Search Results: true religion

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm

Obviously if the Big Bang gave birth to all of existence, then matter and energy couldn't have existed and thus had a beginning too. So to assert that matter and energy is eternal is dishonest, especially considering scientists should know better and thus can't claim ignorance.

If there is no time and no space, then where is no when and no where for there to have the matter and the energy. It must have been an act of God to create matter and energy and no, this is not special pleading for God. I thoroughly explained how God's existence can't be preceded with an existence as that would make things co-existent with God and thus make the Biblical proclamation of Him creating all things. Time and space is a thing and God created it. This is shown in many facets how it can apply if true and thus is not special pleading.

Please explain why people claim matter and energy to be eternal when the Big Bang obviously isn't eternal! Before the Big Bang, there would be no time or space for the matter and energy to exist in since matter and energy would be an emergent property of the universe.

As a side note. I want to make it crystal clear to all here. When I say science seeker, I am talking about those who virtually thinks science is the only method to find and seek truth and is thus your spirituality. Spirituality is the search for truth. Religion towards the truth is dependent on whether you feel obligated to serve aspects of it. In science, if you hold methods more fond to where it affects who you are or how you live, then science can be your religion in addiction to your spirituality. It must be a spirituality to you if you seek it but it can or can not be a religion to you. It depends on how you adhere to certain aspects of it. Just wanted to clear that up.

So which type of faith do you depend upon usually? Here are 2 links to help show why both of them are needed in a pure balance:

https://amp-theatlantic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/417357/?amp_js_v=a3&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15989766158914&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fscience%2Farchive%2F2015%2F11%2Fwhy-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith%2F417357%2F

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2013/10/scientific-faith-vs-religious-faith.html?m=1

Please explain if you think both of these types of faith are important or not. One faith is based on belief. The other faith is based on evidence. Both can be true but both can be wrong. Each one can be true while the other is wrong. You have to put trust in either faith.

People have a misconception that all faith is religious faith and that's totally false. Another misconception is science is not a faith. That's false. Even if you could prove science isn't a religion, you can not prove science is not a faith. In science, you must trust and put faith in your senses that they are reliable and perfectly represent reality.

Please tell me how much you value each!