poisson
New Member
"Beep! Beep! Bang! Bang! Umgawa! BLACK POWER" - Julius Lester
Posts: 3
|
Post by poisson on May 13, 2006 23:17:56 GMT -5
Do you think the universe is infinite in size? time? Do you think there is a limit on the size of a particle?
I am curious of other peoples' opinions on these unanswerable questions.
|
|
|
Post by monochromatic on May 13, 2006 23:20:44 GMT -5
That is a good question Poisson, but I'm afraid like you said it is unanswerable. I think the only thing that is truely infinite is GOD's love.
Christ Has Infinte Lasting Love CHILL brother
As for the size of particles, how can we possible beging to comprehend the answer to that question? We would have to be able to observe them, which is impossible with particles smaller than a photon, or at least highly improbable. It is a matter of faith. I have no faith in subatomic structure.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 14, 2006 14:43:26 GMT -5
Thats too bad. I have knowledge of the subatomic particles through the findings of other scientists. Thats waaaay more than what faith can do.
The current Universal theory is an infinite space, and infinite time. This is of course, after the Big Bang, before which time did not exist. This is only a theory, that matches up with the information we have about the universe right now. That doesn't mean this isn't malleable. As we gather new information, we change our theories.
It is not a matter of faith on subatomic particles. Faith does not exist in science. It is a matter of knowledge, and the questions that drive us to it. You never ever ever use faith in science. You don't have faith in evolution, you observe it in the lab. You don't have faith in molecular fusion, you observe it in a lab. Faith is a.k.a. bullshit in the lab. When you talk about knowledge learned (or yearned for) in the lab, you do not put faith in it. Faith is for religion. Logic is for science.
|
|
poisson
New Member
"Beep! Beep! Bang! Bang! Umgawa! BLACK POWER" - Julius Lester
Posts: 3
|
Post by poisson on May 14, 2006 19:12:07 GMT -5
I like to think that the big bang never happened. The big bang theory gives us a finite universe. I disregard the idea that universe had a beginning. I believe that people seek to find an answer to the beginning of the universe because everything in their world has a beginning, thus making it difficult for someone to accept that the universe had no beginning and has just always existed.
Do you find the fact that there are faithful scientists humerous? Being a scientist and believing in most religions is a contradictful life. Muslims seem to handle it well, just visit any engineering department.
Blaise Pascal was a deeply religious scientist. He describes in "Pensees" that particles are never particles but rather just groups of smaller things. He then, a few chapters later, tries to prove the existence of christ.
There are a lot of parallels between "Genesis" and the Big Bang Theory. Since we as humans probably can never find or understand the beginnings of the universe, we might as well attribute them to "God."
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 14, 2006 19:28:44 GMT -5
Because of Pascal's wager, to me, he is hard to take seriously.
Or we can label it unknown, and try our best as humans to find the answer. Remember, a wrong explanation is worse than no explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 15, 2006 0:09:04 GMT -5
There are lots of things you take by faith in science. Laws of logic for instance. You simply preassume that logic is universal and absolute. You have lots of faith. It takes more blind faith to be an atheist than to be a theist.
Have you listened to Gordon Stein vs. Greg Bahnsen in "The Great Debate" yet?
It is under the audio section of the message board here I believe under atheist debates and audios.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 15, 2006 17:04:08 GMT -5
In science you take nothing on faith, you prove it. If you can't prove it, you're ridiculed.
Because god did it, is not a valid excuse in science.
Prove it
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 15, 2006 23:24:22 GMT -5
QUESTION!! Are we the only life?? Does Earth have the only life out there? Finite or not, we know there are ohter planets ... did God create just us? And how can you be so sure to that answer?
We could just be one of several pet projects God has going for his high school science fair.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 16, 2006 5:09:07 GMT -5
I apologize but my mind is on empty because its 3AM (allergies keeping me up, arg) but here's something from Ray: --- What evolutionists attribute to a Big Bang, where the universe simply “exploded” into existence, is actually the work of God who merely spoke and the universe came into being. Jim Holt, science writer for the Wall Street Journal, wrote that “the universe suddenly exploded into being,” yet he admitted, “The big bang bears an uncanny resemblance to the Genesis command.” Time magazine reported, “Most cosmologists (scientists who study the structures and evolution of the universe) agree that the Genesis account of creation, in imagining an initial void, may be uncannily close to the truth” (Dec. 1976). An article in U.S. News & World Report stated, “New scientific revelations about supernovas, black holes, quarks, and the big bang even suggest to some scientists that there is a ‘grand design’ in the universe” (March 31, 1997). Ask an evolutionist who believes in the Big Bang, “Where did space for the universe come from? Where did the initial material come from? What sparked the explosion?” In order to have an explosion, there must be something there to explode, and there must be a catalyst to cause the explosion. You cannot create something out of nothing. Simply put, this destroys the Big Bang theory because there is nothing to go boom. The Book of Genesis tells us that God created everything—nothing “evolved.” Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1. Dogs do not produce cats. Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry. Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs. They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a “dat” or a “cog” (part cat/dog) throughout God’s creation. Frogs don’t reproduce oysters, cows don’t have lambs, and pregnant pigs don’t give birth to rabbits. God made monkeys as monkeys, and man as man. According to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, “This notion of species as ‘natural kinds’ fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God’s individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are ‘instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking.’ But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?” Each creature brings forth after its own kind. That’s no theory; that’s a fact.Why then should we believe that man came from another species? If evolution were true, it would prove that the Bible is false. However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution. Evolution is science fiction. While we do see what’s called “microevolution”—variations within species (such as different types of dogs)—we don’t see any evidence of “macroevolution”—one species evolving into another species. Microevolution is observable, while macroevolution takes a tremendous leap of faith. If Christians had as much faith in God as atheists have in the theory of evolution, we would see revival. Like little children, atheists believe without a shred of evidence. In The Answers Book, Ken Ham writes: Adaptation and natural selection are biological facts; amoebato- man evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, since no known reptiles have genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones. Evolutionists also claim that the human body has “vestigial organs”— worthless leftovers from evolution—such as the appendix and tailbone. The truth is that these do have a purpose: the appendix is part of the human immune system, and the “tailbone” actually supports muscles that are necessary for daily bodily functions.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on May 16, 2006 8:43:07 GMT -5
It looks like that you need the same amount of faith to believe either or creation or evolution. You only say "if Christians had as much faith in God as atheists have in the theory of evolution, we would see revival" because you already believe creation, so you think how absurd it is to believe anything else. Yer blinded by your own religion.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 20, 2006 6:44:31 GMT -5
i hope grant wasn't mouthing off ray comfort. what a tool...
|
|
poisson
New Member
"Beep! Beep! Bang! Bang! Umgawa! BLACK POWER" - Julius Lester
Posts: 3
|
Post by poisson on May 21, 2006 23:07:19 GMT -5
How quickly did this turn into an evolution debate?
While we're on the topic, I'd like to ask this question:
If evolution doesn't occur then why do you need a flu vaccination every year? I know what you're going to say. You're going to say "'cause god says so." Well, then god says "evolution, here's your vaccine."
Whatever, who cares, let's stop debating. If you really want to find out, you know what to do: Find out if there was a big bang with a big bang to your head. *bang*
Or wait, you'll get there just in time...
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 21, 2006 23:58:49 GMT -5
You have to define your terms. There is plenty of evidence for micro evolution, but none for macro evolution. You can give us the evidence from here to the moon if you wish on microevolution (small changes over time and variation withing the species), but that does not prove macroevolution. Right... That is dogmatic. How do you know that to be true? How do you prove things (anything) to be true? Do you ever use logic or reason? How can you prove that (logic) to be true? Do you take it by faith that logic exists and is universal? I challenge you to listen to Gordon Stein who is an atheist debate Greg Bahnsen in The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" Here is a good link to The Great Debate... Part 1 www.debategod.com/mp3/DG-2005-06-19.mp3Part 2 www.debategod.com/mp3/DG-2005-06-26.mp3You may want to read the transcript (all 42 PDF pages) as you listen. PDF Transcript can be found here www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 22, 2006 3:55:05 GMT -5
that debate does not reflect the christian or secular collective...just the opinions of a silly fundie and your stereotypical atheist...
|
|
shangxin
Full Member
"Who is this lady?"
Posts: 106
|
Post by shangxin on May 22, 2006 11:50:59 GMT -5
I was actually thinking about the universe lately, in another thread on another forum. All of a sudden, it hit me:
What if the universe is NOT a flat plane that goes on and then ends, without the infamous "something else" behind it? What if the universe is actually more like a ring?
Aka, there is no edge. There is no end. Thus you could travel the whole universe but never leave it, because there is no way to leave it--unless you find a portal into ANOTHER universe/time/dimension, of course. So in theory when you reach the end of the universe you just go back into it. Infinity is often symbolized as a ring.
Now, this was just the mullings of a 19-year-old art student, but another, older poster backed me up (btw, this guy is very smart, although I didn't know he had his hand--mind?--in science too):
"When scientists talk about the universe expanding, they don't mean that there's some kind of void or vacuum already there and stars and galaxies and junk spread out into it; what they mean is that Reality itself is expanding. If you got to the "edge" of Reality, there wouldn't be a big glowing barrier full of Kirks or a big Source Wall full of Kirby heads or whatever; what you would find is the rest of the universe in front of you now instead of behind you. We are all- right now- at the "edge of Reality", because it's expanding in all directions and all dimensions at once. It's not just material stuff that's expanding, it's the laws of physics as well.
The universe is like a giant game of Asteroids; when you get to the edge of the screen, you just come out on the opposite side, still on the screen."
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on May 22, 2006 13:17:10 GMT -5
I was actually thinking about the universe lately, in another thread on another forum. All of a sudden, it hit me: What if the universe is NOT a flat plane that goes on and then ends, without the infamous "something else" behind it? What if the universe is actually more like a ring? Aka, there is no edge. There is no end. Thus you could travel the whole universe but never leave it, because there is no way to leave it--unless you find a portal into ANOTHER universe/time/dimension, of course. So in theory when you reach the end of the universe you just go back into it. Infinity is often symbolized as a ring. Now, this was just the mullings of a 19-year-old art student, but another, older poster backed me up (btw, this guy is very smart, although I didn't know he had his hand--mind?--in science too): "When scientists talk about the universe expanding, they don't mean that there's some kind of void or vacuum already there and stars and galaxies and junk spread out into it; what they mean is that Reality itself is expanding. If you got to the "edge" of Reality, there wouldn't be a big glowing barrier full of Kirks or a big Source Wall full of Kirby heads or whatever; what you would find is the rest of the universe in front of you now instead of behind you. We are all- right now- at the "edge of Reality", because it's expanding in all directions and all dimensions at once. It's not just material stuff that's expanding, it's the laws of physics as well. The universe is like a giant game of Asteroids; when you get to the edge of the screen, you just come out on the opposite side, still on the screen." Seems like I've read a passage that implies the universe is finite. Don't remember exactly where this is. Maybe I dreamed it. I like your "Asteroid" example. Pretty clever!
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 23, 2006 3:17:01 GMT -5
that debate does not reflect the christian or secular collective...just the opinions of a silly fundie and your stereotypical atheist... Do you have any real argument against the points in the debate between Dr. Stein and Dr. Bahnsen? Quote:In science you take nothing on faith, you prove it. If you can't prove it, you're ridiculed. How do you prove things (anything) to be true? Do you ever use logic or reason? How can you prove that (logic) to be true? Do you take it by faith that logic exists and is universal? I hate to get off the topic in the beginning of the thread, but... I still challenge you to listen to Gordon Stein who is an atheist debate Greg Bahnsen in The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" Here is a good link to The Great Debate... Part 1 www.debategod.com/mp3/DG-2005-06-19.mp3Part 2 www.debategod.com/mp3/DG-2005-06-26.mp3You may want to read the transcript (all 42 PDF pages) as you listen. PDF Transcript can be found here www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 26, 2006 1:35:44 GMT -5
christians win every time in christian world, miles. no need to read it. by my comment i meant that the debate is not credible, because it does not represent all 'christians' and 'atheists.' in other words, i don't agree with everything the so-called 'atheist' says, and im sure there are christians who find the 'christian' debator to be lacking too.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 29, 2006 0:35:54 GMT -5
christians win every time in christian world... Since Christ created the world, it is His; therefore a Christian world, then yes, Christians do always win.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 29, 2006 1:43:52 GMT -5
DING DING DING! Close-minded bigot alert!!!! beep dipshit >.>. There are more creation theories then cherios in a cherios box.
Now, prove to me Christ created the world, using something other than the bible. NO BIBLICAL REFRENCES! You do have the rest of the world though >.>.
Don't assume he exists. Assume he doesn't, and prove he exists.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 29, 2006 3:20:25 GMT -5
DING DING DING! Close-minded bigot alert!!!! f**king dipnuts >.>. There are more creation theories then cherios in a cherios box. Now, prove to me Christ created the world, using something other than the bible. NO BIBLICAL REFRENCES! You do have the rest of the world though >.>. Don't assume he exists. Assume he doesn't, and prove he exists. Are you saying I should have no presuppostions?
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 29, 2006 7:10:37 GMT -5
i think it depends on your definition of win. so, if you are going to say that you will have eternal life...i'd lose anyday...afterall, i enjoy my life on earth--and without all the christians fighting and killing and praising an invisible daddy in the sky...that is my idea of heaven.
peace on earth. good will to men...all that jazz.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 29, 2006 13:24:35 GMT -5
Im saying assume jesus does not exist. Now, imagine there is no bible.
Ok, now we get into the hypothetical situation.
You learn about this Jesus character from some friend of yours. You don't know about the bible. You do know everything about jesus, but, you don't know it came from some book called the bible. You need more proof for yourself, to believe in him, so you look around for proof. What do you find?
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 29, 2006 13:31:53 GMT -5
Can you look into the White House to see if the president exists?
The Bible is self attesting and axiomatic.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 29, 2006 13:32:42 GMT -5
Sir, you didn't answer the question; you dodged it.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on May 29, 2006 13:46:00 GMT -5
If you want me to assume the word of God does not exist, then we could not meet the preconditions for intelligibility. Like I said, there would be no grounds to stand upon that logic is universal and absolute. We would not even be able to debate if God did not exist. But the simplest answer is to just look at creation and look at the prophecies in the BIBLE. The Septuigant is from the 3rd century BC and contains all the messianic prophecies that Jesus literally fulfilled, proving that God's word is true, and Jesus was who he said he was. If you want to listen to some awesome stuff I still suggest Chuck Missler at www.khouse.org but your presuppositions at their foundation are faulty. If you haven't listened to Greg Bahnsen debate Gorgon Stein in "The Great Debate" yet (available at http://www.debategod.com), you really should do so. He demolishes the faulty presuppositions of the atheist worldview and explains much better than I could in a few words here. If you have some serious objections to Greg Bahnsen's points, I would love to try to answer them. But to see what kind of evidence you would even accept, I still ask these: Can you look into the White House to prove that the president lives there? How do you know that Julius Ceasar existed?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 29, 2006 13:47:51 GMT -5
You fail.
Ill answer these when you show me proof of Jesus from a source other than the bible.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 29, 2006 13:51:16 GMT -5
Think of it like this:
Unless you can show me proof, I'm winning. If I win, since I'm a godless heathen and whatnot, that means your Satan wins. Will you allow Satan to win?
He's pwning right now ^^.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on May 29, 2006 14:09:16 GMT -5
a book is not evidence of a god's existence, miles.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on May 29, 2006 14:12:04 GMT -5
That's the message I'm trying to get accross. Thank you HSTN ^^
|
|