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 33
    More: Dumbass, god created  
•       •       •

9975 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-21 12:43:07 PM  
11 votes:
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
2014-03-21 02:29:44 PM  
5 votes:
oyster.ignimgs.com

"Your god is too small"
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 01:04:57 PM  
5 votes:
To be fair, it's an opinion piece.
2014-03-21 01:21:16 PM  
3 votes:
Subby, please don't make me have to defend things I don't want to defend...

img.fark.net

Just, you know, try to be reasonable.
2014-03-21 01:39:07 PM  
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: So you don't see the folly in looking for proof of god? Also, come off of your cross. Also, it was generally christians burning people at the stake for imagined slights against their god.


Is this person looking for "proof of God"? No, she's not- she's fitting new scientific fact into her religious worldivew. She's actually arguing the exact negation of your statement: She's demonstrating how this new scientific evidence does not imply the absence of God.

If P is "inflationary universe" and Q is "God exists", you're saying that she's arguing that P implies Q. She's actually arguing ~(P implies ~Q). Or, more simply, P and Q- she believes both that God exists and that there's an inflationary universe.

There's a whole host of people here who condemn Christians when they reject science, and they reject Christians when they reconcile with science. The reality is that they just hate religion, or that they hate Christians, and they're just going to be dickwads about it whenever the topic comes up.
2014-03-21 01:16:45 PM  
2 votes:
www.phdcomics.com
2014-03-21 12:59:12 PM  
2 votes:
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.

Agent is not simple logic. Cause is simple logic. Agent is agency, a anthropomorphized trait. Fark off, fundie, you fail it.
2014-03-21 12:56:13 PM  
2 votes:
And yet submitter still hasn't found his reading comprehension.
2014-03-21 08:56:27 PM  
1 votes:

AurizenDarkstar: Ghastly: Just to clarify, the Firefox browser on my android tablet sometimes farks up my posts. I was not speaking in tongues or attempting to summon C'thulhu.

Yet you are willing to label me an atheist when  I am nothing of the type.  You would rather argue that an agnostic is an atheist, it's just a matter of 'labeling'.  While I will agree with you that there are 'agnostic atheists', this does not also mean that all agnostics are atheists and that all atheists are agnostics.

If proof came to light that scientifically proved the existence of a deity, I would be MORE than willing to believe that one exists.  Until such time, I can neither prove or disprove that one exists and will continue to believe that while it may be possible for a deity to exist, science has still not shown the proof of such existence.


I'm not labelling you anything. I don't know if you believe in a god(s) or not.

If you believe in a god you are a theist.
If you are without believe in a god then you are an atheist.

It's really not complicated.

If you believe it is possible to know a god does or does not exist you are a gnostic.
If you believe it in not possible to know a god does or does not exist you are agnostic.

I do not believe in a god. I do not believe it is possible to know if a god does or does not exist. Thus I am an atheist and because I don't believe it is possible to know if a god does or does not exist I am an agnostic atheist.

Now I'm completely open to the possibility of a god existing. If evidence that proved the existence of god was somehow produced then I would no longer be an agnostic atheist, I would be a gnostic theist. Such evidence has not been produced so I don't believe in a god. I believe it may be possible a god exists, but I don't believe in one.

It's really that simple. I understand the need to feel unique. I understand the need to feel special. And I understand the need to feel superior. These are are very basic human desires. However, it is not necessary to make up over complex definitions for already well defined words in order to satisfy those desires.

Now if we had time I could go through the list, name each god and ask you "do you believe this god exists", but there are tens of thousands of them and by the time we got to Zeus people would be pretty sick of it. Being open to the possibility of whether or not a god exists is not the same as believing that god exists.

I do not believe in leprechauns. I can't say with 100% certainty that leprechauns do not exist. If evidence proved the existence of leprechauns I would believe in leprechauns. I am open to review the possibilities that leprechauns exist.

I still don't believe leprechauns exist.

It's the same way with god.
2014-03-21 04:25:36 PM  
1 votes:

Carn: [i44.tinypic.com image 465x346]

QED


Assholes will always be assholes... and by assholes i mean you.
2014-03-21 03:53:27 PM  
1 votes:
There's a type of event in the current, observable universe that is taken as valid, accepted physics - particles springing into existence from the vacuum (which although also currently theorized not to be 'empty', is not populated with known, detectable particles).

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle can be phrased that for a certain Energy over a certain period of time (E*delta t),
it must be greater than 1/2*Planck's constant (h-bar if using radians).  Therefore, for a certain brief period of time delta-t, a particle or particle pair with net energy E could pop into existence and pop out of existence before it could be detected, without violating other known laws.

Stephen Hawking took this a step further and hypothesized that because it could happen, it does happen but we just can't detect it.  However, if an electron-positron pair popped into existence right on the event horizon of a black hole, one of these virtual particles would be unable to annihilate its partner within the delta-t time limit, and the other particle would get 'promoted' to a real particle, draining some of the gravitational mass of the black hole to conserve Energy.  Under this hypothesis, black holes should appear to be point sources of streaming electrons and positrons, and this has since been observed - called "Hawking Radiation" in his honor.

So here we have a case, consistent with all known and accepted laws of physics, in which a particle 'popped into being from nothingness'.  I have far less problem extrapolating this to the seed of a universe popping into existence from a meta-vacuum than I have with some bearded short-tempered storm god creating the entire universe by act of will and magic just to focus his entire attention on a wandering tribe of desert people on an insignificant planet in the unfashionable part of a spiral arm in one single galaxy among an uncountable population of galaxies.

The problem I have with assigning any aspect of the universe or metaverse to a 'god' is that you are expected to stop asking questions at that point, because all the remaining answers are 'god did it'.  When I stop asking questions, that is when I stop being a scientist - and I don't consider anyone a scientist who themselves have stopped questioning.  Engineers don't count.
2014-03-21 03:50:20 PM  
1 votes:

grumpfuff: 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)."


i2.photobucket.com

you're starting to bore me, you're boring, i'm bored
2014-03-21 03:08:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:35:18 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-03-21 02:23:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:05:18 PM  
1 votes:
"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 02:03:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:59:39 PM  
1 votes:
If everything (including the big bang) requires a creator, who created THAT creator?
2014-03-21 01:54:49 PM  
1 votes:

ranold: Christians are farking stupid.


You're a bigot.
2014-03-21 01:48:26 PM  
1 votes:

RoxtarRyan: The problem with people doing it in this fashion is that hey already stakes his claim to already have an answer for everything (his god), so when approached with new science, he then twists the evidence to support his "ultimate" answer. This isn't science. This is moving goalposts so no matter the evidence, your already existing bias is always correct.


You're simply wrong. Where in TFA is the author twisting the science? She's not. She's not arguing that this proves God exists, and she's not denying any scientific fact, she's showing how new scientific fact is compatible with her religious views.
2014-03-21 01:43:14 PM  
1 votes:
I found proof that there is a God a long time ago right here on Earth, and he walks amongst us:

www.metalsucks.net
2014-03-21 01:41:48 PM  
1 votes:

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.


The problem with people doing it in this fashion is that hey already stakes his claim to already have an answer for everything (his god), so when approached with new science, he then twists the evidence to support his "ultimate" answer. This isn't science. This is moving goalposts so no matter the evidence, your already existing bias is always correct.

ts3.mm.bing.net
2014-03-21 01:39:07 PM  
1 votes:
Christians are farking stupid.
2014-03-21 01:36:37 PM  
1 votes:

doubled99: I guess atheism is a hip trend that many abandon as they get older. Fear of afterlife, maybe?


Back about 60 years ago you would have found well over 90% of adults saying they believed in god. Only about 10 years ago the number was over 80%. Now it's around 70%. It appears as if the more we find out about the world around us, the more people are willing to admit the sun is just a star and not Apollo in his chariot.
2014-03-21 01:33:46 PM  
1 votes:

rickythepenguin: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


Nabb1: The guy who came up with the theory didn't seem bothered by the idea of the existence of God.


i just read Chris Hadfield's pretty entertaining book;  he flew several shuttle missions and spent about 6 months on the ISS.  anywyas, to your comment, he says something in the book, about how you see untold majesty in the cosmos and the awe of Earth (i think 18 sunrises in 24 hours due to the ISS' orbit), something like, "those who leave Earth either believing in a deity or rejecting religion in its entirety usually come back to Earth feeling even more strongly in that belief system, whatever it may be."

/he was on Nerdist podcast a few months back, very interesting listen.  book was ok but the podcast, more of his personality came through.  check it out brotherman.


Now, why doesn't god smite down astronauts the way he did all the people who tried to build the Tower of Babel?
2014-03-21 01:24:41 PM  
1 votes:
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.

2014-03-21 01:23:30 PM  
1 votes:

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


For some reason I get the sense that they used to, but no.

Ironically, babies being born, seeds growing into flowers, the cacophony of the forest, the tapestry of stars and other astronomic bodies as seen from Earth (or close to it) at night, and humanity's capacity for [art|compassion|rationalization|intelligence|speech|faith] are also "proof" of god, so why bother looking for physical evidence (or crowing that you found it) in the first place?
2014-03-21 01:21:39 PM  
1 votes:
Does the Big Bang offer proof of God?

No.
2014-03-21 01:20:09 PM  
1 votes:
He was smaller than you'd think.
2014-03-21 01:16:17 PM  
1 votes:
The guy who came up with the theory didn't seem bothered by the idea of the existence of God.
2014-03-21 01:14:27 PM  
1 votes:
Your blog sucks.
2014-03-21 12:53:39 PM  
1 votes:
Belief is proof enough so why search for facts?
2014-03-21 12:52:46 PM  
1 votes:
Whatever helps you sleep at night, lady. As long as she doesn't go making policy over it, she can feel whatever comfort from the discovery as she wants.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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