If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Scientists: We finally found proof of the Big Bang and its aftermath. CNN: Scientists prove existence of god   (religion.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 350
    More: Dumbass, god created  
•       •       •

9944 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:12 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 01:57:40 PM
Fubini:
The Bible was never meant to be a technical how-to manual for creating the universe.

Now that I would read.
 
2014-03-21 01:57:50 PM

Blink: Wait a minute ...

I thought we proved the existence of god a while back by how well a banana fits in the human hand

Kirk Cameron's ass.

FTFY
 
2014-03-21 01:58:16 PM

Fubini: She's not arguing that this proves God exists


Someone didn't read TFA.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.
 
2014-03-21 01:58:20 PM
is there something wrong with philosophizing about a possible intersection of religion and science in a religion blog?

the horror!
 
2014-03-21 01:59:38 PM

kling_klang_bed: I found proof that there is a God a long time ago right here on Earth, and he walks amongst us:

[www.metalsucks.net image 850x1131]


This point is not made enough in these threads.
 
2014-03-21 01:59:39 PM
If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?
 
2014-03-21 02:00:53 PM
i44.tinypic.com

QED
 
2014-03-21 02:00:59 PM
I keep saying CNN can't possibly get any more stupid, and CNN keeps saying - challenge accepted.
 
2014-03-21 02:02:08 PM

negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?


The Titans.
 
2014-03-21 02:02:35 PM

scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs


That, and the article title is not "Scientists prove existence of god" but "Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?"

And we all know the rule about headlines phrased as yes/no questions.
 
2014-03-21 02:03:40 PM

Carn: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

The Titans.


It's creators all the way down.
 
2014-03-21 02:03:50 PM

RoxtarRyan: Fubini: She's not arguing that this proves God exists

Someone didn't read TFA.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.


cogitate on the bolded part.
 
2014-03-21 02:04:06 PM

doubled99: Atheist here
Fark religion threads are always fascinating. An overwhelming majority of posters here deride idiots for believing in the magical sky fairy, yet somehow over 70% of all Americans adults admit they believe in god.
I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


See, I don't know where I fall. I don't believe in a God, but I also don't disbelieve one. I'm in the 'I don't make a decision one way or the other until I see proof for or against.' camp on a lot of stuff. So while I haven't seen proof FOR a creator, I haven't seen actual evidence AGAINST one, either. As a result, as long as religious people aren't trying to cram it down my throat through laws, I'm pretty tolerant of them. I think the reason you see a lot of flak towards religious people here is that most of the stories are about them doing stupid shiat in the name of religion.

This blog, OTOH, is something religious based that I have no problem with at all.
 
2014-03-21 02:05:18 PM
"So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it."

 OK. So, uh...why was it that a couple of days ago, prior to this story coming out, all you religious types were dead set against the big bang?

Let's face it... any scientific discovery made by humanity will be immediately spun to be proof of god by religious idiots. No matter how dumb, or how far they have to stretch, or how obvious the rest of us think they're being.
 
2014-03-21 02:05:39 PM

doubled99: Atheist here Fark religion threads are always fascinating. An overwhelming majority of posters here deride idiots for believing in the magical sky fairy, yet somehow over 70% of all Americans adults admit they believe in god. I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


Pascal's Wager, it attempts to explain death bed behavior at any rate.
 
2014-03-21 02:05:49 PM

negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?


You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.
 
2014-03-21 02:06:10 PM

negativenull: Carn: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

The Titans.

It's creators all the way down.


I just created a noxious gas cloud around my anus.
 
2014-03-21 02:06:29 PM

Ambivalence: Scientists find proof the black hole that swallowed the missing malaysia air jet was God's vengence on filthy shellfish eaters.


God wanted a universe populated only by shellfish? Cause one of the theories for how this universe came to be is that we are just the result of a collapse of a black hole in another dimension and all black holes in our universe will eventually collapse and create new dimensions and new universes.
 
2014-03-21 02:07:44 PM

Fubini: There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science.


Actually, it's because too often it's rejection of science that goes against their beliefs and acceptance of science only when it seems to bolster their beliefs, especially when that acceptance is a bit of a stretch.

There are plenty of actual scientists that also believe, and only the rabid atheists have a problem with them. But hey, guess what: every faction has its assholes.
 
2014-03-21 02:08:34 PM
Just keep moving that goal post Creationists. Keep moving it until we can't see you anymore.
 
2014-03-21 02:09:15 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-21 02:10:26 PM

Fubini: You're assuming that the Bible has to be literally correct.

The Bible was never meant to be a technical how-to manual for creating the universe. You're the one arguing that it is.

Well it's good that the author and you are here to be able to explain to us which parts of the Bible are intended to be taken literally and factually and which parts are figurative stories.

She says that the Bible isn't intended as a scientific manual and then goes on to say that the ancient Hebrew readers would have been confused by such a thing, as if that is an explanation as to why it's not scientific. Apparently, if the ancient Hebrews hadn't been such dunces, the Bible would have been chock full of all the secrets of the universe.
 
2014-03-21 02:11:09 PM

Blink: Wait a minute ...

I thought we proved the existence of god a while back by how well a banana fits in the human hand.


Behold the atheist's nightmare!
 
2014-03-21 02:11:36 PM
i.imgur.com

I thought Homer already proved God didn't exist.
 
2014-03-21 02:11:51 PM

RoxtarRyan: Someone didn't read TFA.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.


Actually I did.

She's still not arguing that God exists, she's arguing that our universe was caused or created by something outside of spacetime, and that a Christian God could serve as that first cause, and thereby there is no conflict between the account given in Genesis and the confirmation of an inflationary universe.

There are three hypothetical scenarios for the universe's global evolution.

There was nothing, and then the universe sprung into existence by itself.
The universe springs out of an underlying multiverse or other domain.
The universe has no start but is eternally going through bang/crunch cycles.

In the first case, the universe just spontaneously happens for no reason, and in fact there can never be a reason. I think most people would call that intellectually unsatisfying.

In the second case, there is in fact an external cause to the universe that is not in or of the universe.

The third case is possible, but also intellectually unsatisfying for various reasons (Occam's razor, no start no end, etc).

Out of those three choices, as we currently understand them, the third is really the most scientifically and intellectually palatable. She's absolutely right in saying that an inflationary universe adds support to the external-cause hypothesis. Note that she specifically does not say that this cause is or must be God ("something or someone").
 
2014-03-21 02:11:53 PM

ArcadianRefugee: scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs

That, and the article title is not "Scientists prove existence of god" but "Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?"

And we all know the rule about headlines phrased as yes/no questions.


Technically, that rule is for news headlines, because they wouldn't ask, if they could state unequivocally..
The rule doesn't really apply to opinion pieces and metaphysical philosophy in general.
 
2014-03-21 02:14:39 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Fubini: There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science.

Actually, it's because too often it's rejection of science that goes against their beliefs and acceptance of science only when it seems to bolster their beliefs, especially when that acceptance is a bit of a stretch.

There are plenty of actual scientists that also believe, and only the rabid atheists have a problem with them. But hey, guess what: every faction has its assholes.


The author is one of them, and plenty of otherwise fine Farkers seem to have a huge problem with her.
 
2014-03-21 02:14:41 PM
If a Soul is supposedly Immortal. Wouldn't that mean Both ways? if you don't remember anything from before you were born, what makes you think that you'll know anything after you die? Just seems reasonable to me.
 
2014-03-21 02:15:23 PM

wantingout: wasn't the big bang theory originally proposed by a catholic priest anyway? religion masquerading as science or something along those lines?


Catholics are quite clear that the Big Bang Theory does not conflict with their faith.

They just add God as a first cause.

Of course, they still get upset when you ask the followup "Ok, what caused God?".
 
2014-03-21 02:16:17 PM

AteMyBrain: OK. So, uh...why was it that a couple of days ago, prior to this story coming out, all you religious types were dead set against the big bang?

Let's face it... any scientific discovery made by humanity will be immediately spun to be proof of god by religious idiots. No matter how dumb, or how far they have to stretch, or how obvious the rest of us think they're being.


One- if you didn't believe in the Big Bang before, because you thought it conflicted with your religion, why would you suddenly have a crisis of faith because some eggheads found interesting polarizations in the cosmic microwave background radiation?

You wouldn't. Nobody is switching sides.

Two- who here is spinning this into proof that God exists? No one is. The author of TFA isn't, and none of the commenters so far have done so.
 
2014-03-21 02:18:14 PM
FTFA:
However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it.



How do people this stupid manage to breath unassisted?
 
2014-03-21 02:18:39 PM
With all the billions of galaxies out there, with untold billions of planets, fundies keep saying God spends all his time worrying about "Earth" people? I think right now he's looking for someone to pop that zit on his ass.
 
2014-03-21 02:19:26 PM
"breathe"

FTFM

/I blame Fark's terrible editing tools. After fighting with them just to get it to NOT make shiat italic when I didn't want it to for a good minute and a half...
 
2014-03-21 02:21:57 PM

Cyclometh: How do people this stupid manage to breath unassisted?


Ok, so you accept that the universe had a definite beginning, but that nothing caused it to happen?

Give us your envisioned timeline, pre-inflationary epoch.
 
2014-03-21 02:23:04 PM

Misconduc: What made it funnier, she couldn't even explain why the earth rotates around the sun, yet she's entitled to her opinion on why the Big Bang theory is false and God Exists only.


Of course God exists; the only question is which one(s). And to answer that, we must look at the empirical evidence:
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-21 02:24:26 PM

scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs


But Commentary on Fox News is completely indicative of their position in  news reporting according to the my friends who have GEDs (i.e. progressives).
 
2014-03-21 02:24:30 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Your move, atheists
 
2014-03-21 02:25:01 PM

MythDragon: [i.imgur.com image 850x628]

I thought Homer already proved God didn't exist.


Is there no place for the man with the 105 IQ?
 
2014-03-21 02:25:56 PM
scarlettdecourcier.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-21 02:26:19 PM

UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.


He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.
 
2014-03-21 02:27:52 PM

colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.


You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.
 
2014-03-21 02:28:37 PM
I don't feel the need to "believe" but if it will make you shut up, fine, he exists.  Does that make you believers feel better?  Now, can you explain why he is such an asshole?  Feel free to tell him I said to go fark himself.
 
2014-03-21 02:29:44 PM
oyster.ignimgs.com

"Your god is too small"
 
2014-03-21 02:30:42 PM

meat0918: colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-03-21 02:32:06 PM

BafflerMeal: meat0918: colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 293x475]


counterpoint

www.naderlibrary.com
 
2014-03-21 02:32:11 PM

meat0918: colon_pow: UncomfortableSilence: negativenull: If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?

You forget that he always was and always will be. For all 6,000 years of existence he has been there and in the interminable black before he was still there.  We are only able to perceive the need for creation because of our limited grasp of existence through our own experience, or something like that.  I am not really sure what these people believe.  It's all bonkers to me.

He exists outside of time.  It's really that simple.

You're making the assertion, please provide the proof.


you're asking a lot.  it may take me a few minutes...
 
2014-03-21 02:32:40 PM
Oh look, people who dismiss science when it conflicts with their religion suddenly say science proves their religion.

Look, I don't necessarily have anything against Christian orthodoxy, but if you want to believe that God is real for self-evident reasons not observable by science, I don't see any reason to try and even fit science into the equation at all.
 
2014-03-21 02:33:20 PM

colon_pow: our belief is superior to your speculation.

no, our speculation

prediction based on rigorous mathematical work which has now been verified by empirical observation is superior to your belief!

FTFY. Have a pretzel, troll!
=Smidge=
 
2014-03-21 02:33:39 PM

Fubini: Ok, so you accept that the universe had a definite beginning, but that nothing caused it to happen?

Give us your envisioned timeline, pre-inflationary epoch.


There was no "pre-inflationary" epoch (at least, according to our current understanding). Saying "before the big bang" is like saying "behind the night" or "in front of love". It has no semantic meaning, and is- quite literally- a nonsense term.

We have no way of knowing what, if any, "cause" there was for such an event, because no possible information could be transmitted regarding it into our universe. Whatever the "cause" was, whether a deity, random chance or simply an iteration in an endless cycle, we will (probably) never know. The history of time and information ends at the singularity.

Substituting "god" for some imagined causal agent- for which no evidence exists, and in fact for which no evidence CAN exist (at least according to our current understanding)- is just stupid. It's weak-minded claptrap.
 
2014-03-21 02:35:18 PM

Fubini: She's still not arguing that God exists, she's arguing that our universe was caused or created by something outside of spacetime, and that a Christian God could serve as that first cause, and thereby there is no conflict between the account given in Genesis and the confirmation of an inflationary universe.


You know what? You're right, she isn't arguing that her god exists. As a believer, she doesn't need to. What she is doing is taking recent scientific discoveries and adding her own b.s. by saying "If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent - separate and apart from the effect - that caused it. Hey, that sounds like the bible!"

Note that she specifically does not say that this cause is or must be God ("something or someone").

Again, FTFA: "it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused - or created - by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it."

While she may not directly say "this means my god did it and the bible is true", the insinuation is palpable, especially when taken in context of the entire article. Again, she is taking science, and attributing it as evidence of an existing bias.
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report