View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 30th, 2014, 9:31 am



Reply to topic  [ 368 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next
 Astronomy/Scientific Question 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9377
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Can never answer HOW? That is certainly a defeatist attitude and one I'm glad scientist over the years have failed to take. Look at all the questions science has answered that were previously believed to be unanswerable.


I'll take that back. I don't THINK science can ever answer "WHO." Better?

Pablo wrote:
I'm also surprised you think that if WHO and WHY matters, why doesn't HOW? I'm guessing then since you know who broke the rules (Pryor) and why (for money), then the how doesn't matter? Just kiddin, couldn't resist.


How doesn't matter because it doesn't change our lives or effect possibilities past our lives. How has no long lasting meaning, it doesn't give purpose, etc. WHO and WHY have overlying questions taht effect us in a bigger way if there is a WHO and a WHY. It potentially effects eternity compared to a blip in time. Clearly more important.

Pablo wrote:
HOW can exist without the WHO and WHY, the reverse cannot also be claimed.

But we can still ignore all that and the HOW, WHO created God and WHY?


Only if you define WHO as needing to be created. Strawman... if WHO is beyond time and space then WHO doesn't need a creator because that paradigm didn't exist before WHO created it.

If you are going to contend the universe could exist without a WHO and WHY, the you must also contend the same can be true for WHO, WHO can exist without another WHO or WHY. Especially when the WHO has a different set of rules than the universe.


Part one, much better phrasing - thank you.

Part two, HOW does matter because it directly can answer your two other questions. It is very sad that you think the HOW isn't lasting and doesn't give purpose. For example, imagine if HOW is answered and we don't have all these competing believes in the world but rather a common ground and understanding for everyone. What a much more peaceful world this would be than all this pety bickering over who is right and who is wrong about imaginary Gods. As for purpose, again you miss the point. In simplistic terms your purpose in life is to serve an imaginary God for the promise of ever lasting life in heaven (that can't be proven since it doesn't exist either). What if our purpose was not to serve this God, but rather each other with the understanding that we really only have one shot to make a purposeful mark in this world measured not by how we are forgiven by our sins but by how we make the lives of everyone around us more purposeful and better. If you need to have a relationship with an imaginary God to give your life purpose, well lets just say I need to pray for you (in a very different sense of course).

As for Part three, I can accept first that GOD could exist without a WHO and WHY as you stated, but there is still the little problem of HOW - once again the most important question of all. WHO only has a different set of rules, as you stated, since he is imaginary and you put whatever rules you want on him than the universe.

If he exist with a different set of rules - WHY would he create a universe with much more limited rules? Kind of silly. Are any of you believers fathers (as we call God). Imagine creating a life so much harder, painful and shorter than your own. What kind of father would that make you?

And WarEr4Christ, that doesn't answer my question at all - sorry. It is a recap of what scripture says which in no way answers the question, why - because it can't.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 9th, 2011, 2:33 pm
Profile WWW
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
As for the overarching theme of the thread, my question would be: why attempt to bring any evidence to a discussion about faith? Faith is, by definition, believing in that which can't be seen or proven. If an idea like the Big Bang or evolution makes someone question their faith, I'd suggest they don't have much faith to begin with.

Regarding the evolution/disease question, any suggestion that mankind would keep evolving in a predictable pattern, always getting stronger, smarter, and living longer ignores the chaotic nature of evolution. We don't need to jump 70 feet in today's world so people who are able to jump 70 feet don't have a genetic advantage over people who can only jump 15 feet. It's same reason why people with poor eyesight are so common; 10,000 years ago a person with poor eyesight wouldn't survive. Now we have eyeglasses, so one doesn't need perfect eyesight to survive. People with poor eyesight are able to survive and genetically pass their poor eyesight to their children.

Are we trending downward? We are extremely intelligent and our intelligence is great enough to compensate for a variety of physical imperfections. So from an evolutionary point of view, we're getting smarter.

_________________
Proud member of the Contract Extension for Schwartz Fan Club.


June 9th, 2011, 2:51 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
My "arguing about religion vs science" days on the internet are over.

However, I'll add a couple of things:

- The big bang didn't "create" matter in the way that is being discussed here ... it exploded a "point of infinitely dense matter" - which scientists refer to as the "singularity" - dispersing existing quantum particles (that eventually make up matter & the forces on matter) it in every direction. That is the expanding universe. Don't think about it as an explosion in the sense of a chemical reaction (very fast oxidation of chemicals), or as a nuclear explosion. Nobody knows *what* it was initially ... only the long-term trajectory of everything coming from it (and forming from it).
- What is slowing down the expansion of the universe over time isn't friction - that would be from gravitational forces. Space is not a vacuum.
- It is entirely possible that the big bang was not the first, or last. Some scientists have speculated that the universe's expansion will eventually slow & begin to contract... all the way back to a single point again, just like before the big bang.

One more thing... people often ask, "what existed before the big bang" ... and what that question demonstrates is a lack of understanding of the nature of time. Time is just another dimension, and is relative - not a constant. The concept of spacetime is hard to wrap your mind around - even if you're highly educated in science & math. I agree - Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" is about as dumbed down & understandable as it can get. That in't an insult - I know I still struggled with it! lol


June 9th, 2011, 3:59 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9848
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
First off let me state that the idea of having a difficult time thinking about the existence of God always being there is just as difficult as the idea of thinking about how the infinitely dense matter that suddenly expanded (the BBT) came to be in the first place. Where did the matter come from and why did it suddenly expand after existing for an unknown length of time? Chicken and the egg. Did someone (God) create the matter to begin with? Or did the exploding matter create something (humans) that now owes it's existence to the someone (God)? Stating that this matter just existed and exploded is as equally far fetched as the idea of God. You either believe it or you don't.

The universe is not, IIRC, considered to be still exploding, but rather it is simply considered to be further expanding. Expansion and explosion are two different things.

I also believe that science and religious faith can co-exist. The problem, much like with any subject matter, is the existence of fanatics who demand that all others believe what they believe and refuse to give any creedence to the existence or the possibility of the other. Religious fanatics give God a bad name, and equally so there are scientific fanatics who give their field a bad name.

There are questions that modern day man has that will never be answered while we live in this world. Those who don't believe in God because his existence can't be proven cannot believe in emotions, because the existence of emotion cannot be proven. Can love be proven? Can hate be proven? In truth, no, they can't. Even the existence of the infinitely dense matter that started our known universe cannot be proven. As was stated, the Big Bang Theory is exactly that, a theory. So too is the THEORY of Evolution. Remember that 600 years ago people believed whole heartedly that the world was flat. They believed Earth to be the center of the universe and that the sun and planets revolved around us.

One thing is for certain, mankind believed in the existence of a God or gods long before they believed in Evolution, the Big Bang or any of the "modern" scientific postulates and theories floating around.

People believe what they choose to believe. Like I've told many before, if I choose to believe in God and I'm wrong, I haven't really wasted my time. When I die, I'm wormfood and my "soul" will have never been. However, if I'm right and there is a God, then my "soul" will be free to enjoy everlasting life, and those of you who chose not to believe in Him are pretty much screwed when you die.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


June 9th, 2011, 4:32 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Pablo wrote:
Part two, HOW does matter because it directly can answer your two other questions. It is very sad that you think the HOW isn't lasting and doesn't give purpose. For example, imagine if HOW is answered and we don't have all these competing believes in the world but rather a common ground and understanding for everyone. What a much more peaceful world this would be than all this pety bickering over who is right and who is wrong about imaginary Gods.


Completely false, HOW would never be able to give us unity because the WHO and WHY are still there. If we proved the Big Bang, what would matter? How would that unify anyone? It just tells me in this case HOW the WHO I believe in did it. HOW will never unify anyone until you prove WHO doesn't exist. HOW will never prove that... it's tricky but that is the situation. You can come up with as many HOWS you want but it never put anyone in agreement on WHO.

Pablo wrote:
As for purpose, again you miss the point. In simplistic terms your purpose in life is to serve an imaginary God for the promise of ever lasting life in heaven (that can't be proven since it doesn't exist either). What if our purpose was not to serve this God, but rather each other with the understanding that we really only have one shot to make a purposeful mark in this world measured not by how we are forgiven by our sins but by how we make the lives of everyone around us more purposeful and better. If you need to have a relationship with an imaginary God to give your life purpose, well lets just say I need to pray for you (in a very different sense of course).


Then I would be wrong. What if our purpose was to run around naked screaming "Pony!" What if our purpose was simply to knock before entering a house and that was it. The I'm not missing the point, the fact of the matter answering HOW NEVER tells us WHO or WHY. It can only be used as circumstantial evidence to better possibly understand or help prove some WHO had to exist. The POINT is that they are seperate questions and require seperate tools.

Pablo wrote:

As for Part three, I can accept first that GOD could exist without a WHO and WHY as you stated, but there is still the little problem of HOW - once again the most important question of all. WHO only has a different set of rules, as you stated, since he is imaginary and you put whatever rules you want on him than the universe.

If he exist with a different set of rules - WHY would he create a universe with much more limited rules? Kind of silly. Are any of you believers fathers (as we call God). Imagine creating a life so much harder, painful and shorter than your own. What kind of father would that make you?


You are saying "it doesn't make sense because I reject the reasons given." You are limiting the possabilties to your own understanding of fair and right. How can you be intellectually honest if you eliminate possibities and limit to a scope smaller than the whole?

I'm not asking you to believe it, I firmly believe you either will believe or won't. I'm asking you to be intellectually honest and realize the questions you pose from within a potential creation is limited in answering the questions you pose. You can call it whatever you like, "convenient" or something else, but if you are being truely intellectually honest and unbiased you have to admit it. That is why it is called faith... if you don't like, just say so, but don't be dishonest.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 9th, 2011, 4:40 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
I.E. wrote:
One more thing... people often ask, "what existed before the big bang" ... and what that question demonstrates is a lack of understanding of the nature of time. Time is just another dimension, and is relative - not a constant. The concept of spacetime is hard to wrap your mind around - even if you're highly educated in science & math.


This as well is the same idea that Pablo is critisizing religion for below. People are ok with not answering the questions if they are science based (too hard to understand) but not an idea of a creator that operates beyond our understanding or comprehension. Someone something so completely the same is not treated as such.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 9th, 2011, 4:48 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9377
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Part two, HOW does matter because it directly can answer your two other questions. It is very sad that you think the HOW isn't lasting and doesn't give purpose. For example, imagine if HOW is answered and we don't have all these competing believes in the world but rather a common ground and understanding for everyone. What a much more peaceful world this would be than all this pety bickering over who is right and who is wrong about imaginary Gods.


Completely false, HOW would never be able to give us unity because the WHO and WHY are still there. If we proved the Big Bang, what would matter? How would that unify anyone? It just tells me in this case HOW the WHO I believe in did it. HOW will never unify anyone until you prove WHO doesn't exist. HOW will never prove that... it's tricky but that is the situation. You can come up with as many HOWS you want but it never put anyone in agreement on WHO.


So it doesn't matter how the creation of the universe occured, how evolution occured, how we aren't the center of the universe. Actually, you make a great point. No matter what is proven scientifically, even if it goes against scripture, your going to believe no matter what. No rational thought or evidence required, just belief. That said, I'm hoping (or believing) that at some point we reach a tipping point in understanding where belief becomes more and more irrational and more "believers" question everything and begin to picture the true world, one without an imaginary God. I believe at some point I think society reaches a point (and this is still well off) where man realizes all this "belief" is quite crazy indeed. Imagine our future race looking at all beliefs the way you look at Greek or Roman Mythology (in fact, isn't all belief in fact just Mythology) or Scientology (appologies to any Scientologist on the board).

steensn wrote:
Pablo wrote:
As for purpose, again you miss the point. In simplistic terms your purpose in life is to serve an imaginary God for the promise of ever lasting life in heaven (that can't be proven since it doesn't exist either). What if our purpose was not to serve this God, but rather each other with the understanding that we really only have one shot to make a purposeful mark in this world measured not by how we are forgiven by our sins but by how we make the lives of everyone around us more purposeful and better. If you need to have a relationship with an imaginary God to give your life purpose, well lets just say I need to pray for you (in a very different sense of course).


Then I would be wrong. What if our purpose was to run around naked screaming "Pony!" What if our purpose was simply to knock before entering a house and that was it. The I'm not missing the point, the fact of the matter answering HOW NEVER tells us WHO or WHY. It can only be used as circumstantial evidence to better possibly understand or help prove some WHO had to exist. The POINT is that they are seperate questions and require seperate tools.


You are wrong. See mythology above. WHO and/or WHY will never be answered, at least not in the who and why you hope and pray is the answer. WHO is irrelevant, and if some "being" did exist who created all of this do you think he would be so pety as to care if we "believed" in him? Instead, you do believe and think it gives you some magical relevance or reason for being. They WHY is perhaps the most important and fairly obvious if you don't wrap your world around some mythology that clouds it.

steensn wrote:
Pablo wrote:

As for Part three, I can accept first that GOD could exist without a WHO and WHY as you stated, but there is still the little problem of HOW - once again the most important question of all. WHO only has a different set of rules, as you stated, since he is imaginary and you put whatever rules you want on him than the universe.

If he exist with a different set of rules - WHY would he create a universe with much more limited rules? Kind of silly. Are any of you believers fathers (as we call God). Imagine creating a life so much harder, painful and shorter than your own. What kind of father would that make you?


You are saying "it doesn't make sense because I reject the reasons given." You are limiting the possabilties to your own understanding of fair and right. How can you be intellectually honest if you eliminate possibities and limit to a scope smaller than the whole?

I'm not asking you to believe it, I firmly believe you either will believe or won't. I'm asking you to be intellectually honest and realize the questions you pose from within a potential creation is limited in answering the questions you pose. You can call it whatever you like, "convenient" or something else, but if you are being truely intellectually honest and unbiased you have to admit it. That is why it is called faith... if you don't like, just say so, but don't be dishonest.


Because I reject your thinking doesn't mean I'm limiting the possibilities. In fact, I've fully considered it. Am I 100% convinced it not to be true. No, but only in the same way you can never bee 100% convinced about anything. That said, you have to rule out some possibilities given the absurdness of possibility in the first place and utter lack of supporting evidence or you can never get to the heart of the matter to start with. Under your assertion, a crime would never be solved because there would be 6,923,201,572 suspects to consider. Scope is relative, just because I've dismissed your possibility doesn't make my scope now wrong. If that makes me a bad cop, or in this case dishonest, then so be it. I'm going to go in the direction that the evidence points and you have none outside of a fictional book with outlandish claims, which quite frankly isn't even evidence in my book.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 9th, 2011, 5:04 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
No, not at all. In a crime there is evidence and 100% proof based on the laws of the universe that the/a person exist. The cops, criminals, lawmakers, criminologist, detectives, lawyers, etc. all operate under a clear set of restistions and rules that are well understood by everyone. We are talking about someone inside a restricted bubble of knowledge trying to show through science (another thing limitied inside this bubble) that something doesn't or does exist that does not not play to the rules of the game or the limited understanding of the players.

When you say, based on ubsurdity of a claim that you can eliminated an option, you are being intillectually dishonest when you claim that that evidence brought you to that point. It's total BS and you actualyl have yet to ever put that evidence down that shows why. You are using words that describe nothing more than an OPINION on the matter, not a conclusion based on fact. It is nothing different than my belief that it is true and no more or less supported accept I will be honest in the fact that is all I have with circumstantial evidence.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 9th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3712
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
ok im not going to lie when i say the details are WAY beyond me, but the whole idea about a matter explosion and creation of the big bag( Birth of a sun) is tied in to death of black holes.


You are going to have to ask someone smarter than I how it works, but all the energy and matter that a black hole eats...something has to happen to it. Energy and matter dont dissapear. the theory as i understand it is that eventually black holes too cycle thru and their death is what leads to a sun's birth (aka the big bang).

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


June 9th, 2011, 5:17 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9377
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
m2karateman wrote:
First off let me state that the idea of having a difficult time thinking about the existence of God always being there is just as difficult as the idea of thinking about how the infinitely dense matter that suddenly expanded (the BBT) came to be in the first place. Where did the matter come from and why did it suddenly expand after existing for an unknown length of time? Chicken and the egg. Did someone (God) create the matter to begin with? Or did the exploding matter create something (humans) that now owes it's existence to the someone (God)? Stating that this matter just existed and exploded is as equally far fetched as the idea of God. You either believe it or you don't.

The universe is not, IIRC, considered to be still exploding, but rather it is simply considered to be further expanding. Expansion and explosion are two different things.

I also believe that science and religious faith can co-exist. The problem, much like with any subject matter, is the existence of fanatics who demand that all others believe what they believe and refuse to give any creedence to the existence or the possibility of the other. Religious fanatics give God a bad name, and equally so there are scientific fanatics who give their field a bad name.

There are questions that modern day man has that will never be answered while we live in this world. Those who don't believe in God because his existence can't be proven cannot believe in emotions, because the existence of emotion cannot be proven. Can love be proven? Can hate be proven? In truth, no, they can't. Even the existence of the infinitely dense matter that started our known universe cannot be proven. As was stated, the Big Bang Theory is exactly that, a theory. So too is the THEORY of Evolution. Remember that 600 years ago people believed whole heartedly that the world was flat. They believed Earth to be the center of the universe and that the sun and planets revolved around us.

One thing is for certain, mankind believed in the existence of a God or gods long before they believed in Evolution, the Big Bang or any of the "modern" scientific postulates and theories floating around.

People believe what they choose to believe. Like I've told many before, if I choose to believe in God and I'm wrong, I haven't really wasted my time. When I die, I'm wormfood and my "soul" will have never been. However, if I'm right and there is a God, then my "soul" will be free to enjoy everlasting life, and those of you who chose not to believe in Him are pretty much screwed when you die.


That is a good post M2K, even some of the parts I disagree with. Mankind has believed in the existence of a God or gods for a long time, it is the details of that belief that have changed. I think this has to evolve like other beliefs have changed over time.

As for your last part, that is one of my biggest issues with your belief. Do you believe because of a perceived benefit? That is dangerous thinking, imagine people willing to kill others and themselves for percieved benefits after they die because it exist. My other thinking is that there is no way a God, yours or anyone else's, is so egotistical that you have to "believe" in him in order to benefit after we pass. Again a very dangerous line of thinking.

If God truly wanted us to believe in him, all of us, there would be ZERO doubt of his existence. If not, this is truly an EVIL God who is going to punish us for our free will given to us by who? He who created us and the way we think, and is omnipotent on top of that, knew before our birth what our "belief" would be anyways so isn't it really his fault if we get into heaven or not. What a crappy system don't you think?

Despite that, have you wasted your time while here believing in him even if he doesn't exist? Excellent question! I would also say you are looking at this question from a biased start point. To illustrate, lete pose a similar question from another belief stanpoint. Would it be a waste of your time to believe we are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature due to our conflicts resulting from our extraterrestrial past?

Answer this question honestly and you answer your own question, only from an unbiased perspective. BTW - I'm very interested in your answer to this question.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 9th, 2011, 5:33 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9377
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
steensn wrote:
No, not at all. In a crime there is evidence and 100% proof based on the laws of the universe that the/a person exist. The cops, criminals, lawmakers, criminologist, detectives, lawyers, etc. all operate under a clear set of restistions and rules that are well understood by everyone. We are talking about someone inside a restricted bubble of knowledge trying to show through science (another thing limitied inside this bubble) that something doesn't or does exist that does not not play to the rules of the game or the limited understanding of the players.

When you say, based on ubsurdity of a claim that you can eliminated an option, you are being intillectually dishonest when you claim that that evidence brought you to that point. It's total BS and you actualyl have yet to ever put that evidence down that shows why. You are using words that describe nothing more than an OPINION on the matter, not a conclusion based on fact. It is nothing different than my belief that it is true and no more or less supported accept I will be honest in the fact that is all I have with circumstantial evidence.


OK, lets dance and I'll even give you that it is an OPINION of mine. Let's see if you are being intellectually dishonest and considering every possibility. Given that there are ZERO restrictions, please tell my why you have dismissed (after given full consideration to) Asatru, Baha'i, Buddhism, Caodaism, Confucianism, Druidism, Druze, Eckankar, Gnoticism, Greek/Roman Mythology, Hinduisnm, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Scientology, Shamanism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Vodun, Wicca, Zorastrainism, and for Wags, belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster (to name a few)?

Are you intellectually honest steensn?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


June 9th, 2011, 5:46 pm
Profile WWW
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
Pablo: to answer your question can I ask you one? take your children for example, you and your wife created them in the normal way, and in the process of raising them up you lay down ground rules that you and your wife establish. Now do your children have the right to obey or disobey your rules? If they obey, life goes easy, if they disobey, well there are consequences.

Going back to the creation story: God created Adam and Eve, for relationship, throughout Genesis, 1 and 2 God walked and talked with the two. Then he, the enemy of the Lord, attacked us, because he could not defeat God. Through a lie, man was deceived and the penalty for disobedience was inacted. Spiritual Death. At no other time did man ever walk and fellowship with God that closely. Moses was the the closest, but even that was not like it once was.

So a WHY question would be, WHY did God put the tree in the middle of the Garden? But even that goes back to Free Will. Here is a brand new world, multiply, but just don't touch that tree! Had our first parents not made the wrong choice, this would be a moot point.

To answer someone else's question, I don't remember who, I don't make any attempts to reach out to others for the benefits. I don't get to see in the golden pew, or get a 5% bonus for every soul I save, but I do get the joy of establishing a relationship (friendship) with people, and watching that relationship grow. That is my hope, and why I am trying to find out how would be the best way to carry on a legitimate, educational conversation with someone firmly entrenched in BBT and atheism.

In the end, I can only lead by example, live my life before them, and do my best to share the truth. As I've talked with you and Sly, I have tried to illustrate that the God that you don't believe in, is a God of RELATIONSHIP. Although I am interested in people's perspectives on God, I am seriously interested in the BBT and trying to counter point the thought behind it.

One thing I have noticed though is that in my earlier discussion there hasn't been a reply made, or at least I don't remember one. For example: people can believe in the theories, and discussions of "scientists" and trust their judgement on that, but do not do the same with the proven, documented information of the Bible. I'm curious as to why there seems to be a double standard. From my perspective it goes back to the ultimate destination. If we accept the Biblical view, then we will have to answer for the decision to accept or deny the Lord. But if we choose to reject the Biblical view, then we can make up a story of our choosing, even though this doesn't affect the overall truth of Scripture.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


June 9th, 2011, 6:34 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
I can only dismiss most them based on opinion of my beliefs, just like you do Christianity and the Bible. But what I can do is dismiss a belief system as a whole (specific set of beliefs within a religion that has varying belief set).

Examples:

Jews believe that the Messiah will come and fulfill all prophecy in one appearence. This is false as the OT describes multiple contradictory appearences. Now I cannot dismiss the Jewish faiuth all together because they can go "We got it wrong, it is two then but Jesus is still not the Messiah." At that point I can't dismiss the religion as a whole because there is nothign forcing it to that specific belief.

Gnosticism is a bit broad, but the specific Gnosticism of the that tried to link into Christianity early on is proven to have provided accounts wit no direct linkage to the situation that are completely and utterly contradictary to the eye witnesses testimony. I cannot prove all Gnosticism wrong, but I can that leg which has dissapeared as well probably because of that.

Greek and Roman mythology is wrong, because you defined it as mythology which by definition is not true ;)

Flying Spagetti Monster only because it was purposefully proposed in jest and documented as such. Had it been presented as a true belief system I couldn't.
Wags beliefs, can dismiss those because it is Wags ;) hat36.gif JK!!!

Anything that tries to encorperate Christianity unitarily while keeping Christianity as defined by the founders true. You cannot have a religion claiming to be the only true religion and claim another religion is right as well. They are contradictory and cannot exist side by side. Christianity as originally intended cannot coexist with any other religion making any religion encorperating that wrong.

Islam in the sense that they say Muhammid was peaceful, he wasn't, so if they claim he was they are wrong. But they can realize the truth that he wassn't and still be Muslim just like Christians and Jews can realize the OT was far from peaceful.

Scientology as well was proposed not as a belief by the creator but as a money making scheme by his own admission a few years earlier. Thes then contradict with no explination and he died a VERY wealthy man.

Simply put, I can identify certain beliefs as being wrong but in the most part, not whole religions.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 9th, 2011, 6:58 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
I hate to say it, but I.E. stole my thunder here. Unfortunately, I've forgotten more about astronomy than I can remember, but he was essentially correct about one of the leading theories. However, nobody can say whether this was the first big bang, the 10th, or the billionth. Regardless, it all begins with a singularity, which contains the entire mass of the universe in something the size of a pin head. Once it explodes, that mass is expelled outward at approximately the speed of light. Some of this matter will coalesce to form galaxies, suns, planets, etc., but will continue to expand outward. The only thing known to slow this expansion is gravity, since the momentum is infinite without friction or other forces at work.

There is another theory that the universe isn't just slowing down due to gravity, but is also curving. It is speculated that the curve will eventually head back toward the center of the universe. Once this happens, the entire universe will quickly collapse back onto itself, forming a new singularity, and another big bang.

_________________
Image


June 9th, 2011, 8:17 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Astronomy/Scientific Question
All good hypothesis (not theories, which have a certain level of data to prove them reasonable) that could be true.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 9th, 2011, 8:20 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 368 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Touchdown Jesus and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.