Dang Lechium (BTW, what does that name mean), I just wrote several papers about people just like you who have some very intricate world views. OY are definately one of those persons. But if I may, I would like to argue your standings with my information about your beliefs
1. There is most definately something. But I wll not tell you where to find out about Him until later. Yes, you can call a "conscienceness" a "god." But I am looking for something greater, something that can actually do things, and not just exist like a "conscienceness" does. A god needs to be able to do things. Zeus is a god, but not the right one. He is a flase gad, who was made up by Homer in a poem. I would seriously doubt that men like Buddah, Mohommed, and Confucious were gods. Now, Mohammed is a different story. When he first had his vision concerning Allah, he was completely sure that it was not a divine vision, but instead a demonic vision. The only reason that we have a religion "Islam" today is because of his wife. She convinced him to believe it, even through he did not want to. He was sure that it was a demonic vision. But go with the womes, if you want to be wrong
2. Concerning, the universe created by the big bang, I would like to borrow some info I just found on the web concerning the big bang theory. This may be a little long, but please read it.
The Big Bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered Universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion – a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting “bang.” The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, p. 40).
If the Universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter/energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center – consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the Universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris, 1984, p. 150).
For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the Universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original Big Bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the Universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the Big Bang Theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the Universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.
Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press has hailed this as proof of the Big Bang. The facts are:
(a) the temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for this circumstance apart from the hypothetical Bang;
(B) some of the scientists involved in the project question that the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn;
© others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their assertion of temperature “ripples,” confess now that it is “harder than ever” to explain “how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the universe” (Flam, 1993, p. 31).
Even the respected science journal Nature suggested it is a “cause of some alarm” that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as “proof” of the Big Bang (1992, p. 731). Why do some religionists gravitate to these groundless theories in deference to plain Bible statements?
The fact is, there are significant contradictions between the Big Bang Theory and the Bible record. Let us reflect on some of these.
As noted earlier, the Bible plainly teaches that the entire Universe, including the earth with its various “kinds” of biological organisms, came into being during the six, literal days of the creation week (Gen. 1; Ex. 20:11). The Big Bang theory postulates eons of time.
Some, of course, contend that:
(a) there may have been a vast “gap” between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, thus accommodating the alleged time involved in the expansion and development of the Universe following the Big Bang;
(B) the “days” of Genesis 1 were not “literal” days;
© perhaps there were gaps between the days of the creation week, etc.
But none of these twisted theories has an ounce of credibility if one seriously considers that God has communicated the historical record in an understandable fashion through His inspired Word. Each of the theories mentioned above is designed to bring the Bible into harmony with evolutionary chronology (for further study, see my book Evolution, Creation, and the Age of the Earth). (See catalog section.)
The Big Bang myth allows that the sun was formed long before the earth. Various theories have been formulated to explain how the Universe came to be organized after the initial explosion. Take your choice – the planetesimal theory, the nebular theory, the dust cloud theory – they all have one thing in common. They assert that the earth is a new-comer compared to the sun. However, the Bible teaches that the earth was created first, and the sun came later – on the fourth day of the first week (Genesis 1:1;14-16). The same point can be made regarding the stars. The Bible puts them after the earth; the evolutionary model teaches otherwise. Of course some have attempted to solve this difficulty with yet another slippery compromise. They allege that the “creative acts” of Genesis 1 are not necessarily “in chronological order” (Willis, 1979, p. 92).
The Big Bang Theory supposes that the Universe started with a chaotic explosion which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches the exact opposite. God created the Universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece, but it has been degenerating toward disorder in the intervening millennia (Psa. 102:25ff; Heb. 1:10-12).
Big Bang cosmology postulates a Universe that is near 20 billion years old, with the human race evolving only 3 or 4 million years ago. According to this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the Universe from that of mankind.
But the Scriptures affirm:
(a) The human family came into existence the same week as the Universe (Gen. 1; Ex. 20:11). Man has thus existed from the beginning of the creation (Isa. 40:21; Mk. 10:6; Lk. 11:50; Rom. 1:20).
(B) Human antiquity extends to only a few thousand years before Christ, as evinced by the genealogical records of the Lord’s ancestry all the way back to Adam – the first man (1 Cor. 15:45). There are some two millennia spanning the present back to Jesus Christ; another 2,000 years push history back to the time of Abraham. There are only 20 generations between Abraham and Adam (Lk. 3:23-38). Even if one concedes that some minor gaps exist in the Old Testament narrative (cf. Gen. 11:12; Lk. 3:35-36), surely no responsible Bible student will contend that 20 billion years can be squeezed into those 20 generations. The Universe thus cannot be billions of years old.
Big Bang chronology and biblical chronology are woefully at variance.
The Big Bang Theory is without validity. It has the support of neither genuine science nor responsible biblical exegesis. For once we agree with several evolutionists who admit: “Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts” (Arp, et al., 1990, p. 812).
In view of that, it can hardly be classified as “science.”
3. Yes. Is man sinful? I say yes. Man is also confused, and amny others say that the nature of man is good, or ignorant of what is ggod, and therefore is not evil, but good. Man is not good. Do you see all those rapers, murderers, killers, robbers, burglerers, and all of them? Are they good? No, they are evil. Inknow that you may not be a killer, raper, or stealer, but you have probably thought about all those things, right? I know that I have. But that doesn't mena that I am one of them right? wrong, I am one of them even if I think it. Have you ever felt that you have done something wrong by just thinking it? Ihave. But Romans chapter three says, "there is none good, no not one."
4. Well, that is true, but sin is the cause of evil and suffering. When Adam first sinned in the garden iof eden, gor cursed the ground and told him that he would suffer for sinning. He woulsd suffer, by the ground. the ground would not to what it ws supposed to do. It would now grow thorns and thistles It had not done that before man sinned.
If al lthjose muderers, etc were not here, don't you think that the world would be a better place? Sure we wouls still have trouble, but that is all part of the game.
5. Yep, that is true, we each have our own set of rules. but what about the ones that our government sets up? What about the ones that god sets up? Surely Buddha had rules. Have you ever broken one of them? The basis of moralitly and ethics is God's laws.
6. What does Robert Monroe say? How an I argue with you, If I don't know what you think?
Ill finish this next. Scrool down. I ran out of Space. LONG