Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[Subduction Zone]

Since you are making counter claims without providing facts, go ahead and explain what you're saying here, which is different than "you don't understand". I say the Law of Conservation, for one example, was not in operation at Planck time. Please provide your skilled refutation below.

Thank you.

Wow! You got the science wrong and could not support your claim. You need to admit that you screwed up before you can demand evidence.

Why is it so hard for you to do that? Admit that you made a claim that you cannot support and I will try to show you how and where you screwed up.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wow! You got the science wrong and could not support your claim. You need to admit that you screwed up before you can demand evidence.

Why is it so hard for you to do that? Admit that you made a claim that you cannot support and I will try to show you how and where you screwed up.

I admit it, I screwed up, by saying "the BB expansion violated natural law" despite the fact that five minutes in Google searches will show you many physicists debating that fact, now.

Now, I know you will:

1) Still refuse to show facts here

2) Continue to claim "You don't understand" is a winning informal or formal debate tactic

Now I'll provide facts again, and you will refuse to share counter-facts:

The BB expansion created mass/energy, which cannot be created. Physicists have a variety of responses to this non-natural occurrence, such as "natural law was suspended then", "this universe's mass/energy came from a multiverse", "all times are present times and the universe didn't need a God because [Hawking makes an argument here that only some cosmologists accept]".

 

[tas8831]

2. Research, science, and education hold the keys to human progress.
* Acknowledge God for giving us these tools from the human mind

Begging the question? Not much has changed...

3. Humans got here through evolution and we continue to evolve.
* Man has a propensity to behave as a degenerate, and needs, therefore, Christian regeneration

 

[night912]

None of which is a refutation of what I wrote. Instead of "you don't understand," teach me. Explain how at the expansion of the BB/Planck time, natural law was in operation.

You never explained why the things that you listed violated the Law of Conservation. All you said was that the Law of Conservation was violated. So explain why it does.

Which natural law was the catalyst for the expansion? Which natural law moved the universe from infinite mass to finite mass/time/energy, etc.?

Irrelevant. No law is needed to to explain why the Law of Conservation was not violated.

Please explain it here in lay terms or scientific terms, since I'm a dullard. Give citations where appropriate, if you feel you need to do so:

The the Law of Conservation was not violated.

That's the easiest in layman terms that I can think of. If you still cannot understand it, then it's not my fault and I suggest that you need to go back to school. If I see that the Law of Conservation was violated, then I'll explain to you why it was. And since you just said, "the Law of Conservation was violated," and I don't see how it was violated, then it wouldn't make sense for you and anyone else for that matter, to ask me to explain something that never happened.

Answer this question and hopefully you will understand why it's nonsensical.

Explain to me why you raped your wife and children?

 

[night912]

The BB expansion created mass/energy, which cannot be created. Physicists have a variety of responses to this non-natural occurrence, such as "natural law was suspended then", "this universe's mass/energy came from a multiverse", "all times are present times and the universe didn't need a God because [Hawking makes an argument here that only some cosmologists accept]".

Please demonstrate that the BB expansion created mass/energy. Simply making a claim does not make the claim true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I admit it, I screwed up, by saying "the BB expansion violated natural law" despite the fact that five minutes in Google searches will show you many physicists debating that fact, now.

Now, I know you will:

1) Still refuse to show facts here

2) Continue to claim "You don't understand" is a winning informal or formal debate tactic

Now I'll provide facts again, and you will refuse to share counter-facts:

The BB expansion created mass/energy, which cannot be created. Physicists have a variety of responses to this non-natural occurrence, such as "natural law was suspended then", "this universe's mass/energy came from a multiverse", "all times are present times and the universe didn't need a God because [Hawking makes an argument here that only some cosmologists accept]".

LOL! Not a real apology. Try again, if you won't apologize you need to post quotes with links.

You still do not seem to realize that you made the claim. It was challenged, that means that you need to support your claim.; The odds are that at best you misunderstood articles. You may be relying on very poor sources. Until you do you lose by default.

I ever offered to help you, if you could have been honest enough to admit your error. That means if you could have admitted that you screwed up and could not find a any sources to support your mistaken claim I would have found sources for you and helped you to understand them.

I do not think that you are fooling anyone here with your strategy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please demonstrate that the BB expansion created mass/energy. Simply making a claim does not make the claim true.

I have been demanding sources for that claim for quite some time. I see several possibilities. He found a very poor source that made that claim. For example creationist sources get science wrong all of the time. They are the most likely source for this false claim. Second he found some other woo woo source. This happens quite often too, it is not just the creationists that are wrong all of the time. Third, he could have found a valid source and did not understand it. Or fourth, and I think that this is the least likely, he was lying from the start and is angry for being caught in a lie. I think what happened is that he believed a lying (creationist) source.

How many times have you heard creationist sources butcher the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Their explanation is so poor that life itself would be impossible if they were right.

 

[night912]

I have been demanding sources for that claim for quite some time. I see several possibilities. He found a very poor source that made that claim. For example creationist sources get science wrong all of the time. They are the most likely source for this false claim. Second he found some other woo woo source. This happens quite often too, it is not just the creationists that are wrong all of the time. Third, he could have found a valid source and did not understand it. Or fourth, and I think that this is the least likely, he was lying from the start and is angry for being caught in a lie. I think what happened is that he believed a lying (creationist) source.

How many times have you heard creationist sources butcher the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Their explanation is so poor that life itself would be impossible if they were right.

Also, what the majority of creationists don't understand is that, even after butchering and cooking up the law to their taste, they present it to the BB thinking that it matters in regards to their argument of a creator. What they don't realize is that demonstrating the BB to wrong, still does nothing to demonstrate that a creator exists and/or existed. And if it is their goal to debunk the BB theory, only by using science appropriately and correctly, if they so happen to successfully debunk the BB theory, then they deserve to be recognized for their scientific accomplishment. And when they're using science inappropriately and incorrectly, they deserve to be recognized as being ignorant of science.

You should acknowledge people who have made a profound discovery in science even if their personal beliefs are different from yours. You should acknowledge people who are ignorant of science even if their personal beliefs aligns with yours. I think this is important for the advancement of humanity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How did you read this as a guilt trip? "Jesus Christ is source and power for problem solving" or "Christians should not judge people with different moral conclusions, but we can discuss and debate the issues"?

If you experience guilt reading the post, it shows the natural conviction we have as sinners toward the righteousness of God.

You called humans degenerates and the only reason you do that is because your religion informs you of such and conveniently it provides the only "cure" through Jesus.

This is the very core of christianity.
Telling people they are "bad" and require that specific religion to become "good".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Begging the question? Not much has changed...

Likely the 1,000th time since January 1 when an RF skeptic has done a "you don't understand, you're wrong!" NON-argument. Provide facts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You never explained why the things that you listed violated the Law of Conservation. All you said was that the Law of Conservation was violated. So explain why it does.


Irrelevant. No law is needed to to explain why the Law of Conservation was not violated.




The the Law of Conservation was not violated.

That's the easiest in layman terms that I can think of. If you still cannot understand it, then it's not my fault and I suggest that you need to go back to school. If I see that the Law of Conservation was violated, then I'll explain to you why it was. And since you just said, "the Law of Conservation was violated," and I don't see how it was violated, then it wouldn't make sense for you and anyone else for that matter, to ask me to explain something that never happened.

Answer this question and hopefully you will understand why it's nonsensical.

Explain to me why you raped your wife and children?

Why does the creation of everything violate the Law that says nothing can be created?

Are you unaware that physicists disagree on whether the Law was violated, many of them saying it was violated or suspended at Planck time?

Are you unaware that Hawking et al proposed non-standard theories as to "when" the universe was created, to escape the issue that the Law was violated?

Do you have any facts to share, perhaps a citation showing how the BB expansion did not violate laws of conservation and thermodynamics?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please demonstrate that the BB expansion created mass/energy. Simply making a claim does not make the claim true.

I don't need to, cosmologists and physicists alike (almost universally today) disagree with Steady State and eternal universe theory, FURTHER, the LAW of conservation says the universe cannot be eternal, because then we'd have a bunch of created mass/energy that CANNOT have been created in the past, even the infinite past.

I never mind when a skeptic disagrees with me, I mind when they have an extreme double standard (for example, how dare I disagree with most biologists or geologists about evolution or the Flood, but they can disagree with most cosmologists and physicists).

 

[BilliardsBall]

LOL! Not a real apology. Try again, if you won't apologize you need to post quotes with links.

You still do not seem to realize that you made the claim. It was challenged, that means that you need to support your claim.; The odds are that at best you misunderstood articles. You may be relying on very poor sources. Until you do you lose by default.

I ever offered to help you, if you could have been honest enough to admit your error. That means if you could have admitted that you screwed up and could not find a any sources to support your mistaken claim I would have found sources for you and helped you to understand them.

I do not think that you are fooling anyone here with your strategy.

I'm not fooling anyone with a strategy of asking you to 1) present facts 2) tell me why most cosmologists/physicists are wrong 3) point to your double standard (how dare I, a lay person, disagree with biologists and geologists about anything in the BIBLE while you disagree with physicists and cosmologists disagreeing with your unique views on PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY)?!

(? !!!!)

I'm trying to be both teachable and teach you:

2 timothy 2:24-26 nkjv

And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You called humans degenerates and the only reason you do that is because your religion informs you of such and conveniently it provides the only "cure" through Jesus.

This is the very core of christianity.
Telling people they are "bad" and require that specific religion to become "good".

Interesting, are you proposing that people are wholly good (perfect)?

I have locks on my home, car and bicycle, because of the great goodness of man.

I pay taxes to make nuclear deterrents and build upon an already huge military, because of the great goodness of man.

The great goodness of man is affecting democracy in Hong Kong and threatens the free republic of Taiwan.

Etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting, are you proposing that people are wholly good (perfect)?

I think no people are intrinsically good OR bad.
People will do good things and people will do bad things. For both good and bad reasons.

I have locks on my home, car and bicycle, because of the great goodness of man.

So?

I pay taxes to make nuclear deterrents and build upon an already huge military, because of the great goodness of man.

So?

The great goodness of man is affecting democracy in Hong Kong and threatens the free republic of Taiwan.

So?



None of the stuff you mentioned is even remotely close to being a proper substantiation of the claim that "all humans are denegerates" or "bad".

If you live in a tribe of 1000 individuals and there are 10 who steal bikes during the night, you'ld put a lock on your bike as well. That leaves 990 individuals who aren't stealing bikes.


Also, how having a god come down to be killed as a sacrifice to himself to save us from himself, is going to solve the problem of those 10 people stealing bikes.... I dunno.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not fooling anyone with a strategy of asking you to 1) present facts 2) tell me why most cosmologists/physicists are wrong 3) point to your double standard (how dare I, a lay person, disagree with biologists and geologists about anything in the BIBLE while you disagree with physicists and cosmologists disagreeing with your unique views on PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY)?!

(? !!!!)

I'm trying to be both teachable and teach you:

2 timothy 2:24-26 nkjv

And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

That is not the way that it works. You made a claim. I could see that your claim was clearly wrong so I challenged you to find a source that supported you. You have not been able to do so. All you can do is to claim that they exist.

Once again, your claim, your burden of proof.

I offered to do your homework for you if you could be honest enough to admit that you cannot find any sources that support you. You could not even do that.

You have failed miserably. You know that I do not disagree with physicists. I disagree with you because you are, as usual, amazingly wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please demonstrate that the BB expansion created mass/energy. Simply making a claim does not make the claim true.

I'm working on a laptop with mass and energy, to respond to your good self, who is made of mass and energy. Since mass and energy cannot be created, how did the mass and energy get here?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is not the way that it works. You made a claim. I could see that your claim was clearly wrong so I challenged you to find a source that supported you. You have not been able to do so. All you can do is to claim that they exist.

Once again, your claim, your burden of proof.

I offered to do your homework for you if you could be honest enough to admit that you cannot find any sources that support you. You could not even do that.

You have failed miserably. You know that I do not disagree with physicists. I disagree with you because you are, as usual, amazingly wrong.

I agree with you. It is amazing when I'm rarely wrong.

The word you were seeking is "incredibly".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think no people are intrinsically good OR bad.
People will do good things and people will do bad things. For both good and bad reasons.



So?



So?



So?



None of the stuff you mentioned is even remotely close to being a proper substantiation of the claim that "all humans are denegerates" or "bad".

If you live in a tribe of 1000 individuals and there are 10 who steal bikes during the night, you'ld put a lock on your bike as well. That leaves 990 individuals who aren't stealing bikes.


Also, how having a god come down to be killed as a sacrifice to himself to save us from himself, is going to solve the problem of those 10 people stealing bikes.... I dunno.

I agree with the Bible, people are intrinsically both good and bad, Jekyll and Hyde. "People will do bad things" is an understatement when you consider the thousands of statues of law codes in every city and county. Jesus died for a good reason--IMHO, blood atonement for human sin.

The 990 who don't steal bikes lie, lust, covet, cheat... Paul describes in Romans 7 how the Law informed him of his state, since EVERYONE covets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with you. It is amazing when I'm rarely wrong.

The word you were seeking is "incredibly".

Oh.my, wrong again.

But what did I expect.

Support your claim. Do you know why you can't? It is.because you screwed the pooch big time.