Matthew Le God

Evidence from general relativity, the cosmic microwave background, and quantum physics that time and space as we know them began with the Big Bang. At the Big Bang’s singularity, our current physics breaks down, meaning concepts like "before" lose meaning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem also supports the idea that even expanding or inflating universes must have a beginning. There's no observational evidence to confirm that time or space existed beforehand.

Because there is no demonstrable connection to a deity and certainly no connection to a particular deity rather than the thousands of other human created Gods.

1) Considering some on this forum continue to think I've said there is no God, you are wrong. Some clearly do not know/understand my position. 2) Nonsense, as a non religious definition is not relevant in a discussion on religion.

Would that count as trying to confuse humans? "God is not the author of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33

The beginning of that says... "It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy." The First Law applies within a system with time and space. Before the Big Bang, time and space as we know them didn't exist — they began at the Big Bang. So the First Law didn't apply before the Big Bang, because there was no "before" in the traditional sense.

What that is all around me is demonstrable evidence for the God of the Bible? Are you using the 'look at the trees' argument? What makes the existence of trees or something else in nature evidence for the God of the Bible rather than any other God?

There is demonstrable evidence for black holes and the 'Big bang'. Where is the demonstrable evidence for the God of the Bible?

Alex started the talk about Spors and Sport Republic, not me. Why would you not use the religious definition of faith in a thread about Blasphemy and religion?

As we've already got them, why not use the ones we already have next season? Then get rid of them in summer 2026.

How will Spors do? I'd use the same answer to the question is there a God. To which my answer is... I don't know.

This is a thread titled Blasphemy... about religion. So using religious definitions... makes sense.

Thread is currrently titled Blasphemy! That is very much about religion! Duck rape came from pointing out God's wonderful creation included ducks raping other ducks of same gender.

I'd base my view of that on evidence from his past. Sport, not Sports.

Exists is spatial and temporal. Faith is neither of those. A God outside space and time is also not spatial or temporal... so can not meet definition of existing.

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith.

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith. In the Bible, faith is defined as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Essentially, it's a firm belief and trust in God, even when there's no visible proof or guarantee.

No I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

The evidence is his actions. No need for further justification. No faith required.

Wilcox joined after we were relegated.

I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

They couldn't afford his wages.

@egg A mod @Lighthouse should be able to confirm that nothing from the original post is different. If they wanted to join in with this nonsense!

Bullshit! Nothing was altered from the original post. The original text remains exactly how it was. All that changed was I added the second bit.

Bullshit. Nothing was removed from the post. All I did was add the second bit. Everything that was in the original post is still in it. So what on earth are you talking about? A mod should be able to confirm that if they look at the post edit record.

Wrong! It was asking why the intolerance I was accused of was a bad thing, not intolerance in general. I then added examples of types of intolerance that are not bad to show intolerance is not automatically bad by default.