What constitutes adequate proof?

You don't believe in the big bang? There is sufficient evidence for it, although the causes of it I'm not sure of.

 

Well, I'm no expert scientist, so I'm not really claiming anything too assertive about the big bang, I'm just saying it does have credibility and the scientific community behind it. I really don't know too much on the matter but I know the fact that the universe is expanding means that it would converge at a point if you "rewound" time and that background radiation is a result of the big bang.

As for falsifiability, if someone found an observation inconsistent with the big bang, like if the universe was contracting or there was no background radiation (again, I don't know much on the matter so I don't have many examples), then the big bang could be proven false. To my knowledge, there are no such examples that prove the big bang wrong, therefore it's still an adequate theory.

The big bang may not be entirely correct, but it's the most accurate theory we have for the beginning of the universe we have today. Science is always correcting itself and making its explanations better, so I'd have to say the big bang theory is definitely a work in progress right now. This is not to say that it is definitely right or wrong, but that it's a viable explanation.

 

"The Master"'s teachings: Until the races become highly intelligent and more fully civilized, there will persist many of those childlike and superstitious ceremonies which are so characteristic of the evolutionary religious practices of primitive and backward peoples. Until the human race progresses to the level of a higher and more general recognition of the realities of spiritual experience, large numbers of men and women will continue to show a personal preference for those religions of authority which require only intellectual assent, in contrast to the religion of the spirit, which entails active participation of mind and soul in the faith adventure of grappling with the rigorous realities of progressive human experience.

He believes that religion evolved in this order.
1. primitive religion (The seminatural and instinctive urge to fear mysterious energies and worship superior forces, chiefly a religion of the physical nature, the religion of fear.)
2. religion of civilization (the religion of the mind -- the intellectual theology of the authority of established religious tradition.)
3. the religion of revelation (The revelation of supernatural values, a partial insight into eternal realities, a glimpse of the goodness and beauty of the infinite character of the Father in heaven -- the religion of the spirit as demonstrated in human experience.)

Therefore if following this pattern of religios evolution, the religion of revelation is not the final step and theerefore a belief in God stems from a belief in fear, proving that God does not actually exist except for in the mind and eventually another form or more "advanced" beliefs will surpass.

and even so, throughout time religious leaders insist on monopolies and resorted to using civil powers to enforce their views. People of faith have just as often used that faith to resist false authority, bad law, and social injustice imposed by equally ideological secularly-led forces. In any case, the voices of concience, morality, justice, mercy , and ethics are too blended and too interdependent for either party to be silenced.

 

@Sythe
Urantia book page 155, section 5...urantiabook.org/newbook/

 

It is saying that religions were created because of fear, then logic, and now spirit...would not an advancement be complete certainty about afterlife? Who are we to say that a religion like that will never take form that does not involve god in any way? Such a religion may be aided with the advancement of science technology.

 

How is it irrational? The time that modern religion has been around and been popular has been a small period of time compared to primitive religion and naturally occuring evolution.

 

Theory

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

 

Where did gravity come from? where did the big bang come from? where did the stars come from? the sun? moon? The perfect earth? look at how complex this world is , and everything on it. look at us, how complez we are. we have everything we need in us. surely not all of the stuff in us was made out of nothing. i remember hearing some scientifical theory that we evolved from fish. wtf? do we have fins? gills? what made the fish? what made the earth? what made the oil? to be honest, i beleive there must be a maker, and this maker made the world for us, and us for the world. and everything on this world was made for us. the sun and moon was made for us, and placed in the exact right place. if they had been even the tiniest bit further away or closer, the world wouldnt be like it is today. so think about this friends. What could have possibly made every single thing on this earth? even gravity?

 

remember that gravity was there before it was discovered. some person just had the lightbulb moment and started researching into it.

 

Hopefully this is easy enough for you to understand.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/evolution1.htm

What the hell is your point? Nobody is suggesting gravity came into existence the moment it was discovered.

 

The point i'm trying to say is ...
There must have been something to start everything in this universe, and all the other universes.

a question that tests me is:
Right, i think god made everything, but what made god?
The bible says that god is Eternity, he has always been.
i feel god inside me, you don't know how it feels obviously, but i can feel him. it feels so real i think hes right next to me always.

surely i guess you have never read the bible, so maybe before you flame me again, would you please read just a few paragraphs or chapters, maybe you might see what im on about.
I'm not saying that all scienctific theory is wrong. scientists have realised alot of the things in this world, and made it so we can understand it, so i appreciate your point of view.

 

As of when is there any verification to the multiverse hypothesis?

Don't delude yourself. 'He' is a product of your self delusion and childhood indoctrination.

Why do you automatically assume I haven't read the bible? Unlike you, I read the source material before I attempt to refute it.

No, what you're saying is that science is by wrong by default when it conflicts with your fabricated beliefs.