How Did the Universe Begin?
Only a man with the brain the size of Stephen Hawking’s would seriously accept the challenge of answering the question How did the universe begin? in less than 30 minutes, while making it accessible for the population at large.
Hawking’s lecture is a masterclass in concision and clear- thinking. He spins through the history of thought on the subject, beginning with the early Biblical view that the world was created by God around 6,000 years ago. And that wasn’t the only cockamanie theory dreamt up in the succeeding millennia. Up until the 20th century, mainstream thinking viewed the universe as eternal, a static expanse that had no beginning or end, and where, as Hawking supposes, “nothing very exciting ever happened”.
Hawking himself, of course, has been instrumental in overturning many of the fallacious propositions about the origin and development of the universe, disproving (in his PhD thesis, for God’s sake) the “bouncing” theory, which proposed that the universe expanded and contracted infinitely over time.
And his work with Gary Gibbons in the 1970s and early 1980s posited a feasible mechanism that explained why the universe is “lumpy” with galaxies, rather than having matter evenly distributed through it. “It was a problem I thought I could answer,” says Hawking. An authority talking about what they know to a mainstream audience?
Watch the full documentary now
Creationists still stick to their guns that the Universe is only 6,000 years old!. Without any scientific evidence whatsoever, only a belief system.
Scientific discipline does not require its submissions be accompanied by a statement of beliefs.
Creationists statement of belief is a conclusion fixed in stone!
A Creationist is not free to alter their theory’s should the evidence contradict them, instead they make up fanciful tales such as a “Water Vapor Canopy” surrounding the Earth prior to the great flood, the creation of Starlight in transit, and the hydrological sorting of Fossils during the great flood. The theory’s of Scientists are not etched in stone and can be changed in light of new evidence.
There is not one Scientific shred of evidence for creation.
christians may believe many silly things. but nowhere in the bible does it say the universe is 6000 years old. please give chapter and verse. the 6000 year idea is an invention of the seventh day church. and some of its teaching are not biblical.
the final verdict is not out yet!!!!!
Joseph:
I was talking about Creationists, not the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that gives a specific time date. The ones that do believe the universe is 6,000 to 20,000 years old should revamp their thinking and figure out a new senario that makes sense!. And this involves more religions than just “Seven Day Adventists”
When you are saying the final “verdict is not out yet” does that mean they will change their theory’s? I think not! they will just add more fanciful tales!
Hello everyone!
1) Questions are made, but notice that actual answers are not given. This is not a coincidence, as the following will show.
2) About the supposed “big bang”:
“Flaws in the Big Bang Scenario
There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:
(1) 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, 40).
(2) 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, 150).
(3) 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:
(1) 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.
(2) Some of the scientists involved in the project question whether the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn.
(3) 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, 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, 731). ”
3) At one point Hawkins says: “I had shown mathematically that the universe must have had a beginning”. Christians are shown by God’s revelation within The Bible, that there was…. a beginning!
4) Elsewhere, towards the end, he says: “but for me, the most attractive (idea) is that the universe was spontaneously created out of absolutely nothing!”
This is the most ****** idea that any scientist can say! These kind of people attempt to put their stupidity in our brain! Don’t get digested into this! And He finds it “most attractive”…! What a perversion!!! More attractive than a Creator creating everything, with all the magnificence, beauty, complexity, order/laws, we see everywhere! And gullible people admire this guy. What a pity!
5) And after 21:36 he says that all coming about from nothing “may sound like magic, but such creation is possible.” Huh?? Possible?? Since when?? Completely idiotic statement! I cannot even consider this a foolish scientific mistake since it crosses the borders over to atheistic propaganda! Then he makes the ridiculous comparison with “bubbles”! Bubbles, to him, are apparently created out of nothing??????? And so like the bubbles “Tiny universes appear spontaneously out of nothing!” Either he is -sorry to say- ******, or thinks we’re ****** enough to buy into his nonsense, I mean NONSENSE!! Evolution is always a great laugh, but this laugh is along side with tears!
6) And to top it all off with a twist, Hawkins puts the cherry on top, by saying that we as intelligent being can ask the question: “Why is the universe made the way it is?” to arrive to the answer “that if the universe were more than slightly different, no one would be around to ask the question.”
Real intelligent person :D :D :D
Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God….
(Ooooh! So that’s how his nonsese came about.)
Isa 25:1 O LORD, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.
Psa 107:31-32 Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! 32 Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders.
May God give you His increase, and Hawkins and the other narrator common sense as well.
I do not understand why Hawkings would make the ridiculous statement at the end, alluding “nothing” evolved into a universe. His ego might be getting the best of him as he conveniently left out multiverse and M theory
physics.
lame!
Mr. Razor: What would you consider as at least a shred of proof of Creation? I get a rather ditinct empression that what I would consider as a “proof” you may not.
Nonetheless, there is little known theory that between Genisis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there could be a very long timespane. Perhaps millions of years?
Anyway, the theory goes that God created the world perfect, but during the time of the rebellion of Lucifer (Satan) there was an earth that was destroyed by flood (not Noah’s flood), hense the “void and darkness” of the destroyed planet, and then God reformed the destroyed planet in Genesis 1:2. This could account for the age of much of the materials of the planet. If you don’t think God made starlight in transit, or other perfectly valid possibilities such as that, then who knows how old the earth is under Satan’s rule?
But, as far as history is concerned, I do hold to the young Earth theory that it’s only about 6 thousand years from the time of Adam and the rehabilitation of the Earth.
You really do have a lot of faith that there is no personal God, Mr. Razer. What would it take to change your mind? Are you hoping for a personal visit from the big “J.C.” himself just for you? I wouldn’t hold my breath, but I suppose all things are possible with God; you just have to have a little “faith”. :-)
All right than. I have some points to add.
Let assume that the “Big Bang” theory is really ****** and the most prominent scientist that ever walked on the face of the Earth, after Einstein, is also ******.
Further more let assume that the Earth is 6.000 years old and that God created everything.
Logically the following questions are coming to my mind:
1. What was there before God created Earth (and the universe)?
2. Who created God?
Alex:
It does not put you in a good light, to say Professor Hawkins is ******!
Professor Hawkins is a great man of science. :D
Vlatko brought up a good point. What was there before God created the Universe! who created God!
My extrapolation is, there was nothing before the Universe, and there is nothing now, but what we by our own thoughts create! If you were not here would there be anything? And if there was, how would you know! It all boils down to Quantum Mechanics. The Atoms have no rhyme or reason, they are flickering on and off, and bouncing around everywhere, coming in and out of existence, appearing everywhere at the same time, in about 10 to the 500 power of other Universes.
By our own collective consciousness, that means by every sentient being on the Planet, and by mutual agreement we form all matter. It is not the other way around, matter does not form consciousness.
Space and Time are illusions, we form Space and Time.
Atoms are not composed of matter, possibly only energy. And due to Electromagnetic Force coalesce into matter, which I might add, is also an illusion. We Alex are living a Dream, to us that is as real, as real can be! :D :D
correction:
Hawking not Hawkins.
Right. Good points Achems Razor.
After all “The Big Bang” theory is just a theory. There are several other theories about the beginning of the universe.
However there are many well proved scientific facts that can’t be ignored (when I say proved I mean they are number of times mathematically and empirically challenged and seriously doubted, measured and tested with technologically means by the scientific community. So they are not just statements or beliefs of one group):
1. The background radiation exists and shows that some kind of violent event happened in a distant past.
2. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
3. The universe is about 14 billion years old.
4. Our sun is a star of third generation. That means two supernovas are responsible for the creation of our solar system.
5. The sun will one day certainly die (as every star dies one day. Depending on the size some die like white dwarfs, some like neutron-stars and some like supernovas). To be more precise the sun will die in about 4.5 billion years from now and with that our solar system will die also.
6. Fossil records show that life on Earth existed millions of years ago.
There are more, but thrust for knowledge is needed.
Here is one interesting excerpt from Bill Bryson’s book “A Short History of Nearly Everything”.
“It isn’t easy to become a fossil… Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, ever becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today – that’s 270 million people with 206 bones each – will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton. That’s not to say of course that any of these bones will actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slightly over 3.6 million square miles, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they were.
Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. Most of what has lived on Earth has left behind no record at all. It has been estimated that less than one species in ten thousands has made in into the fossil record. That in itself ia a stunningly infinitesimal proportion. However, if you accept the common estimate that the Earth has produced 30 billion species of creature in its time and that there are 250.000 species of creature in the fossil record, that reduces the proportion to just one in 4.000. Either way, what we possess is the merest sampling of all the life that Earth has spawned…
…It is almost impossible for us whose time on Earth is limited to a breezy few decades to appreciate how remote in time from us the Cambrian outburst was. If you could fly backwards into the past at the rate of one year per second, it would take about half an hour to reach the time of Christ, and a little over three weeks to get back to the beginnings of human life. But it would take twenty years to reach the dawn of the Cambrian period. It was, in other words, an extremely long time ago, and the world was a very different place…
…Like most things that thrive in harsh environments, lichens are slow-growing. It may take a lichen more than half century to attain the dimensions of a shirt button. Those the size of dinner plates, are therefore likely to be hundreds if not thousands of years old. It would be hard to imagine a less fulfilling existence. They simply exist testifying to the moving fact that life even at its simplest level occurs, apparently, just for its own sake.
It is easy to overlook this thought that life just is. As humans we are inclined to feel that life must have a point. We have plans and aspirations and desires. We want to take constant advantage of all the intoxicating existence we’ve been endowed with. But what’s life to a lichen? Yes its impulse to exist, to be, is every bit as strong as ours-arguably even stronger. If I were told that I had to spend decades being a furry growth on a rock in the woods, a I believe I would lose the will to go on. Lichens don’t. Like virtually all leaving things, they will suffer hardship, endure any insult, for a moment’s additional existence. Life in, short, just wants to be. But – and here’s an interesting point – for the most part it doesn’t want to be much.
This is perhaps a little odd because life has had plenty of time to develop ambitions. If you imagine the 4.5 billion odd years of Earth’s history compressed into a normal earthly day, than life begins very early, about 4 a.m., with the rise of the first simple, single-celled organisms, but then advances no further for the next sixteen hours. Not until 8:30 in the evening, with the day five-sixths over, has Earth anything to show the universe but a restless skin of microbes. Then, finally, the first sea plants appear, followed twenty minutes later by the first jellyfish and the enigmatic Ediacaran fauna.
At 9:04 p.m. trilobites swim onto the scene, followed more or less immediately by the shapely creatures of the Burgus Shale. Just before 10 p.m. plants begin to pop up on the land. Soon after, with less than two hours left in the day, the first land creatures follow. Thanks to ten minutes or so of balmy weather, by 10:24 the Earth is covered in the great carboniferous forests whose residues give us all our coal, and the first winged insects are evident. Dinosaurs plod onto the scene just before 11 p.m. and hold sway for about three-quarters of an hour. At twenty-one minutes to midnight they vanish and the age of mammals begins. Humans emerge one minute and seventeen seconds before midnight.
The whole of our recorded history, on this scale, would be no more than a few seconds, a single human lifetime barely an instant. Throughout this greatly speeded-up day continents slide about and bang together at a clip that seems positively reckless. Mountains rise and melt away, ocean basins come and go, ice sheets advance and withdraw. And throughout the whole, about three times every minute, somewhere on the planet there is a flesh-bulb pop of light marking the impact of a Manson-sized meteor or even larger. It’s a wonder that anything at all can survive in such a pummeled and unsettled environment. In fact, not many things do for long.
Perhaps an even more effective way of grasping our extreme recentness as a part of this 4.5-billioniyear-old picture is to stretch your arms to their fullest extent and imagine that width as the entire history of the Earth. On this scale the distance from the fingertips of one hand to the wrist of the other is Precambrian. All of complex life is in one hand, and a single stroke with a medium-grained nail file you could eradicate human history.
Fortunately, that moment hasn’t happened, but the chances are good that it will. I don’t wish to interject a note of gloom just at this point, but the fact is that there is one other extremely pertinent quality about life on Earth: it goes extinct. Quite regularly. For all the trouble they take to assemble and preserve themselves, species crumple and die remarkably routinely. And the more complex they get, the more quickly they appear to go extinct. Which is perhaps one reason why so much of life isn’t terribly ambitious…
…It is a curious fact that on Earth species death is, in the most literal sense, a way of life.”
I think it’s utterly wrong to take the “science vs god” as the starting point of this discussion. Or that the science’s whole purpose is to actually prove that god exists or doesn’t exist! Or, to be more precise, to prove that today’s perceptions of god are correct or not!
The hell, we have so many perceptions of god today on this planet!!! Which one is to be taken as a valid (???) starting point? The Buddhist one? The Hindu one? The Native American one?… Why do we assume that the Christian perception of god is the right one and that we should take that one specifically as the item to be proved or disproved????
For goodness sake, the 14th century universe for Christians was a flat Earth in the middle of everything that existed!!!! What kind of authority should then the Christian understanding of the Universe be for the scientific consideration of today?
For that matter, the god could have created thousands of Universes, either through a Bing Bang or the string (M) theory may be the right one, and they wouldn’t know a heck about it – just like none of us does! So why the confrontation on that part????????
Gallileo, Copernicus, Bruno… the day before yesterday, Einstein, Hocking… today, or someone else tomorrow….. the science (with all the resistance within its own ranks) is progressing, bringing something else/new every day, as our knowledge and understanding (or the lack of it for that matter, nobody knows…) of the world that surrounds us expands (in our own eyes anyway)… And all of it may be wrong…. !!! …. Or correct….!!!
However, if we are looking upon science to prove to us the existence of God (the real entity that is above, and unconcerned with our, at the Universal plane level insignificant, mutual planetary bickering), then we better look the other way – within ourselves – because that’s where the real God resides, and in every atom there is anywhere…
Excellent excerpt, Vlatko!
I loved the book you’re quoting, it’s excellent!
Yes, the book is really excellent. I enjoyed reading that book.
And your previous comment is really great. Excellent simple explanation. I felt like I’m reading my own thoughts.
Yes, WTC7,
I have been saying all along. The Gods are us!
:D
Charles, Hello.
Sorry I did not answer you earlier. For proof I need something tangible. You are the one trying to prove Creation, you show me. I am not trying to prove anything Charles. I do not believe in your Satan ruling the World in what ever time span you are referring to. Or the other things you mentioned in your thread.
I do have a personal God, my God is called “All That Is” I do not question your personal God so do not question mine.
You hold to the young Earth theory that it is only 6,000 years old. that is your prerogative. I wish you the best. :D
Vlatko hi!
1) “Let assume that the “Big Bang” theory is really ****** and the most prominent scientist that ever walked on the face of the Earth, after Einstein, is also ******.”
——The narrator’s words and mine: (In comparing with bubbles! He says) “Tiny universes appear spontaneously out of nothing!” Either he is -sorry to say- ******, or thinks we’re ****** enough to buy into his nonsense, I mean NONSENSE!!”
So, to quote me accurately (something generally rare), I said he may be ****** or playing ******.
On Hawking I -sarcastically- said: “Real intelligent person ”, because he is not a real intelligent person. From what he said, his thinking processes have a problem.
I am always amazed how people almost worship other people just because they are noted scientists. Why would I be amazed with Hawkings or any scientist? Please! I clearly showed the stupidity of his comments. Doesn’t this at least show he has strong level of stupidity? Yes, I’ll say it again, he definitely does. Scientists can say smart things and ****** things just after that. This because facts and fantasy get confused. I wouldn’t base my soul on them, Christian or not! So, let’s be true about it, and destroy all “idols”! We have brains in our heads as well.
Also I don’t like how the took close ups of his face (smiling), it was almost as if they wanted to mock him, as if he was a ******** crazy wizard of some sort. Focusing on his problem like that just seemed evil to me. It really annoyed me.
2) “What was there before God created Earth (and the universe)?”
———a) To someone who is not Christian this of course is a reasonable question, to someone who is, it’s not. God was “there”! No, I didn’t say He was “in there”, but WAS “there”, that is, Was “space” (as we call it). He is everywhere, not just “in every place”, but “every place”. Hope you understand? There is nothing outside of God. God is not in something (regardless that He can simultaneously manifest Himself in human form or how else He pleases.). Yes, difficult and marvellous to imagine.
Act 17:27-28 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he
be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being;
b) What other things happened in Him, created of Him, before us, we are not told.
3) “Who created God?”
——–Based on my previous answer, logic says, if God Is space/dimensions and there is nothing outside of Him, He could not have been created. (Again, as the Bible teaches.)
I’ll give you another answer of mine: the idea that A created B that created C that created D that created E is correct. But if you see that backwards: E was created by D that was created by C that was created by B that was created by A, a problem arises. If you say A was created by someone/something, the question of “what created him/it” becomes infinite slipping out of your hands just as you attempt to grab it (!) since an origin force is always needed to explain the effect that becomes the cause for something else.
This model though is illogical, because on one hand it correctly shows cause and effect yet it negates an initial cause! Since that has to be the effect of a previous cause!! I hope you see that it is -after a point- illogical, self contradicting, to seek the initial cause for everything, by asking what came before that.
But, there is a logical answer to this. The *initial* cause of everything, of all later effects-causes-effects-causes etc. must not have a previous cause, but always exist!! This is -objectively- where logic takes us. And guess what, this is where The Bible takes us!
So, creation had a beginning, not the Creator. Even if you say God had a creator, you’re just delaying the axiom: The initial cause of everything, cannot have a cause therefore is self existent. Again, difficult and marvellous to imagine, but makes perfect sense.
You aslo write:
“However there are many well proved scientific facts that can’t be ignored (when I say proved I mean they are number of times mathematically and empirically challenged and seriously doubted, measured and tested with technologically means by the scientific community. So they are not just statements or beliefs of one group)” and you list the following:
6) “Our sun is a star of third generation. That means two supernovas are responsible for the creation of our solar system.”
7) “The sun will one day certainly die (as every star dies one day. Depending on the size some die like white dwarfs, some like neutron-stars and some like supernovas). To be more precise the sun will die in about 4.5 billion years from now and with that our solar system will die also.”
——–And? (For the discussion I’ll just play along with 4.5 billion years)
8. Fossil records show that life on Earth existed millions of years ago.
9) “There are more, but thrust for knowledge is needed.”
——Yes :D there are more, but thirst for knowledge is needed. This is something we agree on. :D hurrraeeeyyyyy!!:D
Razor,
You write:
“It does not put you in a good light, to say Professor Hawkins is ******! Professor Hawkins is a great man of science. :D ”
——I just have to agree with that smiley face! I totally agree with you on that :D The rest, well, you know.
Ok Alex, you proved that you’re hard core creationist nothing more.
It’s very obvious that there are numerous sites out there which are clearly promoting creationism. So opposing to that now I’ll have to go and put hundreds of links in this post pointing to scientific articles, studies, videos just to prove you that there are answers to all those links you’ve provided.
However I’ll not (not that there are none, but I’m too lazy to do that now). Instead I’ll say this:
By doing this you’re saying that todays world educational system is based on lies. The education that humans received so far is hoax. We are trapped in some kind of weird conspiracy theory that holds us away from the “truth” which clearly it’s known by the creationists. WOW.
Science is an everyday tool that is used even by creationists. With every single step you’re making you’re relying on science and still you condemn scientists. What a hypocritical view on the world. All man made stuff around you is a product of science. The first stone tool used in the distant past is the very first product of science. Planes, spaceships, the computer you are using, etc… are products of science. So you choose to believe and use some scientific achievements but when science is going against your religious views you choose to condemn it.
So lets go back to the “6.000 years old Earth” phenomenon. If that is true than how old is the Moon, Sun, other planets in our solar system, Milky Way (our galaxy) and all the other known galaxies? Keep in mind the distance between this objects. For example if you travel with speed of light (which is impossible) you will reach the center of Milky Way in about 250 centuries from now.
Probably you’ll say that the God created the whole universe with one breath, scattered the galaxies everywhere, and chose to populate one planet in this infinite cosmos with millions of species (which by the way Noah in his time managed to put them all in one boat and after the flood accordingly distribute them on the planet). Isn’t that odd.
The creationists resistance towards science and knowledge in general is evident through the mankind history. They were suppressing every rational thought by all means. In the old days they had a different name dough. The inquisition. However they failed. It is very funny when you go back in time and see that they were burning people who were simply saying that Earth is not flat.
WTC7 expressed himself very nice by saying:
For goodness sake, the 14th century universe for Christians was a flat Earth in the middle of everything that existed!!!! What kind of authority should then the Christian understanding of the Universe be for the scientific consideration of today?
Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno… the day before yesterday, Einstein, Hawking… today, or someone else tomorrow….. the science (with all the resistance within its own ranks) is progressing, bringing something else/new every day…
Cheers
Vlatko hi!
(That’s all you had to say? Naturally, right?)
Why would you start of with a lie. You know I gave you 100% logical answers as to the supposed “created” God, about space, what was before Him. And I didn’t use the Bible at all, just logic (!!!!), based on the hypothetical assumption “if a God exists how….etc). Logic you cannot refute (no one -hypothetically or not- can.) and should have appreciated. So yes, I believe in creation, and I have every logical reason to believe in it. But saying I’m “a hard core creationist nothing more”, when I use logic to answer you, yes, is deceptive of you. I told you elsewhere, you cannot switch tables on me.
1) “By doing this you’re saying that todays world educational system is based on lies.”
——Any part of the ed. System based on evolution, is.
2) Then you start to generalize giving no attention to what I write, by saying the ridculous:
“The education that humans received so far is hoax.”
“Science is an everyday tool that is used even by creationists.”
(Now you’re provoking me. I said something against science?)
“….you’re relying on science and still you condemn scientists. What a hypocritical view on the world.”
(I condemn scientists?? And this comes from my hypocritical views?? Are you putting effort in winning the liars award? Doing a good job so far.)
“All man made stuff around you is a product of science.”
(Bla, bla, bla and again bla! Waste of time.)
“So you choose to believe and use some scientific achievements but when science is going against your religious views you choose to condemn it.”
(I condemn science?? So know science proves wrong you “religious” views [evolution]. I condemn pseudo science!!!)
Vlatko, the only reason you can so frivolously put words like that in my mouth, is not because you can, but… because I let you. Realize the difference. And I let you because of who I am in Christ today. If I was a different person (the b.C. person I once was), you would not be putting words in my mouth. I say this, just so I can give you a reality check. If you continue to put words in my mouth (disrespecting me and my time here to answer to you and everybody else), you’d just be exposing a pathetic side of you, one I will not give my time to. So please be a man when dealing with my words. Disagree, no problem, but don’t manipulate me and the readers in general by distorting my words.
If you did it by mistake, I apologize. If you did it simply because you don’t care about the truth, overlooking what I say, then I don’t.
3) “So lets go back to the “6.000 years old Earth” phenomenon. If that is true than how old is the Moon, Sun, other planets in our solar system, Milky Way (our galaxy) and all the other known galaxies? Keep in mind the distance between this objects. For example if you travel with speed of light (which is impossible) you will reach the center of Milky Way in about 250 centuries from now.”
——Again you gave no time to the material (in the links). If you did, you’d see that each one and all together, more than answer your comment.
4) “millions of species (by the way Noe in his time managed to put them all in one boat and after the flood accordingly distribute them on the planet).”
Oh you definitely changed the channel when you were watching the Noah’s ark movie! Millions of species on the ark??? You make yourself look sound so sure, just to shoot your self in the foot. The evolution lie has you confused. Many of which you call species belong to…. the same species! A wolf for instance and a poodle belong to the same species… they’re dogs!
“Rabbi Brown postulates that Noach took aboard the ark two animals of each min, rather than all the varieties that developed from each min since ma’aseh bereishis. This interpretation fits very well with the verses: “Of all living creatures, of all flesh, two of each you shall bring to the ark to keep alive with you, a male and a female. Of the birds to their minim, of the beasts to their minim, of all the creepers on the ground to their minim, two of each will come to you to maintain life.” Based on this interpretation, the number of creatures brought on the ark is greatly reduced. Apparently, these specific minim contained all the necessary genetic information, so that postdiluvian diversification yielded the different genera and species of animals recognized by today’s zoologists.”
5) “The creationists resistance towards science and knowledge in general is evident through the mankind history. They were suppressing every rational thought by all means.”
——-You are very ignorant (it’s still better than being a liar), and the scent of your arrogance that blinds you is realized. But how can you convince an ignorant in arrogance person, that he is just that? There’s a riddle. I would never say something like this, if I didn’t believe it. You definitely have not done your homework. I mean, how can you say something like that Vlatko? Anyway:
6) “In the old days they had a different name dough. The inquisition. However they failed. It is very funny when you go back in time and see that they were burning people who were simply saying that Earth is not flat.”
——a) So creationists are an inquisition now? Look at how this guy talks! If so, why is the “inquisition” carried out by evolutionists??
b) You mean you haven’t heard me or others say that Catholicism and Christianity are two different things? Did you care enough to search on the subject? If not, why do you say something like this? Is it just convenient to you? You believe that the Bible teaches obstructing science or killing scientists? That Bible believing Christians believe this? Is this what you want to promote?
c) As for the “flat earth” nonsense (I had it saved some months ago/an answer by a Christian blogger to an atheist /don’t know from where):
“Job 26:7 “He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.” ~ Job understood the idea that the earth is suspended in space.
Job 26:10 “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” ~ Job also understood the movement of the sun and moon in circular patterns.
Isaiah 40:21 & 22 “Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” ~ Isaiah understood that God sits above the “circle of the earth” or as could be translated “globe”
Proverbs 8:27 (“wisdom” is talking) “When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,” ~ The word circle here is translated from a phrase that is applied to the curvature of the horizon when on the open ocean. This is the same physical evidence used by the greeks some 1,000 years later to make their own observations about a round earth.
While it is assumed that the Greeks were the first to suggest this idea, the fact is the book of Job written over 1,500 years before Eratosthenes of Alexandria was born contains the exact same information.
It was in fact a small handful of scholars not associated with the Christian church who began that inaccuracy nearly 300 years after the life of Christ.
Taken in context and when understood the time period and technology available to Job, it’s amazing that he had a grasp and understanding of outer space, gravity and the universe LONG before the Greeks began to speak out in regards to such things.
Your point regarding circle and sphere fail to take into consideration that the concepts used to describe the idea of a circle are the exact same methods used by the Greeks to propose the idea of a round earth. The idea of circle is based upon the horizon and the natural curvature found therein. I guess it’s ok for the Greeks to use such logic but if found in the Bible that automatically makes it incorrect? Also, I failed to find the linguistic evidence you provided. Would you be so kind as to give some sources for your material?
Your point regarding the four corners is easily understood when taken in context. North, south, east and west have been described as the four reaches of the earth even in modern times. It’s a poetic figure of speech.
None of the verses in the Bible speaking of a flatness of the earth imply that the idea of a flat earth as being correct. I would challenge you to show such verses if they exist.
Your points in regard to circle and sphere.
Cheers (na sntrave) to you too, but don’t drink while… writing :D
May God give you His increase!
Its Quantum, ALEX, Its Quantum.
Just think tiny bubbles! (LOL) :D :D
Alchems Razor….regardless your still an *********, who thinks about everyone else’s flaws but his own. Like mentioning my reading level when you supposedly study chaos theory but you can’t even spell the word “were”. Like i said your a lemming. A bible thumping lemming. First you ******* say the planet is six thousand years old now since science made you look like ***** all of sudden the big bang theory has to do with the almighty. Get your heads out of your ***** and back on your shoulders.
The biggest flaw in the world is giving ***** like you a podium to speak on, and promote ignorance, sorry i mean religion.
Just for giggles, no. Razor alchemist i wasn’t referring to before, merely using your words. Talking to any ***** who brings up religion to science. It’s like comparing the Iraqi War to World of Warcraft.
Alex just proves the fact that people cannot just accept things such as the universe being spontaneously created. What I mean by this is the fact that we cannot prove or yet determine how this occurs does not mean it cannot occur as described. What people like Alex try to do is attempt to replace things we don’t yet understand into a mythical creator which is something all powerful which magically creates the universe but yet in fact they are creating something that cannot be explain just like how spontaneous creation can occur.
I believe we are not alone and I do not completely rule out that there is a god of some sort however it is extremely unlikely but always a possibility. It is impossible to truly what caused the creation of our universe but perhaps in time with science some explanation may occur if we have not killed ourselves off by then. I just find that people who follow the bible acknowledge that it was written by man but believe everything in it as if it was written by God himself and delivered to earth. In fact the documentary on here “God on the brain” may explain why the bible was written like it was and people have the religious experiences they have.
Hell it could of even happened if some humans ate some magic mushrooms and created it in their minds and wrote it on paper. I just think religion should be more open minded and not so judgmental. I find it hard to believe that people will only believe certain things science says because they choose to believe it but if it goes against their religion then its automatically wrong. I am just rambling but the point is that people need to feel as they life has a purpose as stated earlier in posts and thus they create a creator and a reason to live in order to reach a better place when in fact life is just a “hologram”. I highly suggest reading this as this actually helped reaffirm some epiphanies I had about how everything is literally connected and how people can connect with each other mentally and such. http://www.etresoi.ch/Denis/hologram.html
@Alex
You put a lot of offensive personal-attacking words in your comment. Anyway I’ve let it go. However in the future I’ll not allow anybody to trash the post like that. Again I’ll tell you that I’ll not write half a mile comment with hundreds of links just to oppose you or make you a non-believer or non-creationist. I will not fall into your trap and answer all your links because they are just propaganda nothing else.
I’m just trying to have some civilized conversation here. Anyway why would person like you have a need to comment here on posts about science or nature documentaries. You should just stick to the religion section and spread your word there.
Science and religion are really incomparable. Science is a tool and religion is dogma (belief system with political-societal annotation). Science makes your life easier in this world and is putting philosophical wondering in to practice and religion is giving you a make-a-belief system. The problem with creationists is that they’re trying to prove religion to be right and science wrong with scientific methods. That is really hypocritical.
@King Koopa
Please don’t attack commenters like that. In future I will not just censor the comments, I’ll delete them.
Wow guys! Things got a bit heated over the day and a half since I logged on (or less). Anyway, I want to copy and paste all this stuff so I can look through it later. I can’t find where anyone was called a “lemming” but that doesn’t sound like Achems Razor anyway–maybe Alex or me, but not Mr. Razor. And Bible thumpping?!? Talk about being falsely accused, eah, Mr. Razer? I’m not real fond of your chaos techo-talk, as I’m not so sure the universe it really that “chaotic.” It’s a bit difficult for my Creationist mind to even try and understand what you’re saying.
Anyway, Vlatko, about the ark, I was surprised to find a websight where an archiologist has found the actual ark that Noah used (barely as it’s nearly all gone as is should be). Nonetheless, parts of it still remain and scientifically it was plenty big enough to old all the animals mentioned with food (I’ve not done the math myself). But, really if one is to believe God created everything in the first place, any particular questions about the ark are quite trivial. God could easily get a monkey from Africa there and back if it was His doing in the first place. The websight was: http://www.arkdiscovery.com and it is worth the look. I know thier documentaries are free to view on-line, but I don’t know about links there.
What the heck! Maybe if you like one or several of the documentaries there you could post them also and we can start all over with any discussion that comes from it. It sounds to me like both side are pretty well matched with thier informaiton (if I had the time like Alex)–Alex, don’t ya have a job? :-) Just razzing ya. It will take me a long time to go though all of Alex’s links, but it sounds like something I would enjoy. I’m so glad God created cut and paste! ;-)
@charles
All right… I’ll check it out and see what we can do.
I think someone mentioned here earlier to suppose god “is” everything, not “in” everything, not “above” everything but everything, the entire universe!! That God has always been and is infinite. A pretty large concept but I think Carl Sagan said it best when he approached this idea by saying why not skip a step and suppose the cosmos is everything has always been and is infinite.
Vlatko:
Thanks, About King Koopa.
I did not want to waste my time to reply to him.
Good on you Achems Razor, that didn’t deserve response :-)
Thank you, WTC7.
You are my “Woman” :D :D
Vlatko,
Listen to you! You just want to have the upper hand when you’re unjust, don’t you?
1) “You put a lot of offensive personal-attacking words in your comment. Anyway I’ve let it go. However in the future I’ll not allow anybody to trash the post like that.”——I “trashed” the post?? I hate to say it but… liar! Anybody who is sincere can be the judge.
2) “……all your links because they are just propaganda nothing else”
——-Convenient. It figures. I gave you insight that you would never go to the trouble of finding on your own, and this is how you handle it….
3) “I’m just trying to have some civilized conversation here.”
——-Nice to hear, but putting words in mouth, saying my view of science is hypocritical and that I condemn scientists, is not civilized. But as I said, you just want to be on top, right?
4) “Anyway why would person like you have a need to comment here on posts about science or nature documentaries. You should just stick to the religion section and spread your word there.”
—— a) I know very well where I should “stick”. Science and nature are directly related to the Creator of both; whether you want to believe this or not, is your choice.
b) You in other words just said that because I am a Christian I can’t enjoy and deal with scientific issues, but only issues of blind (…) belief/faith. Well, by now, mocking my intelligence says a lot about yours. Hilarious!
c) By the way, I am “sticking to religion”… this is what “evolution” is. This is what you don’t want to see, since you don’t want to be helped to see it.
5) “Science and religion are really incomparable. Science is a tool and religion is dogma (belief system with political-societal annotation).”
——a) What is this person saying???? This -again- shows how much time you put into the links, or what I say…..
b) So to return the “compliment”, yes, “science and religion are really incomparable” when the religion is evolutionism.
c) evolution is an atheistic pseudo-science dogma, a belief system with political-social annotation.
6) “Science makes your life easier in this world and is putting philosophical wondering in to practice and religion is giving you a make-a-belief system.
——So you are allowed to -in a “civilized” manner- make absurd insulting comments like this, and we are just to sit back and listen to you spread your propaganda! Well, this in all fairness, should work both ways… if you’re fair. Then, if we don’t shut up and listen to you, you feel personally attacked. Can’t you at least realize yourself attacking -as you just did right now and before and elswhere- since what you are actually saying is that Christians are just ****** when it comes to “philosophical wondering”, when searching the depths of God and His creation is the best wondering any philosopher on earth can do!!! But you’re in the dark about that too. And you say this to me, after all I have written all over the place. A bad joke from your side.
7) “The problem with creationists is that they’re trying to prove religion to be right and science wrong with scientific methods. That is really hypocritical.”
——-What can you say about a person who persists on the same lie, when he has previously been exposed?? Not much goo, right? So, why can you attack creationists like this and expect me to role over and make like I don’t see? Well, you definitely got it wrong! It’s not going to happen! And by the way, again you are lying in a worse way than the first time (goodness gracious!!), since I already corrected you when in arbitrarily generalizing you say that creationists are trying to prove “science wrong with scientific methods”! Creationists try to show the real facts (most of which you have no idea and care not to obviously), and to promote science not fiction. It is just that the Bible always proves science right!
b) Then you say this is “really hypocritical”. Again with the “civilized” namee calling… :D
If you see all my posts, you will realize that I just “adapt” to ones manner. I don’t initiate anything.
Vlatko, I told you, you will not change the tables on me, twisting the facts, just because this is your site. I am never intimidated.
If you want to be civilized (without quotations) we can… it’s up to you.
Cheers.
@Alex
As I said i don’t mean to get into vague debate with you.
Just try not to confront with people, say what you have to say about the documentary and your views on the topic covered in the documentary in a polite manner without any excessive writing and link stuffing.
Otherwise I’ll be forced to take measures accordingly. This article explains a lot.
I talk as I am talked to (although within my ethical limits). This is something you should remember. This is simply fair. So, if you do the same, I don’t see any problem.
And of course you can take any measures you like… it’s your game. I feel no intimidation.
God bless!
d: Hello,
I watched with interest, your link on Holograms, that states objective reality does not exist. Its apparent solidity is at heart a phantasm.
Led by physicist Alain Aspect, at the university of Paris.
Yes Quantum does behave strangely, or should I say weird! On wave particles it will either be a wave or particle, just by “thinking” it should be one or the other, but never both at the same time. On Hawking’s theory that the universe came out of nothing seems even more strange! It might be it only exists because we are looking. Everything only exists in the eyes of the beholder, we make it real.
You mentioned Magic Mushrooms. I put on a post about Amanita Muscaria that gave religious Ephinanys, and was a religion starter on Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed, Aug. 5th at 08:08 Alex and I had a long discussion on that subject.
And I agree we are inextricably connected to everything in the Cosmos!
regards. :D
Wow, Alex, when your write your posts and honestly beileve what you beileve do you do it with a straight face? I seriously laughed at the links you pointed to… I mean how can you take these websites seriously and think they are unbiased when the names vary from “christiananswers” to stuff like “scienceagainstevolution”. Seriously man.
My biggest problem isn’t your beliefs as much as it is your close minded attitude towards possible alternatives. Although I personally beileve that the world was created through evolution I keep an open mind to other possibilities BUT so far evolution makes more sense to me and is more consistent with current reality. It is the most logical explanation… how can you disagree?
I think ALEX needs to get a life, seriously. Great job on your site Vlatko, keep up the excellent work!! PEACE.
Solar winds producing hydrogen on planets and moons!?! If this is absolutely prooven, then there MUST be life EVERYWHERE!! What an awesome discovery! (thought I’d share, just heard it last day or two)
When Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, but failed to elaborate.
It brings to mind Null Physics. Null physics states the Universe began from the number zero. Physicists hypothesize that the state of “nothing” is actually “something” because if there is nothing, there would have to be something, that has become nothing. Nothing is filling something. this goes as far to say that the Universe really is nothing, and does not exist.The reason for this is, if everything is to the value of zero, which is the “something” of “nothing”, then you would have nothing. Almost like multiplying a negative times a positive. Physicists call the zeros that make up the Universe geometric points, which are similar to singularities, but do not condense matter.
Geometric points only represent what is not there, but by doing this, they represent something that is there. And this is how the Universe “exists”.
Does anybody else have any idea’s why Hawking thinks the Universe came from nothing?
:D :D
i just read all the comments and found it curios as to why nobody has considered the possibility that bruce willis created the universe.
but seriously the majority of the discussions in the comments are redundant, our universe is just one of many universe’s
Why are there poeple still thinking that the Earth is only 6000 years old when there is PROOF from Carbon Dating finds that show that they’ve been around for millions of years???
MojoRyzing hi!
About carbon dating and other:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
See also my comment above on Sep 25th.
God bless!
Here we go again…
When will you understand that you can’t link to a site that is heavily biased to one side of the argument.
It’s like me sending you to a website called http://www.atheistanswers.com (which by the way exists) to prove a point that fits my reality.
Either way man. I am not trying to attack you but you look like a fool pointing to these sites…
Find some credible (multiple) sources and then people might consider the content.
Whoopi goldberg:
Actually “Whoopi”, Bruce Willis does create Universes by his dreams and thoughts, that become self perpetuating Worlds, as we all do. They will grow into quite bonafide realms of Alternate Realities, so be careful what you wish for!
:D :D
A sad but true fact is that religion is, has and always will be a form of control over the masses of sheeple. I went to Catholic school as a boy and I don’t believe one bit of it. No god that is worth worshipping would be so spiteful and/or hateful. Say what you want ‘christians’ but more people have been murdered and tortured in the name of religion/god. Return to your pagan roots and honor your Mother Earth (Gaia). Besides the bible there is NO reference to jesus even have existed at all. None! And there were plenty of scribes of the time to record all of his ‘miracles’. Not to mention the whole ‘vigin birth’ being a fairly common occurance within other dieties. ‘Christians’ stay out of our schools, stay out of our courts and mind your own business!!! Nobody wants to hear your rubbish about going to hell if we don’t believe in jesus. Well, if i don’t believe in jesus, then it’s kind of hard to threaten me with your hell!! My only hell is having to hear any christians self-rightous, holier-than-thou attitude. Theres more **** and child molesters in the christian church than not!! I think i made my point and its gonna make alot of bible beaters throw a relirious fit… because thats all they know whot to do!! Yell and curse others
its funny that i could go my whole life believing one thing and have a ****** comment from a documentary change my whole perspective on religion. obviously i still will enjoy the social aspects of church, but i am now giving into science. its the only logical choice and besides. thanks bruce willis for saving the world one more time, this time for me
former christian
‘It’s the question that drives us, Neo. It’s the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.’
It seems Hawking over estimated people when he said ‘we have the intelligence to question’.
Perhaps, but “kudo’s” to the people that at least try to find some answers, no matter how ridiculous it may sound to others!
:D
*correction
I meant to say ‘some’ people. :D
Of course, I have my own ridiculous theory as to what was there before the ‘Big Bang’.
as-salamu alaykum
Joe:
No problem Joe.
No harm, no fowl!
What is your ridiculous theory?
:D :D
Amen to that Adrian.
Hey, that is a good link you put on Adrian!
:D
Actually let me rescind that, it is a website for creationists.
To further elaborate what I entered previously.
Quantum Theory basically says fundamental particles are empty of existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities.
They do not become “real” until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning.
Quantum Physicists have proven whithout a doubt, the physical World is one large sea of energy and probabilities, that flash in and out of existence over and over in a millisecond.
Nothing is solid. Not your car, your furniture, your house or even your body.
Quantum Physicists have also proven our thoughts are what brings together and holds together this sea of energy into the “things” we see.
One of the most exiting discoveries is the whole concept that it is our thoughts, that create our reality.
Quantum physics has actually revealed that every “conscious and subconscious” thought you have creates your reality.
Oh and… amen to that! :D
Adrian hi!
You had written:
1) “I seriously laughed at the links you pointed to… I mean how can you take these websites seriously and think they are unbiased when the names vary from “christiananswers” to stuff like “scienceagainstevolution”. Seriously man.”
——a) Look, if you don’t have the common sense to go beyond the title of the link, really, you can’t be helped to see the other side. You judge a book by it’s cover. I mean, you cling on….the name of the site??? And by the way what’s wrong with them? Their purpose is to counter evolutionism, how did you expect they be named? There are sites out there from evolutionists that have the same kind of titles! So what? We’re in war, if you haven’t realized. Or am I suppose to provide links of evolutionists that disprove evolution?? Guess what, I did that too!! Besides how am I suppose to help an evolutionist see that he is way wrong, if not by presenting the other side? It doesn’t make sense.
b) “Unbiased”? Adrian, are you still “there”? Are you telling me that evolutionists are unbiased?? Please don’t, unless you want me laughing all day long! (that’s good too :D ) Evolution itself is based on bias *for -as a theory- scientifically, it has no foundation (!!)*, they attempt to build, but on nothing. It’s a blind religion for atheists. If you have the gutch, you will discover this. It needs gutch. I’m just telling you the fact. Now, on the other hand, of course bias can be found on the Christian’s side as well, but, -something you will not agree on- most of the times Christians -due to their faith (believe it or not)- are way more sincere and objective on their findings. I honestly see this in their writings. Note: Don’t name their possible mistakes bias.
2) “My biggest problem isn’t your beliefs as much as it is your close minded attitude towards possible alternatives.”
——Adrian think: Can someone know the truth (this is what it boils down to)? Why not? So, if one does, is he close minded to other alternatives, when his truth disputes all other alternatives?
3) “Although I personally beileve that the world was created through evolution I keep an open mind to other possibilities BUT so far evolution makes more sense to me and is more consistent with current reality. It is the most logical explanation… how can you disagree?”
——-a) There is only one other possibility/alternative to evolution, it’s Creation.
b) Does you “current reality”, present intelligence coming form non intelligence, life coming from non life, new species coming into existence (variation/adaptations within species is another thing) and that all there is, is materialism (when man consciously thinks, considers, compares, creates etc.// has an immaterial soul as near death experiences show and admitted by scientists as a real phenomena with evidenve)?? Then, what planet are you on? And they have internet their as well? Wow!
c) “It is the most logical explanation… how can you disagree?”
:D :D :D :D :D :D Please give time and research Adrian on the links I provided here and on Zeitgeist Refuted. Give time and research on everything in general before taking a….. stand.
In your following comment:
4) “When will you understand that you can’t link to a site that is heavily biased to one side of the argument.”
——-When will you understand this is wrong? It’s like telling me not to research sites on evolution, because their heavily biased. It’s up to an intelligent person to distinguish between bias and objectiveness. I mean, both sides are composed of scientists, and both occasionally point out fallacies of the other side (although creationists point out way more -to the 10th power!- fallacies of evolutionism.). The only reason I give these links is because they answer someone’s comment on one hand, but also to present the fact that Creationism/Intelligent Design are definitely not unscientific as they are presented by propaganda to be, on the contrary they bring extremely heavy evidence for their case one that makes evolution the biggest pseudo-science lie ever (f people only realize this…). This doesn’t mean that everything on a particular site, is always 100% accurate, BUT, the reader can -if honest- say “This is wrong, but, all the rest are accurate. But how can they be correct, and evolutionism still stand??” Indeed the accumulated weight of all that is said on these links, is an evolutionists everyday nightmare, unless he doesn’t have a conscience any longer…!
5) “It’s like me sending you to a website called atheistanswers.com (which by the way exists) to prove a point that fits my reality.”
——Sites like the one you give deal with all sorts of aspects, and I am aware of it, and have no problem with it. If this is what someone believes, this is his choice. I will still deal with what is said on the site, showing them through logic, science, history, that they are wrong, instead of conveniently marking them as “biased”. I will try to help them realize that they are biased through my sound arguments. This is edifying. I never say someone is biased and run, I always back my words up with sound facts. Also, my links are by scientists and mainly deal strictly with creationism and evolution as concepts and science, not with various other philosophical issues.
6) “Either way man. I am not trying to attack you but you look like a fool pointing to these sites…”
——-Adrian (you are about 20-25, no?), you try to show open-mindedness (and I sympathize), but at the same time, you don’t accomplish it. Likewise -as you- I am just call it like I see it, with no intent to attack you. If I still look like a fool to you, then you should visit your closest eye doctor :D …. Fast!
May God give you His increase.
Dear Razor
Quantum physics…it’s heavy stuff.
What was there before big bang?
This questions is fundamentally wrong way to ask.
It’s too linear. Let me explain. We are taught to accept all things have a beginning and an end because we can only imagine things through our own awareness and perspective. We all have a beginning and an end and we expect all things to be same as us. When we see a rock or a tree we say to ourselves how they began and how they will end. We do this because this explanation gives us a certain comfort. But now we know through science that all things are just star dusts and energy and beginning and end is just different physical states. We have no beginning and an end. Things just exist. When we say and prove that our universe began with a big bang we are implying that there was a certain beginning that caused the big bang and therefore there must have been something else prior to the big bang. Maybe something ended and the new beginning was the big bang. And that something must have beginning also. Theoretically, this type of question can goto infinity.
This is a linear way of thinking in our non linear universe.
Then what kind of universe is it? We don’t know. What we do know is that it’s not linear. There is no beginning and no end, that’s just us mortality thinking. Nothing ever gets created out of nothing. Things are just recycled and I would take a guess that our universe is more circular than linear. Our universe just goes through different physical and energy states. And big bang is just a point in a circle.
So, what was there before big bang? Me, you, and everything else in different states. Can we imagine what that different state might look like? Probably, in future. But for now, are we capable of imagining ourselves as rocks and plants?
Dear Joe:
I agree with you 100%. There was no Big Bang. There is no linear time, we make it so by our thoughts to give motion. Imagine that everything exists all at once, past, present and future our Reality and the 10 to the 500 power of other Realities. It has been proven time and space are illusions. I am quoting theoretical Physicist Julian Barbour, on his book “the End Of Time”. You can Google Julian Barbour if you like.
Basically we are pulling out snapshots out of a picture album,we are forming our Reality every nano second so to speak. But we have free will, that is where probabilities come in, we can go in different directions in our lives.
To give you more insight, right here on TDF watch Parallel Universes.
To the religious ALEX:
Alex, you are part of our gang. Everyday I look forward to see what you will say next!
I say this with respect.
Regards. :D :D
Alex…
You don’t seem to give any valid points anymore except finding a reason to disagree relentlessly. I will be honest with you, I don’t believe any of those links you put up, it just doesn’t seem right, at all, to me that is. And you keep saying these words: fact, logic, truth, prove this, prove that. So if you want “initate” and tell everyone one about your “factual” findings, let me just say:
“the wisest man knows he knows nothing” and then maybe you can turn the page even though you read the whole book.
Am I the only one who noticed that Alex’s comments are being delayed(censored)?
Few hours ago, I remember reading this and thinking it didn’t make sense.
Alex
September 30th, 2009 at 16:15
Oh and… amen to that!
And I just found this:
Alex
September 30th, 2009 at 16:12
Adrian hi!
You had written: (and follows Alex’s typical long post)
I hope this is an isolated technical glitch. Personally, I find any type of censorship uncool.
@Alex
The Adrian’s link is actually in your favor. But of course you forgot to check it out. It’s an anti-atheist site.
Anyway I think this should be the place where people will comment on the actual documentary and not getting into debate about their views on the world and confront with each other. So please if you could move your discussions to the forum it would be really nice. You can open up you own thread/topic there and start a debate.
For example you could name it Creationism vs. Science and expose your views on what you agree with science and on what you disagree.
You don’t have to point us to dozens of low quality sites to prove your point. Those are made by ordinary people like us. If you like to point on something than appeal to some authority. Let say link to what the pope said, or some well known theologian or priest, or some well known creationist, etc.
The best way probably would be just to lay out your simple views on the topic with one or two right references. When someone replies you don’t have to analyze every single word of the people who disagree with you and start war with them. We are not at war as you previously stated.
Also probably a good idea would be if you break your paragraphs and don’t overwrite. You’ll discourage people to read what you have to say when they see unorganized long text with bunch of links and smiles.
And the last and most important is that you will discourage new visitors to watch the documentary when they see overheated of-topic debate.
So again please if you have something to say on the documentary say it, if not go to the forum and open up threads as many you like and discuss.
Cheers
Well Joe there is a simple answer to your question.
Almost all Alex’s posts are recognized as spam by the system and they are not automatically displayed since they usually contain thousands of words and several links.
The short ones and the ones without links appear automatically but the other ones have to wait a little bit until I manually approve them when I’m around. That’s why you sow the post which was not previously there. It was approved latter. Just to be noted, I have never censored Alex here on TDF.
I hope that explains.
Yes, it explains. Keep up the good work, V.
Vlatko hi!
1) «The Adrian’s link is actually in your favor. But of course you forgot to check it out. It’s an anti-atheist site.»
—— The title of his link sounds atheistic: atheist answers.
Wow! Adrian’s link was Christian! And I countered it with… a Christian one :D:D Funny! Actually I didn’t forget, let me explain what happened:
Adrian seemed to come through like an atheist, and I still believe he is (besides the link). I mean if he was a Christian why would he write:
“It’s like me sending you to a website called -to the site out so not to delay- (which by the way exists) to prove a point that fits my reality.”
Therefore him sending..*ME* (a Christian!) a website, to prove a point that fits *his reality*, means his reality is a different one than mine and the name of the website made this point clear. So I naturally thought it was another atheistic site.
What probably happened was is that Adrian just randomly chose a site that sounded atheistic just to make his point (normal), without himself checking it out first. It was a mistake.
The reason I didn’t check it out was because the site was not given so to refer to a particular issue we were discussing. If it did, I certainly would, as *I always do*, usually commenting on them, as I do on the threads and in the forum. So, for the reasons above I thought it was another atheistic site, one of the many I’ve looked into, so why should I take a look at this one? There was no reason.
2) Anyway I think this should be the place where people will comment on the actual documentary and not getting into debate about their views on the world and confront with each other.
——Vlatko you are right. But this is inevitable. Besides, notice that people don’t usually comment on the doc that much, but mostly against religion. So, actually, even if I stop commenting on their views, they’d still continue… without commenting on the doc, but trashing Christianity, religion in general! This is not a phenomena restricted to your site -as you know- it happens in most if not all sites with threads. So I don’t think me moving to the forum will change anything, since I’m already there, and people still continue to comment on issue like religion etc. Also, note that here, it is completely normal to comment for or against religion since the topic it self, gives us this initiative. I mean, we are talking about the origins of the universe. Some say it happened this way, while I say it didn’t. My opinion is as relevant to the issue as everybody else.
3) “So please if you could move your discussions to the forum it would be really nice. You can open up you own thread/topic there and start a debate.”
——-Look at most I can do this: I’ll open a thread on the forum, where my long answers to the commentators *of the film thread* can read my answers. On the thread I’ll write “my answer to you on (and give the particular link)”. The question is will they? Or will I be wasting my time writing for nothing?? This is a risk. I can’t know if they will go to the trouble and register on the forum. But again, is everybody else comfortable with this?? Or do they prefer the things the way they are. They can comment, and you Vlatko can decide.
4) “You don’t have to point us to dozens of low quality sites to prove your point. Those are made by ordinary people like us. If you like to point on something than appeal to some authority. Let say link to what the pope said, or some well known theologian or priest, or some well known creationist, etc.”
——I wont comment on this. (…the pope???)
5) “When someone replies you don’t have to analyze every single word of the people who disagree with you and start war with them. We are not at war as you previously stated.”
——-I do this to make the point that people think they are thinkers when most of the time their not. It’s an awakening. Almost all of the sentences (!) are wrong in positions or even illogical. -And you are wrong we are at war and it’s a spiritual one, I just am out with it, admitting it.
6) “Also probably a good idea would be if you break your paragraphs and don’t overwrite. You’ll discourage people to read what you have to say when they see unorganized long text with bunch of links and smiles.”
——-I see it differently. If a person is not disciplined enough to read a long post, has he ever read a book??? If he is not disciplined enough to read a long post, he is not worthy of the truth. This is what it proves. So I really don’t care if he is discouraged, especially if my response is… to him/her!! In my opinion, his comment is a waste of time, since he is not a real researcher/seeker of truth.
7) “And the last and most important is that you will discourage new visitors to watch the documentary when they see overheated of-topic debate.”
This is completely wrong. Our debates makes the films more provoking to see. Proof of this, is that people do comment on the film, beside our debates. Also, I have no problem you addressing me on this, but as I said elsewhere, I am not commenting to myself. You should personally address others on this as well. But if not, no problem, I can be the “scapegoat”. I insist though, I am not the problem, there is no problem in general. Unless the only problem is…. the Christian view…. and this site is not about truth but about atheists feeling comfortable at a place where they can freely throw rocks. Vlatko, you have to make this clear to your self. Friendly advice.
God bless you!
PS. Razor, I appreciate your words (in the same “gang” but on different sides..:D :D ), and Joe your intentions!
God bless!
LOL :D
Alex, you are the man~~~~~~~~
For the record, I DO enjoy Alex’s comment. :)
Vlatko:
With due respect. I would rather see ALEX on this regular site, but ALEX should take into consideration the points that you mentioned, in other words at least meet you half way.
Hello there, and welcome everyone….my name is andrew, first off i do not have a PhD in anything, nor am i god. Im just here to post my insight about the creation of the universe,a nd life itslef. When people ask what made the earth some will say god. Some people will say who created god? Some will ask that question on a infinite dead path, it’s like beating a dead horse. There is no end. Well first off scientists have stated that creation can not come upon out of nothing, that is impossbile. The thing is it can through god. Just stay with me here…God says that he is and always will be, now to put that in lamens terms….(remember how scientist says something out of nothing is impossbile right)? Then how come We, you, us, them, the planet, universe and life were created from nothing, which completly contradicts what scientists state as a law of the universe, but the universe itselfs broke its own law that was set by scientists. Seomthing being created out of nothing is a maricle, a maricale of “I am” Omega, our father GOD!
Why is it that the spped of light is always the same, no matter where you are on earth the gravity is the same, the speed of sound is constant(depending on altitude), the viscosity of water is always the same (homoginized H20). How come things do not appear and disappear in an out of exsistence? thats because there are laws/rules of this universe….now let me ask you this how can rules/laws be if there was noone there to create them? Why is it that scientist can not explain the code that is written in our DNA, that with four simple chemicals creates life? Who was the one who had instucted those codes….theres only one answer, and thats if you can open your eyes and just believe, and that is god. GOD Bless you! P.S The world is not gonna end in 2012.
Hi Andrew :-),
Hhhmmmm…. Having all the answers, aren’t you? You must be a happy chap…. Good on ya :-)
Hi, WTC7:
Ye’h, you said it for me about Andrew.
All he has to do is read the comments that are presented here to get answers to some of his questions, but I guess it is easier for him to do his God stuff! I sort of miss the “religious Alex” there is nobody to argue with. :D
Ok, that’s fine, make a joke out of it. You might as well label life as a joke. I dont have the time to read the lies and garbarge posted above. I’m asumming by your smart *** attitude towards what other people believe in is your view of life i assume? What i really want to know is, what is it for a scientist to state that the universe has no signifigance? How can one characterise and name what something is if they are not the creators themselves and understand how life itself came to be? If science is the answer to life for you, then how come it cant even explain the purpose of life or the igsignifigance of it? Just like all hypothesis being tested they have a purpose to them…where is this general purpose?…you can not say that there is no known purpose because then you cant test something that is of nothing cause somethign in itslefs would be of nothing? Are you starting to finally open your naive brain to a more wider idea….instead of asking us christians open our minds to observations made by a scientist that states they know everything but cant even land a man on the mars. Are you sure you are willing to put your faith into the insignifigance of nothing? The devil will mix lies in with truths to convice the week and simple minded. It’s the kind of people like you that can not except that a being greater then our own has created us. If you beilieve in the insignifigance of life you are safe to say your just an insignificant being of nothing….
*JOKE TIME*
One day a scientist challenges God. It ends up that god promises him immortality if he can make human life. The scientist takes a woman’s check cell and combines it with a male’s sperm. Mixes it in a test tube, implants it into a women, and nine months later BOOM! * God shakes his head the whole time, and finally says “with your OWN ingredients”…
GOD BLESS ALL…even the “insignificant…
Hi Achems Razor,
“I dont have the time to read the lies and garbarge posted above.” (Andrew J.)
I say the guy just isn’t worth the time if he can’t spare a bit of his own ;-)
I use to be a christian but i only joined because i was afraid to go to hell i realized something very simple anger or vengence comes from fear its and act to defend yourself since your body react to physical harm and mental harm the same way so to say that GOD feels anger or vengence would be to say that he has human characteristics so you cant say hes perfect so there is no GOD to me at least, so i became a atheist and when on this holy crusade to ride to world of religion then i realized i was doing the same thing only i was the good “saved christian” and religion was destroying the world or evil and ” the devil”. its important for you to realize that there is no such thing as good or evil without you the observer evil did not exist before you looked at it and said it was bad.Its a simply matters on your prospective to terrorist we are evil and it we need to die. to us terrorist are evil and we kill them without a second thought even the soldier who fight and the innocent caught in the middle are just “casualties of war”. So who is right, who is wrong again we turn to our laws are religion we created based on our beliefs. Please open your mind see your own vanity your own ego there is no good or evil only you “The Ghost in the Shell”. you are the GOD
Mr. Razer: What happened to Alex? Did something happen that I don’t know about? Did he get kicked off the board, or just hasn’t posted for a while? I’m so busy now I have an abcessed tooth; I don’t feel like posting or reading anything tonight.
Alex is busy with his own website. I am sure he’ll be back. How can anyone miss all these fun?
Dear Andrew J
No one is making fun of you or any Christians. If you want to go to heaven then go. No one is stopping you. And if you happen to have an extra free ticket to heaven then by all means offer it to us. I for one will gladly accept it. Other than that you have no reason to preach here and become emotional when someone disagrees with you. Like WCT7 said, try to read the comments. Perhaps, it might enlighten you a bit. :)
We have no reasons to trash Dr. Hawking’s theory. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he has dedicated his life in pursuit of answers. Truly, he is one of the remarkable persons of our time.
Salute!
I like Dr. Steven Hawkings. It’s odd, that he would actually say (via the sythasizer) that everything just come from nothing and then some time for no real reason that matter (which repells itself suddenly exploded) and then changed into regular matter that now attracts itself. But he does admitt that if the universe was even just a little bit different, or more than just a little bit different, then we all wouldn’t be here asking the question in the first place. He’s brilliant, but really there is no answer to where the universe came from unless you believe in spontaniously forming “everything” like he does, (eteranl existing matter that evolved into everything) like some do, or in an eternally existing God, like I do. His conclusions were just too disappointing to believe in for me. I may be mixing my Hawkings documentaries now, as I’ve seen a couple.
I’m not precisely sure how God created the whole universe or how long it took before he created earth and the present Adamic race, but I do so like the option of a loving God working on it for us rather than a cold impersonal unpredictable glob of dirt exploding for no good reason.
Dear Charles B
What is so wrong with the idea that we might have come from ‘unpredictable glob of dirt’?
ARE WE THAT SPECIAL?
“Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern… a virus.” – Agent Smith
Salute!
Andrew J.
*JOKE TIME*
This lady approaches a priest and tells him,”Father I have a problem.
I have these two talking female parrots, but they only know how to say one thing”.
“What do they say?” the priest asked.
“They only know how to say. “Hi, we are prostitutes. Do you want to have some fun?”
“That”s terrible!” the priest exclaimed, “But I have a solution to your problem. Bring your two talking female parrots over to my house and I will put them with my two male talking parrots who I have taught to pray and read the Bible. My parrots will teach your parrots to stop saying that terrible phrase and your female parrots will learn to pray and worship.”
“Thank you,” Said the lady.
The next day, the lady brings her female parrots to the priest’s house. The priest’s two male parrots are holding rosary beads and praying in their cage.
The lady puts her female talking parrots in with the male talking parrots and the female parrots say. “Hi, we are prostitutes! Do you want to have some fun?”
One male parrot looks over to the other male parrot and screams,
“Frank! Put the Bibles away-our prayers have been answered!”
Achems Razor! That’s a good one! I like it ;-)
Anthony P:
Yes, I sort of agree with what you are saying about beliefs. But keep in mind every sentient being in the Universe, knows the difference between right and wrong, with or without, Religion. It is called Empathy!
And yes, the Gods are us.
Regards:
Hi, Alex! It was nice to hear from your “friend” as well. Ha. ha.
I have a good sense of intuition, and I suspect if you and I both keep it to a paragraph or two even Mr. Razor and WTC7 wouldn’t mind to see “Alex” back on the board, and would stup for our priveledge to express our ideas openly.
I might suggest a private chat with Vlatko however. He seems relatively reasonable, but it is HIS website. Everyone has thier own little kingdom; I have to move the stapler on my desk back to its rightful place every day after other people use it. Sigh. ;-)
Why yes, I am a middle child natural “negotiator”! Why do you ask?
It’s clear that Hawking is just guessing here. In fact, I’d venture to say that the only reason anybody’s entertaining him here is because, well, he’s Stephen Hawking.
If pure naturalism is true, there’s no way he could ever answer his own question with any level of real or even reasonable certainty. It’s simply beyond science.
If supernatural revelation is true, he’s barking up the wrong tree. Basically, the entire conversation ends up being an intriguing but ultimately pointless bit of speculation.
Sirius Knott:
I agree on one point. Hawking was guessing, when he said the Universe came from nothing. If he knew the answers, then he would have published papers on the “Theory Of Everything”. which right now is to elusive to determine.
“The Theory Of Everything” is elusive because of Quantum Mechanics, which states an effect, called the the Observer Effect, that means something is not real until it is observed by someone. Quantum Theory states, out of the infinite number of possibilities and potentialities in the sea of Quantum energy, that something, will then coalesque into physical manifestations that gives them meaning.
Simply stated “you get what you are looking for”, and if nobody is looking, than it is not there.
I disagree, that it is a pointless bit of speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculating. If you do not speculate, than you will never find any answers.
“Nobody knows everything”! Whether it be Naturalism, or Supernatural
Revelation.
regards:
OK, “pointless” may have been a bit overstated, though I can personally think of hundreds of other subjects I might more productively spend my time speculating upon.
Sirius Knott:
Fair enough!
:D
Someone show me one bit of proof that there is a god in anyway shape or form, anything at all.The difference between Religion and Science is this, science will prepose new theories that change and logicly that means humans are thinking and EVOLVING.Science has been wrong and will be wrong again but thats the beauty of it that we will mess up but while we mess up we will find more and more answers.Now religious people esp chatholics, 99% of the mental decay is planted by them, they cant even get there own beliefs right in the book that god had the time to write considering he was nt ever doing anything good to man except making bets with satan while allowing Job’s family to be murdered or apparently helping a man that was 800+ years old find two of every animal,question how did Noah get to the Antartic or Australia or the western hemispere for the animals that are native to those area’s and why would a life long drunk get to live so long when millions of his chosen people get murdered before they are even adults?Also how do you hate people that are made in ur god’s image because they are ***? Where does jesus say bash the **** and you will inherit the kingdom of god?Morons faith is the absence of logic or proof.Insult science all you want but as time goes by and he does nt come back wheather as a thief in the night lol or in a thousands years lol again.Wait is that jesus climbing though my window with my tv!,******. But like i was saying the longer we EVOLVE the fewer your numbers get and in time logic will win out because the average 6 year old cant tell the difference between a disney story and a biblical one(if take out the murder and add some basis in reality)that means when everyone else catches up to the mental age of 7 the catholic church will die and peace will have a chance.Finally god did nt write the bible the jews did and sinse they wrote it not god again i have to repeat myself for you religious people thats why its full of mistakes and btw the jews WHICH WROTE THE BIBLE admit that its just a bunch of stories that where used to carry on there traditions and culture.Every religious person is nt an ***** or bad but the ones that try to “teach” their beliefs to kids or people down on thier luck are taking advantage of people and hurting us as a race, so to you i say put up or shut up so me proof of god or even a theory that makes any sense, dont give me babel or use circular logic about free will show me proof or shut up and when you lay dying we ll see how much you fight to live because all you can here is the sound of your instints and all you can feel is fear.
Adam: I’ve not yet died, so I don’t know what emotions I will have at the time of my death, but I’ve known one friend personally that has died 4 times, but was brought back; 3 as a 12 year old child, and once as an adult. Her riviting story that she told me was that she died as a child from some kind of fever, and her soul started to go down towards Hell and she saw others dying too and screaming and crying, and when she was brought back, she cried, “Oh mother, oh mother! Please don’t let me die! I’m going to Hell!” This happened three times, and she was only 12. Fortunately, the doctor was able to revive her, and she lived.
She didn’t become a Christian until adulthood, but at the age of 47, she died during an operation and her soul lifted from her body (she heard every word everyone said and did, and saw a tennis shoe outside the hospital on a window sill). But this time, she started to go to Heaven.
To make a long story short, she met Chrsit Himself and He told her “Pat, I’m sending you back to tell your story.” and she returned to her body. She had no fear at that time when she died as a Christian, but certainly did when she died as a non-Christian. I looked into her eyes, and I believed every word. She was my friend and co-teacher in China. She lives in California now.
P.S. She said the doctors were shocked and amazed when they checked the window outside the operating room and found a tennis shoe on the window sill.
Her name is Pat Maynard. I hope you find peace with your decisions, but please don’t say that Christians (Catholics) are responsible for 99% of the mental decay in the world; that’s calling white black and black white in my opinion.
P.S. I will check her testimony again (she has recently sent it to me via e-mail), as I may be mistaken about the tennis shoe; I might have seen that on a movie, but the general story is accurate.
Hi Charles B.
I got interested in the above story you told. I have no way of knowing if your friend’s testimony is truthful or not, but I will assume that it is. However, in that case I would really like to get an answer as to why would god send a 12 year old child to hell? What kind of horrible sin could she have made at that age and what kind of mysterious god’s purpose would a Christian like yourself find in it?
Razor:
That is one of the shocking things that stuck in my mind too. I asked her about that, and she said that she could percieve (I’m not sure how really), but she understood that people from all over the world were dying and going down (she never made it to any fire or anything like that, just darkness and terror), but there were no small children; no infants or little kids.
I don’t know Razor; 12 sounds so young to me too. There isn’t any Biblical reference to this “age of accountability” in the Bible at all, but in my heart I have faith in God’s judgements and that’s good enough for me. A good question I don’t have an answer for.
P.S. I can edit the testimony for flow and grammar and then post it on a forum I know of then post a link. She expressly asked me to share it, but I’ve been so busy lately.
Achems Razor:
Let me explain it to you again.first you experience something then you react to that experience emotionally your rational thinking comes after the emotion. If you feel Empathy it is because your brain and your body is trying to identify with the person you are looking at, that is not good or evil it is just a form of evolution by being able to feel empathy we feel the need to protect ourselves and others its just a form of survival nature picked up a long time ago. It is only your RATIONAL BRAIN that says hey i just saved that kid I am a hero.Things like that are like cocaine we feed off of it because it makes us feel superior than others. Think of it this way, if a shark was capable of rational thinking how would he view himself? Most sharks would hate themselves they would see themselves as evil think about all they do is hunt and kill all day with no end, but we the observer can look and say hey buddy your just doing your job.Finally to all the whakko’s on this site atheist and religious. READ A BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.The stars the sky the whole world around you are experiencing inside your own head. Are brain works like a projector picking up light and displaying the image in the back of your head so you cant have an out of body experience since your seeing it IN YOUR HEAD!!!!!!. When blood stop pumping to the brain crazy stuff happens, so if Pat believed Superman was real she would have seen him to. Thankfully like alex said one day people will realize how ridiculous religion is,and then maybe we will understand that we will never understand.
Charles B. – Thanks for the answer. One thing only, are you addressing me as ‘Razor’ for some reason you never told me, or is it that you think Achems Razor & me are the same person?
WTC 7: Sorry. I read the wrong name. Wouldn’t have even noticed my mistake had you not said something. :-)
Anthony P: A lot of people are having NDE’s (near death experiences) now with modern resussitation techniques. To say such experiences where the soul leaves the body are only lack of oxygen to the brain is a bit simplistic. If you truly believe in the soul (like I do), then that is the “real” you, and you can see and hear and smell and touch and taste just like you can now, in a spiritual sense, of course.
I suppose I’m the religious one of the “Whackos” you mentioned so I should say I do love to read, but I’m so busy and rarely have time enough to read undisturbed — it’s sadly easier to zombie out and watch a documentary on the computer and/or do other stuff while watching the docs.
P.S. I wonder if Mr. Razor believes in life after death. It would be interesting to get his take on this now that I’ve been informed the note from WTC 7 above was not from him. LOL Do you believe in the human soul, Mr. Razor?
WTC7:
I think Charles B. has Razor on the Brain. (LOL)
:D :D
Charles B.
If I believe in anything, then it is definitely Reincarnation!
Yes, I believe in the Soul, we are all separate Entity’s.
We are multidimensional.
:D :D
Razor: You are an interesting person. I agree with the multidimensional part (I wonder if our concept is the same in that aspect), but I don’t believe in reincarnation, but rather one eternal soul; one chance; one life to live. Traditonal Christian belief I assume.
Charles B.
We are greater then the sum of our parts.
I believe in an eternal soul; but you get more than one chance.
You will be doing it over and over, until you get it right!
Does not matter, who, or what, you believe in, everybody goes to the same place!
:D :D
Charles B.
“Adam” had some good points that you never answered. If there was a great flood, how did Noah get animals from Antarctic, Australia, or the
Western Hemisphere that are native to those areas. Where I live, we have some big mean Grizzly Bears.
Did they have Prozac for animals in those days?
:D :D
To Charles B no one you have ever know has ever died because when you die you re dead and i dont mean clinically dead i mean dead and in saying thati m asking or challenging anyone at all to show me one bit of proof that god exists. Like i said science will make mistakes but we as a race will still grow religion says once you get to a certain point of thought just stop and follow what i tell you. As long as people believe in god and stop asking though tough questions they wont know true freedom.Finally i have peace i know a world most dont a world where logic gives me peace and i have peace also in knowing my thoughts are nt bound by someone else s rules. I want proof something anything that can be proven.
Adam and Mr. Razor: Ok, Mr. Razor I’ll try and answer some questions without being too long-winded just because you asked a 2nd time. ;-)
Adam seems more agitated than asking real questions he wanted an answer for. I don’t like to sound “preachy” so I was going to let it go. (Forgive me, Vladko if I get a bit lengthy! It’s must part of the exchange of ideas, and sometimes they get complicated). :-)
With Noah, at that time, I believe that the earth wasn’t yet separated into individual continents as it is now, but one large landmass. Science is pretty keen on talking about “continental drift” as taking who knows how long, probably “millions of years” as they love that “M” word a lot, but in Genesis 10:25 Eber named his son “Peleg” which means ‘division’ “for in his days the earth was divided”. Many scholars believe this is a reference to rapid continental distress (not just drift) where the continents were rapidly divided into pieces, so Monkeys from Africa and Parrots from South America were all actually just wildlife from that one large continent at that time Noah built the ark.
I even saw a film where they have postulated massive immediate continental shift by thousands of miles in just hours if not minutes. I’m trying to remember what video; it might even be on this website about lost civilizations. Anyway, the earth’s crust is floating on a bed of molten lava; as the snow and ice at one of the poles accumulate to massive levels, the whole crust of the earth can shift from the pressure, thus pushing the tropical lands to the polar regions and vice versa. This is supported by quick frozen animals with tropical plants in their stomachs and even mouths, and is a theory for where Atlantis went (from a tropic Island paradise, to where it is now under ice in Antarctica). But, really, if I believe God is all powerful, I have no doubt he could get what He wanted in the Ark to the Ark but the one continent theory is what my gut tells me is the correct one.
Why wasn’t this event of the continents splitting more formally mentioned in the Bible at length? Well, a lot of things are left out by chance, and a reference to a well-known act in public knowledge is all we get, like if I had mentioned 9-11, you would both know the story, but people may not know the story in 2,000 years and if all we had were passing references to 9-11, then people would be frustrated with our lack of records too.
As far as Noah’s character, He was human just like all of us now, but there is also the theory that why Noah was chosen not just because he was willing to follow God’s instructions to build the ark, but was of pure “Adam stock” and had no mingling of the bloodlines with fallen angelic beings. His race was still pure. Nonetheless, I don’t mind his flaws as many many Biblical characters fall, fail, and some never get back up: Abraham said his wife was his “sister” and so did his son, Moses, David, Solomon, John the Baptist in jail was a “doubter” and Peter was one who “denied Christ” when the chips were down. I’d hate to have that much scrutiny placed on my character either–could even drive me to drinking if I knew my family was the only one left on earth (yes, pun intended) :-)
Job is probably the oldest book of the Bible (before all the others, despite book order). His story is hard for even my sense of “justice” to comprehend. God seems a bit uncaring in the first part and a bit of a bully in the second part, but Job did remain faithful to God. I’ve written whole papers over Job; there aren’t any neat packages or answers for his story; we just have to let God be God there and trust in His ultimate justice.
I’m not very fond of the Catholic church either. Enough said.
Nonetheless, Adam, you lost me with the claims of the Jews admitting their stories from the Bible (Torah) are just that. I suppose you may be referring to the secular Jewish society now (very liberal) in that they hardly are religious at all. But, if you had a specific person, or thought in mind, I’m not sure who that was so I can’t really address those thoughts. There might be an answer to the “mistakes” you mentioned, but you might not always like my answers because they will inevitably be faith-based in nature, but I will try, if you really want me to.
I’m a bit reluctant to post a few weblinks that I know of, but I might. One is: http://www.arkdiscovery.com where a controversial archiologist talks about the discovery of the actual Noah’s ark. I believe him. He convinced me; I actually believe that God allowed him to find what he was looking (with not just the ark, but several things mentioned in the Bible) for because he was a true man of faith. They are there; people can go see them if they want to even today.
Vlatko, I know the documentaries on his sight are free, but I don’t know the details, they do hope to make money somehow also. I think they’re great docs at arkdiscovery.com and you might consider posting a link there also if you like the documentaries. I’m not very understanding about copy rights, etc.
The other website, (for Adam because he taked about “clincal” death as apposed to like really super dead) is a websight were there are testimonies of people that have died and gone to either Heaven or Hell (and several had been dead for days–in fact one was stinking and was leaking death fluid and was resurrected (not resussitated) 3 days after his death and moments before his cremation–I blieve that was the Buddhist monk). I can can think of at least three stories there of resurrections, not resussitations. Take it or leave it, but the website is: http://www.freecdtracts.com/heavenandhell.htm
If they are all liars, then God forgive them (the website is very pro-Christian obviously), but if they are not, then their stories cannot be so simply dismissed as “lack of oxygen to the brain” if you’ve been stone cold dead for 3 days. There are lots of them.
Thanks Vlatko for letting me answer a few of Razor’s and Adam’s questions here on your website. You have my graditude.
Humbly Yours,
Charles B.
I thought WTC7 was Razor’s alter ego.
MaBad ;)
Joe:
Tread lightly!
I think WTC7 is a very “nice” Woman!
:D
Charles B.
Thank you for your in depth synopsis.
But are you talking about the Bible, or Marvel Comics?
Just common sense, sudden shifting of Earths land masses in minutes
or hours, will completely destroy everything on Earth!
Tidal waves, Tsunamis, even when the Earth burps, it causes Tsunamis!
Sudden shifting will cause catastrophic Volcanoes, molten lava everywhere. And will change the composition of the atmosphere etc:
Might even alter Earths obit around the Sun, will definitely cause it major wobble!
It would probably change direction of the Poles.
Rein havoc on Earths Magnetic Field.
Talk about a doomsday scenario.
I am envisioning this with a laymans perspective.
I will look into this at length, especially the time periods involved for the Ark and shifting of the land masses.
:D
Charles B.
There probably was a flood for various reasons. Nothing to do with any Bible revelations.I have looked at everything pertaining to the Ark and Noah.
200 million years ago, the land masses where as one. At the time of Noah they are separate, not joined together to form one giant land mass.
The Ark myth is so contradicted there is no answer at all, even Religions are contradicting themselves.
My theory is, there is no theory! Just one big fanciful tale.
For anyone that is interested, I will include an Atheist site.
“Problems With The Bible”- http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/pwb.htm
:D
Mr. Razor:
I looked over your atheist website link for quite a long time and I wonder why the author is so vitrolic against God; I’m quite sure he feels God has dealt him a bad hand for some tragic reason or another; perhaps when his brother died of cancer. Most people do not have that much rancer without blaming God for some horrible thing that happened to them or a loved one.
I could answer many of his questions and claims of “false prophecies” even without study of the passages, but not all without some digging involved. One thing he drasticly misses is what we call “prophetic perspective” which means when a prophet sees one thing and then the next but leaves out the details in the middle. I can say, “I see a two mountains capped with snow” but fail to mention the city inbetween (or the time span between them) altogether; that’s called prophetic perspective. Many of the prophecies he claimed never happened are still in the furture. Isaiah especially does this. Things of the past and things yet to come are stung together in “prophetic perspective”–one might say, “A God’s eye view of the history of mankind.” When all is said and done, no true prophecy shall fail or remain unfulfilled.
He spent great time on claiming that Jesus was never called “Immanuel” in the New Testament, but that made me laugh because He is MY Immanuel now, and I’ve called Him by that many many times; is that not valid as He’s quite often called such now? Because it’s not mentioned in the New Testament per se, is it not true now? It’s all a matter of perspective. We even have songs about the name; it means “God with us.” It’s a “fulfilled” prophecy. :-)
On a lighter note: I heard that an atheist was writing a paper over his atheism and he wrote “God is nowhere!” at the top of his paper. His young son came up to his father, and being a child, didn’t understand what was written, but read the phrase as “God is now here!” I don’t know if that is a true story or not, but it demonstrates the point that one’s “perspective” is everything! :-)
I leave you with one last thought: The Bible says that He will be found me them that diligently seek Him; no such promise is given to the half-hearted and certainly not the scoffer.
Unless you have a specific question you sincerely would like to have a Christian perspective on, I’ll leave things as they are without any more on the subject.
Mr. Razor, many a diligent mind has asked about God from many sources, but not as many have actually ask God Himself for wisdom and understanding and to make Himself real to them; try it at least once (or once again) if for no other reason than I wish you would.
Charles Buffington
I also looked at that site. This quote got my attention:
One of the foremost problems with God’s omniscience, is that it is incompatible with man’s free will. If man has free will to make any choice he so desires, how could God know what choices man will make? The biggest problem with an omniscient God, is that an all knowing God would have foreknowledge of the destinies of every being in which he created, long before he created them. Now if God already knows which of those will go to Heaven and which of those will go to Hell, then God purposely creates people to send them to Hell. How can an all loving God; a God whose greatest desire is that every person accepts him and gets into Heaven for all eternity, create beings whom he already knows aren’t going to make the cut?
Vlatko: That was really well said, but I actually have a thought in response to that one.
God, by nature is the very essense of “omni” as in omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. However, we as people can make word-plays that don’t necessarily fit “God.” We can say that God is all powerful, but can He make a rock so big He cannot lift it? If so, then he’s limited in His power to lift the rock; if not, then He’s limited in His power to make it! Either way, we can say then that He’s not “omnipotent” by that definition.
After much thought, my understanding of God is this: He is indeed all-knowing, but He is the only being in the Universe that can choose to limit His own “knowledge”. For example, the Bible states that when we are forgiven, God casts our sins into a “sea of forgetfulness” (I think I have the phrase right) to be remembered against us no more. He limits His own knowledge by choice there.
Unless you believe like Calvin did that God does indeed create some people specifically to be damned, then somewhere there is a point where God allows His knowledge of individual choices to be limited. He is still “all-knowing” as He is God, but we cannot place on him OUR definition of the phrase. He has limited his own knowledge. To what extent, I’m not sure, but a good example is the story of Solomon. Solomon was rewarded as a youth for his prayer for wisdom to lead God’s people, and God promised him wealth, wisdom, AND long life IF he followed God faithfully his whole life long.
It didn’t happen. later in life he rebelled and fell away despite his wisdom, and his life ended abruptly (he didn’t have a long life). God spoke to him in a vision 3 times to repent but for whatever reason, he didn’t repent as far as we know. What an empty promise that would have been for God to give had Solomon had no choice in falling away after years of serving God faithfully as a youth. What kind of cruel God He would be to take a faithful youth and then twist him to become a king on the verge of madness.
Does God know who will and who will not serve Him to the last person? Maybe, but perhaps He has limited Himself in that knowledge too. It’s a massive debate that has very good scholars on both sides. I’m in the middle. I believe that all those that love and serve Him are “predestined” by their own choices to “life” and those that choose not to are “predestined” to spiritual death.
I accept the consequences of my personal choices while at the same time praying for God to guide my steps according to “His plan for my life.” I suppose in a way I’m trying to have my cake and eat it too, but it makes sense to me. I at least have the heart to believe that everyone that truly wants to know the truth and do rightly will have that opportunity. I pray.
When I don’t understand God’s ways fully, I trust His heart; His heart’s desire is that all men might be saved should they just believe. I’m willing to believe now and understand later. ;-)
You’ve said it right Charles B. “I’m willing to believe now and understand later.”
That is the main difference between believers and non-believers. The first group first believes and understands later and the second group first understands and than believes.
However I think all comes to the same point of believing in both groups. For example both groups receive knowledge but through different sources: The Religious Books and Science Books. However these two sources have no ultimate foundation whatsoever.
In religious books everything boils down to God, but there is no ultimate knowledge of who, where, why and when he was created. We must accept that he just IS.
It’s the same with science. For example we know much things about light. The spectrum, speed, characteristics and so on… but we don’t know who, where, why and when it was created. So we also must accept that light just IS.
In both cases there is not ultimate foundation for the knowledge that was built up through the centuries.
Therefore the division of believers and atheists is illogical mind product as every other mind division.
WOW!! what a huge amount of comments! reminds me alot of youtube! Vlatko, you should be proud :) Rightio, first things first, there is ALOT of speculation throughout this discussion, what irritated me most was Anothony P stating that gravity is the same all over Earth, when it is not. It is approx 9.8 ms.s and differs in altitude and distance from the poles.
Now onto Hawking, some time ago he released a brilliant book titled: “A brief history of time”. Most of the subject matter relevant to this documentary can be found in the book, and while the statement “If it were any different we would not exist” may sound a little silly, he emphasises further in the book by stating that the universe must be thought of this way for lack of any better explanation. Is there any better rational explanition to why things are the way they are? Hawking is a legend and as a person who studies physics I can tell you his accomplishments are no small feat. However in saying this I disagree with the notion that we are a mistake, a biological accident and our existense is insignificant.
Why? because existence is significant to me, And I KNOW how I feel as opposed to the judgement of an omnipotent. I prefer the belief that we create our own reality. And while I cannot proove this it is irrelevant because it brings my life a little more purpose. Thats why we are all here commenting, it is all simply subjective viewpoints of the outlets through which we can all define our own purpose. And if that makes you happy, than all the better. For the only conflicts/disagreements that exist are due to human intervention, these things do not exist within nature. The quiet mind is one that takes in all that is reality, without the filter of subjective thought or emotional viewpoint.
I advise that anybody who watched this doco take a look at what I consider to be the single greatest thoery of the universe, it is by a Physicist named Nassim Haramein, he is the only scientist to come up with the long elusive Grand Unification Theory. And might I add it is yet to be disproven. It shows the universe as a tetrhedral geometric infinate arrangement. All is one, all is interconnected. All his data is derived from all ancient cultures and yes even the bible, only he interprets it a little differently :) For instance, the book of genesis can be seen as adam and eve being the first humans spliced with alein DNA and there is alot of evidence to support all this, after all what do we know? we weren’t there! His website is http://www.theresonanceproject.com and his videos are on youtube with a rather huge following. Untill his theory is disproven I will ‘have faith’ :) because it gives my life a little more PURPOSE. Besides, we will all continue to exist forever, e=mc2, energy = mass, thus we are energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only transform between states. Peace :)
Achems Razor, our views are the same, if you have not seen Nassim Harameins work I highly reccomend it. His model takes into account the holographic nature of the universe and his website even hosts an experiment that was recently performed that prooves it :) By the way, I am intrigued by your user name, I appreciate the term ‘Occams Razor’ as it is a means of cutting away irrelevant data which is a great philosophy to have. Is your user name based on this term?
shoalinagent:
Greetings!
Yes, it seems that our views are the same. I will look at Nassim Haramein,s site with pleasure.
I like the idea “that all things being equal, often the simplest solution is the right one” Is why I chose Achems Razor, I could of used Occems Razor, Occam,s Razor, or Ockhams Razor which all mean the same thing.
I agree, that we create our own Reality, as a matter of fact, collectively we create everything that we see!
Regards: :D
Shoalinagent: What is this “alien DNA splicing” theory for Adam and Eve in a nutshell? Wouldn’t this just push the theory of evolution and all the problems associated with it into outer space rather than Earth?
Nassim Haramein – very interesting. Nice info! Thanks
:)
Charles B.
I could not find anything, about “Alien DNA splicing” theory for
Adam and Eve, on Nassim Haramein site.
So I Google’d it. Lot of weird stuff, but I found an in depth site
on “Panspermia’.
What? Evolution is becoming accepted by the Catholic Church!
COSMIC ANCESTRY: The modern version of panspermia by Brig Klyce
http://www.panspermia.org/
:D
I believe in both creation and science. Is there a God? I don’t know, maybe. Is the universe itself God or a universal mind? Perhaps. Just one point for those who think it is absurd that the universe could come from nothing; if God created the universe (which may be true) then where did God come from? This is equally absurd/non-absurd depending on your perspective. Nevertheless, whether God created the universe or not, the problem still remains… how did the universe come into being, and if it was God, then we are just one more step away from the same question, how did God come into being?
Realize that God is not answer, rather, he/she just leads to more questions. Please use your “evolved” capacity for reason.
Salim,
Spot-on! :-)
I just saw this doc, and it was interesting. As far as all this talk about religion and science I would just add that both are trying to explain the so far unexplainable. The big bang (as was stated in an earlier post) is just that a theory. Science, especially physics, always states things as theory because science knows it does not know everything. Religion does not state things as theory, well because it is dogma (belief in things you can not prove). Comparing the two is like trying to mix water and oil, don’t try it you just end up with a big mess. As for the posting of websites, for every position any one has I can post a site that refutes that. it proves only what you agree with. The documentary was good for what it was trying to state; the big bang.
christians are awesome everything in the bible is true everyone thats not a christian is going to the devils home (not going to say that word) you wanna know what happens to people who aren’t christians read the book of Revelation in the bible everything in the book of Revelation is going to happen and it will happen soon so evertbody in the world needs to repent (ask Jesus in thier hearts) and be bapitised. The Lord God Jehovah is the greatest God in the world every other god is a false belief. and if you ask Jesus in your heart you will live forever in a perfect world called heaven. So you guys need to think about that.
“He spins through the history of thought on the subject, beginning with the early Biblical view that the world was created by God around 6,000 years ago. And that wasn’t the only cockamamie theory dreamed up in the succeeding millennia.”
‘COCKAMAMIE’..seems bias in itself to suggest such a statement. NOBODY can say the universe is a few thousand years old- and nobody can say it’s billions… Between zealots from both sides- there is no proof for fact. Any answer even a grade school kid can have are as sound as any crazy thing Hawkins can come up with or from you ****** that love to pose the evo/creation debate and sling mud claiming you are smarter and have all the answers…
FACT: Nobody knows the age of the universe- time and light can be slowed/sped up now by us “evolved” humans in a lab. Who is to say gravity throughout the universe is not or is doing the same thing( Prove that wrong). The question should be can we trust liberal one sided thinking from “educated” professors who live off the backs and government grants to keep money in their pockets and pull free willed thinking people away from God? Who are you?
Where in the bible does it say the world is 6,000 years old? Does anyone here know where that fact came from? You will be very surprised at the answers. This doc was about the big bang, so what were you expecting it to say?
Harry R:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Universe or the World is 6000 years old.
I suspect it the creationist’s them selves that gave a time date.
Do you know where that fact came from? Surprise me!
In response to “Obviously smarter than you”,
Let me first state I am agnostic. I haven’t a clue as to what you are trying to say. Please be more clear. Furthermore, you commit two fallacies in your arguments. First you use an adaptation of the “every school boy must know” fallacy. Second, you use the appeal to ignorance when you ask us to prove something your saying is not true. Whatever ts is you are trying to say, your not presenting it strongly.
My advice to you is consider taking a critical thinking class or read a book on the subject. You’ll form much better arguments and probably realize that some of your beliefs might need revising too. Good luck.
Whoops, ambiguous. You use an appeal to ignorance when you ask us to prove not true, some claim you make about gravity. Just because someone can’t prove it not true, doesn’t make it probable. What if I said, “prove to me turtles can’t fly”! It doesn’t follow that it’s likely that they can. Is this more clear? Sorry for not making it more understandable.
Hello all, Christians, atheists alike. Interesting thread that seems to step on quite a few toes on both sides. Not to stir up the pot, but I have yet to see these two topics addressed.
To the atheists who say there is no God, I would like to hear some ‘educated’ comment on the cosmological argument, hopefully something more evolved than the Kalam Argument, but offer up whatever is your understanding (please google ‘cosmological argument if you are unfamiliar). It makes little sense to for a nonbeliever to address matters of faith, but the cosmological argument uses the same logic as science. BTW: For those who will say that Quantum Theory disproves this argument, please address the origin for the Quantum Field because as long as it can be asked, “and what came before that?” you still have not faced up the impossibility of both infinite regress and actual infinities within the material universe. Thoughtful comments welcomed but remember that, while everyone is entitled to their opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts.
For the believer’s side, especially those who insist that the earth is only 6k years old, or that man and apes (as well as all other life on this planet) are not related, or hold to a religious traditional interpretation of the Bible, I would simply state that you cannot really know “how” God made man or the universe. The traditions of thousands of years shroud the meaning of many verses and so you must shed tradition if you seek the truth. For example, do you celebrate Christmas? This day is steeped in pagan meaning and origin (google it), yet religion holds it up as a top celebration in the church. Look up Jer. 10:1-5 for the origin of the Christmas tree. I hold up this one example only to show that you cannot trust tradition or the traditional interpretations, or use them as a basis of your argument or you hold yourself up for ridicule.
To Christians: It is pretty obvious that man shares DNA with the apes as well as the other species we share our planet with. If we didn’t, we could not eat them as food. They would be poison otherwise. So, learn to say, “I don’t know” and move on. Admit that we have a DNA relationship with apes. We don’t know what it may be, but it is there. Don’t fight and twist the facts.
To nonbelievers: All levels of the universe reveal hidden complexity that defies mere chance, some by orders of magnitude. And when chance is eliminated, the only thing left is “not chance.” Admit that the arithmetic is against chance, and that, not only may chance may not be the origin of all things, it is highly unlikely to be the origin. BTW, the concept of the multiverse still begs the question. Only the truly narrow, close-minded, or angry are true atheists. In the very least, they should be agnostics.
Hello, Chris:
You come across, as though you might have the theory of everything, down pat.
I sure would like to hear what “you” have to say, you seem very voiced in Creationism, Evolution, Chaos Theory, Theoretical Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Biology, Supernaturalism, Humanism, Paganism. Did I miss any? How about Esoteric? and New Age? that may apply.
Awaiting your reply.
Hello,
Not sure I see a question here.
Chris:
My question is, will you tell us, how do you think the Universe Began? to the commentors on this thread?
To be quick and to the point, I see only two options for the beginning of the universe:
1. No one god and all things are eternal and everything has happened by chance.
2. No “nothing” (pun intended) but there is an eternal god who made it all from “nothing” either by the Big Bang or in some other way not specifically known. The Bible is not entirely clear “how” but it seems he spoke everything into existence. Perhaps combintaitons of the two are possible aslo.
Chris: I too would like to know the answer to Achems Razor’s question as well. Please be concise.
To Achem Razor. I don’t think I introduced any new or unknown concepts to this group. Certainly nothing outside of your own expertise, apparently. How about using some of that expertise to address my post?
To Kelly, regarding the your two options for the beginning of the universe;
Considering the current understanding of the body of information now known about how the universe is put together, chance is no longer a reasonable option, not least because of the fine-tuning of the parameters of our universe. Check out the work of Sir Martin John Rees (among others), an English cosmologist, astrophysicist, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge and Astronomer Royal for more details but let’s just take one of these parameters as an example. In order for the universe to be flat (as currently determined) mass/energy must be the critical density, which is one part in 10 to the 120th power. This level of fine-tuning far exceeds the boundaries of chance because there is no reason in physics that requires it. This is just one example but that alone eliminates your first option of chance.
Logically, I suppose that leaves your second option. Usually, this is where people start to get up in arms. In my first post, I said that I would like to hear some discussion regarding the cosmological argument because it creates a forum where your second option can be examined without getting religious.
I posted here because I wanted to hear some responses about my post. I’m really interested in logical, reasonable, educated discourse rather than off-the-cuff comments and points of view that are merely traditional, or unreasonable/illogical, or angry, or poorly thought out.
I’m not interested in being pigeon-holed. I have no agenda. But, since you asked and were polite about it, I think it is pretty obvious that I don’t believe or see how the universe could come into being by chance. If chance is eliminated, you’re left with “purpose,” which can only mean a personification. The rest is just the details on how it happened.
Thanks
Oh, to answer an above question regarding where the idea of a 6000 year age of the earth originated; In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published a chronology dating the creation to the night preceding October 23 4004 BC. This chronology was based upon the genealogies listed in the Old Testament. He was not the first to have done this but was the most well-known. Actually, the Bible does not give an age to the earth and it’s pretty apparent that it is very old.
Chris: I think most of us post “off the cuff” here. Mr. Razor does some research, as I have too, but I get a bit lost if it’s too technical (sometimes).
I have two kids and work full time, etc. It would be nice if you could summarize your Cosmological argument for me. How can we talk about Kelly’s option #2 without being religious. Sounds either silly or really esoteric (ya like my big word)? :-)
Got to go, one kid’s cryin’ and the other is bankin’ her head on the patio window–hard! (No, she’s not autisitc! Just wants mama. But I decieded not to get her last MMR after watching a doc on that on this website).
Chris:
Actually, I am not interested in being pigeon-holed either.
You set yourself up as someone who might have more answers than anybody on this forum.
So how about using your expertize to address my previous question? I know Charles is very interested, as I am.
And like Kelly says, be concise!
To Razar: “You set yourself up as someone who might have more answers than anybody on this forum.”
It’s clear to anyone looking through your posts that you are guilty of what you are accusing me. I did not set myself up as anything. I made no claims for my qualifications or myself. I stated information readily available to anyone. Still, you answer my question/post with more questions/demands.
To Charles, et al: I really didn’t want to get into the details of introducing the cosmological argument to a new audience because it is too easy to dismiss an argument that is poorly or quickly presented. That’s why I suggested that anyone not familiar with the cosmological argument could conduct their own research and answer their own basic questions from sources more detailed than I will present here. That is the course I still recommend. That way, our discussion would have more meaningful substance.
The cosmological argument attempts to prove the existence of God using logical means rather than faith. It was explored in classical times by Plato and Aristotle and has been developed and propounded by philosophers down through the ages such as Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas and others.
Here. I lifted this from Wikipedia:
The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.
Simplified but it presents the main argument. The only item I would add would be that eliminating “chance” from consideration as the origin of the universe (see my earlier post), the only thing remaining is “non-chance” or “purpose,” which is a personification of the First Cause. In other words, God.
Chris:
Thank you for replying, I also never set myself up as anything. I have never made any claims as such. Any info. I have presented is also available to anyone that wants to look.
I clearly stated in other posts, I am strictly a layman looking for answers to the great mysteries of life, why are we here, etc:
Where have I made any demands on you, I asked you, will you tell us how you think the Universe began? to the commenters on this forum.
And the reason I asked you, it seemed to me, you knew what you where talking about.
You started this Chris, not me. Now you have other people interested in what you have to say.
Using the cosmological argument to prove god requires suspension of chance (no matter HOW small) and throwing in some deductive reasoning which itself is self-destructive. This is laughable at best. If god is the creator, who created god. The probability of god existing without a creator is far smaller then the mathematical probability which is overlooked by the cosmological argument. Thus, the argument cycles into itself; ultimately answering nothing.
The big bang theory implodes mathematically as the time line reverses to the very “start”. Perhaps this implies a terrifying reality, that there is no beginning and no god. All actions have opposite and equal reactions; all interactions equivocate to zero by physical law. Perhaps our universe is the positive, equal to a negative anti-universe which balances to nothing. Everything is therefore nothing, abolishing the mortal codes of life, death, sin etc. Absolute void is therefore ultimate perfection; God.
O. Von Thomas:
Your thread is similar to what I wrote about Null Physics.
It is on this forum. Sept. 28th. 2009 at 05:21
O Von Thomas: Sounds like a lot of double talk to me. Enjoy your eteranl perfect “void” if you believe such is God.
Chris: Thank you for the summary. Ironically I thought of the “uncaused cause” argument yesterday walking back from work. That takes me back to college, at least if not highschool. I can’t remember if that was Aristotle or Socrates, however.
Most non-believers nowadays I don’t think would be interested in the cosmoligial argument, so why not just talk about God outrightly?
I think it ultimately comes down to a time of “revelation” on a personal level at a time of God’s choosing. I’ve refrained some from giving some of my best theories (albeit good ones that are mostly Biblical in essense).
What I can’t shake is the “spiritual” nature we have. My very close friend died this week in Oregon, USA, from ALS and I watched in service on-line yesterday night.
The pastor that was with him (Hank Greene) at the time of death (whom I’ve known for 20+ years) said at the time of death he saw a radiant light fill the room, and then Jesus Himself walked into the room through the window from the lawn outside and he had a small woman with him (Glenn’s mother). Glenn’s father is still living. He saw Glenn leave his body, say nothing more than “Bye” and the three left together. He said he was “wallpaper” and in 40 years of pastoring had seen nothing like that. I can’t wait to get back to the U.S.A. next year to ask him directly eye-to-eye if he saw this only “in his mind’s eye” as a vision, or with his natural eyes like we would see eachother every day. It sounded like the second in the video I watched yesterday.
With such cases, you either say they are lying, overly imaginative, or it really happened as they say. But I’ve know this pastor for 20 years, and I’m inclinded to believe him when he tells a story. I would love to see an angel or Jesus first hand, but such has yet to happen, but I trust those that I trust when they say they have.
Such experiences are totally negated by atheists, and if you’re only limited to the “logical” arguments, I just don’t see it working, no matter how longical it may be to you and I.
Nonetheless, best of luck, Chris, and God Bless. I’m still greiving, and I have no more heart to contemplate that which I conclude is essentially a “faith” of the heart issue rather than a “logic” of the mind issue.
Charles B.
Charles B:
I am sorry to hear about your close friend.
Please accept my condolences.
Thank you, Mr. Razor. He was my closest friend from my hometown and I thought that he would be ok (I was sure God would heal him), but he didn’t even make it to Christmas. He declined so fast from when I saw him last in February. It’s times like this when the question “Why?” just doesn’t have answers. It keeps my heart humble.
MR. B’S THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
Wow! The comments on this tread are too extensive to read everyone, but I do have Mr. B’s “Theory of Everything” to add if I can steal Dr. Hawking’s phraseology.
Mr. Razor: You said “There is nothing in the Bible that gives a specific time date. The ones that do believe the universe is 6,000 to 20,000 years old should revamp their thinking and figure out a new senario that makes sense!”
You’re correct. The timeline is based on geneologies only which has a couple of potential flaws such as are they complete and did they start at the time of creation?
I’ve actually have been simmering a concept that my dad told me that the earth is actually quite old, but the time of Adam and Eve is not. I haven’t found any website that holds this view but there might be one out there. Dad got his information from his annotated Bible, so it was not his own origianl thought.
Nonetheless, this is mostly my own thoughts on the matter as I don’t have any commentaries or websites to refer to.
GOD IS ETERNAL
Vlatko asked earlier where did God come from if he made the universe. No one truthfully knows. He just was, and is, and is to come; eternal. Is He a person? Yes, as I understand it, and not “all that is”. God is not His own creation, in otherwords.
But, as an eternal Being, there is no hurry. Time is basicly meaningless. If the universe if 14 billion years old from the time of the Big Bang and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, (provided those are correct mathmatical equations), then we have a conflict with the understanding of many Creationists that believe in a young years, correct?
AN OLD EARTH IS A FACT
My dad said that the earth’s age is actually unknown for we do not know how long the Earth existed before the time of the Adam and Eve era which was only about 6 to 20 thousand years ago. Before Adam and Eve were created, the Earth was made, and over Earth Proper, Lucifer was in charge of at least a portion of it. Notice I said “Lucifer” and not Satan. Satan is a term we now use of the fallen Lucifer, who was a high-ranking angelic being before his still-continuing rebellion.
The fall of Lucifer occured before the time of Adam and Eve as is obvious by the story of the temptation in the Garden of Eden.
My dad says that the Earth was destroyed or “laid waste” during the rebellion of Satan and destroyed by flood. Between the verses of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 much history transpired, and that is why the earth was “void” and covered by water. This is not Noah’s flood, which was much later.
The Garden of Eden and the time of Adam and Eve was actually a remodeling of the Earth and perhaps even parts of the universe as well. Darkness and destruction was the result of the rebellion of Satan in unknown ages past.
Before that time, the Earth was also perfect with various forms of life which perrished in the judgement of Satan and that which he was governing at the time. What animals lived then, we don’t know. Where there pre-Adimite people? My dad thinks so, but I’n not convinced of that. Perhaps. Vlatko made a good point of why there aren’t many more fossils than we have, so all or most traces of them would be gone none anyway. My dad says that is where “demons” came from, but I’ve always thought them to be just fallen angels like Satan himself. That’s just a side note.
QUICK Q AND A’S
1. Is there a God?
Yes. He’s eternal to the best of our understanding. He is the original creater of the universe(s) as we know it. He is not an alien from another planet or time; He is God.
2. How old is the universe we live in?
It could be 14 billion years old from the time of it’s creation based upon my understanding of things.
3. Is the Big Bang possible?
Maybe. Maybe even probably. We aren’t entirely sure how God created the original universe or how long it took. When You’re eternal, what’s the hurry? He could have been “baking the cake” so-to-speak for countless of billions of years if he chose to. Who are we to say?
4. Is eveolution the mode God used to create life?
No way! God may have taken billions of years in preparation of the universe for life, but life is created perfectly at the time of His choosing without before or after forms. As man was created in one moment’s time perfect in all his form and ways, so also all life is perfect at the time of its creation also.
5. Is there life in outer space?
No. Maybe, but I don’t think so. I think the universe was created for us to know and understand in coutless endless eteranl ages to come; it’s not a waste to be void of life now as it will not always be that way. Remember, forever is forever; more than enough time to enjoy and understand it all forever and ever in time.
6. Was there life before the time of Adam and Eve?
I think so, but I have only the slimest of Biblical proof of that, and mostly logic to say, “I think probably so.”
7. Were Dinosaurs part of the origional earth under Lucifer’s governorship?
Probably. If so, then they were destroyed at the time of judgement by flood and perhaps other forms of judgment too.
8. Is Noah’s flood the same as the Lucifarian flood?
No. They are two separate earth destroying events. I think all life was destroyed under the Lucifarian judgement, but some life was preserved in Noah’s flood. Life didn’t start from a clean slate as it did with Adam and Eve’s renewal “creation”.
9. Might the fossils we have come from the original Earth before the time of Adam and Eve?
I think it’s very possible.
10. Why does there seem to be mass extinctions at more than one point in the ancient past?
I don’t know. I haven’t got that one totally figured into my understanding of things yet.
11. Why do animals come and go in the fossile record without transition forms?
God creates perfection. There are not before and after forms to be found. Why they come and go in different layers of rock is unknown to me. I may postulate that before the time of Adam and Eve God created at His pleasure and His own timing those things which He wanted to create at the time. However, it is my understanding that from the time of Adam and Eve no new spontanious “creations” of life by God has been added.
12. Are extinct spiecies gone forever?
Yes. They are. Unless in the future God “re-creates” the same ones of the past, like the dodo bird, for example. There is to be a New Heavens and a New Earth mentioned in the Book of Revelation and many animals of changed natures and characters are mentioned such as harmless lions and asps.
13. The universe is dying. Vlatko and others have pointed out that we are all headed for extinction as our solar system supernovas or dies as others have done before. Is this true?
Yes. It’s true. With out God’s intervention, we’re all toast! The Bible mentions that the heavens and the earth will grow old like a garment and be cast aside, but God, who is eternal has it all figured out. No need to worry.
14. Are we eteranl beings too?
Yes, we are. We’re just eternal as God, but we are not of equal level with God. Our soul’s eteranl destiny depends on our choice of whom we will follow now, during the time of the “rebellion” of Lucifer which is still very much on-going. The evil to Hell and the good to Heaven to make things simple. It’s our choice, but it must be decieded before our physical deaths. I don’t believe in reincarnation, nor do I believe it can be proven Biblically.
15. So do you have life all figured out?
No even close! But, I do seek to know and understand be true to myself. I don’t give out bolagna that I know certainly not to be so. These are 90% my own thoughts, but surely some really smart Biblical Scholar elsewhere has written about them. If not, then perhaps someday I will.
16. Who do you explain U.F.O’s sigtings?
I haven’t a clue, but perhaps they are demonic or angelic in nature. Many are hoaxes for sure, some are explainable by other means, some are exagerations, but a few surely must be credible one would think. Let’s wait and see.
17. Lastly, who is Jesus?
Jesus always has been and always will be, the way, the truth and the life; no person can come to God except through Him.
Brief as I can be;
I will restate my bias, I am agnostic.
First 2 points to Charles B.
1) You spoke of a vision a pastor you know had. “With such cases, you either say they are lying, overly imaginative, or it really happened as they say.”
You left out that the mind can play significant tricks with regards to perception. Because you left this out your following conclusion made sense but now including this you can account for the pastors honesty and sincerity while also doubting the experience.
2) Your last post disregards all the evidence we have gathered over the last several hundred years. Theories must fit observation. Respectfully I will say no more on this topic.
To Chris,
Appreciate your input. One thing I would like to note. You say that the likelihood of fine tuning being due to chance is astronomically low thus it must be due to purpose. Multiverse theory takes care of this however. It is that very fine tuning that comes about is an exceedingly rare universe that give rise to us. We would only come to exist in this rare type of universe. We haven’t and can’t experienced the multitude of other universes that don’t have the properties that lead to such life forms. It would always seem to any species living in a fine tuned universe that it’s improbable they exist until one realizes that every time such an improbable finely tuned universe arises, so to do species that have the capacity to think how unlikely this is. This is a mix of chance and determinism, not purpose.
Good post, Mr. B. The time before adam is known as the pre-adamic age. Your dad is correct in that it was the time of Lucifer’s ruling on the earth. I have more but this is not the correct forum.
The cosmological argument is appropriate to present to nonbelievers because it uses a formal logic that they can understand. God says “Come, let us reason together.” And also “All of creation declares Jehovah.” It’s “faith” that they don’t have and don’t understand.
To O. Von Thomas
Your words: “Using the cosmological argument to prove god requires suspension of chance (no matter HOW small) and throwing in some deductive reasoning which itself is self-destructive. This is laughable at best. If god is the creator, who created god. The probability of god existing without a creator is far smaller then the mathematical probability which is overlooked by the cosmological argument. Thus, the argument cycles into itself; ultimately answering nothing.”
Pardon me, but your response tells me that you do not understand the cosmological argument. Think about it for a bit. Even cosmologists are having a hard time with the idea of chance. Right now, the entire cosmological community is in a bit of an uproar over the old idea that the parameters of the universe are as they are due to random chance. Remember the multiverse? That idea came about because of the chance problem. Good grief, READ A BOOK. I am not pulling this out of thin air. The mathematics is completely against it.
Let’s look at this comment: “The probability of god existing without a creator is far smaller then the mathematical probability which is overlooked by the cosmological argument.”
Not only does this show that you do not know the cosmological argument, it makes no logical sense. The definition of God is that He IS the creator. The cosmological argument does not claim to provide direct proof of God. It simply eliminates all other options, including chance.
So, there are two sides that both reject chance. The scientific community admits that chance is a mathematically unreasonable solution. Philosophy (i.e: the cosmological argument) shows that chance is illogical. I’m not asking anyone to fall down on their knees or to adopt any particular religion or God concept. But, if you are honest, you have to admit the facts, and be open to the idea that the universe had a beginning, that it did not bring itself into being, and that the parameters of the universe (which are not required by any physical law) are fine-tuned to a degree that mathematically eliminates chance as a logical scientific option.
If anyone has new and different facts and observations supporting a new scientific theory of the universe, please share it with us as well as the scientific community at large. I’m sure they would be most open to it.
To Salim: Raymond Chow, physics professor at UC Berkeley, said that the multiverse concept was born out of desperation. Simply, the multiverse only pushes the problem of infinite regress and absolute infinities back one step. As long as you can ask, “and where did the multiverse come from?” you will have this problem. Infinite regress and absolute infinities CANNOT exist, in this universe or in any others. They are a mathematical impossibility. The concept of the multiverse invokes both.
Also, the concept of the fine-tuning of the universe not favoring chance is not my idea. The cosmological community says it.
Looking forward to your reply but it may be awhile before I can post. I have grandchildren to visit.
Chris:
I agree.
Nothing is the product of chance. There is cause and effect for all we see and do. Nor is it so called fate. It is probabilities. We may choose to do some thing, say different from the norm. or something may happen seemingly by chance, no matter how minor, that would sometimes completely change our future endeavors, that is a probable action or cause.
The same goes for our Universe, which is in a sea of probabilities, a gestalt of pure energy from which it sprung.
The Universe as we see it, are a series of events as they intrude on our 3-dimension reality. The events are mental.
We envision everything with our physical 5-senses. But you cannot trust the physical senses to give you a true picture of the greater reality. They are wonderful liars. Sometimes we are far more creative and knowledgeable When we are dreaming than when we are awake. We project our thoughts outward into physical form. We each create our own realities, and en-mass create our big picture.
Nothing exists that is not conscious of its own kind.
We are eternal conscious multidimensional units of energy in a gestalt of aware energy.
There are no Gods, there is just us, co-existing in our illusion of time and space. And in the illusion of our Universe.
Hmmm. So… you have gone from atheism to you, yourself being God. Never have I so disagreed with someone who said that they agreed with me. I hardly know what to reply.
If our perceived reality is only a shared illusion of our own creation, what does disease, death, starvation, war, hatred, bigotry, indifference to the suffering of others, lust and the porn industry, gluttony, murder, robbery, assault, etc say about us? Why would we coordinate our great creative powers to create such a world?
Also, if the observed reality is only a shared illusion, how would you explain the observed universe. Is the structure of the quantum world a product of our minds? How would it even be imagined? Why have the complexity of all levels of the universe? Why have physical laws at all? Most of the scientific community, including Einstein, imagined an unchanging universe until facts from the depth of space revealed a universe that evolved in time. If your idea that our reality is of our own creation is true, then there would not be unexpected surprises like that one. Our world would be what we imagined it to be — flat.
No, my friend, that is poppycock and self-serving nonsense. It’s amazing to me the lengths some will go in order to avoid the very idea of God. I don’t know what New Age book you read to come to these conclusions but you wasted your $2.95.
Your ideas that we are the gods that create the world in our minds is not new. It was common during the 60′s to hear this and other imagined tales. Many of them had drifted in from Eastern teachings. The flip side of this idea is that God creates the illusion of the universe in our minds. We, as humans, perceive the universe through our senses, which are only realized in our brains and comprehended in our minds. Therefore, God simply projects our reality into our minds and we perceive it to be the material world.
Again, the problem with this concept is the complexity of the universe. Why have the complexity of hidden worlds like the atom, which we can not see and only have recently begun to comprehend?
No. The function of logic is that we would, with clear thinking, understand ourselves and the things around us. And there is no logic and no fact that reveals anything but that we live in a material and physical universe.
To some, the very concept of God is anathema.
Chris :
I never said I was God. So do not put words in my mouth! I said there is no Gods. There is just us. Re: Human Race.
Our perceived reality, our consciousness is still evolving. We are only according to time scale, one step above the stone age. A class “0″ civilization, that has a long way to go even to a class “1″ civilization.
We are all still in a process of becoming. Our observed Universe, is observed collectively, as is everything else. It is a mind construct. Which makes it real enough, but it is still illusion. The only thing that is tangible is our now. Not past or future. We do not live in the past or future. We live strictly in the “Now”
I am not going to any major lengths to not believe in God. So do not try and lay any guilt trips on me with your anathema garbage. It is my prerogative not to believe. If it is your belief, that is fine. I have no problem with that.
We live in a physical, material and logical World with our physical senses.
But is that all you think there is? Only what your physical senses tell you? Everything to you is material, physical and logical?
Well, I tell you there is more than meets the eye!
You will probably disagree again with what I say. Personally I do not care!
Chris: I understand your cosmological argument. I also feel that mathmatically everything that is now existing could not have been only by chance. Now what?
Achems Razor: I haven’t completely bought into the whole quantum machanics theory as of this date, but there is some truth to the fact that how we view the world helps shape our own world, but there are limits there. what do you mean that time is an illusion? Keep it simple for me.
Charles B. or Chris: What Biblical evidence do you two have for the rebellion of Lucifer other than his presence in the Garden of Eden as an “evil” force? No overly zealous Bible pounding, please.
Salim: Thank you for adding the 4th option to Charles B.’s post, but the question now is, how can you tell which one is correct? Or can you?
Anyone: What is time? Is it circular or in a line? Is prophecy quantum machanics in action en mass, or messages from the one god? There are examples of both Christian and non-Christian prophecy.
350 words or less, please. Professor Hawkings’ “A Brief History of Time” was nothing of the such!
I might not be around for a while or always comment, but I will read what is posted.
KK
To Kelly: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit.
Then, those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying, “Is this he who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?” Isaiah 14:12-17
Chris: I had read that before, but I hadn’t even thought of that Scripture. It does say the world was made a “wilderness” doesn’t it? But I always believed it was God’s judgement that did so. But in this case even if it was God’s judgement, we can really “blame the devil”. When I get my commentary back this January, I want to study this more myself. Also, I’ve found Mr. Razor to be mostly very accomidating, but you have to be softer in your wording a bit. He is a “hard sell” just like most of us! :-)
Kelly K: I don’t know about time. I think it’s a line. But Mr. Razor has some novel ideas.
Salim: I suppose a fourth option is possible where we think we saw what we saw, but it brings no comfort to my heart to consider that option in this particular case. :-(
I’m about to have dinner. I’ll check back later. I would like to see what Mr. Razor has to comment if he has time.
Religion was created by man in an attempt to fill in the gaps in human knowledge,the majority of these gaps no longer exist and have been replaced by explanations based on observations.These observations are open to all of society to independently research and confirm.The whole point of science is that it is a search for truth,and it is constantly updated as our knowledge and understanding of our amazing universe expands. This knowledge is gained from the labours of people who have dedicated their lives to this search for truth using hard work.The contemporary understanding of the universe tends to be argued against by each generation of creationists and others with religious faith,until the next generation of scientists have then explained their thinking and ideas with scientific observations(read a history book) Imagine what we will know in 200 years!!. Unfortunately most religious people tend to ignore the glaring fact that history shows us that today’s religion is tomorrows folklore and mythology (again,read a history book). People of religious faith argue for something that they want,and have a deep need to be true.Scientists just make observations and state the results of these observations.All religious doctrines and scriptures have proved to be incredibly incorrect about where we came from,so to believe these same teachings on the future,or workings of our universe really is a sign of self delusion(read any religious scripture). There is only one reality that we all share,people do not get to pick and choose what reality they believe to be true. We all live in the same beautiful and magnificent universe, and therefore we all share the same observations,regardless of these observations matching what you would like to be true.
ps: if anybody feels a need to contradict anything i have just stated then please do so with information and facts that can be verified by consistent observations, as opposed to links to websites of people speaking about their creationist opinions and not observations shared by all of mankind.
I think it is funny the way some religious people try to sneak in the back door and try to trick you. Re: Chris.
That is why he went all haywire. when he thought I was new age! to them that is their Devil stuff.
And then there is Charles who is forthright, who I do not mind conversing with. “Ha” Hard Sell?? That’s funny!
Kelly:
Yes I will try to fill you in on stuff I have learned over many years.
again I make no claims, I am not religious, and I am a layman.
I guess you can class Einstein as new age. He had deduced that time and space are illusions. Google “Theory Of Relativity”
It is best if you find a few things out for yourself for now.
Google-”Julian Barbour” a theoretical physicist, on his book “The End Of Time”
Google-”reality is an illusion youtube”.
Right here on TDF watch-”Parallel Universes”
You may also want to watch here on TDF “What The Bleep Do We Know”
If you have any questions, let me know.
Regards. :D
Kelly K: And Charles B:
Instead of writing about time. I will instead direct you to 60 short videos on youtube, about time and quantum. This will save me a lot of time, and be more beneficial to you.
Google-”YouTube-is time an illusion Pt. 1″
Razor: Ok. Thanks for the links. When I have the “time”! Ha. I’m funny tonight. :-)
On second thought, “time” doesn’t really bother me that much, but I would like to think about UFO’s a bit more thoroughly (I’m just typing to myself, not really asking for any help there).
Patsy: You sound utterly boring to me. Taking the time to converse with you at any length would most likely “yawn me into submission” wheather or not I agreed with a word you typed. And I read plenty, thanks.
Charles B : Don’t worry, I don’t normally tend to discuss such important issues with people who simmer on concepts that they learned from their Father’s annotated bible, or ponder such questions as “Were Dinosaurs part of the origional earth under Lucifer’s governorship?”.
ps: good luck with the reading.
P.S.
Chris: How was your trip to see the grandkids? Anyway, you just have to be patient with the atheists. Slow and steady wins the day.
Patsy: Thanks! I’m looking forward to my vacation so I can catch up on my studies in-depth in the annotated Bible my mom and dad gave me for my 21st birthday (I left it back home as I was overloaded at the airport and had to take it out–it has to be at least 6 pounds!). I’ll get back to you in March sometime, maybe.
Achems Razor: Thank you for your time and effort. I suspect I won’t have any further questions after looking up your links, but I will let you know if I do. Once again, thank you.
KK
Chris: I almost forgot to say “thank you” to you also. My mind is on other things.
KK
@Chris
Firstly thanks for introducing the cosmological argument. I hadn’t responded previously as many of the points I would otherwise have made were already being discussed and also because I wanted to make my own research.
The cosmological argument is in essence no different from the logic that faith driven people use throughout any discussion involving “God.” It is just a fancy synonym for “First Cause.” Basically as always the big answer is “God did it.” In other words it is nothing more that a pseudo scientific attempt for proving intelligent design.
As a child I quickly dismissed the religious dogmatic writings as silly. However for quite some time after I did not dismiss the possibility of a God or “his” having created what we call the universe. After all I thought – who is to say he didn’t set off what we term as “the big bang” and he coded in the eventualities such as evolution, one eventuality being that billions of years later humankind would come into being (doesn’t sound such an efficient way of going about creating his servants if you ask me).
However my rational rejection of theism came later when I asked other questions such as “why?” I also gained a greater understanding of reality. So at first glance your well presented arguments above reminded me of this period in my life and intrigued me.
I wont put here published scientific arguments against the CO, I imagine you can easily find them yourself and have chosen to dismiss them. And they are many. Other posters may also wish to examine them too. You claim that CO presents a scientific logic that non believers find easier to understand. Well there is nothing scientific about it and what logic it has is deeply flawed. I ask you to watch a short presentation against the cosmological argument by one of my favourite modern philosophers – he explains the fallacies in logic of CO far better than I ever could. (Pure chance that I found this video on one of my youtube subscribed channels but I’ll say more on chance later.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSdY_BE-6eg
CO is an extremely old philosophical argument and as you say Chris, goes all the way back to Plato and most religions and philosophers have resurrected it at some point. Strange in that case that some of the most brilliant minds in human history have not taught it as absolute truth. That would have struck me as logical!
“It makes little sense to for a nonbeliever to address matters of faith, but the cosmological argument uses the same logic as science.”
This is a rather conceited viewpoint if not a nonsense ad honinem, Firstly you infer that non believers are incapable of being unable to understand a believers faith. Not so.
Many atheists are lapsed believers and even so faith isnt a difficult concept, just one easily refuted and done so frequently. Secondly to claim it uses the same logic as science is a misnomer. To throw big numbers and philosophy into a theory and present it as science is a favoured trick of creationists.
“BTW: For those who will say that Quantum Theory disproves this argument, please address the origin for the Quantum Field because as long as it can be asked, “and what came before that?” you still have not faced up the impossibility of both infinite regress and actual infinities within the material universe.”
I would argue that QT cannot be dismissed and I`m certain that the vast majority of scientists working within that field would disagree with you. To arbitrarily accept CO yet on the other hand dismiss QT is totally unscientific. How about you explain the origin of God? I am a caveman when it comes to understanding QT however your first cause argument for dismissing it is mainly based on the two huge assumptions necessary for CO to be even remotely correct – absence of chance and infinity.
The Cosmological Argument relies on these two assumptions. That no chance exists and the universe has to be finite. (This is what first motivated me into studying this whole deal more closely because this immediately struck me as bogus.) You attempt to prove this with the fine-tuning argument, in this case “In order for the universe to be flat (as currently determined) mass/energy must be the critical density, which is one part in 10 to the 120th power.” etc this being too high a chance for the event to have occurred.
Let me first say I will have to accept the quoted statement at face value as I`m aware of my limitations where mathematics and astrophysics are concerned. So if what you quote is true then I wont dismiss it. I’ve heard these arguments being used by creationists many times. Let’s call it the complexity argument. In simple terms if something is so complex and the chances of the occurrence of an event is so massive we as humans can barely even comprehend the numbers involved then God must have done it. QED. A favourite example creationists like to use is the one about the chances of the moon passing in front of our sun so perfectly. The chances of this happening has been described by some creationists as being one in a trillion. Here is a video from yet another of my subscribed youtube channels – owned by an astronomy teacher who has made a hobby of confronting strawmen arguments. (thats two videos now – what are the chances of that!!!) I use this video again because the debunk is explained so much better than I could by someone qualified to do so. You might wish to just watch it from 1.50 to 4.00 as this clip deals with the moon myth .
http://www.youtube.com/user/AndromedasWake#p/a/B8772329EDAE7DC3/1/iOMfVmLVhVA
As chance (freaky!!!!) would have it whilst finding you that clip I found another of his video’s regarding the Kalam version of CO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5-2QUyI90A
Chance in my humble opinion does exist. Quantum theorists have proven it exists. Do you have a coin available? flip it. Or roll a dice. For the outcome to be anything other than random would be to assume that “God” prescribed the outcome way back “when.” Very simple argument to a very simple question surely. Furthermore WHY would any sentient being predefine an infinite amount of events? To prove some sort of point and presumably to himself?
To say that everything has to be finite is illogical also. This precludes the possibility that infinity cannot exist. Lets take that big number you used earlier as a means of demonstrating that it cant. 10 to the 120th power. Now add a zero to it, and again….. now keep going “forever”, add a few to the powers of powers. My point is there is no “end” number. You can always make a number bigger just by adding another number or zero on the end. Numeracy is effectively infinite.
Another example; Suppose we had the technology to fire a rocket into space and aimed it so carefully that it wouldn’t run into anything. In “your” finite universe that rocket would run out of space. Is there a wall there? On the other hand in an infinite universe the rocket running through vacuum would just keep going – forever. For infinity.
The fine tuning argument is used by creationists to “prove” the existence of God all the time.From the first cause to sub atomic particles. They say because of the very tiny chances of life the universe and everything coming to be as it IS, that this would otherwise be impossible without God having done it. Yet science repeatedly proves how and why a lot of what we know has come to pass. But let’s assume for a moment that God does exist. There is no chance. The universe in finite. This goes against all the ideas about what this God is. Surely if he wanted to he could make things random. Or infinite or for the sake of arguement infinitely random. Let’s not forget of course that God is “eternal” – another word for infinite so in his own existence he proves that the cosmological argument is false.
Going back to the fundamental argument and one presented already by others. If God created everything then who created God. Even if the CO is totally correct it is only a theory that there was a first cause. It does not prove the existence of a god. There is still that leap of faith required to say God Did It. If CO were to be correct then the first cause could be anything, not that we’ll ever probably know what that was.
I`ll end with this:
(1) Whatever is sentient must have a cause
(2) The Christian God would be sentient
(3) Therefore the Christian God would have a cause
I`m not adding this to the end for fun’s sake. This argument uses the same flawed logic of the cosmologic argument.
Thanks again Chris, I have tried to be original in my rebuttal as possible albeit CO has been debunked so many times it’s hard to do so. Any issues with the science you may have that deals with this elsewhere is easily found on various www ….edu sites and I am not qualified to discuss them with you. However I have “faith” that the people far more intelligent and educated than myself are able to do so.
Finally, a worthy and well-considered reply. Thank you.
Unlike all the other replies, you have spent much time and supplied much material and it would be unfair and shallow for me to offer an off-the-cuff answer. As God said to troublesome people in the old testament, “Come, let us reason together.” And so I will offer you a reasonable and well-founded argument. First, I will study your points and references because I want to make sure that I fully understand them. I will do my best to present an argument based upon sound logic, supported by evidence and avoid begging the question. I have every expectation that you will do the same.
Again, thank you for your reply,
Chris
Hello Yavanna,
You said: “The cosmological argument is in essence no different from the logic that faith driven people use throughout any discussion involving God.”
My answer: So what? The Cosmological Argument (CA), like God, is not responsible for the misguided pronouncements (and YouTube videos) of uninformed admirers.
You said: “(doesn’t sound such an efficient way of going about creating his servants if you ask me).”
My answer: You need to establish your (divine) qualifications before you dismiss the CA based upon your personal perception that God was inefficient in his creation.
You said: “I wont (sic) put here published scientific arguments against the CO, I imagine you can easily find them yourself and have chosen to dismiss them. And they are many.”
My answer: Actually, I have not located even one “scientific” argument against the CA, so please quote your sources as a necessary part of establishing your argument. I would be most interested in reading about such research in peer-reviewed papers.
You may be referring to the many rebuttals to the CA that have included mountains of scientific facts and explanations, but that are mostly targeted against low-hanging fruit such as so-called “scientific” Christian apologetics who propagate garbage such as the young earth theory of the universe. I wish they would take aim at higher targets. The majority of legitimate anti-CA presentations I have located were more along the lines of logic and rhetoric arguments.
Regarding your referenced source, “God Debunked,” the speaker commits several gross errors that disqualify his argument. To wit:
At 1.16, the speaker posts what he presents as four premises of the CA.
1. Every finite and contingent being must have a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause must exist.
First Error: In a bizarre move, at 1.47, he arbitrarily eliminates premise 2, declaring it unnecessary to the CA. Yet, this is deliberately misrepresenting the CA. He cannot presume to frame the CA and then debunk it based upon his misrepresentation.
Second Error: The speaker says that (new) point three is in violation of point 1, which nullifies the argument, i.e.: the First Cause must have a cause. This illogical statement fails because if the First Cause had a cause, it cannot be the “First” Cause (duh!). If the original point two was restored, then it becomes a qualifying statement to the term “First Cause” – that it was an uncaused, non-contingent, necessary being.
Third Error: The speaker then makes the unsupported claim that religionists add the modifiers “eternal” and “infinite” to the First Cause in order to avoid asking for special pleading for the First Cause.
The special pleading objection would have weight only if the CA began by granting the First Cause with special powers in premise one (“the universe came into being because God did it by magic!). However, the CA’s conclusion for the existence of a First Cause is ‘circumstantial’ and made by eliminating any other option.
Fourth Error: The speaker says that even if the First Cause was eternal, it would have to be either dynamic or static, and presents his logical argument.
Here the speaker has a point only if the First Cause is a part of the contingent, material universe. The dynamic and static natures as presented by the speaker are limited by causation, which is defined by time (original premise three). But, by definition, a non-contingent being cannot be included in a set of contingent beings; a First Cause cannot be part of the thing caused (premise two). Therefore, the First Cause exists outside of the frame of the contingent, material universe, which includes time and causation. The First Cause is therefore “transcendent” — apart from the material universe.
This speaker frequently redefines opposing arguments to suit his rebuttal rather than addressing them on merits. Although he strives to represent himself and his arguments as logical, I do not find his sophomoric self-serving body of work to be well supported or reasonable. No doubt, such poorly framed arguments are what got him kicked off his high school debate team.
I should also state that the Cosmological Argument does not provide proof of Christianity or claim to provide direct evidence of a traditional theistic God. Similar arguments are used in Islamic Apologetics.
I’m not even half way through your reply so there is more to come, but please offer your comments so far. I would be most interested in specifically where you disagree with my points and conclusions, and offer your own supported arguments.
Best regards, Chris
This is mainly an off the cuff response as I have just found your latest comments and wish to let you know you wasn’t being disregarded. I`ve had some problems posting on this doc due to some weird server glitch (I had to post my big comment through forums and Vlatko pasted it in.)
I don’t understand your reply “So what? The Cosmological Argument (CA), like God, is not responsible for the misguided pronouncements (and YouTube videos) of uninformed admirers.” For one thing isnt God responsible for everything as per the finite argument without which the version of CA you are using falls apart? And my initial point stands – CA is basically a wordy way of saying “God did it.” And this peeves me every time. Why is there always this tendency for “people” to fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural being?
“You need to establish your (divine) qualifications…..etc” – This is a discussion on a philosophical argument – why should that necessitate the need for “divine” qualifications? Indeed what would you define these as? In any case lets regard my initial comment further – that God was inefficient in this manner of creating servants. Let’s theorise for a moment – I am God. I can do anything. Allakhazam! There I go – instant servants. That would be efficient. Why go to all the trouble of creating a huge universe so that a few billion years later these servants come into existence?
“My answer: Actually, I have not located even one “scientific” argument against the CA, so please quote your sources as a necessary part of establishing your argument. I would be most interested in reading about such research in peer-reviewed papers”
I`d suggest you start at wikipedia. The rest I found by googling. I`d also suggest you study chaos theory which is an established scientific theory that could be used as an argument against CA. There is a very good doc called the “secret life of chaos” a BBC production – I just checked; its on Youtube in 6 parts.
Regarding your comments on the “God Debunked source” – I will agree with you that it seemed strange to remove the part 2 component in a rebuttal, but then my understanding of CA is that “2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.” is primarily used by the Kalaam version – which you specifically asked not to be addressed.
However this is why I later (in my comment) went to greater lengths that would otherwise have been needed to address “part 2″ of CA.
I wont go into the other “flaws” of that source at this time as if you are correct I will have to spend a great deal of time properly investigating an alternate source – and getting my head around it.
Now clearly this is a pet subject of yours and before this discussion gets prolonged would you answer me some things. Firstly why do you ask for peer reviewed papers on what is basically a discussion on a philosophical theory? Surely if that is what you are asking it would be more efficient to find such on forums more dedicated to that purpose, certainly not a hack like me. Secondly what are your qualifications and sources? You ask for supported arguments – can a philosophical theory have such? This is no different from any theist saying “provide me evidence that God doesn’t exist.”
Anyway best regards and as I said just a quick reply, hopefully this will get through to the comments sectioon and I will now be notified of responses.
PS I meant to ask, what are your specific beliefs? Are you for instance a deist as I originally thought I might be in my dim and distant youth? Or do you subscribe to a particular religion and set of scriptures.
From your former posts I`m guessing you are some sort of Christian so I might go on to say you have juxtaposed CA upon a particular rule set?
In any case what I should also have said in the last part of my above comment is that I doubt as this is your “specialised subject” I’ll be able to produce anything that you would consider a valid input. All I can perhaps offer is a fresh perspective as I tried to do in my original post.
Yavanna,
Respectfully, your “off-the-cuff” response is not helping your argument. You would be better served to offer fact and logic. I would suggest you look up the meaning of the term “to beg the question.”
I must admit to being disappointed. You dismiss my point-by-point rebuttal without offering anything of substance in return. Instead, you “off-the-cuff” me. This is not the way to be taken seriously. If it reveals that you are just not open to hear a valid argument for the existence of God, then I will simply wish you a pleasant day.
You ask me why I asked for peer-reviewed research regarding a divine origin of the universe. Please remember that you said that science disproved the CA. You suggested I study chaos theory and claimed that that it is an established scientific theory that could be used as an argument against CA.” (No, it cannot if you understood that the quantum field is not truly Nothing.) Are you not trying to use this as a scientific basis in your argument against CA? Why then would I not ask for a peer-reviewed research (instead of someone’s opinion) as a basis for your rebuttal? Don’t just say that the CA is disproved or is faulty. Show me by logic. Show me where – exactly where you don’t buy it. At least show me by better so-called logic than that “God Debunked” *****.
Conduct research, build your case, state your position, make your argument, and provide supporting facts and authorities. It doesn’t have to be elaborate. It only has to be logical and not beg the question. The scientific method is more than just saying “Oh, Yeah?!” Otherwise, we are only children squabbling in the sandbox.
Skipping to the end — You wrote: “…what are your qualifications and sources?”
Logic doesn’t need a source. It either stands on its own merits or it fails. It either shows its strength in the full light of day or it collapses utterly. Additionally, logic is not just clever word games. The use of logic is a valid part of the scientific method. Finally, I should not have to defend the use of logic in making an argument regarding the physical world. Logic is a valid and required course of study in university-level education (at least it used to be). The CA is an argument based in logic that stands on its own merits of logic in reaching a logical conclusion. Stating that you do not agree with the conclusion of the CA is not the same as providing a valid logical argument against it. If it were, we would have to give weight to the disagreements of young children fighting on the playground.
You have stated that you do not agree with the CA. Okay, I believe you. Yet, you have not offered any argument of your own other than to point me to the work of others – work that you have admitted you do not understand and cannot defend. You have been persuaded by someone who had a presentation on YouTube that you liked. Fine. And when you see another presentation you like better, you may be persuaded in another direction. Where is the thoughtful and careful consideration that you call your own? The question of whether or not there is a God deserves no less, don’t you think? Start by asking your self this question: Would I prefer a universe with a God or without one? Why?
Honestly, I really can’t see that you care about the CA one way or the other, so what is the underlying and real issue you have with the concept of God? You said you had a religious background of some sort but left it. What happened? How did that background let you down?
Finally, you asked regarding my qualifications. I assume by this you mean what is my field of expertise, education or degree. I hesitate to reveal such things about myself because my argument should stand upon its own merits, and not because I have or have not earned an advanced degree. An argument has no respect of persons.
But for the record, I’ll say I’m old, educated, experienced, and professional. I’m married and raised adult children. I’m an enthusiastic amateur astronomer and telescope builder. I appreciate being alive during an era when we can, for the first time in human history, know and understand something of the true nature and size of the physical universe. I’m doubtful of organized traditional religions, and skeptical of people who do not think for themselves. I’ve lived in various places and witnessed various points of view. I do not feel the need to change the meaning of scientifically derived facts to defend a pre-conceived notion of God, who, by the way, is not afraid of scientific facts and does not need me to defend Him on Internet forums. I find the Bible to be a source of truth but do not ascribe to traditional nonsensical interpretations and child-like teachings (like the universe is only 6k years old and dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark). You might say I believe in a literal interpretation but not a traditional or religious one. I feel that “religion”, “tradition” and “culture” are among the most evil things on the earth.
As a Christian, I do not need the CA to support my Christianity. But the CA is a useful counter to those who attempt to use facts from legitimate science to preach that there is not God.
This is a very difficult topic for most people for which it strikes at the core of their being. You have been most polite in your discourse, which I greatly appreciate. I wish you the best and send my best regards,
Chris
Yavanna,
Just a quick reply to this part of your previous post:
“To say that everything has to be finite is illogical also. This precludes the possibility that infinity cannot exist. Lets take that big number you used earlier as a means of demonstrating that it cant. 10 to the 120th power. Now add a zero to it, and again….. now keep going “forever”, add a few to the powers of powers. My point is there is no “end” number. You can always make a number bigger just by adding another number or zero on the end. Numeracy is effectively infinite.”
You have confused “actual infinities” with “potential infinities.”
A potential infinite is like your numbers that you describe above. As long as you are willing to add another number to the previous number, it will get that much larger. And it will grow larger as long as you care to do that. This is a potential infinite. But “potential” infinities can never become “actual infinities because they are “real” numbers to which you can always add another number. The term “potential infinite” only describes the property of any real number to be increased by adding one more number to it.
But potential infinites can never become actual infinites. For example, if you were to say that the universe is infinitely old, you have a problem because the timeline would go back in time for an infinite amount of time. And how long would you have to wait for our solar system to be formed and the present time to be reached? Forever! Why? Because the infinite timeline would stretch back into the past for an infinite amount of time. You would never reach “Now.”
Actual infinities do not, and cannot exist in the real world. This is not word play. This is proof that NOTHING can have been around forever if it is material in any way, shape or form.
Chris
Therefore the same logic can be applied to God.
Hi Chris,
Without getting into the discussion about the “potential” and “actual” infinity, I have a different problem with your last post. It’s about the concept of the “time” and never reaching the “now”.
For example, if our telescopes could see that far, we would be looking “now” (our now) at something that actually happened like 15 billion years ago (the actual “time” of event). So, what we would experience “at present”, would have really have happened “in the past”.
Every sinle photon, our sun so generously provides us with, has been emitted at its source 8 minutes before you actually experience it.
Hence, I have a hard time (:-D) accepting your explanation of the philosophical question of infinity with a concept that is an illusion at best.
Regards
Hi WTC 7,
This is not a word game or a philosophical riddle, but describes a real property of the universe. If TIME is infinite, it stretches into the past and future infinitely.
Here is a classic example from my son’s high school class: Let’s say that NOW is a train station and TIME is a set of train tracks. If TIME is infinite, the tracks go infinitely in both the past and future. You’re waiting for the train to arrive (waiting for the flow of time to reach the moment we call NOW). How long would you have to wait? The answer is “Forever.” Why? Because the train has an infinite amount of track to run before it would reach you. Time would never reach NOW.
If this does not make sense, it’s because it’s nonsensical. This is a logical proof that TIME cannot be eternal and/or infinite. TIME is a “potential infinite” but can never be an “actual infinite.” It just does not work that way in the real world. Then, if TIME cannot be eternal or infinite, the only thing left is that TIME is finite. The only reason TIME may seem infinite to us is that we are not in a position to see the temporal horizon.
Scientists, including Albert Einstein, convinced that TIME and SPACE must be infinite and unchanging were shocked when Edwin Hubble provided empirical evidence of a universe that changed in time. The Big Bang theory — the most tested and accepted theory – implies that SPACE begins to exist at a definable point in the past – about 13.72 billion years ago. And since SPACE and TIME describe different aspects of the same thing – SpaceTime – this means that TIME also had a beginning.
Your observation that deep space telescopes can see into the past is simply due to the finite speed of light and the vast distances of the cosmos. It is the same as the time delay between a flash of lightening and waiting for the sound of thunder to reach your ears. Sound is slow. At cosmological distances, light is slow. If there were a means of transmitting information faster than light, we would be able to see the far distant universe as it is now. Getting information about the far side of the universe through light is like getting your mail by pony express instead of email.
Regards,
Chris
Yavanna said: “Therefore the same logic can be applied to God.”
Really? How? In what way? This cannot be your entire rebuttal! That’s the elementary school playground equivalent of saying “oh yeah! Sez you!” Surely, you can offer us better.
Please tell us — specifically– how the same logic can be applied to God.
Regards,
Chris
Please dont drag this to a level of playground nuances because I can assure you my dad could totally own your dad.
You are challenging my arguments against what is best described as a failed hypothesis that is inherent with flawed logic; yet then ask me to provide a rebuttal based on scientific facts. And again I say go find them they are out there – but I am beginning to “suspect” that whatever facts you are given will be ignored because that would disillusion your choice to believe “God did it.”
If there is anything left that might remotely be considered rational in this discussion first we must provide a basis for what is God. If this is a universe he made then it is also built upon rules he is limited to. But then I forget he is not limited by any rules: logical, physical etc etc. He is excluded from any argument infact. This is pretty much the main assumption of CA. And indeed of any religion.
“Therefore the same logic can be applied to God.” is a veritable rebuttal to your infinity argument. If you aren’t even going to answer my initial answers to your previous posts and play around on smaller points then you are indeed making this discussion a farce. You ask questions within questions when I have already supplied my answers to you in a previous answer.
As for your wordplay regarding “actual infinities” versus “potential infinities.” the first cannot exist without the latter.
SO let’s cut to the crux. Firstly why dont you:
1) define god
2) define his rules
3) define the universe
4) define logic – you are very fond of addressing this discussion on this basis despite the fact that “God” defies all logic and laws of physica nature and whathaveyou.
5) answer all the points I make in my original post
6) retain a degree of respect for somebody who has taken some effort to discuss this with you.
“Please tell us — specifically– how the same logic can be applied to God.”
(1) Whatever is sentient must have a cause
(2) The Christian God would be sentient
(3) Therefore the Christian God would have a cause
Forget all the other stuff – why don’t you regard this issue firstly as it uses the same flawed logic of the cosmologic argument. Then we might be on an even playing field before you continue to try to get me to debunk a non existent being.
“Please tell us — specifically– how the same logic can be applied to God.”
I did in my first reply – you cannot strip an argument down into points without considering the whole.
Even so – and I`m starting to get annoyed as it’s really this simple. This is why I chose to make a short reply to: “Therefore the same logic can be applied to God.” So don’t spout logic to me which your god is immune to then come back to me asking for a more complicated answer. I asked you a short question. Be so kind as to provide a short answer.
Yavanna,
Honestly, I was not trying to be rude to you. It has never been my intention to play mind games with cleaver word play dressed up a logic. I apologize for any offense.
Best,
Chris
Hi again Chris,
I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression of not being aware of the basics of high-school physics. My point was that the concept of TIME is based on illusion and is relevant only if there is a reference point – an observer – otherwise it has no meaning.
Going back to your example of the train tracks. Based on what I said about time existing only from the perspective of an observer, I would argue that the example is based on a wrong premise – the awaited train is not the flow of time, as such a thing exists only in our eyes, the train is an event. The image of the event travels through space on photons, and that way, the event itself (through its image) exists at any given moment at some point on its “path”. And why not, theoretically, the path can stretch indefinitely.
But this has nothing to do with the speed by which the image is transmitted through space and the distances involved, it is the principle of relativity of the concept of time I am talking about. The image of our Sun we get with only 8 minutes delay, but, hypothetically, a civilization millions of light years away would see that very same moment of Sun’s existence in millions of years. The fact that we saw it sooner does not mean that the same image does not continue to travel and exist.
As regards the Universe changing, I am sorry that I have to make a slight correction – the scientists were indeed surprised to realize that the Universe was changing, but their surprise had little to do with it changing in TIME, it was simply the change as such they did not expect to see.
The Big Bang theory was really (and probably still is) the most accepted theory of the beginning of our Universe. But I cannot agree that it was the most tested one – it is a theory that could not and cannot be tested (at least at this point of our technological progress). The M theory (String theory), however, is now making its way through and opens new horizons in our understanding of the Universe.
Greetings :-)
Yavanna,
The use of logic is not for the sake of besting someone in an argument. That would be more like the rules of rhetoric, which are (among other uses) intended for debating and presentation. The use of logic is for determining facts and, if enough facts can be established, the truth.
You have presented a three-part premise as follows:
(1) Whatever is sentient must have a cause
(2) The Christian God would be sentient
(3) Therefore the Christian God would have a cause
Are you going to allow me to request further clarification on your three points, or are you going to send your dad over?
Best regards,
Chris
“The use of logic is for determining facts and, if enough facts can be established, the truth”
But the ultimate premise of your arguments is the claim that “God did it” How can that ever be proven as a given fact therefore part of a logical process? No true atheist agnostic or scientist or whatever will definitely say that God doesn’t exist – because by definition that which does not exist cannot be proven to be or not be. But to make the leap of faith that (if the CA is totally right there is a first cause) there MUST be a god is totally illogical. I advance the hypothesis that a saucepan did it – prove me wrong.
So please continue and I suspect you will start with point one. That is that God isn’t Sentient. If I was approaching this as a discussion at this point that would be the weak joint. Then I would reply in earnest to your precepted reply: You are merely calling a natural occurrence God – but I`m getting beyond myself here….
In any case I`m becoming more interested in the other sub-discussion with WTC7 so am in no rush to be educated when i`m this drunk. For instance – on your imaginary infinite railway – there is always the possibility that the train on its infinite rails was only a few yards away from its destination…? (to an outside observer of this discussion at this point you may wish to read up on the preceding discussion to save me explaining my question)
In any case stop dodging my real questions by drilling into minutia. I have my Dad chained but he is really strong and he could break off and totally Pwn your dad any time now!
Basically this is a discussion about intelligent design with a sexy accent – we all must agree on that. I`m a sucker for sexy accents!
Howdy people:
Hi, WTC7, nice to see you again.
I was watching with interest on the progression of this thread.
I am going to throw in a link that is following, no doubt it has to be moderated. And than I will get back to you all.
Hello “old” friend :-D, the pleasure is mutual
To people who want to think out of the box, and explore other avenues.
I offer this website.
It is basically all encompassing, even has some God stuff in there.
Is this universe one big sea of energy-are we all connected?
http://www.one-mind-one-energy.com/
Yavanna,
I really can’t recommend that you post while drunk, but then, this is America and you are free to do as you feel best.
Please don’t allow the discussion to become sidetracked by what you think may or may not be my motives. Including you, everyone has motives, an agenda or a personal bias. That’s okay. But the logic either stands for fails on its own. Claiming the CA fails is not the same as showing your argument. Not liking the CA is not the same as showing it to be faulty. You are free to like or dislike the CA as you see fit.
I stated this in the thread a few weeks ago but will repeat it here. As far as “PROVING” the existence of a theistic God, that cannot be done by the CA. The CA does not prove the existence of God directly. But it DOES eliminates other options. Further, a finding for the logic of the CA does not mean that anyone has to ascribe to a particular religious concept, fall down on their knees, or send me money. It only means that the logic of the CA is sound and has stood up to the test of review. Not opinion. Review.
Now then, let’s look at your argument. You said:
(1) Whatever is sentient much have a cause.
Not true. You are claiming being “Sentient” as a quality of a set that only contains beings that are “Caused.” There is no basis for this conclusion. God can be uncaused and sentient. We can be caused and sentient. These are not interchangeable terms.
You would have to demonstrate that the quality of being Sentient can only exist when a set includes only beings that are Caused but does not exist in a set that includes only Uncaused beings.
Your move.
Best regards,
Chris
“PROVING” the existence of a theistic God, that cannot be done by the CA. The CA does not prove the existence of God directly. But it DOES eliminate other options. Further, a finding for the logic of the CA does not mean that anyone has to ascribe to a particular religious concept, fall down on their knees, or send me money ”
That seemed pretty open minded and indeed reminded me of my own god concept as I mention in my first post. Apart from the obvious straw man “But it DOES eliminates other options.” – It simply doesn’t – In a whole universe of possible causes you choose to say “God did it.” That is called a leap of faith. You are filling in gaps in your knowledge by subscribing magic to a supernatural being. Going back yet again to my first post – even if the CA (ie first cause argument) is correct you cannot automatically jump to the conclusion that first cause was the act of a magical God.
“(1) Whatever is sentient much have a cause.
Not true. You are claiming being “Sentient” as a quality of a set that only contains beings that are “Caused.” There is no basis for this conclusion. God can be uncaused and sentient. We can be caused and sentient. These are not interchangeable terms.”
Not true – yet again you haven’t taken my complete argument as a whole (again I ask you to take my first argument in its entirety rather than argue single points). God is eternal therefore infinite. Yet the CA claims that FINITY is contingent upon it working. You really cant see the duplicity in this?
Going deeper into this “God can be uncaused and sentient. We can be caused and sentient. These are not interchangeable terms.”
Why cant God be caused? Why is “he” exempt from causality or every other rule? This goes back to a very early and much often argued point I have made. Who made God? And yes they can be interchangeable terms. Define God firstly before you can say this and explain how you can define God. I would wager you have no knowledge of this entity therefore you cant. (no offence) You might just as well say that a clump of earth designed the universe and we cannot question you on that ‘fact’ – so all must hail the mighty clump of earth?
I can interchange terms as much as I please in summary. Because I didnt define your god.
“You would have to demonstrate that the quality of being Sentient can only exist when a set includes only beings that are Caused but does not exist in a set that includes only Uncaused beings.”
An “uncaused being” is God right? (uncaused isn’t in the dictionary btw but I get what you mean)
If this was a game of chess I would say “your move” however if you see this as such I think I gave you a fool’s mate on my very first reply to your arguments which you have yet to satisfactorily respond to. You have just lost the plot and keep moving your imaginary logical pieces however!
Best Regards
and nothing personal
Steve
Ayup Achems – what the hell you doing stalking a logical discussion – I thought we were all agreed that you are an Illuminati mind controlled nut job!
Anyways I`m off to bed and hopefully I can discover some decent input to my drunken ramblings with Chris!!!
Hi again WTC7,
Hmm. I think you are talking about Time-Dilation effect described in General Relativity. In this case, you are correct in stating that Time is (potentially) relative for each observer. And the medium (in this case: light waves) carrying the information of that event is received by different observers in different places at different times. But that does not mean that the event only has validity when you get the information (light waves) unless you ascribe to an anthropic view of reality, which would make you the center of the universe (regardless of how your mother feels about you ?).
While this is a real and measurable effect, that does not mean that Time is NOT an actual and real property of the universe. The time (physically, a difficult concept anyway) flows for the universe whether or not there is an observer. If the universe were empty, Time would still pass from the perspective of the universe.
Also, regardless of the observer’s frame of reference in regards to another observer, time passes for all observers according to their own frame of reference. There is no frame of reference in the physical universe where time does not pass for that particular frame.
Also, regarding the following point:
“…the scientists were indeed surprised to realize that the Universe was changing, but their surprise had little to do with it changing in TIME, it was simply the change as such they did not expect to see.”
I’m afraid that your nuance is incorrect and misleading. It was indeed the idea that the universe evolved in Time that was surprising. The prevailing belief was an unchanging universe that was capable of sustaining itself from Eternity to Eternity. Hubble’s discovery upset that apple cart because it proved that the universe could not have been self-sustaining (as was also proved by Einstein’s original calculations on General Relativity). English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle hated that idea. He traveled all over the world speaking out against it. It was not that this was a change in a pre-existing universe. This was a fundamental change in how the universe came into being.
Gentlemen – I am making a defense for points that I should not have to make. These things are not my ideas. They are basic to our understanding of modern physics and are well-documented in history.
Best regards,
Chris
It’s amazing that this crazy ****** has so many incredible ideas. Is he a teacher or something? Reminds me of that *** Michio Kaku! Man the stuff these guys come up with!!1!
Hi Chris,
Thanks for answering to my last post. You touched upon everything I wrote except for my comment that the Big Bang theory is not testable (you claimed that it has been the most tested theory), I would ask you to comment on that too.
Another point: you don’t really have to defend anything, this is simply a discussion on issues of interest to some of us and we do it as long as it keeps our interest and as long as we feel fine about taking part in it.
Greetings.
Hi WTC7
Thanks.
Here is what I mean when I say that the Big Bang theory is tested. A “theory” is a scientifically acceptable general principle (not a ‘hunch’ or idea) offered to explain phenomena, and must make real-world testable and verifiable predictions, or it is useless as a theory. The Big Bang model makes many predictions about the universe that are observable or testable. The fact that it is the most tested cosmological origin theory is due to it having come about during an era when we have the means to make such tests.
Test examples include: Whether galaxies are moving away from us in a way that agrees with predictions can be tested using redshift; Analysis of the microwave background (considered by most to have been the smoking gun of the big bang); The calculations of Relativity (the MOST tested theory) that point to an expanding universe (that therefore had a beginning) can be verified; the current quantity of light elements (H and He) in the universe is a Big Bang prediction that can be verified, etc. The list goes on.
I realize that the Big Bang theory is not universally supported and that there are some big unanswered questions. Okay, agreed, it is ‘only a theory.’ The Earth orbits the Sun is also a theory. Eventually, the growing mass of evidence for ‘only a theory’ becomes impossible to ignore. Any new theory will not replace the Big Bang, but only add to it as Einstein added to (not replaced) Newton.
When I use the word ‘defend’, I don’t mean that I am defensive (far from it). To ‘defend’ is a term used in classical debate meaning to substantiate a position or statement. I meant that, because many of the points or facts I have discussed, which have been challenged by the members on this forum, were rudimentary, basic in their content, and common knowledge, I should not have to prove such basic information that should have been learned in school.
My Opinion: Much of the confusion on this thread could be avoided if there were an understanding of the basic rudiments of “Method.” Several times I have made appeals to the ‘Scientific’ Method in order to demonstrate the merits of an argument, but to no avail. Most have never learned how to frame and defend a simple argument and become angry easily.
I would suggest to Vlatco that a page be created that outlines what “Method” is, what it does and why it is a requirement to any meaningful discussion on scientific knowledge.
Everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but not to their own facts or their own logic (is not that what atheists accuse of creationists?). Otherwise, it’s all unsubstantiated opinioned nonsense – no different than young children fighting on the playground.
My best regards,
Yavanna/Steve,
I hope you are feeling better this morning,
I don’t know where to start with your previous post. I would like to address each point, but your post is all over the landscape and is a bit difficult to follow (perhaps a result of your inebriation). Please bear with me as we try to sort this out.
Let’s start with your three-point premise. You asked way I didn’t address it as a whole. It’s a fair question and allow me to explain.
The fact is that I did address it as a whole. The three points in your premise constitute an “Argument.” Points (1) and (2) create the basic premise from which you draw out your conclusion in point (3). Point (1) is your opening and, therefore, strongest point. Your conclusion in point (3) is supported by points (1) and (2). If points (1) and (2) are not defensible, then point (3) can be ruled invalid.
I raised a valid counter to point (1) and showed that my reasoning behind the objection invalidates your premise. If you feel the reasoning supporting my objection is invalid, please demonstrate — specifically — your counter to my objection.
On a side note, it is unproductive and confusing to your argument to raise unrelated points. You’re all over the landscape. I understand what you want from me – a proof of my argument for a universe created by God. But, in a meaningful conversation you have to tackle each issue one at a time so that a logical picture can be shown. Otherwise, this is just pointless opinionated drunken internet chatroom noise.
@Chris
“I hope you are feeling better this morning,”
Usually I am fine – problem is I post and then you reply – by which time because I`m in England; it’s quite late and I`ve had my cultural “6-pack” In any case this is the ‘medicine’ that I need to sleep as I have a crushed spine. But though I get a bit silly sometimes; even when a bit drunk I make a lot more sense than most “contributors.
I see where you are going here: “Otherwise, this is just pointless opinionated drunken internet chatroom noise.” a trap you wouldn’t have fallen for and an excuse you wouldn’t have used if it hadn’t been for my own admission of innebriation.
I hereby bring this entire discussion down to earth. You my friend are an illusionist – admittedly one I admire. You are also a politician because whatever facts and points are raised you redirect the discussion to that equitable to your agenda. You are admirable and eminently satisfactory in that regard. You blind us poor numb nuts of science with science!
I have really enjoyed this discussion but here my part in it draws to an end. NO Have you Fk dealt with my first post! For emphasis I use FK by the way.
You have never answered any of my main points. All you ever do is cleverly bring up complicated matters of logic and science as a smoke screen for your beliefs; and that is ALL this is about – no matter how sexy the accent gets!
CA is intelligent design – Derr “God did it” – just for once (excuse my aggressive irritation) why dont YOU supply the answers instead of demanding scientific debunking of a nothing idea.
Go back to my original response and reply to it in total – no weaselling around this time by answering the bits you found easy! (that’s what I would have done by the way – no offence)
The fact of the matter is CA is a flawed philosophical argument which has been debunked many times. An “idea” which is all it is. NO more an idea than a projection of a fairy to explain the existence of which we might deny: reality and truth.
You have said “On a side note, it is unproductive and confusing to your argument to raise unrelated points. You’re all over the landscape.” Touche sir! I was quite plain in my original response. Stop doging the main issues! It is you sir that is turning the whole discussion tangential with you defintions of infinite time and wotnot!
If the real discussion is about CA then I answered each point toally in my original response. But what this is really about is YOUR beliefs. Because that what a philosophical idea is all about.
And so “in a meaningful conversation you have to tackle each issue one at a time so that a logical picture can be shown.” Not true – This is a total picture what we look at – it is called reality.
So to end and in answer to “Please don’t allow the discussion to become sidetracked by what you think may or may not be my motives. Including you, everyone has motives, an agenda or a personal bias. That’s okay. But the logic either stands for fails on its own.” Here I really must end – That is all this discussion is about – YOUR belief that a god did it all. Because whatever else we decide about your philosophical beliefs they are no more than that – a conjecture that despite better evidence you have decided that the universe was programmed by a non existant God (or what you call an uncaused being)
I bring this discussion back to earth – this is your belief that God was the ultimate first, Nothing else – That is a proof you must display. It is not for us or science to otherweise rebut or explain.
This is one of the oldest tricks going – My god is real – disprove it!
And yes I was blind drunk when I wrote this. You dont wanna Fk with me when I`m sober – I can be a real miserable *******!
Kisses!
PS didn’t mean to come across so aggressive.
Achems I’m about half way through the main page of that site you linked and watching the video’s there – The cartoon one of QT made it much more simple for me – the rest seems to be dipping into mediation and consciousness a lot……
So I was wondering do you practice any type of meditation and what are your experiences. Might be one for forums if it goes too far off topic.
Chris, I was having a better look of your rebuttal of Dan Rowden’s video “God Debunked – The Cosmological Argument” and review it so as to understand your arguments against it. I was going to bring up your rebuttal on his channel but then thought to suggest that it might be better if you take your argument to him yourself; because as you say this discussion is about a logical argument.
It seems however that Mr pmchristopherjv has beat me to it. And now we know your secret YT identity! I hope you get some good responses – please let me know how that discussion goes.
One question however – you mention both here and on the channel that he was kicked on his high school debate team. I was wondering how you came to know this. I am aware he dropped out of high school when his father became ill and later died from cancer….
Yavanna:
Finding that site very interesting myself.
No, not some Guru Master studying all that stuff, but did do meditation on and off. Very relaxing, probably go back to it.
For this whole CA arguement, if you have a mind to, watch Nassim Haramein on that link, that states everything is based on fractal’s-Holofractographic Universe.
Must warn you though, it is 13 hours long! 45 segments on youtube.
I watched the first segment and I`m pretty sure I`ve seen one of his lectures before. I started watching the series of video’s which was basically explaining god with a cartoon and called him “Hal” – found it rather painful. I’n not sure If I can buy into all this global / personal consciousness stuff. But it’s interesting to learn about other modes of thought and belief.
I`ve branched off into alien technology for a bit of light relief for now lol, You can find it under the side bar tab “How to Time Travel.”
(sigh…)
Yavanna/Steve, I surrender. You have bested me. It is pretty clear that you posses neither the capacity or the will to understand Method. I’ve heard far better arguments from cats fighting in the night. Further, you seem to have misplaced your manners.
I have done my best as anyone can see who read the above posts. But, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” and “Cast not your pearls before swine, for they will trample them underfoot and turn and attack you.”
I’m sure your sound, educated and well-grounded arguments must be very persuasive in your social circles where you are, no doubt, held in high esteem as an intellectual giant. Perhaps you should rejoin them on the front porch rocking chairs and polish your gun while you enjoy another glass of moonshine.
Farewell,
Chris
kindly go forth and multiply you obsequious twerp. Meanwhile reread your scriptures whilst ignoring arguments against your” well founded “beliefs”.
Science V Creationism
———————-|———————
Observation | Observation
Hypothesis | Hypothesis
Experiment | Lots of prayer
Prediction | Rhetoric
Modify Hypothesis | Gnash teeth
Experiment etc | MOre prayer
God’s Plan (highlights)
(1) Create Universe
(2) Send son to die for mankind’s sins
(3) Seem not to exist
Claims that the Cosmological Argument for the universe’s origin has been debunked. However, a persuasive educated logical argument has yet to be posted. The ‘so called’ debunking has been by misrepresenting the CA, and then debunking that misrepresentation. Not liking the CA is not the same as debunking it.
For any who do not understand the Cosmological Argument (CA), or have had it misrepresented to them, here is a link to a YouTube presentation that is a good introduction to the classical argument. It is an introduction only and does not pretend to present the entire logical argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi2Ib7wMUs0
Please Note: The CA does not prove any religious concept. This cannot be over emphasized! The CA does not pretend to be a proof for Christianity or even provide DIRECT proof of God. The CA originated during classical times hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. It is NOT a Christian argument. Neither does it answer all the questions that are put to it — to wit: ‘if there is a God, then why is there so much suffering in the world.’
Its value lies in that, through logic, it eliminates ALL other options to the origin of the universe. What you do with the CA is up to you but finding that the CA is a logical argument DOES NOT mean that you have to submit to any particular religion, God concept, or the Easter Bunny. If at the end of the video, you want to supply another word for God (the almighty ‘sauce pan’ or the ‘flying spaghetti monster’) that will make you feel better, please be my guest.
If the logical proof of the CA is considered without prejudice or bias, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that the physical universe could not have created itself through any natural process but that it came into being through the will of a transcendent powerful person. If you wish to dismiss the CA, that is your purgative. But ‘claiming’ that it has been debunked without proving your argument is only your opinion. The CA is not opinion. It is not religion. It is a logical argument.
About the multiverse: The multiverse is a ‘philosophical’ (not scientific) solution proposed by scientists to the physics problem of our universe popping into existence from nothing. But the multiverse cannot have existed in eternity past because of the impossibility of absolute infinities and infinite regress of a causal chain. So far, there is ’0′ evidence for a multiverse other than mathematical constructs with no basis in reality. However, even if there were a multiverse, the same problem remains in that it cannot have caused itself. Application of the multiverse only pushes the causal chain back one more link. Instead of a solution, it is an unnecessary complication that is eliminated by Occam’s Razor.
Lastly, an understanding of “Method” would not only help to understand why the CA is a powerful argument, it is a good life skill that would help anyone in every aspect of life. I learned Method in Jr. High School and you should have as well.
Be well and wise.
i haven’t read all the posts.. i think the universe might end before i could..;o)..
but i did recently learn that 14th century priests didn’t actually think the world was flat..
watch terry jones medieval lives.. the one about philosophers… it talks about an interesting friar/scientist named Roger Bacon… and no offense to anyone, but the earth is only 6000 thousand years old argument is pure conjecture..to say that there was another world where the fossils came from is just, well i won’t say it… I’m not saying i know anything about anything… personally i think there are some things we will never truly understand… but even Zacharia Sitchin makes more sense than creationists… peace to all faiths that don’t press their beliefs on other people..;o)
which is more bizare?
That there was once nothing and then there was something.
or.
That there has always been something.
Pick your poison they both sound crazy to me.
Infinity squared indeed!
Big Bang is just a Baby Bang…
Well, to support my statement, if universe is based on a Big Bang, then, in comparison to all of that on what is occurring in heavens, Multiverse then do exist with multiple Big Bangs. :o)
Maybe, just maybe… aliens do come from one of this Big Bang, not necessarily from ‘Our Big Bang’. :o)
So, when this Big Bangs do met, they do give their impact one unto the other Galaxies of the other universe… and entwines with its uniting effect or repulse with its impulsing effect or just simply imploded. Expanding universe with its separating galaxies will be met by galaxies of other Universe. Impaction then will be occurring… We just don’t dissipate into oblivion. We seems to be living on an interactive Multiverse.
Maybe, just maybe… those Black Holes are the remnants of the other Big Bang that gets inside our Universe.
Imagine the Fireworks exploding in the sky during the celebration of Independence day or New Year’s Eve?… Those are the situation of the Multiverse I am talking about… and the vacuum space that it gives, after they were consumed and gone or exploded, are the Black Holes.
Anyway, if Big Bang babies are looking for the very reason of the Big Bang theory, some American scientists are looking into the reason of how life existed with the neutrinos existence that comes from the ray of light of our very own sun.
So, for a meantime with those verse, learn something from the Bible’s verses for a while.:o)
As for the time of creation of six days, why not? I created this universe in seconds and mind you without mistakes! lol
This link makes Time and the big bang make much more sense:
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2ujpzdeolA&feature=quicklist&playnext=3&playnext_from=QL”
I sent the author of the above promoted video the following comment:
“Your understanding of the Cosmological Argument is grossly incorrect. I suggest you return to school to study freshman logic.
Here’s your most glaring error. Time and Space are the same thing — SpaceTime — and both came into being 13.72 billion years ago, unless you adhere to the Steady State Theory, which makes you a bit of a dinosaur scientifically.
You’re welcome to your own odd personal beliefs, but please don’t insult our intelligence.”
I’m still waiting for ANYONE to propose a logical counter to the Cosmological Argument.
Yawn
Give my regards to James Bond on its “Quantum of Solace”.
@Chris, What is it that you want some arguments about Cosmological Argument? But let us start with your mother who is not my mother… and that the world is just a tiny dust particle in comparison to our galaxy which is just a spectrum of our being in this Universe from other Universe.
Time is a bubble we live in, Space is about everything at all, Life is not just about the one we hold dear… so on and so forth.
Now, let us focus on leadership… in which we will be getting entangled with space and time to remind you that it is not time and space in your concern… Whose leader would you be having? The people who denies Christianity because of King David or the people who deny Islam because of Prophet Muhammad?
Solomon – never before have you made so much sense!
@ Solomon:
Plato, could not have said it better!
Ah, my two stalkers. How very nice. I must just fascinate the two of you. You follow me everywhere.
And dear Solomon. Is Tagalog your first language? I know you studied English at university. I think it was required, wasn’t it? Your brother seems to be able to assemble a reasonable sentence in English. Why not have him translate for you?
Pilipino is the right language, Tagalog is just a dialect among other dialect of tribes here in Philippines.
@ Chris:
Stalkers? That’s the nicest thing you have ever said. Thank you.
You must of read the book that I had recommended.
And yes, I am fascinated, in a perverse way.
Take the discussion to the forum please. Comments are intended for direct response to the documentary posted, this isn’t youtube. Thanks.
i wish it would go further to try and explain certain things like dark matter in particular, I dont really understand the theory.
I’ve thought that maybe the universe runs on cycles of a big bang, matter expands to form stars and galaxies and whatnot, stars explode and form black holes, eventually everything gets sucked into black holes and all black holes get sucked into each other (not sure if that would happen or if they’d continue to move away from each other though).
all matter in the universe is now concentrated into one black hole which is contunually pulling into itself with the force of the gravity of everything in existence, eventually this huge build up of pressure could cause another big bang and the cycle repeats.
the force of the gravity of everything could be enough that some of the matter could be compressed into a different form, perhaps some kind of dark matter they refer to, but like i said I dont really understand what dark matter is so maybe not. also I dont know if such an event could blow atoms apart and break all elements down to the more basic forms of helium and hydrogen.
any thought on this theory? im pretty uneducated so it probably makes no sense at all for some reason or another but its just a thought
In the world of something even nothing is something in COMPAIRSON; point being: words are not things but discriptions of things and at best subject to connotation. This may be the problelm with fundalmentalist. science or religion. Science and religion manifest their own fundalmentalist. I get cought up in buz phrases, buz words and before you know it buzz concepts and there it is folks, Ignorant 101. Not ******, ignorant. I acctually heard or read here the other day someone say, “SAME OLD/NEW AGE STUF”, (If that isn’t an oxymorron), Same old chritianity, same old buddhism, yes. New Age is just another phrase with an ignorant connotation.
I have a question for the evolutionists :
If life was able to occur spontaneously why do we have or need genders and why would there only be just 2 of them, why not 3 or 100 or millions. why would the natural world have developed males and females when life was able to continue to reproduce from the first cell with out them. you may have a good answer for this and i am sure it is a scientific one.
Also i think that when God said do not eat from the tree of knowledge that he was telling us that we would never fully understand but have fun trying.
@go2mark – Problem with not having genders and continuing on by just having life cells reproduce themselves is that any problems like disease or genetic malformations would be duplicated too. With genders, you get to have diversity so that the changes of reproducing the disease or malformations in offspring is reduced.
As for why not a multitude of different genders – why would that be favorable? Genders typically represent what is needed to produce offspring (i.e male and female). So if there were 100 different genders, that would possibly mean that 100 different people or animals would have to all get together to reproduce. In that case, it would definitely slow down the cycle instead of just two getting together.
Those are just my thoughts. Could be wrong.
@Stephen Kennedy
“that the changes of reproducing the disease or malformations in offspring is reduced.”
I think you meant “chances ” here right ?
ok but evolution requires these malformations in order to evolve. how can it know which ones are good malformations and which ones are bad ? If the cell developed on its own how did it stop the malformations from occurring during its development without gender ?
btw: i believe virus and bacteria evolve through malformations and they do not have gender.
or do they ? // at what stage in development of the cell is gender introduced ? i suppose it is a function of the DNA . but some cells are gender biased and other are not right ?
@g02mark
er, yes. I meant “chances”, not changes. I was half asleep when I wrote that and I barely remember writing it at all. If it wasn’t for my browser still be opened this morning when I woke up, I would have totally forgot :)
Evolution doesn’t “know” which malformations are good and which are bad. That’s just a matter of natural selection. Whatever works (i.e. aids in survival and/or reproduction) in the current environment could be considered good. Natural selection isn’t a process whereby something is actually looking at these malformations and saying “this is good…” or “this is bad…”.
There is another documentary on here that I watched recently where they talk about elephants and their tusks. Historically, the larger the tusks, the more chances that their genes will be passed on because the female elephants will see those males as the most desirable and will choose to breed with them. So, in that environment, bigger is better and bigger can be considered “good”.
Then, along came humans who started hunting elephants for their tusks. The bigger the tusks, the higher chances the elephants would be killed and therefore wouldn’t be able to breed as much. In this environment, smaller is better because the elephants with smaller tusks would have a higher chance of survival and creating offspring.
You can see that natural selection may not be so natural. The nomenclature is certainly a cause of confusion. When we here words like natural we tend to interpret that as something that doesn’t require any involvement like humans being involved in it. Also, when we hear words like malformation or mutation, we think of bad things like a person with a third eye or something, when really it just refers to something different than the norm, but could actually be tremendously beneficial to the species.
@Stephen Kennedy
ok then natural selection must rely on irreducible complexity and eliminates things that do not serve an immediate benefit. Since there is no intelligence involved to decide that something is in the process of being generated for beneficial purposes it will eliminate them if it sees no immediate benefit. now wings cannot grow overnight so how do the cells know that they are building something slowly over time that will be beneficial later in time and will not be a hinderance during the development stage. because half a wing is certainly not a positive as far as natural selection goes. i suspect there is something special going on in the DNA that allows the changes to occur even when they are not immediately beneficial and may actually be a hinderance temporarily.
@ Stephen Kennedy 04/19/2010
– “Problem with not having genders and continuing on by just having life cells reproduce themselves is that any problems like disease or genetic malformations would be duplicated too. With genders, you get to have diversity so that the changes of reproducing the disease or malformations in offspring is reduced.
As for why not a multitude of different genders – why would that be favorable? Genders typically represent what is needed to produce offspring (i.e male and female). So if there were 100 different genders, that would possibly mean that 100 different people or animals would have to all get together to reproduce. In that case, it would definitely slow down the cycle instead of just two getting together.”
-seems to me that if gender gives diversity to reduce malformations then more than 2 parents would be better. i mean at that early stage in the development why not 3,4,5,6 since this would bring more diversity and allow less malformation. look at the animal world today, many of them fornicate with many different suiters in the process of procreation. and it seem natural selection would have worked better if more abnormalities were eliminated by diversity ( hence the more parents, the less malformations of the genes to be passed on )
and why would nature care if the process was slow or not. seems it would follow the easiest path which might explain only 2 genders but then 1 would be best.
remember i am not arguing here * just trying to make sense of evolution *
alex you gaving us reasonable explanation why he may be wrong mr hawking, beig logic that is nice but from the other hand we wander how you religious people believe in a virgin birth etc angels who has no reasonable explanations what so ever .
even science sometimes fail but religion is not an answer as simple as that.
WOW, SOLOMON MADE PILIPINOS LOOK ******! WELL, WE ARE NOT. MAYBE ONLY HIM.
The idea of a 6,000-year-old-earth is based on some creative math using the supposed (and inferred) ages of some of the characters in the Old Testament. It’s hardly a ‘theory’, it’s just someone’s bad math. Especially when you consider there are *huge* genealogical gaps in the Old Testament to begin with: “…And there were X generations until so-and-so” is hardly anything to claim accuracy about. No, I’m not bothering to look up references, I’m sure anyone who’s read Genesis understands what I’m talking about.
Basing a belief system on dubious math derived from folk tales is kind of silly. But then, I’m not a 7th Day Adventist or a creationist. So I must biased, right?
Silence! I created you all! now stop your ridiculous conflict before i spite you down.
Hail Hitler.