Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Dumbass, god created  
•       •       •

10038 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:12 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-21 02:36:30 PM  

What_do_you_want_now: [oyster.ignimgs.com image 610x343]

"Your god is too small"



I kept getting distracted thinking, "why are they torturing Sgt. Pepper's era George Harrison?"
 
2014-03-21 02:37:08 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.


So everything everywhere always requires a creator except *THIS* one thing which doesn't.  Got it.
 
2014-03-21 02:38:44 PM  

RoxtarRyan: 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.


do you not do the exact same thing?
 
2014-03-21 02:39:55 PM  

Fubini: Oh look, it's a religious person reconciling new scientific knowledge with their religion, not rejecting the science or asserting that Genesis literally happened.

BURN HIM AT THE F**KING STAKE.

HotWingConspiracy: Do christians grasp the folly of looking for proof of god?

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Yay for the constant stream of nut jobs with high school educations clearing up the whole "existence of god" issue.  I bet she also has some valuable insights on the benefits of a flat tax.

RoxtarRyan: Your blog sucks.

lockers: Belief is proof enough so why search for facts?

exick: Every sentence I read makes me facepalm harder than the previous one. I'm going to need medical attention if I keep reading.


^This, Even Dawkins and Hitchens have said that a creator is just a good of theory as any other to explain what caused the big bang. The only thing I don't like about any religion is the intolerance from the extremists... but I have also met quite a few atheist extremists.
 
2014-03-21 02:40:12 PM  

negativenull: 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.

So everything everywhere always requires a creator except *THIS* one thing which doesn't.  Got it.


everything in the physical universe, yes.
 
2014-03-21 02:41:45 PM  

Ivo Shandor: 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 image 500x642]


api.ning.com
 
2014-03-21 02:45:11 PM  

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


But in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and a beginning can only exist inside temporal movement, so the word and God must have existed inside time. Time for the penguin on your TV to explode.
 
2014-03-21 02:48:58 PM  
static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-03-21 02:49:32 PM  

colon_pow: do you not do the exact same thing?


Since my bias actually has testable evidence to enforce it, sure. I'm ok with it.
 
2014-03-21 02:54:10 PM  

rickythepenguin: What_do_you_want_now: [oyster.ignimgs.com image 610x343]

"Your god is too small"


I kept getting distracted thinking, "why are they torturing Sgt. Pepper's era George Harrison?"


I KNEW/thought he looked familiar!
 
2014-03-21 02:54:27 PM  

grumpfuff: Ivo Shandor: 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 image 500x642]

[api.ning.com image 600x709]


Jesus promised to rid the world of evil.  Odin promised to rid the world of ice giants.  Now, I'm not saying one is real and one is fake, it's just that I'm still seeing a lot of evil, but not many ice giants these days.....
 
2014-03-21 02:54:59 PM  

Dansker: ArcadianRefugee: 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.


Point taken.

Dansker: 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.


As I said, every faction has its assholes.

/also, it is a pretty stupid article
 
2014-03-21 03:00:06 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?


Or Fark is not a representative sample of the US population.
 
2014-03-21 03:00:13 PM  

Cyclometh: 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.


Quite wrong, sorry. You've also subtly confused my language, so let me be clear. The "Big Bang" was the origination of the universe, "time zero" so to speak. The "inflationary epoch" was a later period of time. The following link gives an overview of some hypotheticals that might have occurred after the big bang, but prior to inflation. (i.e. inflation didn't start immediately with the origination of the universe)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Universe#Very_early_u ni verse


Cyclometh: 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.


Every piece of observational evidence in the history of mankind suggests that actions follow a cause-effect relationship. Whether we will ever be able to peer past inflation is a question up for debate, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't physical cause and effect prior to then.

We speculate about many things which we can never hope to understand absolutely. That doesn't mean that there is no value in asking the questions or that the pursuit is worthless. You've unilaterally declared that there can be no physical meaning prior to the end of inflation, which is just as an unwarranted assumption as any.
 
2014-03-21 03:00:33 PM  
Jesus Christ...
 
2014-03-21 03:01:08 PM  

udhq: grumpfuff: Ivo Shandor: 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 image 500x642]

[api.ning.com image 600x709]

Jesus promised to rid the world of evil.  Odin promised to rid the world of ice giants.  Now, I'm not saying one is real and one is fake, it's just that I'm still seeing a lot of evil, but not many ice giants these days.....



Wanna know how I know you didn't read the thread?
 
2014-03-21 03:01:48 PM  
What's that unwritten rule of journalism?  If you can answer the question in your article with "no", maybe you should reconsider writing said article?
 
2014-03-21 03:01:53 PM  

DeerNuts: Or Fark is not a representative sample of the US population.


No, we're all just farking brilliant here.
 
2014-03-21 03:02:55 PM  

Misconduc: Few years ago I went to college, there was a crazy chick spewing how Science cannot explain the big bang theory, let alone half of the universe, so in that case God must exist. I watched two drunk physic major's just drill the hell out of her for a good 20 minutes in which she couldn't even answer a single question on the law of physics.

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.


Cool story, bro.
 
2014-03-21 03:03:01 PM  

Ivo Shandor: 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 image 500x642]


That's Thor...
 
2014-03-21 03:04:09 PM  

kimwim: DeerNuts: Or Fark is not a representative sample of the US population.

No, we're all just farking brilliant here.


Don't forget incredibly attractive. And athletic.

/gym, 26 minutes
 
2014-03-21 03:05:51 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?


Obviously. I mean, it's either that or Fark just does a better job of attracting atheists than it does of attracting religious people... but that would be impossible!
 
2014-03-21 03:06:01 PM  

RoxtarRyan: 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.


You're committing a fallacy that many people do. The lack of evidence against a hypothesis does not itself constitute evidence that supports the hypothesis.  Showing that inflationary cosmology and the Bible are compatible does not answer whether God does or does not exist, does not answer whether God did or didn't have anything to do with creation.

You're reading things into the article based on your assumption that religious folks are just looking for any excuse to prop up ahackneyed theory.
 
2014-03-21 03:06:02 PM  
"God" is a proper noun when referring to the God of the leading monotheistic religions, and should be capitalized.  The lowercase "god" is appropriate when referring to an unspecified person or thing of supreme value, such as a Greek god.

This is a simple lexical rule, and has nothing to do with beliefs.

/Eats
//shoots
///leaves
////CD's
//you're and your
 
2014-03-21 03:07:51 PM  

Great_Milenko: What's that unwritten rule of journalism?  If you can answer the question in your article with "no", maybe you should reconsider writing said article?


Rule #39726 of Farking: Check whether you're commenting on an opinion piece in the blog section or on journalism. Or not. See if I care. Any more beer in the fridge?

It used to unwritten, but I just ruined that.
 
2014-03-21 03:08:03 PM  

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



No, not really. The catholic church actually has a pretty decent respect for science and does not have a problem with either the Big Bang Theory or evolution. Their general attitude seems to be that those two things are mechanisms God put in place and through which He works. I'm atheist and have a tremendous amount of respect for science and I'm ok with their view.

Georges Lemaitre took a look at Edwin Hubble's evidence that the entire universe was expanding and worked it backwards. He reasoned that if it is expanding then it is a little bigger today than it was yesterday. That means the day before it was a little smaller, the day before that even smaller, and so on.
 
2014-03-21 03:08:56 PM  

Telos: Obviously. I mean, it's either that or Fark just does a better job of attracting atheists than it does of attracting religious people... but that would be impossible!


If you accept that there are more atheists on Fark than otherwise, there are two hypotheses. First, Fark attracts atheists. Two, Fark creates atheists.

I'm willing to propose another theory, which is that the Fark atheists are just really vocal, and that religious people tend to classify anyone who does not explicitly agree with them as "atheist".
 
2014-03-21 03:11:33 PM  

grumpfuff: Wanna know how I know you didn't read the thread?


D'Oh!  So, I didn't....

That's a line from an old movie, I've never seen it in meme form, but, apparently it exists.
 
2014-03-21 03:13:31 PM  
So, this was in a religion blog, not the front page?    I'm not sure that I see the problem here.
 
2014-03-21 03:14:15 PM  
This is not surprising.  Any evidence that points to the universe having a beginning should naturally inspire questions about what started it, why at that specific moment, is this the only instance, is it a repeating event.  All questions that science has no answer for.  And also questions that pretty much every religion claim to have the answers for.
 
2014-03-21 03:14:32 PM  
I knew this was comming... I just knew it.  At least it isn't as bad as the Higgs Boson was.  But the meantime,  let us treat this with the respect it deserves.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-21 03:16:44 PM  
CNN has become the FOX News for stupid people who don't want all that political bias in their stupid.
 
2014-03-21 03:20:24 PM  

MythDragon: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 592x720]

Your move, atheists


Pee.
 
2014-03-21 03:24:32 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]


COVENANT YOU MUST STOP

YOU'LL SHATTER THE ARCH
 
2014-03-21 03:26:59 PM  

Fubini: Cyclometh: 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.

Quite wrong, sorry. You've also subtly confused my language, so let me be clear. The "Big Bang" was the origination of the universe, "time zero" so to speak. The "inflationary epoch" was a later period of time. The following link gives an overview of some hypotheticals that might have occurred after the big bang, but prior to inflation. (i.e. inflation didn't start immediately with the origination of the universe)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Universe#Very_early_u ni verse


Cyclometh: 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.

Every piece of observational evidence in the history of mankind suggests that actions follow a cause-effect relationship. Whether we will ever be able to peer past inflation is a question up for debate, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't physical cause and effect prior to then.

We speculate about many things which we can never hope to understand absolutely. That doesn't mean that there is no value in asking the questions or that the pursuit is worthless. You've unilaterally declared that there can be no physical meaning prior to the end of inflation, which is just as an unwarranted assumption as any.



The technical language for this is:

1) First it went "boink"
2) Then it went "POW"
 
2014-03-21 03:28:14 PM  
Mikey1969: 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.


Then you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.
 
2014-03-21 03:29:35 PM  
evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep god out of their brainwaves

/atheism is a religion
 
2014-03-21 03:30:52 PM  

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

But in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and a beginning can only exist inside temporal movement, so the word and God must have existed inside time. Time for the penguin on your TV to explode.


sure He was there at the beginning.  He was there before the beginning. and that penguin will explode when the time is right.
 
2014-03-21 03:31:29 PM  

deadlyplatypus: That's Thor...


Yes, and the caption text is what Thor is saying to the reader. At least that's how I interpret it.
 
2014-03-21 03:33:57 PM  

RoxtarRyan: colon_pow: do you not do the exact same thing?

Since my bias actually has testable evidence to enforce it, sure. I'm ok with it.


fascinating.  so you have tested your evidence and proven that the physical universe came into existence on its own.

you should publish your work.
 
2014-03-21 03:34:46 PM  

Lapdance: 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.


dj1hlxw0wr920.cloudfront.net
 
2014-03-21 03:38:15 PM  
HAHAHAHA...thats hilarious.
 
2014-03-21 03:38:37 PM  

Egoy3k: Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.


i like bacon
 
2014-03-21 03:40:11 PM  
shiat, we woke IDW from his slumber. None are safe.  The time of doom is upon us, all who reside within this thread must flee or they shall surely perish.
 
2014-03-21 03:43:03 PM  

kimwim: DeerNuts: Or Fark is not a representative sample of the US population.

No, we're all just farking brilliant here.


And therefore not a representative sample of the US population.
 
2014-03-21 03:43:33 PM  

colon_pow: fascinating. so you have tested your evidence and proven that the physical universe came into existence on its own.


Actually, the universe created itself for Stewie, so Stewie could create it.There was a TV special on it, perhaps you've seen it.
 
2014-03-21 03:44:42 PM  

AteMyBrain: "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?


Huh?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-big-b an g-theory-in-tune-with-creation-history/
 
2014-03-21 03:45:34 PM  

Egoy3k: hen you are an atheist.

Theist: someone who believes in one or many gods
Atheist: the opposite of theist

Any other meaning that has been tacked on to the word comes from assholes (from both sides of the 'debate') with an agenda.


The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."
 
2014-03-21 03:45:38 PM  

noitsnot: 1) First it went "boink"
2) Then it went "POW"


1)cdn0.sbnation.com
FOR SCIENCE!!!1!

2)img.fark.net
FOR RELIGION1!111!1
 
2014-03-21 03:47:31 PM  

Egoy3k: shiat, we woke IDW from his slumber. None are safe.  The time of doom is upon us, all who reside within this thread must flee or they shall surely perish.


hmmm, it's been while

img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report