A Simple Way to Experience Christ

Originally posted by Nemesio
Um. I think you simply don't understand what this says. It says that the matter of the universe
was created from the phenomenal energy of the Big Bang.

This isn't matter's being created ex nihilo which is what I presume we are talking about.

You see matter 'destroyed' whenever you light your fire in your fireplace! But it's not really ...[text shortened]... essor and ask if he thinks matter came into existence ex
nihilo.

Nemesio

I'll bet he would say exactly what the paper says: the matter of this universe was created in an instant, where--- a moment prior to that instant--- that matter did not exist.

Formulas are funny that way. They infer production.

Here's another quote/source for you, Nemesio.

"According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago."

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

And, for refutation of some of the anti-theist's tightly-held dogmas:

http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html

Originally posted by Nemesio
Um. I think you simply don't understand what this says. It says that the matter of the universe
was created from the phenomenal energy of the Big Bang.

This isn't matter's being created ex nihilo which is what I presume we are talking about.

You see matter 'destroyed' whenever you light your fire in your fireplace! But it's not really ...[text shortened]... essor and ask if he thinks matter came into existence ex
nihilo.

Nemesio

While you attempt to hide in the creases of that which is not understood, you charge me with making false assertions. Specifically, I asserted that science is doing its best to determine from whence matter came. This is exactly what science has always been about, in one form or another.

In the race to satisfactorily formulate the "theory of everything," there are currently two schools of thought. The main contender is from the string theorist school wherein black holes are being studied for their supposed similiarities with respect to density compression.

A lesser-known rival to the throne is the school of thought called loop quantum gravity, which concerns itself strictly with gravity and space-time. Both schools hope to discover how time, space and everything else can be built out of nothing. That's pretty close to ex niliho, wouldn't you say?

You are being a moron, now, Freaky. As I said: Matter is created all the time. Every single time
you eat a doughnut, you convert matter into energy and and energy into matter. Hell! Maybe that
makes you God in your mind.

The issue here is that matter cannot be created ex nihilo. Every single one of your sources
presumes the existence of a tremendous amount of energy and no matter and then blammo! a big
conversion and the universe is born.

This is not ex nihilo. Get this through your head. Stop knocking down this strawman.
The first paper was about quarks and electrons and neutrinos and all sorts of particles that you
don't have the first clue about. The scientist wasn't asserting that they came from nothing.

You can keep citing papers, if you like, but you'll find that every single one will entail the
tremendous mass of energy from which matter derived. Hence, not ex nihilo like you are
claiming.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are being a moron, now, Freaky. As I said: Matter is created all the time. Every single time
you eat a doughnut, you convert matter into energy and and energy into matter. Hell! Maybe that
makes you God in your mind.

The issue here is that matter cannot be created ex nihilo. Every single one of your sources
presumes the existence of a t ...[text shortened]... y from which matter derived. Hence, not ex nihilo like you are
claiming.

Nemesio

As I said: Matter is created all the time.
Let's see if you can edit your comments quickly, or perhaps backpeddle and change the natural meaning of the phrases you use.

From your earlier post, a few pages back:

Nemesio: As I recall, the axiom 'Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed' is elemental to physics.

Matter can no more be created than God can.

And somehow, the title of moron is bestowed upon me? I'll bet you do magic tricks at children's birthday parties as a side gig, huh.

The first paper was about quarks and electrons and neutrinos and all sorts of particles that you don't have the first clue about.
And now you presume to proclaim my cluelessness? My, what a thoughtful gesture on your part.

The scientist wasn't asserting that they came from nothing.
I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

Your silence is deafening.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]As I said: Matter is created all the time.
Let's see if you can edit your comments quickly, or perhaps backpeddle and change the natural meaning of the phrases you use.

From your earlier post, a few pages back:

Nemesio: As I recall, the axiom 'Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed' is elemental to physics.

Matter can no more ntist wasn't asserting that they came from nothing.[/b]
I knew you wouldn't disappoint.[/b]

I am beginning to wonder if you really understand physics at all.

When I said 'Matter cannot be created' this was always in the
context of an ex nihilo proposition.

The paper you cited above clearly does not intimate that matter
came from nothing, but from the energy he describes in his paper.

There is no backpeddling here. I am merely clearing up what you
either don't or won't understand.

If you knew the axiom I cited, you would know that I was implicitly
saying that 'Matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed ex nihilo,'
because the complete axiom states that it is neither created nor
destroyed but merely converted from one to the other. That you
think I am contradicting myself here only testifies to your lack of
knowledge, because (as I said) your digestive system breaks matter
down into energy (apparently 'destroying' it) and vice versa (apparently
'creating' it).

In both cases, it is not actually created or destroyed, but
converted.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I am beginning to wonder if you really understand physics at all.

When I said 'Matter cannot be created' this was always in the
context of an ex nihilo proposition.

I am beginning to wonder if you really understand physics at all.


There is no backpeddling here. I am merely clearing up what you
either don't or won't understand.

...[text shortened]... oth cases, it is not actually created or destroyed, but
converted.

Nemesio[/b]

I am beginning to wonder if you really understand physics at all.
Enough to dodge cars and bullets.

Originally posted by rwingett
There's a big difference between 'simple' and 'simplistic.'

I've been doing just fine without god for the majority of my life. I would last about a week without water and less than two minutes without air. So I guess I'll go with water and air as taking priority here, thank you very much.

You really don't need your hypothetical god. You just think you do.

You really don't need your hypothetical god. You just think you do.[/b

You hypothesise that you are not already being helped by God through life. You do need God you just think you don't.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Dear Jesus,
Gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme.
Amen.

why would u do that

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]The problem is that you and Freaky and others continue to act like your beliefs here constitute knowledge. They don't, probably just in part because they lack justification. You still have some other avenues for your holding these beliefs -- maybe utilitarian or pragmatic reasons or.... Whatever these alternate reasons may be, you should view and present them for what they really are.

Do you love anyone? What is love? How do you 'know' love? Prove to me a sunset is beautiful. Prove love , if you can? Prove that the only things worth knowing are those we can "know" by reason alone? You can't even prove you are alive!! .. you just experience life as being real to you ....but you could be dreaming? Prove that pragmatism = truth. What is knowledge? What is intimacy? What does it mean to be intimately "known" by someone who loves you? How can you be sure they really do love you, except by faith? Do you even know yourself fully?

Can you do any of these things or answer any of the questions adequately? I doubt it. So why do you say these guys have no justification for their position? Do you think they have not experienced what they say they have and are lying or does this whole thing scare you?

I can only say that in my spiritual journey I have experienced some freaky stuff myself. Enough to make me open to the idea of a living Christ. The experiences themselves are hard to present and justify precisely because they are experiential not theoretical. God is not a theory that makes sense , he's someone you bump into , maybe when you least expect it. How would you go about explaining to someone the experience of chocolate if they knew nothing about it and had never tasted it. If you kept going on about how glorious the sensation was and how you had no idea how good chocolate could taste then they might think YOU were barking instead!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Was it a yes or no? You are obfuscating in an effort to evade this simple question.

Let me try to spell it out a bit more clearly.

Given: We live in a secular state.
Thus: This state ought to avoid using a religious justification for prohibiting something.
Given: You have an opinion which is informed by your religious perspective.
Q ...[text shortened]... n religious persecution?

That is: are you truly tolerant of gay marriage, or not?

Nemesio

I'll answer your question instead . I have no issue with gay marriage. I think that homosexuality is not a "sin" as such but can be explained biologically and genetically. Although I am not as given as jaywill to quoting the Bible I think I have experienced Christ and would subscribe to much of what he is saying. However , I get the feeling he is against gay marriage and maybe hasn't reconciled his faith to the emerging scientific research on sexuality. He is probably afraid of your reaction if he just says yes. For me however , I would say no . Personally I think Jesus is much more concerned about the levels of love and mutual respect in a relationship than he is about the particulars of sexuality.