sjs1220 said:So, if it is true that 2 universes collided to create the big bang, which in turn created the universe, who's to say that God hadn't planned it that way. I find it funny that people use science to prove there is no God, but if God is all knowing and the creator of our universe, did he not create the science that we are studying.
Example:
I wholeheartedly believe in evolution. There is scientific evidence to support it, and it makes sense. The bible says God created man... it does not say how. So whose to say that God's tool for creating man and all the other creatures was not evolution. I'm not even suggesting that God is currently manipulating every genetic mutation. Rather, God is all knowing... thus when he started the chain of reactions that ultimately led to the big bang, that led to the creation of our solar system and planet, that led to the primordial ooze creating simple life, leading eventually to us, he knew it was all going to happen that way. It might have even been his original plan... who knows.
Now a note for those who are the opposite and thinking "but the bible says..." Lets remember that the Bible (old testament) was written in a time before we even understood biology as a science, let alone molecular genetics, astro-physics, and quantum mechanics. Thus, I suggest that the bible is like a childrens book, still bringing the ethical/moral points across, without giving all the details. Who, back then, would have read a book trying to explain that there are billions of cells in living animals...
Any thoughts from anyone else on this? :dunno:
... or have I just put you all to sleep?
well the first error in this thinking is that the bible is supposed to be the literal word of god. so it could be argued that since we are supposed to follow the bible, that whatever information that is not in the bible, is not what god is telling us to follow. so the question arises which do you believe what god tells you or what everything else shows you, which must also be created by god, so there could be some contradiction there. furthermore, considering the numerous glaring continuinty errors in the bible, we are to assume that god is not omnipotent since he can't seem to follow his own story, or that the bible is not the word of god, and thus not holy and just some book written by some guys.
To get to the point and actually address your post... circa 2,000-1500 BC there was a Greek thinker that theorised that everything is made up of really small objects put togther. he called these things Atoms. he also theorised that all molecules were fundeemntally made of water, which is wrong... but the point is that people were able to comprehend these things in the ancient world.
also a few more words about the bible. the oldest existing copy of the bible written in hebrew dates to the 10th century AD. the date that the scientists agree on, and theologins derive form the bible itself, it was written around 10-5th century BC. considering that at this time the isrealities did not speak hebrew, it seems to me that the bible was never written in hebrew during ancient times. the reason that this matters is because it makes a really strong support for the arguement that the events described in the bible were not documented during the time that they supposedly happened (when the isrealites spoke hebrew) and that they simply don't appear historically until the 5th century BC (when the isrealiets spoke greek) when the earliest versions of the bible in greek are dated. tie that into the fact that there is no archelogical evidence at all to back up the biblical accounts, and interactions described in the bible between the isrealites and other ancient cultures- the Babylonians and the egyptians- are not mentioned in the histories that these cultures wrote down, it calls into account the credibility of the bible substantially. if you have faith then it's all good, but there is very little reasonable grounds for calling the bible a signifigant historical source.
