Do you believe in Heaven and Hell? (3 Viewers)

[tlongII]

smh

 

[MadeFromDust]

obviously it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, almost 1/2 of US christians believe in evolution. that's why i can't fathom why YEC's are so quick to reject science. it certainly seems like an issue of egocentrism or something.

I don't flat out reject science, I just disagree with a lot of it. Science is good for a lot of things, explaining certain things is not one of them imo. All of mankind used to believe the earth was flat, of course general consensus holds no weight on what's true or not. I could be the only person on earth who believes in God but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

it's been a thousand since the scientific method was fully realized. another 100 won't matter.

My point is, things always change. Where were we 100 years ago?

well yeah, but pascal's wager doesn't really help you much then. no reason to mention it.

I think it's a legitimate point though. I'd rather live fearing God than to die and figure out He is real.

we're just talking about science contradicting a literal interpretation of stories in the torah. you're free to draw any implications you want from that, but it's not the purpose of science to 'explain godless origins'. that's not it's concern really.

Certain aspects of science reject the Biblical creation stories, yes. But there are many other theories floating around now and throughout history.

 

[Eastoff]

No offense, but trying to explain the works of God to someone who doesn't know God is like trying to describe colors to a blind man. God's lowest thoughts are beyond our comprehension. And yes, He does everything for His reason and purpose. God gave us free will, so no He is not a dictator. But we WILL be held accountable for our actions and realize that there is no neutral ground. You're either for Him or against Him. There is no other. This is basic Christian theology.

Colors are like different frequencies of sound or different timbres from a variety of instruments. You know how a flute can be instantly recognized? Or a strum on a guitar? Those are the reds and the greens. Okay, what next? Want me to explain how eyes could have evolved? I can do that too. Want me to explain why bananas fit so nicely in our hands and peel so easily? Those must have been created by someone right? I agree, they were! they were created by breeders. Have you ever tried red bananas or plantains? They don't peel quite so nicely as the chiquita variety

 

[MadeFromDust]

^westnob, I'll happily come back and finish this little debate later but I have some business to take care of at the moment.

Peace

 

[Eastoff]

^westnob, I'll happily come back and finish this little debate later but I have some business to take care of at the moment.

Peace

Ditto, i'll holler from the game at you. ;]

 

[PapaG]

I think the proof is the smoking gun. That the universe is expanding outward, directly suggests that at some point it was all close together. Just because you can't go back in time and watch someone fire a gun, doesn't mean they didn't fire the gun. You can test their hand for traces of evidence, right? The expansion of the universe is the same thing.

Somebody has to make the gun first, though.

Anyhow, we're pretty much not going to agree on this, so I'll bail out on the thread. I'm an agnostic on many things, and I know there is no indisputable proof that either a Heaven exists, or that the Big Bang happened.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm still not sure what Denny's point was with posting that. How the universe is expanding versus how it was created are two separate issues. You're all over the place and are confusing things.

You asked where all the elements came from. It all devolves to e=mc^2.

It's quite evolutionary in its own right.

Within a tiny fraction of a second, energy was converted into hydrogen, the simplest element. Then the stars came into being (gravity) and burned that hydrogen, producing heavier elements.

The way you talk about the scientific method is whacked. It doesn't work at all like you suggest.

It is the systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypothese.

The experiments are designed to test a hypothesis. The results of the experiments are absolutely repeatable, but all they do is reinforce or refute the original hypothesis.

In the case of the Big Bang and even Evolution, the hypothese are constantly tested and modified. For example, every time someone claims, "Evolution can't be real because there's a missing link between X and Y species" and people go look for that missing link, it's found. Numerous experiments designed to prove or disprove the Big Bang consistently point to the Big Bang as a real event.

You ask about the edge of the universe. There is no edge. If there were, you could stand at it and extend your arm further and THAT would be the new edge of the universe. It's really about the "shape" of the universe. If you don't get it, then maybe you can tell me where the edge of the earth is (there isn't one because it's practically a sphere).

 

[Denny Crane]

To be fair, Denny, it was the uneducated masses that thought so (and I fully put "religious vocationists" in that category). Greek scientists/mathematicians knew the earth was a sphere (and the circumference) a few centuries before Christ.

Some did, but they still had NUMEROUS fallacies in their scientific view of how things worked. They just happened to align "enough" that you could navigate by the stars, whether they are celestial mechanics or crystal spheres. That's the point. You can't just trust we have it right because what we observe may just happen to align enough with how it really works (and we don't understand yet).

 

[PapaG]

You asked where all the elements came from. It all devolves to e=mc^2.

It's quite evolutionary in its own right.

Within a tiny fraction of a second, energy was converted into hydrogen, the simplest element. Then the stars came into being (gravity) and burned that hydrogen, producing heavier elements.

The way you talk about the scientific method is whacked. It doesn't work at all like you suggest.
It is the systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypothese.

The experiments are designed to test a hypothesis. The results of the experiments are absolutely repeatable, but all they do is reinforce or refute the original hypothesis.


In the case of the Big Bang and even Evolution, the hypothese are constantly tested and modified. For example, every time someone claims, "Evolution can't be real because there's a missing link between X and Y species" and people go look for that missing link, it's found. Numerous experiments designed to prove or disprove the Big Bang consistently point to the Big Bang as a real event.

You ask about the edge of the universe. There is no edge. If there were, you could stand at it and extend your arm further and THAT would be the new edge of the universe. It's really about the "shape" of the universe. If you don't get it, then maybe you can tell me where the edge of the earth is (there isn't one because it's practically a sphere).

You don't know what you're talking about. I also didn't ask about the edge of the universe. I was told there was an edge to the universe in this thread. I asked how anybody could know this.

Please read up, and stop embarrassing yourself. You run a decent site here, but you're clearly way behind when it comes to actual science. Your explanation on how elements were created is laughable. Why has it stopped? It started with hydrogen, and stopped with Nobelium? Also, your understanding of gaps in evolutionary theory, at least in terms of the origin of life, is hilarious to me.

Seriously, you just wrote a long stream of bullshit. I hope you one day can figure out why it's bullshit.

 

[Denny Crane]

Some theorize there is an edge to the universe, but it's not exactly mainstream thinking. There is an edge, in terms of what we can see. Light travels at the speed of light and we can only see as far as light has traveled since the Big Bang. Another experiment and observation that points to the Big Bang being a sound hypothesis.

My explanation of how the elements formed is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

As to why the rules of physics are the rules of physics, it is just the way it is. There are just 88 naturally occurring elements. There's no law that says there can only be 88, but that's the number we've found and we're not finding any new ones.

 

[barfo]

Somebody has to make the gun first, though.

Anyhow, we're pretty much not going to agree on this, so I'll bail out on the thread. I'm an agnostic on many things, and I know there is no indisputable proof that either a Heaven exists, or that the Big Bang happened.

Indisputable proof? True, doesn't exist. There is evidence, however, that the big bang happened. There is no evidence that Heaven exists.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

Somebody has to make the gun first, though.

Anyhow, we're pretty much not going to agree on this, so I'll bail out on the thread. I'm an agnostic on many things, and I know there is no indisputable proof that either a Heaven exists, or that the Big Bang happened.

I will agree there is no hard proof that heaven does or does not exist. I will concede there is a 1% chance the big bang did not happen.

 

[ABM]

There is no evidence that Heaven exists.

barfo

Then, there would be no need for faith.....the basis of a relationship with Jesus/God.

 

[PapaG]

I will agree there is no hard proof that heaven does or does not exist. I will concede there is a 1% chance the big bang did not happen.

Haha. Later. Have fun at the game!

 

[PapaG]

Some theorize there is an edge to the universe, but it's not exactly mainstream thinking. There is an edge, in terms of what we can see. Light travels at the speed of light and we can only see as far as light has traveled since the Big Bang. Another experiment and observation that points to the Big Bang being a sound hypothesis.

My explanation of how the elements formed is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

As to why the rules of physics are the rules of physics, it is just the way it is. There are just 88 naturally occurring elements. There's no law that says there can only be 88, but that's the number we've found and we're not finding any new ones.

Wikipedia? Also, there are elements in meteors that aren't earthly in nature. Seems rather egocentric to think that all the universe exists as we know it does on earth, at least in terms of elements.

 

[Eastoff]

As to why the rules of physics are the rules of physics, it is just the way it is. There are just 88 naturally occurring elements. There's no law that says there can only be 88, but that's the number we've found and we're not finding any new ones.

I'm a little curious where you get the 88 number. Are all of those elements after 88 man-made? I guess that is almost 90, and we only have like 117 or so.

 

[Eastoff]

Wikipedia? Also, there are elements in meteors that aren't earthly in nature. Seems rather egocentric to think that all the universe exists as we know it does on earth, at least in terms of elements.

wikipedia is a decent source for explaining things. My classes basically describe it happening that way as well. I'm curious what these non-earthly elements you refer to are. It is a fair assumption that there could be elements that we find unstable but under extreme conditions not found on the surface of our planet. There was some recent discoveries that iron in extreme conditions acts like a state that is not our conventional sense of solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

 

[barfo]

Then, there would be no need for faith.....the basis of a relationship with Jesus/God.

Why is Jesus/God unwilling to enter into a reason-based relationship?
barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm a little curious where you get the 88 number. Are all of those elements after 88 man-made? I guess that is almost 90, and we only have like 117 or so.

88 are the naturally occurring elements. The others are man-made or isotopes with very short half-lives so you wouldn't actually find them in nature.

LOL at the earthly in nature comment by PapaG. We can detect with spectrometers elements throughout the universe and can even tell what elements remote stars and planets are made of. If there were some magic 89th element, or some unknown one, we'd detect it and it'd be a really big deal.

 

[ABM]

Why is Jesus/God unwilling to enter into a reason-based relationship?
barfo

Whose reasoning? the creation's?

 

[crowTrobot]

Then, there would be no need for faith.....the basis of a relationship with Jesus/God.

faith is an excuse for belief, not a reason.

 

[PapaG]

88 are the naturally occurring elements. The others are man-made or isotopes with very short half-lives so you wouldn't actually find them in nature.

LOL at the earthly in nature comment by PapaG. We can detect with spectrometers elements throughout the universe and can even tell what elements remote stars and planets are made of. If there were some magic 89th element, or some unknown one, we'd detect it and it'd be a really big deal.

As I said, the egocentrism of 'science' is as profound as the egocentrism of those who believe in 'religion'.

LOL!

 

[barfo]

Whose reasoning? the creation's?

The highest level of reasoning understood by both parties.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

faith is an excuse for belief, not a reason.

Faith is faith, IMO. I don't claim to understand it at all. At times I wish I had it, though.

 

[huevonkiller]

The size of the universe is unknown. Talking about the 'edge' of it is silly. Read the artilcle again.

Um no. Even if the Universe is infinite the surrounding galaxies around us are moving away faster than the speed of light.

You don't get it bruh. The Universe is expanding and this is a fact. A "theory" is M-theory or String theory, not this.

 

[huevonkiller]

I never said there was no Big Bang. I'm asking for definitive scientific proof that there was a Big Bang. I think you misunderstood my position in the thread.

There is definitive scientific proof that the Bible is Bullshit.

If that book is unreliable so is the entire religion, imo. I still *think* there is a God but I don't know.

 

[crowTrobot]

Faith is faith, IMO

that's profound

 

[MARIS61]

But the bible also justifies killing all over the place. God kills practically everyone with the flood because they all sucked so much. He basically said, "Fuck it. I'm starting over." If it made sense for God to slaughter perhaps millions of people (and who knows how many animals) just so he could set humans on the right path, wouldn't it be doing the same thing by slaughtering babies?

According to the accepted teachings of the christianity myth, god is the most prolific mass murderer in the history of Earth. Somebody needs to drop a dime on that POS and get him off the street.

Heaven is where I live, right here in Beautiful Central Oregon.

I've not been to hell, but the farther away one gets from nature, the closer they get to hell.

 

[MARIS61]

You ask about the edge of the universe. There is no edge. If there were, you could stand at it and extend your arm further and THAT would be the new edge of the universe. It's really about the "shape" of the universe. If you don't get it, then maybe you can tell me where the edge of the earth is (there isn't one because it's practically a sphere).

You're thinking two-dimensionally.

The edge of the Earth is obviously orb-shaped, and is either where land and sea meet the atmosphere, or if you include the atmosphere as part of the Earth (as I do) then it's where the atmosphere meets space.

 

[PapaG]

Um no. Even if the Universe is infinite the surrounding galaxies around us are moving away faster than the speed of light.

You don't get it bruh. The Universe is expanding and this is a fact. A "theory" is M-theory or String theory, not this.

You don't understand the concept of an "edge", "bruh". Plus, you just blew up Einstein's theory of relativity, and I doubt you know why.