Where did the universe come from?

[Okie74133]

If you can show a scientist like him would support non science, it takes away his credibility. He is an atheist and has openly shunned anyone believing in God in the scientific community. That isn't science. He is openly biased thus not a true scientist

You are suggesting that credible scientists are those that profess their personal belief in god? Isn't it fair to say those scientists lose their credibility by believing in the existence of something they can't prove scientifically? God is a matter of faith, not science. I have heard interviews with NDT where he stated that he is open to the existence of god if shown scientific evidence. How is that not scientific? As for the trans thing, I saw his interview with Ben Shapiro when they discussed the topic. I didn't hear him support anything non-scientifically. He was basically saying who cares how people express themselves or how they identify. Nowhere did he say trans people are scientifically or biologically the gender they identify as. His whole side of the discussion was that they have the freedom to express themselves however they want. Nothing he said defied science. The guy does lots of interviews and podcasts so if you've seen one where he says something otherwise I'll stand corrected, but I've not heard him say anything non-scientific on the matter.

Here's some food for thought; the christian community is always up in arms over people who identify as something other than what they had been up to a certain point in their lives. On the other side, christians believe they are born again, saved, and are different than their pre-christian selves. That's also a change in identity not unlike a person who was born male and now identifies as female or vice versa. When someone becomes a christian they don't change biologically or appear any different scientifically. They identify differently than before and express themselves differently according to how they now identify. The two are more similar than you might want to think. Maybe the real bias here is your own?

[digthemup]

Okie
I fail to see the similarity between the 2 people that you are discussing in your concluding paragraph, since Christians proclaim that their change is spiritual, as Christ taught and discussed with Nicodemus.
I have not changed my identity as an Sicilian, male, married to my wife an American female. The spiritual changes in me have compelled me to change some of my ways, which by God's teachings and commandments are offensive to Him, and due to my reborn love for Him I willfully accept to change.

In no way I force my views and changes in my believes on others, and I do not try to look for litigation or ask for legislative change to force others to accept what I believe.
If you strongly believe that this similarity exist, please open a new post and let us discuss it.
Thank you for your cooperation

[Okie74133]

Okie
I fail to see the similarity between the 2 people that you are discussing in your concluding paragraph, since Christians proclaim that their change is spiritual, as Christ taught and discussed with Nicodemus.
I have not changed my identity as an Sicilian, male, married to my wife an American female. The spiritual changes in me have compelled me to change some of my ways, which by God's teachings and commandments are offensive to Him, and due to my reborn love for Him I willfully accept to change.

In no way I force my views and changes in my believes on others, and I do not try to look for litigation or ask for legislative change to force others to accept what I believe.
If you strongly believe that this similarity exist, please open a new post and let us discuss it.
Thank you for your cooperation

Similar as in each circumstance the person claims to have been transformed from what they previously were. Similar as in both are based on a persons perception of themselves as opposed to the perception of others. Similar because in both instances the people act and talk differently than they did before. Similar because in both instances the person claims a transformation that isn't scientifically supported. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

[Okie74133]

I would also add that if an astrophysicist loses "all" credibility as a scientist and if his studies and theories shared by many other scientists are instantly invalid because that one scientist voices a belief that some think is at odds with science, then we could apply the same standard to religion if we are honest and unbiased. Take your pick of any of the countless scandals perpetrated by men of the cloth and if you apply the logic of mram10us it would invalidate religion. In other words if a scientist acting unscientifically voids science then a religious person acting in a non religious way voids religion, right?

[GPtimes2]

You are suggesting that credible scientists are those that profess their personal belief in god? Isn't it fair to say those scientists lose their credibility by believing in the existence of something they can't prove scientifically? God is a matter of faith, not science. I have heard interviews with NDT where he stated that he is open to the existence of god if shown scientific evidence. How is that not scientific? As for the trans thing, I saw his interview with Ben Shapiro when they discussed the topic. I didn't hear him support anything non-scientifically. He was basically saying who cares how people express themselves or how they identify. Nowhere did he say trans people are scientifically or biologically the gender they identify as. His whole side of the discussion was that they have the freedom to express themselves however they want. Nothing he said defied science. The guy does lots of interviews and podcasts so if you've seen one where he says something otherwise I'll stand corrected, but I've not heard him say anything non-scientific on the matter.

Here's some food for thought; the christian community is always up in arms over people who identify as something other than what they had been up to a certain point in their lives. On the other side, christians believe they are born again, saved, and are different than their pre-christian selves. That's also a change in identity not unlike a person who was born male and now identifies as female or vice versa. When someone becomes a christian they don't change biologically or appear any different scientifically. They identify differently than before and express themselves differently according to how they now identify. The two are more similar than you might want to think. Maybe the real bias here is your own?

Do you think mram10us (or anyone here) would have a real bias toward you if he knew you changed how you identify? Especially if you didn't let them know that you used to identify differently?

[digthemup]

Similar as in each circumstance the person claims to have been transformed from what they previously were. Similar as in both are based on a persons perception of themselves as opposed to the perception of others. Similar because in both instances the people act and talk differently than they did before. Similar because in both instances the person claims a transformation that isn't scientifically supported. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

In the generality you wish to look it, it would make sense to some people that would make such claims, yet you seem to have left out addressing my closing paragraph, which is the great issue in the whole matter.
I was in business for over 30 yrs and dealt with all types of people, yet I was capable to deal with whatever differences I was faced with without imposing my views or be litigious about how I was made to feel.
Hopefully, you can understand what I am trying to convey without making this an extensive belaboring conversation.

[Okie74133]

In the generality you wish to look it, it would make sense to some people that would make such claims, yet you seem to have left out addressing my closing paragraph, which is the great issue in the whole matter.
I was in business for over 30 yrs and dealt with all types of people, yet I was capable to deal with whatever differences I was faced with without imposing my views or be litigious about how I was made to feel.
Hopefully, you can understand what I am trying to convey without making this an extensive belaboring conversation.

Sorry I didn't respond to your last paragraph. It sounds like you are a live and let live type of person. I respect that. Too many people think they should be compelled to try and force through legislation others to abandon their beliefs and comply with theirs.

[Okie74133]

Do you think mram10us (or anyone here) would have a real bias toward you if he knew you changed how you identify? Especially if you didn't let them know that you used to identify differently?

I would hope that how a person identifies wouldn't be the basis for any bias. I'm not sure why it matters to people as long as it doesn't force them to make different life choices or change their beliefs.

[mram10us]

You are suggesting that credible scientists are those that profess their personal belief in god? Isn't it fair to say those scientists lose their credibility by believing in the existence of something they can't prove scientifically? God is a matter of faith, not science. I have heard interviews with NDT where he stated that he is open to the existence of god if shown scientific evidence. How is that not scientific? As for the trans thing, I saw his interview with Ben Shapiro when they discussed the topic. I didn't hear him support anything non-scientifically. He was basically saying who cares how people express themselves or how they identify. Nowhere did he say trans people are scientifically or biologically the gender they identify as. His whole side of the discussion was that they have the freedom to express themselves however they want. Nothing he said defied science. The guy does lots of interviews and podcasts so if you've seen one where he says something otherwise I'll stand corrected, but I've not heard him say anything non-scientific on the matter.

Here's some food for thought; the christian community is always up in arms over people who identify as something other than what they had been up to a certain point in their lives. On the other side, christians believe they are born again, saved, and are different than their pre-christian selves. That's also a change in identity not unlike a person who was born male and now identifies as female or vice versa. When someone becomes a christian they don't change biologically or appear any different scientifically. They identify differently than before and express themselves differently according to how they now identify. The two are more similar than you might want to think. Maybe the real bias here is your own?

Sorry, been busy. You seem to use strawman arguments with me. Do you see the difference between questioning the credibility of a scientist that holds to non scientific beliefs like tran ideology? Also, do you see the difference between a scientist like ndt that scolds any scientist believing in God v he himself not believing?

To clarify: I don't care what a scientist believes personally. I care when they demonize anyone in the community for believing in God. Have you seen the video of ndt where he stands up at a conference and scolds the percentage of scientists in a survey that hold to a belief in God?

[mram10us]

I would hope that how a person identifies wouldn't be the basis for any bias. I'm not sure why it matters to people as long as it doesn't force them to make different life choices or change their beliefs.

It matters because it is un scientific and a lie. They are trying to get us to lie and play their game. Worse, they are lying to children and saying sex/gender is not set. That is not science. It is the exact opposite

[1Holeshot]

Preaching the truth!

[mram10us]

Sorry for the rabbit trail, OP. The universe came from God outside of time and space :) The materialistic answer we are given via our education system is impossible based on the chemical to biological life step that is required. Listen to dr james tour on that subject