Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[rrobs]

When someone points out that you are ignorant on a subject it is not analogous to them hating you or demanding your death. You are throwing a temper tantrum. Don't be a brat.

Pointing out someone else's ignorance is nothing but a pitiful attempt at defending one's own untenable position. At least that's how I take it. And calling someone names does not reflect well on the speaker. Yet more proof of one's own insecurity. You are a very good word twister. No wonder you don't understand the scriptures.

I really want to think you are better than that.

 

[ppp]

Pointing out someone else's ignorance is nothing but a pitiful attempt at defending one's own untenable position. At least that's how I take it.

Really? So, every time you got a test question wrong that was one of your teachers engaging in nothing but a pitiful attempt at defending their own untenable position?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've accused me several times of ignoring your questions. Are you yourself held to different standards, because there is no shortage of unanswered questions on your part? You should be sure you are not an offender of the things of which you accuse others. Your protests ring pretty hollow.

What questions did I supposedly dodge? Some of your so called questions appear to be mere rhetoric.

All your opinion. None of it has any factual evidence. Funny that it comes from a scientist like yourself.

No, what makes you think that. Please be precise what claims of mine do you think are not supported or even need evidence? Sometimes when someone makes an obvious claim there really is no need to supply evidence. For example "If I drop this rock it will fall" is true in a gravitational field if someone has not gone of the way to prevent the rock from falling. It is self evident from life experiences. But once again, ask specific questions and I will support my claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pointing out someone else's ignorance is nothing but a pitiful attempt at defending one's own untenable position. At least that's how I take it. And calling someone names does not reflect well on the speaker. Yet more proof of one's own insecurity. You are a very good word twister. No wonder you don't understand the scriptures.

I really want to think you are better than that.

That is a falsehood. I have offered to go over the basics with you, but you have run away from those offers. You are the one that holds untenable positions and now you are merely accusing others of your sins. The one that is insecure is the one that refuses to learn from his errors.

 

[shunyadragon]

I wonder where you got the idea that people become angels?. That is Not what the Bible teaches. Not a Bible teaching.
Adam and Eve were never offered to become angels.
Adam and Eve were only offered everlasting life on Earth. Earth was Not a stepping stone to becoming an angel.

Satan, Not God, challenges all of us as Satan challenged Job. - Job 2:4-4
'Touch our flesh.....' ( loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God.
Both Job and Jesus under adverse conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.
The word Father means: Life Giver Not Life Taker.
God can give those little children a return to life via the resurrection as promised in the Bible.
It is the bad conditions that apparently give you a hard time believing.......
It is these very bad conditions that prove how accurate the Bible God is - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13
The 'healings' Jesus performed were a small sample, a preview, a coming attraction of what he will do on a GRAND global scale.
'Healing' for earth's nations is what Jesus' coming one-thousand year reign over Earth is all about - Revelation 22:2

Not relevant to the subject of the thread.

 

[ratiocinator]

Random thoughts. It's amazing the things people come up with to demonstrate their hate for those who hold different views, particularly Christians. It reminds me of the verse that says Jesus did nothing but good and yet the people demanded his death.

The fact is, the scriptures say believers will be attacked by those who are ignorant of the truth. I'm just glad the days of burning Christians at the stake are over. Otherwise I feel confident I'd see your face among those cheering on as the fires were lit. The scriptures tell us to rejoice when attacked. It just adds more proof to the infallibility of the scriptures, so thanks for the confirmation!

This is silly, evasive, and rather offensive. I have no wish for you to be harmed or even to change your faith if you're determined to keep it in the fact of solid evidence. I do, however, want to challenge the misinformation you are posting about science, which, as I said, you are clearly ignorant of yet want to lecture other people about. I think that's what is called 'bearing false witness'.

 

[gnostic]

Pointing out someone else's ignorance is nothing but a pitiful attempt at defending one's own untenable position. At least that's how I take it. And calling someone names does not reflect well on the speaker. Yet more proof of one's own insecurity. You are a very good word twister. No wonder you don't understand the scriptures.

I really want to think you are better than that.

Good grief.

Science is science. Religion is religion.

Religion is definitely not science.

Religion relied on faith. Science relied on evidence, religions don’t.

If anyone is being “insecure”, they are the ones who attempted to validate their religions and their beliefs with science.

You are weak of faith, rrobs, because you feel the needs to twist your religion and your belief on to science to validate your religion.

I don’t remember the verses, but in the gospels when some people demanded Jesus to perform some miracles, Jesus told them you only need faith, not tests.

 

[rrobs]

Good grief.

Science is science. Religion is religion.

Religion is definitely not science.

Religion relied on faith. Science relied on evidence, religions don’t.

If anyone is being “insecure”, they are the ones who attempted to validate their religions and their beliefs with science.

You are weak of faith, rrobs, because you feel the needs to twist your religion and your belief on to science to validate your religion.

I don’t remember the verses, but in the gospels when some people demanded Jesus to perform some miracles, Jesus told them you only need faith, not tests.

I can tell you don't understand the ancient Hebrew concept of faith. You are defining it in 20th century Western terms. The Bible was written to the former and it should be incumbent on you to see how they understood it instead of forcing your erroneous preconceived views on the scriptures. Suffice it to say, Biblical faith has nothing to do with so-called "blind" faith. Evolution is actually much closer to "blind" faith than the faith of the Hebrews.

 

[ppp]

I can tell you don't understand the ancient Hebrew concept of faith. You are defining it in 20th century Western terms.

It wouldn't matter if that were true. He is using the term faith as it is practiced by western Christians in the 21st century.

 

[rrobs]

It wouldn't matter if that were true. He is using the term faith as it is practiced by western Christians in the 21st century.

And I'm not. Seriously; you don't see any problems with reading a 3,000 year old Semitic document in 20th Century Western terms?

 

[ppp]

And I'm not. Seriously; you don't see any problems with reading a 3,000 year old Semitic document in 20th Century Western terms?

Yes, you are. You are discussing science, now. And religion, now.

If you think there is a 3.000 year old definition that is currently in common practice, then quit just talking about it theoretically, and provide it practically in one or two sentences.

I say that faith as it is used by Christians today is being convinced that something is true without evidence, or in the face of contradicting evidence.

Can you be as succinct and to the point?

 

[gnostic]

I can tell you don't understand the ancient Hebrew concept of faith. You are defining it in 20th century Western terms.

I am talking about how modern Christians interpret Hebrew scriptures in modern contexts that are problems. By using modern contexts in ancient Hebrew texts, modern Christians often misinterpret the original contexts, hence taking it out of context.

This happen most frequently when they tried to change Hebrew passages to fit in with knowledge of modern science.

For instance, the universe that is defined to describe all the stars and galaxies as a whole, is actually a accepted modern concept, since 1919, when Edwin Hubble first discovered that there were more than one galaxy (Milky Way) in the universe.

All astronomical objects known NOW as galaxies, eg Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A, etc, were all presumed to be nebulas located within the Milky Way, before Hubble’s time. Charles Messier for instance, had catalog Andromeda as “Andromeda Nebula”, not as “Andromeda Galaxy” back in 1748.

My points is that modern Christians try to interpret “heaven” or “heavens” as the “universe”, like for instance in Genesis 1:1 -

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth

But neither Genesis, nor the rest of the Bible, ever define what “heaven” or “heavens” (shamayim in Hebrew) mean. There are no explanations in the Bible as to what shamayim or heavens are, but Christians today, do what they do, tried to equate heavens with the Universe.

This is what I mean by taking the biblical passage “out-of-context” or misinterpreting the biblical passage with modern concepts.

 

[rrobs]

Yes, you are. You are discussing science, now. And religion, now.

If you think there is a 3.000 year old definition that is currently in common practice, then quit just talking about it theoretically, and provide it practically in one or two sentences.

I say that faith as it is used by Christians today is being convinced that something is true without evidence, or in the face of contradicting evidence.

Can you be as succinct and to the point?

When you make the move to sit in a chair, do you have trust based on past experience that it will hold you up or do you have no past evidence it will hold you up so you just have blind faith it will hold you up?

You can accept the common erroneous traditional definition or you could go to the scriptures themselves. I understand the commonly accepted definition is blind in nature, but the actual usage in the scriptures always includes the idea of trust. You trust that which you know.

Since you wanted succinctness, I didn't go into much detail. Perhaps this will inspire you to do your own research.

 

[rrobs]

But neither Genesis, nor the rest of the Bible, ever define what “heaven” or “heavens” (shamayim in Hebrew) mean. There are no explanations in the Bible as to what shamayim or heavens are, but Christians today, do what they do, tried to equate heavens with the Universe.

This is what I mean by taking the biblical passage “out-of-context” or misinterpreting the biblical passage with modern concepts.

You are right. We need to avoid understanding the scriptures in our modern Western terms. The same is true of Shakespeare, Plato, The Upanishads, etc. It's not new concept for any scholar of ancient history.

Gen 1:20,

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
​

Birds fly in heaven.

Even Taoism (an Eastern discipline as are the scriptures) defines heaven as anything above the earth. If you are interested you can look up every usage of the word heaven to get a fuller understanding. Suffice it to say, the modern Western version of heaven has little in common with those to whom the scriptures were originally given, i.e. an ancient Semitic tribe. They didn't see things like us.

 

[ppp]

When you make the move to sit in a chair, do you have trust based on past experience that it will hold you up or do you have no past evidence it will hold you up so you just have blind faith it will hold you up?

You can accept the common erroneous traditional definition or you could go to the scriptures themselves. I understand the commonly accepted definition is blind in nature, but the actual usage in the scriptures always includes the idea of trust. You trust that which you know.

So, you didn't give me a definition. The closest thing you gave me to a definition of 'faith' is "...the actual usage in the scriptures always includes the idea of trust". That is like saying the usage of nostagia always includes the idea of memory. That is true, but nowhere close to being a definition of nostagia.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1

I say that faith as it is used by Christians today is being convinced that something is true without evidence, or in the face of contradicting evidence. Hebrews 11:1 literally says that faith is the evidence.

Your turn. You say, Faith is...

 

[rrobs]

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1

Your turn. You say, Faith is...

Most people's knowledge of the Bible comes from what others say about it. Few actually do their own research.

Anyway, here is the Hebrew word used for faith from Strong's Concordance. It's how the Jews used the word.

H529 אֵמוּן 'emuwn (ay-moon') n-m.

1. established.
2. (figuratively) trusty.
3. (abstractly) trustworthiness.​

Like I said you sit on a chair because past experience has proven the chair to be reliable. You have faith it will hold you up.

Hebrews 11:1 is certainly a good verse, but building a complete doctrine on one verse is not good. For an honest answer it is necessary to look at all 231 uses of the word "faith." You must look at the immediate and remote context of all 231 uses. For example, you took Hebrews 11:1 out of context. At least you should read all of the chapter.

Finally, your never having experienced God in a concrete way does not mean others have not.

 

[ppp]

Most people's knowledge of the Bible comes from what others say about it. Few actually do their own research.

Anyway, here is the Hebrew word used for faith from Strong's Concordance. It's how the Jews used the word.

H529 אֵמוּן 'emuwn (ay-moon') n-m.
1. established.
2. (figuratively) trusty.
3. (abstractly) trustworthiness.

There is not one word. There are about ten Hebrew words for faith. The one you quote is not the one used in Hebrews 11:1. That passage uses pistis, which according to Strong's Concordance is more in line with conviction or coming to be persuaded.

But fine. We'll pretend that we are only talking about the versions of faith that specifically mean trust. And that the answer to may question, What does @rrobs mean by faith is "trust" --> "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something."

The things is @rrobs, is that you are only addressing surface, where as I am focused on substance. Take your chair analogy:

Like I said you sit on a chair because past experience has proven the chair to be reliable. You have faith it will hold you up.

You are only talking about the end step. That because I am convinced that my chair is reliable and you are convinced that your god is reliable, that the process by which we came to our respective conclusions is irrelevant.

And you take that entirely superficial position, IMHO, because scratching beneath the surface would reveal that the processes we use to get there are in direct opposition to one another. I have no problem acknowledging that you have trust. but when I talk about faith, I am talking about the unreliable methodology that you employ to establish the existence of your god.

Unlike your god, the chair is, first and foremost, reliably and demonstrably extant. The evidentiary support for the chair's existence is testable and reliable and demonstrable:

• to people who don't believe that the chair exist;
• to people who do not want to believe that the chair exist;
• to people who hate the chair
• to people who do not want to do what the chair tells them
• to people who have hardened their hearts against the chair
• to people who want to destroy the chair
• to people who just want to sin against the chair

Before you can discuss reliability of the function of the thing, you first have to demonstrate that the thing you claim is reliable actually exists in reality.

Is your god demonstrable in a similar way to the chair? No. The answer is, No.

 

[rrobs]

There is not one word. There are about ten Hebrew words for faith. The one you quote is not the one used in Hebrews 11:1. That passage uses pistis, which according to Strong's Concordance is more in line with conviction or coming to be persuaded.

But fine. We'll pretend that we are only talking about the versions of faith that specifically mean trust. And that the answer to may question, What does @rrobs mean by faith is "trust" --> "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something."

The things is @rrobs, is that you are only addressing surface, where as I am focused on substance. Take your chair analogy:

You are only talking about the end step. That because I am convinced that my chair is reliable and you are convinced that your god is reliable, that the process by which we came to our respective conclusions is irrelevant.

And you take that entirely superficial position, IMHO, because scratching beneath the surface would reveal that the processes we use to get there are in direct opposition to one another. I have no problem acknowledging that you have trust. but when I talk about faith, I am talking about the unreliable methodology that you employ to establish the existence of your god.

Unlike your god, the chair is, first and foremost, reliably and demonstrably extant. The evidentiary support for the chair's existence is testable and reliable and demonstrable:

• to people who don't believe that the chair exist;
• to people who do not want to believe that the chair exist;
• to people who hate the chair
• to people who do not want to do what the chair tells them
• to people who have hardened their hearts against the chair
• to people who want to destroy the chair
• to people who just want to sin against the chair

Before you can discuss reliability of the function of the thing, you first have to demonstrate that the thing you claim is reliable actually exists in reality.

Is your god demonstrable in a similar way to the chair? No. The answer is, No.

If there is anything at all that exists, it would be God. I understand you to have not had that experience, but may people have.

 

[ppp]

If there is anything at all that exists, it would be God.

Hollow words.

I understand you to have not had that experience, but may people have.

Is the experience of "many people" enough to justify the existence of any claim? Or just the things that you personally believe in, @rrobs?

 

[rrobs]

Hollow words.

Are not.

Is the experience of "many people" enough to justify the existence of any claim? Or just the things that you personally believe in, @rrobs?

Kinda makes you wonder about all those people who say George Washington lived. Have you met him? I haven't. I guess we take it by personal faith.