Is Anybody On Here A Hardcore Christian?

[ManxTrialSpaz]

But it does have an edge. There's no fence of course but our Universe could be likened to a balloon, which is continually inflating. Kinda.

I think edge was the wrong word. By that I meant, that when you get to the edge of the universe, there is a physical barrier stopping you or any matter from going past that point. Which must be the case you contend the idea of nothingness and the expanding universe. Unless you believe outside our universe is an unknown matter/state which connects alternative universes.

Edited June 7, 2009 by ManxTrialSpaz

[manuel]

I think edge was the wrong word. By that I meant, that when you get to the edge of the universe, there is a physical barrier stopping you or any matter from going past that point. Which must be the case you contend the idea of nothingness and the expanding universe. Unless you believe outside our universe is an unknown matter/state which connects alternative universes.

Isnt the idea that generally you would head toward what you think is "the edge" but just come in on the other side of the universe .... as in its just continuous there is no edge - only the distance between things gets greater as the universe expands...

its just a shape that the human brain cant quite get to grips with ?

[ManxTrialSpaz]

Isnt the idea that generally you would head toward what you think is "the edge" but just come in on the other side of the universe .... as in its just continuous there is no edge - only the distance between things gets greater as the universe expands...

its just a shape that the human brain cant quite get to grips with ?

Ohh, so it's shaped like a hypersphere? This is the point in which physics starts rocketing past my head I'm afraid...

[Blitzmo]

How ? We want examples ...

Edit: Not an attack just interested as to why it is particularily god that has helped.

Well, it's a bit long but let's see. When I was a kid my family was really really poor, my dad couldn't find a job and he eventually got a bit "lazy" about seeking for a job and looking for money for our needs. We lived like that for some years, and my older brothers actually suffered more than me. My mother cried almost everyday because of the powerlessness that she felt because she couldn't give us what we needed and we wanted, and in those times her faith in God was really low because all the things that were happening. Eventually she decided to stop living like that and asked God for help, she believed in Him but didn't have a relationship. She started to go to church and having a real relationship with God, I was still a kid and I didn't understand that yet. Then things started happening, we met a missionary from US through a friend, he started helping me so I could keep studying in a Christian school. Then my mother found a job in the church where we went and finally we could have a decent life. Then when I was old enough to understand about God, I began my personal relationship with Him, I'm the only one of my brothers that was able to finish school.

Here in Peru there are many families that are really poor and have no hope, and I thank God that he gave us the opportunity to have a better life.

[beigemaster]

Where's your proof for this then?

Well can you think of any physical phenomena that DOESN'T have a cause? It's within the materialistic thesis which is what science it self is based on. In fact, that is the very purpose of science, to explain the physical cause to every physical event. If anything existed without a physical cause then materialism would be null and void.

[1a2bcio8]

If the universe is every expanding, whats it expanding into? You cant say nothing, because that would be stupid and impossible. and you cant say its creating new universe as its expanding, because, whats it creating into?

When we talk of the universe expanding, we are only talking about matter (like solar systems, galaxies, etc.). In terms of space, nobody knows about a limit to that.

In other words, the expanding universe just refers to the movement of galaxies away from one another into a space for which we know of no limit.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[ManxTrialSpaz]

Well can you think of any physical phenomena that DOESN'T have a cause? It's within the materialistic thesis which is what science it self is based on. In fact, that is the very purpose of science, to explain the physical cause to every physical event. If anything existed without a physical cause then materialism would be null and void.

Instead of arguing over whether everything has a cause, lets get to the root what this would mean: the universe may have meaning or the universe may have no meaning. And so, I retaliate with this:

The current scientific theory for the beginning of our universe is called the Wave Function of the Universe, a theory developed by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde and others. It says that it is 95 percent probable that a universe with our characteristics came into existence without a cause.

The theory is confirmed by observational evidence. It exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.

Hawking supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimetres in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needed a cause than the timeless god of theism.

Contemporary scientific cosmology is not only not supported by any theistic theory, it is actually logically inconsistent with theism.

It has also been pointed out that a God capable of creating the universe would be more complex than the universe. Therefore a creator God would be more improbable than a universe without a God.

Edited June 7, 2009 by ManxTrialSpaz

[Al_Fel]

The human brain has a limit so we automatically think everything has a beginning and an end. That may not be the case. For all we know everything has always been here. You might say how could everything have always been here? I say how could it not have always been here? Where was it before it came here? I personally don't believe in time. I don't think time is an actual thing. To me its just a method of measuring things. Its like inches and centimetres both are man made measuring devices that offer different methods of doing the same thing. An inch does not exist. Is just a way of measuring things.

There is no end to space. There's always something else out there and you've got to really open your mind to believe that.

There will always be a step to take. We're on a planet, that's in a solar system, that's in a galaxy, that's in the Universe, that's... I wonder when we'll find out what comes next?

[beigemaster]

To which I would respond with this (from a Forum of people with a lot more intelligence than us!)

Origin of the Natural Universe

I warned against atheists rationalizing complexity by introducing more complexity, yet in proposing an origin for the universe, you offer atheist Stephen Hawking’s theory “allowing the existence of infinite numbers of parallel universes.” You struggle to explain the origin of our universe without contradicting basic laws of science, and so you take on the same task for, say, 42 billion universes.

I said that there were only three options for the origins of the universe, and that you cannot logically identify a fourth. Either the natural universe was always here, or it popped into existence by itself from nothing, or a supernatural creator made it. Eschewing the third, you went with a combination of, I don’t know / but “there is evidence… that the universe could very likely (greater than 95% probability) have come into being without external agency or cause.” Appearing from nothing smacks into the well-tested physical law that states that matter cannot be created (First Law) nor destroyed (but it can be transformed from or into energy). Atheists choose to contradict this most fundamental law of science because they just cannot find a fourth alternative for the origination of the universe. And you can not find a fourth alternative, not because you just haven’t found it yet, but because there is no logical possibility of a fourth alternative. It has either always been here, has popped up, or has been made. So, while you cannot even find words to describe a fourth alternative, I can find a word for something popping into existence from nothing: magic. Magic is not real. And an atheist with a pre-suppositional bias against a supernatural origin of the natural universe must contradict at least one of the first two laws, and so, Stephen does. Hawkings is wrong.

A scientist can study the properties of a cure-all, and disprove a salesman’s claim that it will heal cancer: “It is only sugar water, don’t believe the claims.” (BA3) The theist applies the most well-tested and fundamental laws of science to eliminate the possibility that the universe has always been here, and that it has come from nothing, and then logic forces us to the only remaining alternative: creation. Contrariwise, the atheist hopes against the most confirmed science that something can come from nothing: blind faith. You wrote that Hawking’s theory: “implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause.” Sure, why not. From nothing. 42 billion times. Typically, with humanoids. (After all, how could Captain Kirk encounter so many life forms unless they were likely?)

Excuse me for indulging myself, but I just have to quote the rest of your paragraph. I won’t comment. I’ll just revel in the words: “Hawking’s theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.”

Your next paragraph contradicts your point that “the universe could… have come into being without external agency or cause.” For then you quote Quentin Smith explaining Hawking’s theory that a pre-existing hypersphere less than “10^-33 centimeters in radius… explodes in a Big Bang…” If the cosmos preexisted, even though “smaller than the nucleus of an atom,” it still pre-existed and did not “come into being.” Thus, you are trying to have it both ways, it popped into existence from nothing, and it was always here. Were you aware that both you and Quentin have adopted this doublespeak from Hawking himself? Let me quote his “Origin of the Universe:”

“This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe… expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe.”

What universe? Hawking was speaking of the event that “produced a universe.” And he draws the energy for that event “from the gravitational energy of the universe.” Sorry. Hawkings is wrong.

Besides, without a mind to make a decision as to when to do something, natural forces mindlessly move forward. And the physical forces that would bring about Hawking’s Big Bang would have expressed themselves infinitely further into the past than he needs them to. So then he’s stuck in an embarrassing perpetual motion machine (Second Law).

Although I don't fully understand the whole point (I'm not pretending to be a quantum physicist) the basic idea is that in order for Science to explain the origins of the universe, it completely contradicts its own fundamental laws. Materialism's most fundamental principle is that every event must have a physical cause (the whole structure of scientific theory is based on this assumption), I find it very strange that Hawkin effectively smashes this principle in order to go about a scientific account of the origin of the universe. It's a bit like saying "I can prove that all swans are white by building a theory on this black one".

But, maybe I have completely missed the point. To plagiarise McCoy, "Dammit I'm a philosopher not a quantum physicist"

[Al_Fel]

How did god come to be then?

Scientists are open to new suggestions. Are you open to believe that there might not be a God?

[beigemaster]

How did god come to be then?

Scientists are open to new suggestions. Are you open to believe that there might not be a God?

Well to be honest, that's a bit of a pointless question because the very nature and definition of God is a necessary being that does not need a cause. To put simply, if God had a cause then he wouldn't be God.

I agree that scientists are very open to new suggestions (but only within the context of science), I am open to the belief that there may not be a God, if I had absolute concrete proof that there was one then I'd be quite famous by now. I think dogmatism is a negative characteristic that should be avoided by both believers and non believers.

My own personal intellectual journey so far had lead me to the conclusion that there is a God. Is this belief concrete? Well, by it's own definition it can't be. If the theistic God exists then (due to free well and independent thought) there is always the possibility that something may happen which will lead me to reject the idea that God exists. A real all loving God would not impose a system whereby I HAD to believe in him. If that makes sense?

[Al_Fel]

Ok here something for you to think about. Lets say God is everything. The whole Universe is God. It created us. It destroys us. It is all powerful. Maybe there is a consciousness of the Universe, maybe not. Every person pretty much knows right from wrong and what is fair. There's no need to follow the rules of 1000's of years ago to the T to have some kind of faith.

I really can't see there being a heaven and hell.

I've got no problem with people believing there is a God its all the bullshit Religion that gets on my tits. Its like dickheads talking who's football team is the best.

[beigemaster]

Ok here something for you to think about. Lets say God is everything. The whole Universe is God. It created us. It destroys us. It is all powerful. Maybe there is a consciousness of the Universe, maybe not. Every person pretty much knows right from wrong and what is fair. There's no need to follow the rules of 1000's of years ago to the T to have some kind of faith.

I really can't see there being a heaven and hell.

I've got no problem with people believing there is a God its all the bullshit Religion that gets on my tits. Its like dickheads talking who's football team is the best.

That is an excellent point/thought and I promise I will address it properly in time. However, I have an exam in the morning and need to be cracking on with that for now.

[manuel]

To which I would respond with this (from a Forum of people with a lot more intelligence than us!)

Although I don't fully understand the whole point (I'm not pretending to be a quantum physicist) the basic idea is that in order for Science to explain the origins of the universe, it completely contradicts its own fundamental laws. Materialism's most fundamental principle is that every event must have a physical cause (the whole structure of scientific theory is based on this assumption), I find it very strange that Hawkin effectively smashes this principle in order to go about a scientific account of the origin of the universe. It's a bit like saying "I can prove that all swans are white by building a theory on this black one".

But, maybe I have completely missed the point. To plagiarise McCoy, "Dammit I'm a philosopher not a quantum physicist"

Thats the great thing about science ... There are plenty of things that dont quite add up in the things we know about the universe, the things in it and the behavior of these things - It is not a problem .... Scientists are constantly re-evaluating what we know and trying to better our knowlege of the universe we live in. If something cannot be explained, they dont usually go - it must have been god. I would guess that most would not rule out the existance of a god as there is a chance there is a creator, but without proof and any sort of link would not live their short lives in this universe based on an organised religion.

[Tomm]

To which I would respond with this (from a Forum of people with a lot more intelligence than us!)

What they are talking about is on a higher level to anything I'd really envisaged before, so I may be getting this a bit worng. However, I don't think Hawkins is contradicting himself.

Point 1:

Our scientific "rules" and theories are based on observations of what happens within our universe. We don't have any idea what's outside of that - so it's inappropriate to extrapolate and assume that our laws of physics would apply outside of the universe. Matter cannot be created or destroyed - that's a fundamental law of our universe, yes. Even Christians don't argue with that one. But does it apply outside of the universe? If you believe in creationism, God "created" matter, right? Whichever side of the fence you sit on, you need an explanation for the creation of matter.

Point 2:

Hawkins talks of a 4 dimensional hypersphere which contains the universe. The 4th dimension being time. Our whole concept of time is based on observations we've seen and is entirely enclosed within this hypersphere. What existed before the hypersphere? There is no "before" the creation of the hypersphere because the word "before" implies a timeline, which we have already said is enclosed entirely within the sphere. If there is no "before", there is no start. If there is no start, there is no creation.

Although to be fair, the guy makes some very interesting points. He has clearly thought about this and his argument is more substantial than "But I have faith!"

[ManxTrialSpaz]

Point 1:

Our scientific "rules" and theories are based on observations of what happens within our universe. We don't have any idea what's outside of that - so it's inappropriate to extrapolate and assume that our laws of physics would apply outside of the universe. Matter cannot be created or destroyed - that's a fundamental law of our universe, yes. Even Christians don't argue with that one. But does it apply outside of the universe? If you believe in creationism, God "created" matter, right? Whichever side of the fence you sit on, you need an explanation for the creation of matter.

Pretty much what I was going to come back to but I'm too tired to be bothered to structure myself properly.

But outside our universe, our laws and principals can become null and void as they are only substantiated by what we've seen within our universe. So outside of our universe, literally anything is possible.

[Bol Maaaaaaing]

If I wrote a book that said that my dog was a god amongst men with lots of stories of heroic miracles in it - would you A. believe it because I said it really happened, or B. think I was a loon.

The thing is, Because you are not a Christian, you havnt attended anything that is Christian and havnt seen any thing happen trough the power of God.

Saying that your dog is a God is stupid becase your do hasnt actualy done anything amazing like God has. There is actaly a lot of proof of the existance of God through out the world, you just arnt willing to accept it. Where as there is no proof of your dog healing the blind, or saving anyone from Satan.

Tell me, do you believe in ghosts or spirits? if you do, then you cannot not believe in God, because He and the Angels are spirits.

Answer me this. If you have a wife who you love very much but she's a bad person and goes to hell but you are good and go to heaven. The surely your idea of heaven would be being with your wife forever in heaven. So that means you'd be in heaven with no wife and she'd be in hell and you'd know it. Explain that one.

Another problem I have is if you go around killing people at will and being a total b*****d as long as you ask for forgiveness you can still go to heaven. So all these people that you killed and went to heaven would have to spend forever with you.

There's also the old god told me to do it excuse. I don't understand why god who is all powerful would have to tell you to do something. Its like small children will get murdered or something and someone say something stupid like that kid could have grown up to be the next Hitler what a load of f**king shite.

There is a being that created everything and you are stood on it right now. A living organism is pretty much just a connection of processes working together. Weather this planet has a consciousness or not is a pretty big statement but I'm pretty sure stranger things have happened.

1. Being in hevean isnt about having the people you love physicaly, its about the feeling and spirit of that person. Yes they would be in Hell, but the happy, loving moments that you two shared would be with you, and there is no love like Gods love, so its not like you would be all alone.

If your wife has chosen to sin then there is nothing that you can do about that.

2. Asking for forgiveness isnt going to cure anything if you have just killed 7 people. When you ask for forgiveness you have to go it with all your heart and actualy mean it. Its not like "Please forgive me" is like a cheat code. You have to mean trully and fully that you have sinned and want to change.

Murderers can go to hevean, you just need to be willing to change your life around and accept that you did wrong and want to change.

3. People that say "God told me to do it" are generaly a complete loonies and are not actualy Christian, they just need a scapegoat to killing people. People like that are who give actualy Christian a bad name.

Its true that God does tell people to do things. God did kill people, even whole towns, but thats because the whole towns were demon riden and as far from God as possible, God gave them warnings and told them to change but they did not listen so drastic measures were taken.

Does that answer your questions?

[Bol Maaaaaaing]

Thats the great thing about science ... There are plenty of things that dont quite add up in the things we know about the universe, the things in it and the behavior of these things - It is not a problem .... Scientists are constantly re-evaluating what we know and trying to better our knowlege of the universe we live in. If something cannot be explained, they dont usually go - it must have been god. I would guess that most would not rule out the existance of a god as there is a chance there is a creator, but without proof and any sort of link would not live their short lives in this universe based on an organised religion.

The reason that things dont add up is because its made up. Christianity adds up and doesnt have holes in it.

Scientists dont actualy re-evaluate things, they see a problem and make up some cock and bull story to fill it.

Saying that humans evolved from Monkeys and that changed to suit our enviroment is dumb, if its true why cant I grow furr all over my body in the winter? or grow realy tall so I can change a light bulb?

If humans and animals evolve, why dont seals grow realy thick skins and become super huge so they dont get clubbed all the time?

Humans have not evolved, they have simply learnt things. The Germans had plans for Rail Guns during WWII but never got a chance to make them, if we do evolve, why did not the next generation of Gremans have the knowledge to build them, why has it taken 60 years to only build a gun that can shoot around corners with out exposing youreslf?

And, why do I not have the same knowledge as Albert Einstien? he was brainy shouldnt I have evolved to know what he did?

And why dont humans evolve to have complete knowledge when they are first born?

Its all just the order in which we learn stuff.

[Fish-Finger-er]

The thing is, Because you are not a Christian, you havnt attended anything that is Christian and havnt seen any thing happen trough the power of God.

Saying that your dog is a God is stupid becase your do hasnt actualy done anything amazing like God has. There is actaly a lot of proof of the existance of God through out the world, you just arnt willing to accept it. Where as there is no proof of your dog healing the blind, or saving anyone from Satan.

Tell me, do you believe in ghosts or spirits? if you do, then you cannot not believe in God, because He and the Angels are spirits.

Ive attended church, i went to a church of england primary school. so i have, and still dont buy into it.

Where is this proof of someone being saved from satan, or for that matter healing the blind.

and for the record I dont believe in ghosts, or spirits.

3. People that say "God told me to do it" are generaly a complete loonies and are not actualy Christian, they just need a scapegoat to killing people. People like that are who give actualy Christian a bad name.

Its true that God does tell people to do things. God did kill people, even whole towns, but thats because the whole towns were demon riden and as far from God as possible, God gave them warnings and told them to change but they did not listen so drastic measures were taken.

Does that answer your questions?

Accepting that your Christian God is 100% real and does tell us to do things, then I ask you the following.

How can you truly know what God told one person to do, as much as god may or may not exist, im sure you cant argue with the fact that to different people he means different things, and gives different messages to different people, so how can you say God hasnt given this message to people.

And once more how can you say that, its the christian god, that you believe in that has healed the blind, and not Bhudda, or Allah, or Millard Fillmore.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Fish-Finger-er

[JD™]

The reason that things dont add up is because its made up. Christianity adds up and doesnt have holes in it.

Scientists dont actualy re-evaluate things, they see a problem and make up some cock and bull story to fill it.

Saying that humans evolved from Monkeys and that changed to suit our enviroment is dumb, if its true why cant I grow furr all over my body in the winter? or grow realy tall so I can change a light bulb?

If humans and animals evolve, why dont seals grow realy thick skins and become super huge so they dont get clubbed all the time?

Humans have not evolved, they have simply learnt things. The Germans had plans for Rail Guns during WWII but never got a chance to make them, if we do evolve, why did not the next generation of Gremans have the knowledge to build them, why has it taken 60 years to only build a gun that can shoot around corners with out exposing youreslf?

And, why do I not have the same knowledge as Albert Einstien? he was brainy shouldnt I have evolved to know what he did?

And why dont humans evolve to have complete knowledge when they are first born?

Its all just the order in which we learn stuff.

Are you seriously insinuating that you think the theory of evolution is saying that a monkey gave birth to a human, with no intermediate steps? Don't be so ignorant.

[Bol Maaaaaaing]

Ive attended church, i went to a church of england primary school. so i have, and still dont buy into it.

How can you truly know what God told one person to do, as much as god may or may not exist, im sure you cant argue with the fact that to different people he means different things, and gives different messages to different people, so how can you say God hasnt given this message to people.

And once more how can you say that, its the christian god, that you believe in that has healed the blind, and not Bhudda, or Allah, or Millard Fillmore.

When you were at Church, did you see miricals or anything? If you didnt, that could be why you dont buy into it, if you did, thats your choice and I respect that.

I believe that its a Christian God because thats my belief, A Bhuddist or Muslim would say that its there God because thats what they believe.

[Dave Anscombe]

LUCIFER exists.....i mean look at the world we live in today.

Where was god when he took our friends and loved ones away from us far to early?

Where the f**k was god when My niece was raped

Rant over!

If god was true How come this world is so f**ked up

I SAY THE NEW GOD IS LUCIFER!

Edited June 8, 2009 by Dave Anscombe

[Mark W]

Christianity adds up and doesnt have holes in it.

Well, I don't even know where to start with that. If you actually think that's true and are too stupid to understand why all the other points you made in your post are wrong, there's not really much that can be done for you...

[Bol Maaaaaaing]

Are you seriously insinuating that you think the theory of evolution is saying that a monkey gave birth to a human, with no intermediate steps? Don't be so ignorant.

No, Im saying that there is no way that an animal can think that they should be less hairy, and then millions of years down the line it happens.

If I want my great great great great great grandchildren to have 13 fingers, will it happen?

[Fish-Finger-er]

Christianity adds up and doesnt have holes in it.

they see a problem and make up some cock and bull story to fill it.

Irony noted.

The Germans had plans for Rail Guns during WWII but never got a chance to make them, if we do evolve, why did not the next generation of Gremans have the knowledge to build them, why has it taken 60 years to only build a gun that can shoot around corners with out exposing youreslf?

I was about to ask if god exists, why didnt he stop WW2, but then i realised, it wasnt Christians being harmed, but predominantly Jews. and God only seems to look after his own kind, so hes not really all that great of a guy. but to ask a similar question.

If god exists, why didnt he put a stop to slaying of the Tutsi in Rwanda?? 900,000 christian people, killed for political reasons.

Same goes for twin towers, hurricane katrina, etc, if god exists, and controls everything, why does he let bad things happen to good people, or for the extremely bad people to exist in the first place, as surely making the perpetrator suffer in hell after the suffering they have caused, is worse than just stopping it before it happened, 2 wrongs not making a right and all that jazz.