• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Misc Conspiracy Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ooh this BBT and religion one is interesting.

I'm not a religious person, but I find the intersection of religion and science fascinating, and I want to argue against the idea that the big bang (or any scientific theory) is really opposing religion or a creator. I can imagine it is more than possible to devote one's energy to science in a religious context. In a similar way to J.S. Bach, for example, who signed his music scores with Soli Deo Gloria- "[for] the glory of God alone." He created his music from a very spiritual place, as a celebration of his beliefs.

The line between an artist and a scientist is thin in my mind. Both use their minds to create new ideas, things to consume and appreciate- songs, equations, paintings, theories. A similar quote to Bach to drive this point home: Leopold Kronecker, a mathematician from the 1800s, said "God gave us the integers. All else is man's work." To him, mathematics was an expression of human ingenuity to start with basic, innate tools and build something beautiful out of them.

All of which is to say, I think science can (and for those more religious out there, should) be viewed Soli Deo Gloria. I suppose, though, such a view requires a looser interpretation of some aspects of religious texts that are contradicted by scientific findings, and I can't really speak to remedying that conflict.

I'd also like to point out that the big bang is not a conspiracy theory. Maybe a broader thread title would be more appropriate?

One interpretation of the big bang is that it's an application of our best descriptions of the laws of physics (general relativity) to their furthest limit, and the idea of a "singularity" just reflects that eventually those best descriptions break down. That is, the singularity isn't supposed to make sense because it didn't happen. It's more like a placeholder for some more comprehensive explanation. Maybe that explanation is a god. Maybe it's more mind-bending math and physics. Like I said, I'm not religious, so in some ways when I look at these two explanations, I wonder "what's the difference?"
 
RVD said:
Ooh this BBT and religion one is interesting.

I'm not a religious person, but I find the intersection of religion and science fascinating, and I want to argue against the idea that the big bang (or any scientific theory) is really opposing religion or a creator. I can imagine it is more than possible to devote one's energy to science in a religious context. In a similar way to J.S. Bach, for example, who signed his music scores with Soli Deo Gloria- "[for] the glory of God alone." He created his music from a very spiritual place, as a celebration of his beliefs.

The line between an artist and a scientist is thin in my mind. Both use their minds to create new ideas, things to consume and appreciate- songs, equations, paintings, theories. A similar quote to Bach to drive this point home: Leopold Kronecker, a mathematician from the 1800s, said "God gave us the integers. All else is man's work." To him, mathematics was an expression of human ingenuity to start with basic, innate tools and build something beautiful out of them.

All of which is to say, I think science can (and for those more religious out there, should) be viewed Soli Deo Gloria. I suppose, though, such a view requires a looser interpretation of some aspects of religious texts that are contradicted by scientific findings, and I can't really speak to remedying that conflict.

I'd also like to point out that the big bang is not a conspiracy theory. Maybe a broader thread title would be more appropriate?

One interpretation of the big bang is that it's an application of our best descriptions of the laws of physics (general relativity) to their furthest limit, and the idea of a "singularity" just reflects that eventually those best descriptions break down. That is, the singularity isn't supposed to make sense because it didn't happen. It's more like a placeholder for some more comprehensive explanation. Maybe that explanation is a god. Maybe it's more mind-bending math and physics. Like I said, I'm not religious, so in some ways when I look at these two explanations, I wonder "what's the difference?"
Click to expand...

This is it exactly, that is the scientific method in a nutshell, there is no chance in hell the BBT is exactly correct, in fact its probably mostly wrong, on many levels.....its just the most reasonable explanation based on what we know at this point, we may never even know what existed in that millionth of a second before expansion happened, but we do know it had to be something outside of understanding of physics and matter and hell even time. There are so many interesting theories out there as to what state matter could have existed as prior to expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RVD
NCSNOW said:
Secular Compromises
There are several reasons why we cannot just add the big bang to the Bible. Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins. When first proposed, it was an attempt to explain how the universe could have been created without God. Really, it is an alternative to the Bible, so it makes no sense to try to “add” it to the Bible. Let us examine some of the profound differences between the Bible and the secular big-bang view of origins.

Heres the link to the whoe article. Good read.
Click to expand...

As a graduate of Liberty University I have been through LU’s Creation course (all students were required to take it), which uses material and apologetics from AIG.

The problem with AIG is Ken Ham’s unholy insistence that one must believe in a earth that is 6,000 years old to be a genuine Christian. That is yet another false gospel or addition to the gospel.

The Bible never declares the age of the universe. It is absolutely silent on the matter. Moreover, the only criteria for genuine Christianity is saving faith in the person and works of Christ.

With that said, let me also say that I believe in a “young earth”—young compared to the age given by modern science but not as young as 6,000 years.

I am also not suggesting that we accept the BB theory in full. My only point is that I find it interesting how there are common links between what science tells us about the origins of the universe and how the Bible describes the origins.

Instead of discrediting every scientific theory out of hand, we should point out where these theories confirm biblical revelation, recognizing that if the Bible is indeed true (as I believe it is) then scientific discoveries will ultimately point back to God.
 
RVD said:
Ooh this BBT and religion one is interesting.

I'm not a religious person, but I find the intersection of religion and science fascinating, and I want to argue against the idea that the big bang (or any scientific theory) is really opposing religion or a creator. I can imagine it is more than possible to devote one's energy to science in a religious context. In a similar way to J.S. Bach, for example, who signed his music scores with Soli Deo Gloria- "[for] the glory of God alone." He created his music from a very spiritual place, as a celebration of his beliefs.

The line between an artist and a scientist is thin in my mind. Both use their minds to create new ideas, things to consume and appreciate- songs, equations, paintings, theories. A similar quote to Bach to drive this point home: Leopold Kronecker, a mathematician from the 1800s, said "God gave us the integers. All else is man's work." To him, mathematics was an expression of human ingenuity to start with basic, innate tools and build something beautiful out of them.

All of which is to say, I think science can (and for those more religious out there, should) be viewed Soli Deo Gloria. I suppose, though, such a view requires a looser interpretation of some aspects of religious texts that are contradicted by scientific findings, and I can't really speak to remedying that conflict.

I'd also like to point out that the big bang is not a conspiracy theory. Maybe a broader thread title would be more appropriate?

One interpretation of the big bang is that it's an application of our best descriptions of the laws of physics (general relativity) to their furthest limit, and the idea of a "singularity" just reflects that eventually those best descriptions break down. That is, the singularity isn't supposed to make sense because it didn't happen. It's more like a placeholder for some more comprehensive explanation. Maybe that explanation is a god. Maybe it's more mind-bending math and physics. Like I said, I'm not religious, so in some ways when I look at these two explanations, I wonder "what's the difference?"
Click to expand...

Thank you for this. I agree with you completely. If you begin with the premise that there is a God, then you must admit that all scientific discoveries (not theories per se, but actual discovery of real/true indisputable facts of nature) will ultimately reveal something about the Creator. The discovery of DNA is one of my favorites. DNA is absolutely mind blowing when you dig into it. And to see that all of that information is in one human cell is even more mind bending. DNA gives us a wonderful glimpse into the majesty of God (I believe) that we would not have without scientific discoveries.
 
Sandbar said:
I saw things during training and while on Deployment that defied logic (not counting things I saw while deprived of sleep) , especially when they are moving at a high rate of speed, seemingly close to you with no sound. With that being said, when you are in very remote areas with no light or noise pollution your perception of how close things really are can be highly exaggerated. I have talked to several Navy Pilot friends who have seen things that they can't explain and they have a much better read through the technology they have on those aircraft.

Not sure I believe in other life forms visiting us, just doesn't make sense to me, but I would love to know what aircraft and/or weapons are a generation away that are doing these mind blowing things. I have heard "stories" of things in the pipeline but not enough to convince me to say yeah that's probably what I saw
Click to expand...

Think about this. The F-117 was in operational status in 1977. The B-2 went operational in 1989. The Aurora Project (Mach 6+)(SR-91) has existed (RAMJET) since 1989. There are aircraft in existence for military use that are unknown to the civilian populace.
 
Sandbar said:
Skeptical of no....But QUESTION everything? Hell Yes! First thing you learn before you kit up for your first Op. That's something that will NEVER LEAVE me! I can't even go to the store for milk when my wife ask me anymore without questioning it...LOL. Drives her insane but she understands :cool:
Click to expand...

This sounds eerily familiar... something something, not enough info TACOPS, something something...
 
Downeastnc said:
But they probably would meet clinical diagnosis, being a paranoid delusional person does not mean you cant be smart or have a good careers etc.....though I would also lump the Trumper voter fraud thing more under cult issues than delusional....when people are so convinced they have it right or that there is no way something could happen ( Trump losing for example ) that when it does happen they cant accept the logical more obvious thing like Trump lost cause Biden got more votes, they have to make it voter fraud etc so that they dont have to be wrong in their beliefs.

Its like the flat earth guy that spent 20k on a high tech gyroscope to prove the earth is flat and then it obviously shows the earth is round instead of accepting that data and changing his view he doubles down on idiocy.....

Click to expand...


King Olav speaks to me through a tiny receiver implanted in my teeth. The transmitter is in my penis. I have to fashion hats from Reynolds Wrap to keep the transmissions from waking me up at night.
 
tramadoc said:
Think about this. The F-117 was in operational status in 1977. The B-2 went operational in 1989. The Aurora Project (Mach 6+)(SR-91) has existed (RAMJET) since 1989. There are aircraft in existence for military use that are unknown to the civilian populace.
Click to expand...
My best guess from talking to guys who have seen the same things I did was some kind of advanced drone technology. The speed at which these whatevers move is insane but believable. The maneuvering? Human beings simply can't do what the pilots have told me these things are doing. The drone technology we had in the teams during the mid 2000's was mind blowing enough to me. The stuff the Tier 1 elements are testing/ using now I can't even imagine.

Advanced weaponry is also very likely
 
VegasEagle said:
Awesome! So all conserve speech should be banned? Nice back ground, I found so far on her.
Click to expand...

Always interesting to me how two people can watch or read the same thing and come away with two very different interpretations. I never heard ban conserve speech.

To me, it was about how conspiracy theories are used to radicalize the vulnerable particularly through the web and social media platforms.
 
Nerman said:
Always interesting to me how two people can watch or read the same thing and come away with two very different interpretations. I never heard ban conserve speech.

To me, it was about how conspiracy theories are used to radicalize the vulnerable particularly through the web and social media platforms.
Click to expand...
It was cloaked and she packaged it well. You can.go listen to her lectures and watch her social media. Basically she is extremely far left, and, works her school lectures around social race therapy and deep progressive idealiogy. I would not waste time on the subject. You are correct, we sometimes only hear (or not hear) what our idealiogy takes us.
 
VegasEagle said:
It was cloaked and she packaged it well. You can.go listen to her lectures and watch her social media. Basically she is extremely far left, and, works her school lectures around social race therapy and deep progressive idealiogy. I would not waste time on the subject. You are correct, we sometimes only hear (or not hear) what our idealiogy takes us.
Click to expand...
The eye sees what it wants to see. The ears hear what they want to hear......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top