• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * - - - 10 votes

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???

christianity religion spirituality

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1818 replies to this topic

#691 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 28 March 2014 - 08:30 PM

This is off topic. Atheism is a complex system of beliefs, values, works and has its own history, comminutes and societies. It is an ideology. https://www.google.com/#q=Ideology


There is a subtle difference between an idea and an ideology. An ideology necessarily encompasses more than one idea. Positive atheism doesn't. Therefore, it's not an ideology (unless, of course, you choose to come up with a different definition for "ideology").

Moreover, negative atheism is -- get ready for it -- not even anything. Rather, it's just the absence of theism, not even its negation. Negative atheism encompasses zero ideas within itself.

This is also a red herring.
Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.


No, because I wasn't trying to divert anyone's attention from any issue or deliberately challenge any argument, just chatting.

Have you studied informal fallacies? I'm, personally, more into formal logic.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 28 March 2014 - 08:31 PM.


#692 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 28 March 2014 - 09:56 PM

Here is a discussion of atheism which covers these points,
http://www.longecity...570#entry650668

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 March 2014 - 09:57 PM.


#693 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 29 March 2014 - 12:21 AM

WHICH ONE?? The Genesis story and modern science.
The Big Bang is the creation story as told by science. The story will change because Science is almost always wrong. It has been said we know 3 to 5 percent of what can be known. Christians, when it comes to science are in the same boat. We know just the beginnings of the truth.

Atheists and skeptics love to treat Christianity as if it still holds the scientific views which were held hundreds and thousands of years ago. Scientists, who are theists are as modern as anyone but if what is happening now, atheists in 3,000 ad will be criticizing Christians for what science believes today.

Amazingly, contrary to what much of science believed historically, the Bible says the cosmos had a beginning. That is why the Big Bang was so unpopular until a few years ago. I begin by presenting a Jewish Physicist from MIT and now the University of Tel aviv, on Genesis. Here is his teaching on the age of the universe which is fascinating. It deals not only with the beginning but the seven days creation in the Genesis account. Think you know the Christian Jewish position? I doubt it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geraldsch...geUniverse.aspx
One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible and then add the secular rulers that followed, we come to fewer than 6000 years. Whereas, data from the Hubbell telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the number at 15 billion years plus or minus 10%. In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, I use only ancient biblical commentary because modern commentary already knows modern science, and so it is influenced by what science always.

That commentary includes the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 400 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nahmanides (13th century Spain), the most important of the Kabbalists.

These ancient commentaries were finalized hundreds or thousands of years ago, long before Hubbell was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubbell or any other scientific data influencing these concepts. That's a key component in keeping the following discussion objective.
Universe with a Beginning

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your estimate of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story; it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

That was 1959. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning. I can't overestimate the import of that scientific "discovery." Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that we had a beginning. Exactly as the Bible had claimed for three millennia.

Of course, the fact that there was a beginning does not prove that there was a beginner. Whether the second half of Genesis 1:1 is correct, we don't know from a secular point of view. The first half is "In the beginning;" the second half is "God created the Heavens and the Earth." Physics allows for a beginning without a beginner. I'm not going to get into the physics of that here. "The Science of God," my second book, examines this in great detail.
It All Starts From Rosh Hashana

The question we're left with is, how long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, fewer than 6,000 years, or was it the 14 to 15 billions of years that are accepted by the scientific community? The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar.

The Jewish year is calculated by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days from the creation of the universe to the creation of the first human, that is the first being with the soul of a human (not the first hominid, a being with human shape and intelligence, but lacking the soul of humanity, the neshama). We have a 6000 year clock that begins with Adam. The six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks. This is no modern rationalization. The Talmud already discussed this 1600 years ago.

The reason the six pre-Adam days were taken out of the calendar is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" with no relationship to human time. Once we come to the progeny of Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them, a cosmic view of time.
Looking Deeper into the Text

In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences, you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.
What is a "day?"

The usual answer to that question is let the word ‘day’ in Genesis chapter one be any long period of time. Bend the Bible to match the science. Fortunately, the Talmud in Hagigah (12A), Rashi there and Nahmanides (Gen. 1:3) all tell us that the word day means 24 hours, not sunrise and sun set. The sun is not mentioned till day four and these commentaries all relate to all six days, right from day one. But the commentary continues in Exodus and Leviticus, that the days are 24 hours each (again, not relating to sunrise and sunset, merely sets of 24 hours). There are six of them, and the duration is not longer than the six days of a work week, BUT they contain all the ages of the world. How can six 24 hour days contain all the ages of the world?
The Flexible flow of time and the stretching of space

Einstein taught the world that time is relative. That in regions of high velocity or high gravity time actually passes more slowly relative to regions of lower gravity or lower velocity. (One system relative to another, hence the name, the laws of relativity.) This is now proven fact. Time actually stretches out. Were ever you are time is normal for you because your biology is part of that local system.

That is Einstein and gravity and velocity. But there is a third aspect of the universe that changes the perception of time, Not gravity and not velocity. That is the stretching of space. The universe started as a minuscule speck, perhaps not larger that a grain of mustard and stretched out from there. Space actually stretches. The effect of the stretching of space produces the effect that when observing an event that took place far from our galaxy, as the light from that event travels through space and the sequence of events travels through space, the information is actually stretched out. (In The Science of God I give the logic in detail in simple easy to understand terms.)
The Creation of Time

Each day of creation is numbered. Yet Nahmanides points out that there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! That message, as Nahmanides points out, is that there is a qualitative difference between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative. The Torah could not write “a first day” on the first day because there had not yet been a second day relative to it. Had the perspective of the Bible for the first six days been from Sinai looking back, the Torah would have written a first day. By the time the Torah was given on Sinai there had been hundreds of thousands of "second days." The perspective of the Bible for the six days of Genesis is from the only time in the history of time when there had not been a second day. And that is the first day. From the creation of the universe to the creation of the soul of Adam, the Torah views time from near the beginning looking forward. At the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul of humanity, the Bible perspective switches to earth based time. And therefore the biblical description of time changed.
How we perceive time

We look at the universe, and say, "How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is approximately 15 billion years old." That's our view of time. But what is the Bible's view of time looking from the beginning? How does it see time?

Nahmanides taught that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" - all the ages and all the secrets of the world. Nahmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a description for the speck: something very tiny, smaller than a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life, Genesis 1:21) and the Neshama (the soul of human life, Genesis 1:27) are spiritual creations.

There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nahmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" - very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance, so thin that it has no material substance, turned into matter as we know it.

Nahmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold" when matter condenses from the substance-less substance of the big bang creation. When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no material substance, that's when the biblical clock starts.

Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change form and take on the form of matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold. Nahmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy - light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays - all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, time was passing, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock of the Bible begins lasted less than 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and biblical time flows forward. The Biblical clock begins here.
Day One and not a first day: seeing time from the beginning

Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One", comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective, from near the beginning looking forward.

If the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses on Mount Sinai - 2448 years after Adam - the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, hundreds of thousands of days already passed. It would have said "a first day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the first day with which to compare it.

We look back in time, and say the universe is 15 billion years old. But as every scientist knows, when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we rarely bother to say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates of the earth.

The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. Since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time. Imagine in your mind going back billions of years to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light every second. Every second -- pulse. Pulse. Pulse. And on each pulse of light the following formation is printed (printing information on light, electro-magnetic radiation, is common practice): "I'm sending you a pulse every second." Billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish antenna and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light we read "I'm sending you a pulse every second."

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning, the two light pulses are separated by a second of travel or 300 million meters. Now they travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses travel through space for billions of years, space is stretching. What's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it "I'm sending you a pulse every second." A message from outer space. You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time this pulse of light has traveled through space will determine the amount of space stretching that has occurred, and so how much space and therefore how much time there will be between the arrival of the pulses. That's standard cosmology.
15 billion years or six days?

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between nucleosynthesis, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons and neutrons when matter formed, and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see a pulse every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the six days. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, that comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!

The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them. For the duration of each day and the details of how that matches with the measured history of the universe and the earth, see The Science of God.
CORRECTION TO THE CALCULATION OF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE

Following a talk I gave at AZUSA Pacific University, February 2011, a participant noted that when calculating the expansion ratio of space [that is, by what fraction space had stretched] from the era of nucleosynthesis to our current time, I had neglected to correct for the effect that the increase in the rate of universal expansion has on the current cosmic microwave radiation background. This increase introduces a non-linear effect. [That is, the rate of expansion is not constant, rather the rate is increasing.] The correction is in the order of 10%. Had the expansion been linear [and not super-linear resulting from the increased rate], the CMRB would be, not the currently observed 2.76 K, but 3.03 K. Introducing this correction into the exponential equation that details the duration of the six 24 hour days of Genesis Chapter One results in an age of the universe from our perspective of 14 billion years [14, 000,000,000 years]. From the Bible’s perspective of time for those six evocative days of Genesis, the number of our years held compressed within each of those six 24 hour days of Genesis, starting with Day One, would be, in billions of years, respectively, 7.1; 3.6; 1.8; 0.89; 0.45; 0.23.

#694 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 29 March 2014 - 02:06 AM

VEDIC VIEW of creation of universe
Does it fit with Big Bang?



#695 Castiel

  • Guest
  • 384 posts
  • 89
  • Location:USA

Posted 31 March 2014 - 05:23 PM

DukeNukem: The story of Jesus dying for us is kinda the dumbest thing about Christianity. Think of how many soldiers have died for us, to help keep so many of our nations free in the world. Why is Jesus in any way special? It's just one life.

Also, it's not much of a sacrifice when you get to come back to life a few days later. lol Big fucking whoop! I wouldn't care much about dying either -- even painfully -- if I knew the reward was coming back essentially as a god three days later. Jesus didn't sacrifice himself at all. Hell, practically any of us would have signed on for that deal. His so-called sacrifice for us is the biggest non-sacrifice in the history of human fiction.


...
Difference, I am not God. You seem to believe he came back to life so it was no big deal. You would have done it! However, you can’t do big deals! When you die you will stay in the grave with the worm and it will be a big whoop deal...


You're assuming technological resurrection is not possible. In fact with a few modifications a human could easily survive by himself what was supposedly the thing used to declare Jesus dead, nondetectable breathing heartrate. Right now with medical assistance humans can survive that, they can seemingly resurrect. Now if Jesus would have fully rotted away and recomposed from that, then that would be something, but coming back from nondetectable heartrate breathing has been done by many other humans, and will soon be done unassisted by individual humans. No one can be certain Jesus had brain death, and even that will be survivable by humans unassisted later this century, as will more thorough destruction of brain and body through technological augmentation.

So expect to see more impressive resurrections from far worse states of decay from technologically augmented humans. Unaugmented humans have already matched the feat of coming back from undetectable breathing heartrate, augmented ones can survive even ablation of most of the brain.

I also believe Christ came back to life and it was a very big deal. We will discuss the resurrection later after, “WHICH ONE. “

As I've said previously, people have been declared dead by modern day trained physicians, found with no detectable breathing or heartbeat after serious accidents, waking up at the autopsy table or buried alive. What makes you think a few untrained roman soldiers will do any better in truly being certain someone's truly dead?

In any case any series of mythological or supernatural beings, heck as mentioned even technological beings, could accomplish resurrection which is the so called Jesus' greatest feat. Resurrection in no way proves you're god, assuming you actually resurrected which requires someone capable to truly declare you dead(dead is a malleable state changing with technological progress). There's actually quite a debate as to how anyone can prove they're god, it's considered that basically no amount of evidence can prove with certainty that you aren't simply a high powered but distinct from god entity. In fiction many entities are capable of godlike feats, if any of these fictional entities has a mirror or corresponding real world entity(counterpart) then it opens the question if we can actually tell god from such entities.

Edited by Castiel, 31 March 2014 - 05:26 PM.


#696 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:58 PM

My father was one of those who died and came back alive after being declared dead. His doctor was an atheist and he was dead for over 30 minutes. He was under a double system of monitors in a very good hospital in ICU. I didn’t believe my prayer either when I prayed and asked God to raise him from the dead. Much to my supervise the nurse came running in declaring we suddenly had a pulse. I have told the story elsewhere but my fathers description of what happened is amazing.

But Christ was God and he was dead a lot longer than near death experiences.. Because there have been other near death experiences in no way takes away what He went through. He rose after three days. We are going to discuss the resurrection later when we get past WHICH GOD.

#697 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:35 PM

ARE ALL RELIGIONS THE SAME?

View on Vimeo.



#698 Castiel

  • Guest
  • 384 posts
  • 89
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 April 2014 - 04:35 PM



But Christ was God and he was dead a lot longer than near death experiences.. Because there have been other near death experiences in no way takes away what He went through. He rose after three days. We are going to discuss the resurrection later when we get past WHICH GOD.

Those declared dead because of undetectable breathing heartbeat have gone longer than tens of minutes. They've probably been days, as some are buried alive and assuming they had a funeral and all that would take some time.

#699 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 01 April 2014 - 05:10 PM

But Christ was God and he was dead a lot longer than near death experiences.. Because there have been other near death experiences in no way takes away what He went through. He rose after three days. We are going to discuss the resurrection later when we get past WHICH GOD.

Those declared dead because of undetectable breathing heartbeat have gone longer than tens of minutes. They've probably been days, as some are buried alive and assuming they had a funeral and all that would take some time.

With Christ he died. That is the only evidence we have. As for my Dad, there was no evidence of undetectable breathing or heartbeat. The evidence was double monitor, a dozen doctors and nurses in a top hospital all saying he was dead. They even made out a death certificate. I saw it all myself.

We will discuss this later. Right now we are discussing which God.

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 April 2014 - 05:50 PM.


#700 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 04 April 2014 - 01:53 AM

Dr Gerald Schroeder the author of the article we have given http://www.longecity...690#entry652518 Argues the cosmos is both 7 days old and 13.8 billion years old. How does he do it? Read the article again and listen to him explain in the following videos.







#701 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 04 April 2014 - 09:25 PM

So, the above position of physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder is that two things are true. The creation took seven literal 24 hour days but when you look backwards into the past from now it took approximately 13 - 15 billion years. Both statements are true at the same time. He explains it in a fascinating way using modern physics. Time is affected by mass, the greater and closer the mass, the slower time goes. See how he works it out using the theory of relativity. I am not going to repeat it unless someone wishes to.
http://www.longecity...690#entry652518
http://www.longecity...690#entry654027

Posted Image

Can you take Genesis days literally as 24 hour days? I think you can, though that is not the position I lean towards. My favored view is progressive cretinism. Bernard Ramm http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bernard_Ramm was on of my early influences. Progressive Cretinism http://en.wikipedia....ive_creationism
holds to an age day theory, hence the days of Genesis are not 24 hour days but periods of time. It is not that different from Schroedr except for the interpretation of day. More about it next.

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 April 2014 - 09:35 PM.


#702 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 04 April 2014 - 11:39 PM

Science Evidence in Support of Creation Days
Two views compared.
1. Seven 24 hour days, 14 billion year relativity.
2. Age = day, 13.8 - 15 billion years

http://www.windowvie.../timeline4.html

#703 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 April 2014 - 06:31 PM

For those who are interested in a detailed study in Genesis that deals with the age day and evilution position here is a good one.
It is all on YOUTUBE.

Doctrine of Creation: Excursus on Creation and Evolution
https://www.youtube....n and Evolution
Start 1 of 18 here


#704 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:54 PM

So, the above position of physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder is that two things are true. The creation took seven literal 24 hour days but when you look backwards into the past from now it took approximately 13 - 15 billion years. Both statements are true at the same time. He explains it in a fascinating way using modern physics. Time is affected by mass, the greater and closer the mass, the slower time goes. See how he works it out using the theory of relativity. I am not going to repeat it unless someone wishes to.
http://www.longecity...690#entry652518
http://www.longecity...690#entry654027

Posted Image

Can you take Genesis days literally as 24 hour days? I think you can, though that is not the position I lean towards. My favored view is progressive cretinism. Bernard Ramm http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bernard_Ramm was on of my early influences. Progressive Cretinism http://en.wikipedia....ive_creationism
holds to an age day theory, hence the days of Genesis are not 24 hour days but periods of time. It is not that different from Schroedr except for the interpretation of day. More about it next.


progressive cretinism? like, http://www.progressi...-deficiency.htm

#705 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 05 April 2014 - 09:55 PM

Johnross47: progressive cretinism? like, http://www.progressi...-deficiency.htm


Hope Iodine doesn’t affect your thyroid or give you problems anymore.

No, you got it wrong. http://en.wikipedia....ive_creationism

#706 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 06 April 2014 - 12:37 AM

Islamic worldview

View on Vimeo.


Edited by shadowhawk, 06 April 2014 - 12:40 AM.


#707 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 06 April 2014 - 10:21 AM

How many posts in a row do you have to make before you realise nobody is listening?

#708 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 April 2014 - 07:53 PM

How many posts in a row do you have to make before you realise nobody is listening?

 

sh: You keep saying that but you are as well as thousands of others.  As usual, no content.

 


Edited by shadowhawk, 07 April 2014 - 07:55 PM.


#709 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:02 PM

Big%20Bang.jpg



#710 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:21 PM

 

How many posts in a row do you have to make before you realise nobody is listening?

 

sh: You keep saying that but you are as well as thousands of others.  As usual, no content.

 

 

I'm not actually reading this junk: I just had a look to see if there had been any worthwhile posts.

 

5 post by you

1 other

5 posts by you 

1 my joke post

2 by you

1 my jibe

2 by you.

 

Only one other post was actually anything to do with the topic. Looks like a very hungry troll.

 

 



#711 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 April 2014 - 12:53 AM

The Big Bang is at present the dominant cosmology.  The father of the Big Bang theory was a Christian as we have seen.  Christianity says there is a beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.  In the first section of this topic we gave evidence for God doing this.
http://www.longecity...-21#entry647448
We then turned from evidence for God to “Which one.”  First we discussed several pluralistic arguments.   
Now we are focusing on the dominant cosmological view, The Big Bang and note no other religious world views, Except Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a beginning.  Even top
atheists such as Thomas Nagel  "Mind & Cosmos"  http://www.amazon.co...s=mind & cosmos   and Anthony Flew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew  have been deeply troubled by this evidence.  Flew even abandoned a life long Atheism and became a Theist.  

 

 

7_mind-thoughts-god.jpg


 


Edited by shadowhawk, 08 April 2014 - 01:13 AM.


#712 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 April 2014 - 03:33 AM

ds-z-boundary.jpg


Edited by shadowhawk, 08 April 2014 - 03:35 AM.


#713 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 April 2014 - 04:14 AM

Plantinga Reviews Mind and Cosmos Explore More Content
 

The New Republic has published an excellent review of atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False, by Alvin Plantinga.

Here are excerpts from the review listing the four areas where Nagel objects to materialist naturalism as being reasonable:

1. Mind and Cosmos rejects, first, the claim that life has come to be just by the workings of the laws of physics and chemistry…. As Nagel remarks, “It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis."

2. The second plank of materialist naturalism that Nagel rejects is the idea that, once life was established on our planet, all the enormous variety of contemporary life came to be by way of the [unguided] processes evolutionary science tells us about: natural selection operating on genetic mutation, but also genetic drift, and perhaps other processes as well…. [Nagel:] “[T]he more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes.”

3. [Nagel] thinks it is especially improbable that consciousness and reason should come to be if materialist naturalism is true. “Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science.”

4. According to Nagel, materialist naturalism has great difficulty with consciousness, but it has even greater difficulty with cognition. He thinks it monumentally unlikely that unguided natural selection should have “generated creatures with the capacity to discover by reason the truth about a reality that extends vastly beyond the initial appearances.” He is thinking in particular of science itself.

Plantinga explains each of these areas in more detail, and his review is fascinating. I’ve resisted the temptation to quote more extensively because 1) there’s too much good stuff in there, and I wouldn’t know where to stop, and 2) you really should read the whole thing.

But I will close with an illustration given by Plantinga in response to an objection we’re likely to hear to the arguments above: “But the improbable happens all the time. It is not at all improbable that something improbable should happen.”

Consider an example. You play a rubber of bridge involving, say, five deals. The probability that the cards should fall just as they do for those five deals is tiny—something like one out of ten to the 140th power. Still, they did. Right. It happened. The improbable does indeed happen. In any fair lottery, each ticket is unlikely to win; but it is certain that one of them will win, and so it is certain that something improbable will happen. But how is this relevant in the present context? In a fit of unbridled optimism, I claim that I will win the Nobel Prize in chemistry. You quite sensibly point out that this is extremely unlikely, given that I have never studied chemistry and know nothing about the subject. Could I defend my belief by pointing out that the improbable regularly happens? Of course not: you cannot sensibly hold a belief that is improbable with respect to all of your evidence.

 


Edited by shadowhawk, 08 April 2014 - 04:19 AM.


#714 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 08 April 2014 - 06:38 AM

 

Also I find it odd that Jesus/Jahve had to sacrifice himself in order to save humanity from himself. After all, God invented sin and decided that it is such a terribly bad thing that he just has to torture people forever, just because he wants to.

God did not invent sin. He invented choice. Hell is where you are alone because of your choice. You do not want to be with God, do you. Bad God as you say. OK. After death, You have only yourself to sin against at the same time knowing there is a God. That is torture.

Evil is the lack of the good, and like cold does not exist of its own. Hell is where you do not experience the presence of God because you don’t want to. Relax, no one is saying you have to be a Christian.

God does not want you to be separated from Him but you...?

 

God is free to choose too. Nobody is forcing him to kill/torture sinners in any way, or to force separation from him on anyone. 


Edited by platypus, 08 April 2014 - 06:40 AM.


#715 theconomist

  • Member
  • 314 posts
  • 137
  • Location:France

Posted 08 April 2014 - 05:56 PM

Shadow, I've been following the post with interest. What is your finality? By that I mean where are you going to take this? Will we reach the point where you reach christianity and if so one problem I have with that is defining christianity. Catholicism? Protestantism? And then which one of their endless sub divisions? 

I feel that connecting everything to one particular religion is doable as you're showing but once you reach the birth of that religion you're in an even deeper issue than you were before trying to follow ''the'' path until our time (if you see what I mean).

 

Thanks for your daily posts they are very interesting.



#716 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 April 2014 - 10:00 PM

 

 

Also I find it odd that Jesus/Jahve had to sacrifice himself in order to save humanity from himself. After all, God invented sin and decided that it is such a terribly bad thing that he just has to torture people forever, just because he wants to.

God did not invent sin. He invented choice. Hell is where you are alone because of your choice. You do not want to be with God, do you. Bad God as you say. OK. After death, You have only yourself to sin against at the same time knowing there is a God. That is torture.

Evil is the lack of the good, and like cold does not exist of its own. Hell is where you do not experience the presence of God because you don’t want to. Relax, no one is saying you have to be a Christian.

God does not want you to be separated from Him but you...?

 

God is free to choose too. Nobody is forcing him to kill/torture sinners in any way, or to force separation from him on anyone. 

 

Do you want to be with God?  If not then He will not force you.  It is like getting married, you chose another by faith.

 

 



#717 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 08 April 2014 - 10:20 PM

Shadow, I've been following the post with interest. What is your finality? By that I mean where are you going to take this? Will we reach the point where you reach christianity and if so one problem I have with that is defining christianity. Catholicism? Protestantism? And then which one of their endless sub divisions? 

I feel that connecting everything to one particular religion is doable as you're showing but once you reach the birth of that religion you're in an even deeper issue than you were before trying to follow ''the'' path until our time (if you see what I mean).

 

Thanks for your daily posts they are very interesting.

Around Easter I am going to turn to the resurrection of Christ.  There are many other subjects we may talk about but this is a big one as I attempt to make a case for Christianity.  There is evidence for God, the best choice is Christianity and then Finally I will turn to the personal experience of knowing God and the heart.  Love.

We may even talk about life, and who the real deathists are.  What are the ways to longevity?

 



#718 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:35 AM

 

Do you want to be with God?  If not then He will not force you.  It is like getting married, you chose another by faith.

 

 

 

I have not rejected God, but perhaps he has rejected me or does not even exist? Will God force oblivion or eternal torture on people? If yes that MUST mean that he wants people to be "not saved'. 



#719 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 09 April 2014 - 06:46 PM

 

 

Do you want to be with God?  If not then He will not force you.  It is like getting married, you chose another by faith.

 

 

 

I have not rejected God, but perhaps he has rejected me or does not even exist? Will God force oblivion or eternal torture on people? If yes that MUST mean that he wants people to be "not saved'. 

-------------------

From my perspective it is good that you have not rejected God.  Just thinking there may be an elevator to take you to the top of a building is not faith.  You need to get into the elevator and let it take you up.  Trust.  Knowing there is a democratic party does not make you a democrat.

Faith is trust.  It is a belief in a person or thing with incomplete evidence.  We all live by faith because we never have complete evidence of anything.  Faith does not mean no knowledge.  We all live by faith.  You can’t even cross a street with 100% knowledge a car is not coming.

Trust God, if you put your faith in Him, he will not reject you.  He will honor your faith.  Trust is a verb.

 

A test for evidence.

If Christianity was true, would you become a Christian? 

 


Edited by shadowhawk, 09 April 2014 - 07:28 PM.


#720 shadowhawk

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:10 PM

Falsifying a religion using science  Hinduism, Atheism

Consider this argument:

    Hindu cosmology teaches that the universe cycles between creation and destruction, through infinite time.
    The closest cosmological model conforming to Hindu Scriptures is the eternally “oscillating” model of the universe.
    The “oscillating” model requires that the universe exist eternally into the past.
    But the evidence of the Big Bang shows the the universe, and time itself, had a beginning.

    The “oscillating” model requires that the expansion of the universe reverse into a collapse, (= crunch).
    In 1998, the discovery of the year was that the universe would expand forever. There will be no crunch.
    Therefore, the oscillating model is disconfirmed by observations.
    The oscillating model also faces theoretical problems with the “bounce” mechanism.

Atheism also requires an eternal universe, according the Secular Humanist Manifesto:

    FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

One of the eternal models of the universe favored by atheists was proposed by Carl Sagan:

    Information from our universe would not trickle into that next one and, from our vantage point, such an oscillating cosmology is as definitive and depressing an end as the expansion that never stops” (Sagan, Carl (1979), “Will It All End in a Fireball?” Science Digest, 86[3]:13-14, September, pp 13-14)

Again, this atheist cosmology, like the Hindu cosmology, is falsified by the evidence – both theoretical and experimental. Now, lots of people believed Carl Sagan, but the progress of science proved that his atheism was wrong. His whole cosmology was wrong. That’s a pretty big mistake to make, but that’s what you get when you invent a self-serving worldview that goes against the progress of science.


  • dislike x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: christianity, religion, spirituality

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users