugger:
--- Quote from: TacticGamer on November 10, 2009, 11:14:47 AM ---The Big Bang already happened so you cannot see it, God is "suppose to be here" but you cannot see him. --- End quote --- Which was my point. He didn't see the big bang, so he doesn't believe it happened. Same can be said for anything that has happened outside of someone's lifespan. He was being way too general about it. |
| Chrono:
I do not know why people believe their vision. Did you know some people 'hallucinate'? What if we're the ones seeing the wrong things and they actually see the right things? Humans could not possibly understand what seems like the simple questions above, let alone understand gods or creation. |
| Blastdown:
I don't find either to be very reliable. Science laws/theory/whatever constantly changes to the point where you never really know if what we know today is true, as tomorrow it might change to some other belief. The english Bible translation is most likely not accurate in translation, which makes it un-reliable. I cannot say if the first version of the Bible (that would be Hebrew right?) would be reliable or not, as I have never read it. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |