The Holy Bible Manifested

[Ceridwen018]

destinata7,

Often in the course of church history Christians have felt to deny, repel and to hush discoveries of science that were thought to challenge their sacred views. I could name a good size number of such refutations but I don’t think I need go there to answer your statement.

Do you agree with those refutations? Rather, which holds more authority for you, the bible or science?

2. We do not believe that God is the nature or elements of the universe in action.

So, you're saying that you don't believe god is controlling the world? You think that nature controls the world, and the god is not part of that?

We believe that God has personifications and His Spirit penetrates all creation.

Hmmm...I don't see what the difference is between his 'spirit penetrating all creation' and 'being part of the universe in action'.

Of course God is a God of miracles, but God works and lives in both the great and small creations and functions of this universe (see Psalms 29:2-10).

How can you believe that, but not believe that god 'is the nature or elements of the universe in action'?

As regards the so called “Big Bang”, the Bible tells us the heavens will be rolled together as a scroll ( Is. 34:4) This is how this universe will end and how all universe worlds have ended. After perpetuations of timelessness God stretches out the scroll of the densified heavens of the universe and time begins again ( see Isa. 42:5-45:12, 51:15 and Ps. 104:2).

I agree with Mr. Spinkles-- you are agreeing with us here. You would simply call it the 'Big Roll' as opposed to the 'Big Bang'.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As regards the so called “Big Bang”, the Bible tells us the heavens will be rolled together as a scroll ( Is. 34:4) This is how this universe will end and how all universe worlds have ended. After perpetuations of timelessness God stretches out the scroll of the densified heavens of the universe and time begins again ( see Isa. 42:5-45:12, 51:15 and Ps. 104:2).

I think, though I am not sure, that you are referring to the "closed universe" theory--that a big bang occurs, then the galaxies come back together and form another big bang, and this cycle repeats.

In the past decade or so, however, scientists have leaned more towards an "open universe" theory--that the one Big Bang occurred, and the galaxies will continue expanding forever and will never collapse back in on each other. Why is this theory preferred? Because recently it has been calculated that the galaxies are not slowing down--they are actually speeding up! So unless these calculations are wrong, it is doubtful that we live in a "closed universe".

 

[destinata7]

destinata7,

Often in the course of church history Christians have felt to deny, repel and to hush discoveries of science that were thought to challenge their sacred views. I could name a good size number of such refutations but I don’t think I need go there to answer your statement.

Do you agree with those refutations? Rather, which holds more authority for you, the bible or science?

My whole point was to show that some religious persons have mis-interpreted the Bible and unwittingly made a case against it by using the letter of the law rather than using the Spirit. Consequently, choices were made against some idea of science that were actually correct. I am first a Bible believer and second a science believer. However, both kinds of law are bound up without the interpretation of the Spirit.

2. We do not believe that God is the nature or elements of the universe in action.

So, you're saying that you don't believe god is controlling the world? You think that nature controls the world, and the god is not part of that?

We believe that God has personifications and His Spirit penetrates all creation.

I thought my point was clear but perhaps not. I was saying that I do not believe in pantheism (the belief that God is identical with the forces of nature and with natural substance). As to God controlling the world...No! God oversees the world but does not violate the free will.

Hmmm...I don't see what the difference is between his 'spirit penetrating all creation' and 'being part of the universe in action'.

(See John 1:32 and 1:14) Personification has to do with embodiment. As to God's Spirit penetrating all creation please read Psalm 19:1-6 and Eph. 4:6.

Of course God is a God of miracles, but God works and lives in both the great and small creations and functions of this universe (see Psalms 29:2-10).

How can you believe that, but not believe that god 'is the nature or elements of the universe in action'?

A miracle is generally a supernatural or extraordinary event. There are natural functions of nature which God has inspired but which God does not steer but allows the flow of nature to emerge.

As regards the so called “Big Bang”, the Bible tells us the heavens will be rolled together as a scroll ( Is. 34:4) This is how this universe will end and how all universe worlds have ended. After perpetuations of timelessness God stretches out the scroll of the densified heavens of the universe and time begins again ( see Isa. 42:5-45:12, 51:15 and Ps. 104:2).

I agree with Mr. Spinkles-- you are agreeing with us here. You would simply call it the 'Big Roll' as opposed to the 'Big Bang'.

 

[destinata7]

As regards the so called “Big Bang”, the Bible tells us the heavens will be rolled together as a scroll ( Is. 34:4) This is how this universe will end and how all universe worlds have ended. After perpetuations of timelessness God stretches out the scroll of the densified heavens of the universe and time begins again ( see Isa. 42:5-45:12, 51:15 and Ps. 104:2).

I think, though I am not sure, that you are referring to the "closed universe" theory--that a big bang occurs, then the galaxies come back together and form another big bang, and this cycle repeats.

In the past decade or so, however, scientists have leaned more towards an "open universe" theory--that the one Big Bang occurred, and the galaxies will continue expanding forever and will never collapse back in on each other. Why is this theory preferred? Because recently it has been calculated that the galaxies are not slowing down--they are actually speeding up! So unless these calculations are wrong, it is doubtful that we live in a "closed universe".

I am fully aware of Hubble’s latest announced discoveries as to the expanding universe. I still believe the Red Shift is not correctly read because it is not yet understood the whole universe is convoluting and involuting at a scale extremely vast.

I’m also aware of the math used for their expanding theory, however, the looking back in time to the moment of the Big Bang does not equate for supplying the vast exponential growth of the universe and it’s logistical configurations.

I appreciate the power and range of the Hubble telescopes but if two large galaxies were in collision it might seem the universe was closing. No one should figure that the primodial nucleosynthesis event (Big Bang) is an extinct concept.

There are many possibilities for mis-reading the Red Shift….here are a few as follows:

The photon decay wave length as affected by the distance law, electro-magnetic entanglement effect, the toroidal topology effect of gravity, etc.

 

[destinata7]

All you atheists out there:



What is your belief about the universe?

Is the universe infinite? Does it have boundaries? If so what lies beyond those boudaries?

Do you believe that it always existed or that it instantly came to be?

Do you believe that there have been other universes that have existed?

Do you believe that all life will cease to exist someday?


I sincerely would like to hear and discuss your views about this.

 

[Ceridwen018]

What is your belief about the universe?

Everything in the universe acts in rational and logical patterns.

Is the universe infinite? Does it have boundaries? If so what lies beyond those boudaries?

Depends on how you would define the universe. Some call all of space the universe (like me!), and others are referring to only the galaxies etc, which are then surrounded by a vacuum. I simply include the vacuum in my definition of 'universe' but that's not a big deal.

Do you believe that it always existed or that it instantly came to be?

By my definition, I believe that the vacuum which surrounds our present universe has always been, the universe itself having been created within the vacuum.

Do you believe that there have been other universes that have existed?

It is quite possible.

Do you believe that all life will cease to exist someday?

This is also quite possible.

 

[destinata7]

What is your belief about the universe?

Everything in the universe acts in rational and logical patterns.

And this really fits with the "everything is random" theory? I find this to be extremely contradictory.

Ration and logic do not exist without a consciousness.

So then, do the atoms and molecules have consciousness? And if one were to believe that then why would any other concsiousness be so hard to believe in?

Is the universe infinite? Does it have boundaries? If so what lies beyond those boudaries?

Depends on how you would define the universe. Some call all of space the universe (like me!), and others are referring to only the galaxies etc, which are then surrounded by a vacuum. I simply include the vacuum in my definition of 'universe' but that's not a big deal.

If you just don't know the answer to my question, just say so. Your answer certainly does nothing to satisfy the question(s).

Do you believe that it always existed or that it instantly came to be?

By my definition, I believe that the vacuum which surrounds our present universe has always been, the universe itself having been created within the vacuum.

Now we are learning something about what you actually believe! Progress is achieved. In a nutshell, you believe that this huge vaccuum (you have no idea whatsoever how huge) always existed (so my belief that God always existed is not so nutty is it) and kerpow kerblang logical and rational functioning particles just appeared out of nowhere and started forming planets and galaxies and wonderously formed life?

Your beliefs sound much less rational and logical and much more far out than my own, Ceridwen.

Also of note is your choice of words "having been created". This implies that something or someone may have been responsible for this creation process. A typo..... or a message from your sub-conscious? Or both!

Do you believe that there have been other universes that have existed?

It is quite possible.

I'm aware of the possibility. I want to know your opinion here...if you've formed one.

Do you believe that all life will cease to exist someday?

This is also quite possible.

Again, I would really like to know your specific belief here. Yes, I realize the fact that your admission that this is "possibility" is a peek into what you may or may not believe....but I was hoping you had something a little more final in your thoughts here.

 

[Ceridwen018]

And this really fits with the "everything is random" theory? I find this to be extremely contradictory.

I agree. To believe that everything is random and patterned at the same time is contradictory...which is why I don't believe things are random.

Ration and logic do not exist without a consciousness.

Says who?

If you just don't know the answer to my question, just say so. Your answer certainly does nothing to satisfy the question(s).

Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague. These are just my personal opinions though--no one knows the definate answers to these questions. We can only come to logical conclusions based on the evidence science provides.

So I'll have another go: I believe the universe is finite, although expanding. beyond the boundaries of the universe lies a vacuum.

Now we are learning something about what you actually believe! Progress is achieved. In a nutshell, you believe that this huge vaccuum (you have no idea whatsoever how huge) always existed (so my belief that God always existed is not so nutty is it) and kerpow kerblang logical and rational functioning particles just appeared out of nowhere and started forming planets and galaxies and wonderously formed life?

Lol, whoa now, hold the phone! You are correct in stating that the concept of the universe having always existed and the concept of god having always existed are one and the same. The difference of course being that one conclusion has been garnered through logic and empirical evidence and the other...has not. I never said that particles appeared out of no where and started fuctioning. I believe that those particles and matter have always existed, along with the universe.

Also of note is your choice of words "having been created". This implies that something or someone may have been responsible for this creation process. A typo..... or a message from your sub-conscious? Or both!

Hmm, I would say neither, actually. The word 'creation', although affiliated with religion and god, can also be used to descibe other things. When the Big Bang happened, the universe was instigated. The action of the Big Bang 'created' that instigating moment, therefore 'creating' the universe.

I'm aware of the possibility. I want to know your opinion here...if you've formed one.

Alright, I'll elaborate. I believe that rational matter has always existed, and therefore been working in it's logical patterns forever. Obviously, the creation of the universe is part of this pattern, so it's only logical to conclude that matter has been following this same course forever, therefore implying that there have been infinite universes before ours, and will be infinite more after.

Again, I would really like to know your specific belief here. Yes, I realize the fact that your admission that this is "possibility" is a peek into what you may or may not believe....but I was hoping you had something a little more final in your thoughts here.

I've been thinking about this one and have finally reached a conclusion. Planets do not last forever. The day will come when our planet's core will explode or whatever, and our planet will die. Because life on earth cannot exist without earth, it will also die. However, the fate of our planet does not directly affect life that might be on other planets out there, nor does it affect life which will result as a part of the pattern in the future. Because life is part of this pattern and the pattern is continuous, I think that life will continue to be formed and destroyed forever, just in another place and time.

 

[destinata7]

And this really fits with the "everything is random" theory? I find this to be extremely contradictory.

I agree. To believe that everything is random and patterned at the same time is contradictory...which is why I don't believe things are random.

[/quote]

So then I take it that you don't believe in "accidents"?

Ration and logic do not exist without a consciousness.

Says who?

To logic is to reason and this is a definitely a thought process. Thinking requires a mind or consciousness. C'mon, Ceridwen, this one is not making sense for you to argue. You originally stated: "Everything in the universe acts in rational and logical patterns".

Therefore, we are discussing logic as an action or verb if you will. If matter existed always and started acting through rationality and logic....guess what, it had a mind/consciousness. Is it such a stretch to put a name or label on that? Try to be completely fair in your reasoning here.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague. These are just my personal opinions though--no one knows the definate answers to these questions. We can only come to logical conclusions based on the evidence science provides.

Why is it then that atheists seem so confident and comfortable with their conclusions? You just admitted that no one really knows...blind atheist faith I guess.

So I'll have another go: I believe the universe is finite, although expanding. beyond the boundaries of the universe lies a vacuum.

And how far does the vaccuum extend to?

The difference of course being that one conclusion has been garnered through logic and empirical evidence and the other...has not.

You have "empirical evidence" of all these universal discussions we have been just touched upon? Feel free then to provide evidence for the following:

1) Matter has always existed

2) The universe is finite

3) The matter that decided to "bang" and create the universe was not directed by a consciousness

I never said that particles appeared out of no where and started fuctioning. I believe that those particles and matter have always existed, along with the universe.

Your previous statement that you believed the vaccuum always existed gave me the wrong impression here......my humble apologies.

Also of note is your choice of words "having been created". This implies that something or someone may have been responsible for this creation process. A typo..... or a message from your sub-conscious? Or both!

The action of the Big Bang 'created' that instigating moment, therefore 'creating' the universe.

I read you. The Big Bang is the "creator" here, if you will.

I believe that rational matter has always existed, and therefore been working in it's logical patterns forever. Obviously, the creation of the universe is part of this pattern, so it's only logical to conclude that matter has been following this same course forever, therefore implying that there have been infinite universes before ours, and will be infinite more after.

Here is a brain teaser for you: if matter always existed, as your proposal reads, why did it wait a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (you get the point) years before it suddenly decided to Bang with it's rational pattern of logic and order? If it wasn't random it most certainly didn't need to take sixteen forevers to start creating.

I know you would like to counter this question by applying the same thing to God. The difference with God, however, is that I contend that God has a consciousness while you contend that matter does not. A consciousness can do whatever they want whenever they want for their own reasons. Something like matter, however, being already programmed for logic and order would not have the luxury for choice to decide when to start creation. I percieve a wee bit of a conundrum here....

I've been thinking about this one and have finally reached a conclusion. Planets do not last forever. The day will come when our planet's core will explode or whatever, and our planet will die. Because life on earth cannot exist without earth, it will also die. However, the fate of our planet does not directly affect life that might be on other planets out there, nor does it affect life which will result as a part of the pattern in the future. Because life is part of this pattern and the pattern is continuous, I think that life will continue to be formed and destroyed forever, just in another place and time.

You perceive that planetary life is not perpetual. It must end. Yet is it not somewhat a gap in logic to deduce that life will continue to be formed and destroyed forever and yet has not always existed forever? What did not previously exist becomes eternal?

 

[Ceridwen018]

So then I take it that you don't believe in "accidents"?

Nope. And I don't believe in free-will either.

To logic is to reason and this is a definitely a thought process. Thinking requires a mind or consciousness. C'mon, Ceridwen, this one is not making sense for you to argue. You originally stated: "Everything in the universe acts in rational and logical patterns".

I still don't see why someone had to 'think it up'. Why couldn't it have just always existed that way? To say that someone thought it up would deprive it of it's infinity.

Why is it then that atheists seem so confident and comfortable with their conclusions? You just admitted that no one really knows...blind atheist faith I guess.

Sort of...only instead of filling in scientific gaps with religion, we leave them open for possible theories. The difference between scientific theories and religious theories (take evolution vs. creationism for example) is that scientific ones have evidence and general back-up. If you think we seem confident, it is only because no one has ever given us a reason not to be.

It's actually quite humorous for me that you mentioned this. It's a big Atheist joke that that is exactly what Christians say: "You just admitted you don't have all the answers!!! Therefore, god exists!!!"

And how far does the vaccuum extend to?

Well, scientists are leaning towards the theory that the vacuum is infinite, and so until a better theory comes along, that's what I'm sticking too. Think of it this way though: a vacuum is nothingness, and nothingness doesn't take up any space...so the vacuum is infinite and non-existent at the same time. Who knows, maybe there is something beyond the vacuum...maybe the vacuum isn't even there. Have you even seen Men In Black? You know at the end how our universe ends up being a marble for some alien? That's pretty cool. Bottom line, I don't have to have all the holes filled to be happy. The fact that there are holes actually makes me happiest, because that allows for growth and learning. Also, what would I think about if there weren't any gaps?

1) Matter has always existed

To the best of my knowledge, there is no definate empirical evidence for this one...however scientists can observe the patterns of matter today, and how they work in creating new things, etc. basically though, we're gonna have to stick with logic for the basis of this one.

2) The universe is finite

Indeed! The universe is expanding. Something which is infinite cannot get larger or smaller because it has no size. Therefore, through logic, as well as the empirical evidence for the expansion of the universe (which also supports the big bang theory) we can conclude that the universe if finite.

3) The matter that decided to "bang" and create the universe was not directed by a consciousness

Well, there is no empirical evidence for this one, we're just gonna have to use logic. I could direct that question back at you though: where's your proof or logic that it is? It's nearly impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist, therefore it would be impossible for me or anyone to get you any evidence.

Your previous statement that you believed the vaccuum always existed gave me the wrong impression here......my humble apologies.

It's cool, hehe.

I read you. The Big Bang is the "creator" here, if you will.

Yes, basically.

Here is a brain teaser for you: if matter always existed, as your proposal reads, why did it wait a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (you get the point) years before it suddenly decided to Bang with it's rational pattern of logic and order? If it wasn't random it most certainly didn't need to take sixteen forevers to start creating.

Oh, but this is the best part!! Who says that we are the first universe to have been created?? Obviously, universe creating is part of the pattern of matter, so that means that there have been infinite universes before ours! The particles have been working, they haven't just been hanging out!

You perceive that planetary life is not perpetual. It must end. Yet is it not somewhat a gap in logic to deduce that life will continue to be formed and destroyed forever and yet has not always existed forever? What did not previously exist becomes eternal?

Hmmm...I don't think I'm seeing your point here. Planetary life, as is limited to a single planet, will end...but the cycle of creation of universes and therefore life will not. I think I read you wrong. You meant, 'will life end forever'. No, it will not.

 

[destinata7]

So then I take it that you don't believe in "accidents"?

Nope. And I don't believe in free-will either.

You're so goofy! :roll:

No randomness? No accidents? No free choice? Fate then.....? Of course fate doesn't make sense either without a higher all powerful consciousness. I take it you don't believe in reason or logic then either.....

To logic is to reason and this is a definitely a thought process. Thinking requires a mind or consciousness. C'mon, Ceridwen, this one is not making sense for you to argue. You originally stated: "Everything in the universe acts in rational and logical patterns".

I still don't see why someone had to 'think it up'. Why couldn't it have just always existed that way? To say that someone thought it up would deprive it of it's infinity.

Then you need to use different definitions than "logic" and "ration". These certainly do not fit where there is no mind. Re-defining words on your own authority without dictionary back-up can cause immense confusion.

If you think we seem confident, it is only because no one has ever given us a reason not to be.

Only scientist's theories have been disproved and reproved and changed and updated and disagreed on time and time and time again. This means that your "belief sytem" which has been based on these theories has changed with their theories........this means your own scientists have given you plenty of reasons not to be over-confident.

It's actually quite humorous for me that you mentioned this. It's a big Atheist joke that that is exactly what Christians say: "You just admitted you don't have all the answers!!! Therefore, god exists!!!"

That joke is probably only humorous to atheists. It's a typical bending of perspective that you keep over-indulging yourself in. The point is this: atheists attack christians by commonly using the method of "I'll pull this card out of the bottom and the rest of the stack comes toppling down on your head". However, when faced with the same situation, they refuse to play by the same rules of engagement.

For example, if you do not understand why that God would create the universe in the manner that God did, and someone were to tell you "There's some things that no one knows or understands", you would not be satisfied with that answer and feel that you have a valid reason to question the existence of God. When I ask you for proof for your beliefs, you say this to me and find it humorous??

Call it what you will, but you are using blind faith for your own beliefs. You take other people's word and their theories and yes, some of these theories are full of holes, but you proclaim them like gospel from the rooftops. So for you to say that you believe something that you cannot prove and yet ostracize others for this and to poke fun at them is not only completely inappropriate.....it's not humorous in the least bit.

And how far does the vaccuum extend to?

Well, scientists are leaning towards the theory that the vacuum is infinite, and so until a better theory comes along, that's what I'm sticking too.

Just more evidence of your lack of proof for your own beliefs.

Think of it this way though: a vacuum is nothingness, and nothingness doesn't take up any space...so the vacuum is infinite and non-existent at the same time.

Then there would be a boundry where all the shiny stars stop and the nothingness begins wouldn't there?

Bottom line, I don't have to have all the holes filled to be happy. The fact that there are holes actually makes me happiest, because that allows for growth and learning.

You sure needed all the holes to be filled to be happy in christianity.... is this really fair?

Also, what would I think about if there weren't any gaps?

Maybe a logical train of thought defending christianity instead of attacking it? But you would rather defend the holes in the new rut you have dug for yourself. There are many many scientists that are professed christians you know.....are they all nutty?

1) Matter has always existed

Not only can you not give me proof for this, you also fail to give me any logical explanation whatsoever for this. Wonderful belief system you have going here.

Indeed! The universe is expanding.

According to some scientists. And some say it's movement is on far too vast of a scale to tell if it's exanding or contracting or both. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe is only expanding. Trust me there is not conclusive evidence here....only theories and misinterpreted data.

Something which is infinite cannot get larger or smaller because it has no size. Therefore, through logic, as well as the empirical evidence for the expansion of the universe (which also supports the big bang theory) we can conclude that the universe if finite.

Something finite has boundaries and outer limits....you still haven't made up your mind what you really believe, have you? Are you making this up as you go along? It certainly sounds like it.

3) The matter that decided to "bang" and create the universe was not directed by a consciousness

Well, there is no empirical evidence for this one, we're just gonna have to use logic. I could direct that question back at you though: where's your proof or logic that it is? It's nearly impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist, therefore it would be impossible for me or anyone to get you any evidence.

Big surprise. You've got nothing on this one but another flip flop on my perspective which currently was not under discussion. You have a lot of nerve, I'll give you that. You have very little else though....no solid proof, no solid answers and no train of thought that is consistent with all of your beliefs.

Here is a brain teaser for you: if matter always existed, as your proposal reads, why did it wait a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (you get the point) years before it suddenly decided to Bang with it's rational pattern of logic and order? If it wasn't random it most certainly didn't need to take sixteen forevers to start creating.

Oh, but this is the best part!! Who says that we are the first universe to have been created?? Obviously, universe creating is part of the pattern of matter, so that means that there have been infinite universes before ours! The particles have been working, they haven't just been hanging out!

You are making this up as you go along. You just said that matter existed first. For matter to exist first there had to be a first universe created by the matter that came before the universe.

You perceive that planetary life is not perpetual. It must end. Yet is it not somewhat a gap in logic to deduce that life will continue to be formed and destroyed forever and yet has not always existed forever? What did not previously exist becomes eternal?

Hmmm...I don't think I'm seeing your point here. Planetary life, as is limited to a single planet, will end...but the cycle of creation of universes and therefore life will not. I think I read you wrong. You meant, 'will life end forever'. No, it will not.

[/quote]

No. This falls under the same category as my last above commentary. For worlds to be eternally created and destroyed.....this cyclic process would have to have been perpetually existent before as well. Otherwise you have this perpetual matter that just hung around for a trillion forevers and decided to start a perpetual cycle that never ends. It stands to reason that what was once inactive could also revert back to that state(inactivity) again.

 

[Ceridwen018]

destinata7,

No randomness? No accidents? No free choice? Fate then.....? Of course fate doesn't make sense either without a higher all powerful consciousness. I take it you don't believe in reason or logic then either.....

It is because of rationality and logic that I don't believe in accidents or free-will. Because everything acts in logical patterns, nothing can happen outside of that pattern, and everything, by definition, is predictable.

Then you need to use different definitions than "logic" and "ration". These certainly do not fit where there is no mind. Re-defining words on your own authority without dictionary back-up can cause immense confusion.

Alright then, I'll get right on that.

Only scientist's theories have been disproved and reproved and changed and updated and disagreed on time and time and time again. This means that your "belief sytem" which has been based on these theories has changed with their theories........this means your own scientists have given you plenty of reasons not to be over-confident.

Not over-confident, this is true, but more confident that you, certainly. It is science's ability to change which makes it so appealing to me. The bible does not change. The bible says that the sun revolves around the earth, and then when that was disproven, the Christians were left grasping for explanations like 'It shouldn't be taken literally', which opens up a whole other can of worms.

I would take my ever changing scientific theories based on logic over the constant theories of the bible based on here-say any day.

So for you to say that you believe something that you cannot prove and yet ostracize others for this and to poke fun at them is not only completely inappropriate.....it's not humorous in the least bit.

I wasn't saying it to you personally, to try and offend or dig at you or something--I was just trying to be conversational. I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way, I won't do it again.

You have brought up an interesting point here though: why do I accept holes in science but not in religion? Well, for starters, if all the 'revealed' stuff in religion actually made sense, I would be more willing to accept those holes, but the fact of the matter is that they don't. Therefore, I'm having to blindly accept uncertainties based on information which is grossly uncertain and contradictory in itself. In science, what we know is based on current empirical studies, not on something someone wrote down 2000 years ago. The holes in science are much different than the ones in religion. The holes in science do not result from contradiction like those in religion, and they aren't permanent. The holes in religion, on the other hand, stem from obviously contradictory concepts that you just have to accept anyway, and there is no hope of ever understanding them. In science, every door has the possibility of being opened by new technology and knowledge. The future looks bright.

Just more evidence of your lack of proof for your own beliefs.

You would say so, but I say at least I have a theory. What does the bible say about the supposed vacuum that surrounds the universe?

I don't have any more 'proof' for my beliefs than you do for yours. In fact, I don't believe that anything in the world can be 100% proven or disproven, which is why I like to go by probability. Weighing the evidence, my beliefs are much more probable than yours.

Then there would be a boundry where all the shiny stars stop and the nothingness begins wouldn't there?

Yes, there would.

Maybe a logical train of thought defending christianity instead of attacking it? But you would rather defend the holes in the new rut you have dug for yourself.

I can't defend something I disagree with, and I don't think I 'attack' christianity...I merely pick it apart.

There are many many scientists that are professed christians you know.....are they all nutty?

It's certainly possible...or they could have just perfected the art of fitting god into science. Maybe they should all write books...

Not only can you not give me proof for this, you also fail to give me any logical explanation whatsoever for this. Wonderful belief system you have going here.

No proof, but I did supply you with the premise for the empirical evidence on this.

Please don't criticize my supposed 'lack of proof and evidence'. You, as a Christian, are certainly one to talk.

According to some scientists. And some say it's movement is on far too vast of a scale to tell if it's exanding or contracting or both. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe is only expanding. Trust me there is not conclusive evidence here....only theories and misinterpreted data.

Lots of people say lots of things, but the theory accepted by the largest percentage of the scientific community is that of an expanding universe. I'm working on finding some good scientific sites for you to check this out on.

Something finite has boundaries and outer limits....you still haven't made up your mind what you really believe, have you? Are you making this up as you go along? It certainly sounds like it.

Let me clarify: The vacuum is infinite, the universe is finite, although expanding.

3) The matter that decided to "bang" and create the universe was not directed by a consciousness

To say that the matter had a 'consciousness' is to try and squeeze god so he fits into religion. Does matter have a consciousness now? Of course not. Well, where did it go? Do you see what I'm saying? Because matter has no consciousness now, it is logical to conclude that it never had one. To say that it did is a 'filling in the gaps' argument.

You are making this up as you go along. You just said that matter existed first. For matter to exist first there had to be a first universe created by the matter that came before the universe.

I never said that matter existed 'first', I said that matter has existed forever.

No. This falls under the same category as my last above commentary. For worlds to be eternally created and destroyed.....this cyclic process would have to have been perpetually existent before as well. Otherwise you have this perpetual matter that just hung around for a trillion forevers and decided to start a perpetual cycle that never ends. It stands to reason that what was once inactive could also revert back to that state(inactivity) again.

If, that is, if matter was ever in an inactive state. It is possible that that could be part of it's pattern, but then after the period of inactivity, the activity would start again, as the pattern requires, and therefore life would continue to exist.

 

[destinata7]

Hey there Ceridwen!

Just in case you noticed my drastic change in tone in the last couple of posts, I thought that I would try a little devil's advocate on you to see if it would be fun and productive.

It wasn't fun.

It wasn't productive.

Sorry if I ticked you off though.....I liked our friendly chats alot better and think that maybe we got a little further that way.


I won't be coming on this site very often for quite awhile. I just took a second job that's going to last at least a year. Fourteen hour days plus a family is definitely going to take me out of the loop for awhile.

Just so you know, I enjoyed discussing these topics with you and it was great to hear some alternate points of view. Take care of King's Island for me.....and those horses.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Good luck with that Destinata!

Hope to talk with you again.