can you do this....

Originally posted by googlefudge
Just a note, Almost no one throughout history since before the Greeks thought the world was flat, this is a myth, a popular myth, enshrined in many films and even some textbooks, but still a myth.

"almost no one throughout history"... can you prove that?

Originally posted by scherzo
No, 'cause it's wrong. It came to being about 13 billion years ago, and will soon die out. It's about halfway through its life now.

not true, a scientific point of view but we still have no solid proof a big bang ever took place... we know the universe to be expanding so it's convenient for science to say at some stage the opposite must also have been true

also, 13 billion...??? i think you find scientists agree its around 15 to 20 million... if it were true of course, but it isnt

===================================
you only use the bible to describe the universe.
======================================

Not really Zah. I used the bible to refer to the universe.

Since when is that improper. I think you are participating in the wrong Forum.



and the bible doesn't say how a star is born or how fusion works. it simply states that there was day and night before the sun was made.


I agree. Genesis is not an exahaustive scientific description of how God created the creation. I agree.

But this does not make my point irrelevant. Once again, I think you are participating in the wrong Forum.

========================================
how can you call logic posting from a single source random verses that could be interpreted in quite a few number of ways.
==================================

If you have an alternative interpretation of any verse that I quoted than state what it is. I will examine it so ascertain if your alternatice exposition seems equally valid.

And my references are carefully chosen, not random.

Perhaps you want to start this discussion all over again on the Science Forum and specify that it is not a Spirituality matter under consideration but scientific exclusively. I'll keep OUT of your discussion.

==================================
you are free to express your view. i didn't denied it. i denied your claim that the bible explains the world.
==================================

I drew a connection between the resurrection of Christ, which many of us hold to be a historical event, and its relationship to a perpetually existing environment for man in eternity future.

This is a Spirituality Forum. And I gave by reasons for my belief in terms of scriptural explanations.

If you find my explanations of Romans 8:18-29 to be in error, I am eager to examine where you believe I have applied faulty interpretations.


===============================
your so called renowned scholars and physicians believed the earth was flat.
===============================

Name one, State where he or she discribed the world as flat.
Where did Paul say "The earth is flat"? Chapter? Verse?
Where did Isaiah say "The earth is flat"? Chapter? Verse?
Where in Genesis does it state "The earth is flat"?

Such reference would have to be proved as more than an expression. For example the phrase "Sunrise" technically could also be faulted. It is an expression.

In one sense the practical earth in those days as well as in many cases (if not all) in our day IS in fact flat, for all intents and purposes.

Do you find fault with the phrase "Big Bang"? If there was no air to carry the SOUND then how can we speak of a Big BANG? Do you then find the expression "Big Bang Theory" to be unscientific ?

I don't think you have a case nearly strong enough to chase me away from the discussion.

================================
that should be enough argument against your mighty scientists.
=====================================

Who did I discribe as a "mighty scientist" ?

=============================================
how can they have a basic grasp of what the universe is like?
===========================================

By revelation.

The point only being in this case the revelation that it was subject to decay, vanity, and the slavery of corruption and awaits the manifestation of the sons of God. Then creation itself will be freed into the freedom from decay of the sons of God.

That is the Apostle Paul's revelation in Romans 8 confirmed by some other arguably supportinve passages. This is the Spirituality Forum.


============================================
and don't try and sell the holy spirit idea to me. paul was a man who didn't even met jesus but he perhaps had the most influence on christianity of the apostles.
============================================

Paul did meet Jesus. Read about it in the book of Acts.

You are free to declare that you do not believe it. I believe it. The evidence of his writing certainly suggests something cataclysmic occured in his life. Why not take him at his word.

Here I think you would have to demonstrate to me that the writer of 13 New Testament books - the Apostle Paul - portrays the traits of a liar or one to invent mythical sensations.

So where in his writings do you gather evidence that this man seems more likely to be a mental case or one given to hysterical delusions? Show me your proof of the unsoundness of his mind.

His writings to me come across as the reasonings of a skillful attorney. You are just spouting off baseless accusations without any supporting evidence.

========================================
perhaps he made more rules than jesus. and you constantly quote from his writings.
=================================

He taught about walking by the Spirit. That is the main rule - to set the mind on the regenerated spirit and walk by the Holy Spirit.

Again, I suggest you give Romans chapter 8 a good read to verify this.

This is the Spirituality Forum on which the question of the eternality of the universe was posed. " Can you accept it with your mind? "

Why don't you address the question in the manner in which you would like to address it.

====================================
a description of the universe to have any value other than literary
==========================================

Once again, a reference to the universe need not be an exhaustive discription of the universe. It is suitable to Paul's purpose to refer to the universe as "the creation". Why is this not valid?

========================================
must carry some understanding some knowledge. saying that there will be a magical kingdom someday, in which there would be some laws of physics(other than today) and the lamb and the wolf would sing karaoke as friends is not really a description of this universe.
============================================

"Magical kingdom" is your spin. The rest are your words meant to lampoon my position.

The passage about the wolf and the lamb was used to support that the event of carniverous animals is apparently part of the bondage or curruption that Paul was speaking of from which the creation must be freed.

My opinion is that in the fall of man there was a control transmutation of the natural order which included the development of carnivorous animals.

The reverting of universal vegetarianism is apparently a recovery to some original state of creation. We notice that after the flood only did God say that meat would be eaten by man.

The fall of man brought on shortage. And God the Creator suppervized some kind of carefully controled transformation of the natural world. That is my opinion.

Regardless, I see the resurrection of Christ as having universal significance. The Uncreated Life of God is demonstrated to be able to over come Death to the uttermost.

This has significance not only for the resurrection and judgment of all mankind but also for the preservation of the invironment created by God for man.

I think this is what the revelation of the Bible portrays.

I do not claim that we know exhaustively all things throughout all the millions of galaxies. I think we are told the most essential things related to salvation.

I do not beleive that God intended to provide an exhaustive discription of everything. He does not forbide us to study on our own whatever we wish to study as long as it is not sinful.

You should not say "Because the Bible does not tell us the temperature of the center of the planet Neptune, therefore it follows that we can not learn anything about the universe."

I think this is foolhearty. In fact I think it is foolhefty. Especially given the pristine and glorious integrity of Jesus Christ.

This is the Spirituality Forum on which the question was posed.

==========================================
which was the point we were discussing. if the main source of your arguments can be interpreted in more than one way, you cannot
===============================================

Anyone can say "Well, THAT'S YOUR interpretation."

If you have problems with my expositon of a passage then state your reasons why you find my exegesis in error.

What is it in Romans which you feel I interpret in a faulty manner in chapter 8 from verses 18 through 29?

What are your alternative explanations of the meaning of those passages?

============================================
possibly present one of that interpretations as true and still expect to be logical.
==========================================

What was not logical about my explanation of Romans 8:18-29?

I expect you to back up your charge. So far all I read from you is "I don't LIKE it when you refer to the Bible."

So that's against your personal taste. So what ? If you find my application of Romans 8:18-29 faulty to support my belief then specifically point out where the error in interpretation lies.

Just saying "But I don't LIKE it when you quote the Bible on this question" means nothing.

Originally posted by jaywill
Maybe the reason you think it is funny is because of your modern thought.

The modern thought of many is that life is an accident, and that mankind is just an accident. We are here from some purposeless random "selection" of some kind on a second rate planet circling a second rate star for no reason.

So when someone says that the resurrection of Chris ...[text shortened]... n life.


Why do you care if the universe will continue on forever or not? Just curious?

Maybe the reason you think it is funny is because of your modern thought.

The modern thought of many is that life is an accident, and that mankind is just an accident. We are here from some purposeless random "selection" of some kind on a second rate planet circling a second rate star for no reason.

The conditions were just right on Earth. However, it could have been that the conditions were right on Alpha Centauri IV, or whatever, and then it would still be an issue. Let me boggle your limited mind for a sec:

First of all, there is no proof that Earth is the only planet in the universe that supports intelligent life, not to mention life at all. Since you seem to be good at believing things with no proof, this should be relatively easy to grasp.

Secondly, what if we were anywhere else? Would you still say what you just said? Of course not, you'd say:

"A Class-B planet circling a supergiant for no reason"

So when someone says that the resurrection of Christ has to do with the creation your indoctrinization of the random meaninglessness of humanity causes you to have a belly laugh.

It's not really random, it's just not created by an "Omnipotent Being"

Why do you care if the universe will continue on forever or not? Just curious?

Yeah, pretty much. It has no bearing on my life, nor on the life of my immediate posterity.

===================================

The conditions were just right on Earth. However, it could have been that the conditions were right on Alpha Centauri IV, or whatever, and then it would still be an issue. Let me boggle your limited mind for a sec:

============================================

Two books come to mind in response to your glib proposal that "The conditions were just right on Earth".

One is called "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Hugh Ross. He has extensive discussion on the statistical unlikelyhood that coincidental conditions made the Earth just right for life.

He has a very interesting discussion on the "fine tuning" of the cosmos to support life from the Big Bang to the present.

The other book is "The Privledge Planet", which I have yet to read in its entirety. But it is also on the fine tuning of the universe for the support of life.

Basically, the universe is a rather hostile place for life development. My opinion is there is intelligent intervention assisting the development of life.


=====================
First of all, there is no proof that Earth is the only planet in the universe that supports intelligent life, not to mention life at all. Since you seem to be good at believing things with no proof, this should be relatively easy to grasp.
=====================================

I fully realize that life may be out there somewhere. As of yet we have a sample size of 1 planet supporting life.

By the way, it has been said that some microscopic life forms rise up to the upper atmosphere and blow off into outer space. Some of these life remnants may actually have been solar wind blown away and landed on say, the planet Mars. The point being that if fossils of micro organism were discovered on Mars serious science would have to consider that they possibly had been blown through space from the Earth to land on Mars.

Just a thought. I am all for searching for life elsewhere. However, it is mighty expensive and practical priorities of social needs on Earth may be a factor.

I am not anti science.


=============================
Secondly, what if we were anywhere else? Would you still say what you just said? Of course not, you'd say:
=================================

Not sure what you mean.

But face it. The modern indoctrination is more tending towards regarding the human race as accident.

=====================================
"A Class-B planet circling a supergiant for no reason"
=========================================

My point was only that the modern indoctrinization is more towards regarding life on earth as something of a fluke.

Some suggest that the cock roach has more reason to inherit the globe than the human race. I think we have lost our sense of uniqueness among the other entities in the universe.

Just my opinion, which I respect very much you know?

======================================
So when someone says that the resurrection of Christ has to do with the creation your indoctrinization of the random meaninglessness of humanity causes you to have a belly laugh.

It's not really random, it's just not created by an "Omnipotent Being"
=======================================

Now we're getting back to the spirituality matters I think.

Yes God is an all poweful Creator. Yes, I have no problem with that. Do you?




======================================
Why do you care if the universe will continue on forever or not? Just curious?

Yeah, pretty much. It has no bearing on my life, nor on the life of my immediate posterity.
==========================================

The purely curious scientific inquisitor ?

Possibly. But I think a lot of people in trying to ascertain our place in the universe ask such questions. And without doubt practically all scientific investigation has in view some way of improving our lot - ie. desease cures, better transportation, faster, smarter computers, find where we might migrate to in space, explore encreased food production, better storage, better prediction of weather for our protection, more effective weoponry, better technology to improve our lives.

I think the majority of our scientific research has as its aim the improvement of human life, No?

Since that is a central message of the Gospel of Christ from another angle beside the technological, the two areas of interest are not that much different from each other as to end purpose.

The Bible says that man fell away from God and came under a curse. I think technology in one form or another has as its purpose to overcome the effects of that "curse".

Christ has another way to address the issue. And His resurrection is a central part of that remedy.

scherzo,

=================================
Let me boggle your limited mind for a sec:
=====================================


Exactly what was it in your post that was suppose to totally boggle my limited mind?

I was suppose to be blown away by what ? Most of it was about as thrilling as eating left over scambled eggs and toast.

No offense meant though.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================

The conditions were just right on Earth. However, it could have been that the conditions were right on Alpha Centauri IV, or whatever, and then it would still be an issue. Let me boggle your limited mind for a sec:

============================================

Two books come to mind in response to your ...[text shortened]... y to address the issue. And His resurrection is a central part of that remedy.[/b]

One is called "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Hugh Ross. He has extensive discussion on the statistical unlikelyhood that coincidental conditions made the Earth just right for life.

Uh huh. And I should believe everything that's ever been written in any book without skepticism.

Basically, the universe is a rather hostile place for life development. My opinion is there is intelligent intervention assisting the development of life.

You've still no offered no proof for this preposterous statement. You're living in the past, jaywill. It's time for you to sit back and let science take over. Radio signals were found in the 1960s from the Big Bang, the universe is expanding, the fossil record trumps Creationism and ID, etc. etc. etc. There is no conclusive proof for the truth of Creationism, especially not when countered with the scientific argument.

By the way, it has been said that some microscopic life forms rise up to the upper atmosphere and blow off into outer space. Some of these life remnants may actually have been solar wind blown away and landed on say, the planet Mars. The point being that if fossils of micro organism were discovered on Mars serious science would have to consider that they possibly had been blown through space from the Earth to land on Mars.

How did they respire?

I am not anti science.

And I am Republican.

Of course I'm not. Don't be ridiculous. Actions speak louder than words.

Not sure what you mean.

Why Earth?

But face it. The modern indoctrination is more tending towards regarding the human race as accident.

How can you say that?!? Humans are the result of millions of years of evolution! To just throw that away is ridiculous!

Yes God is an all poweful Creator. Yes, I have no problem with that. Do you?

It's outrageous. Like the flying monkeys. Or the purple unicorn or whatever a few months back in this forum.

Since that is a central message of the Gospel of Christ from another angle beside the technological, the two areas of interest are not that much different from each other as to end purpose.

First of all, that is only one endeavor. Modern science is a fusing of curiosity, capitalism, and improvement of society and ... you could use this one ... awareness of that which is around us.

Second of all, the means are different. Both Communism and democracy strive for a society where everyone is happy, but democracy tries to make them happy, Communism kills everyone who isn't. Does that make them similar?

I didn't think so.

Originally posted by jaywill
scherzo,

[b]=================================
Let me boggle your limited mind for a sec:
=====================================


Exactly what was it in your post that was suppose to totally boggle my limited mind?

I was suppose to be blown away by what ? Most of it was about as thrilling as eating left over scambled eggs and toast.

No offense meant though.[/b]

The second point.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
not true, a scientific point of view but we still have no solid proof a big bang ever took place... we know the universe to be expanding so it's convenient for science to say at some stage the opposite must also have been true

And the radio signals. Don't forget about the radio signals.

Scherzo,

====================================

You've still no offered no proof for this preposterous statement. You're living in the past, jaywill. It's time for you to sit back and let science take over. Radio signals were found in the 1960s from the Big Bang, the universe is expanding, the fossil record trumps Creationism and ID, etc. etc. etc. There is no conclusive proof for the truth of Creationism, especially not when countered with the scientific argument.

=========================================

Oh come now scherzo! I know about backround radiation discovered in the 60s at Bell Labs.

I keep up with a lot these things. I study the Bible too.

I like science. I raised two kids who are now adults. We subscribed to Discovery Magazine.

Computer Science was my bachalor's degree. Hugh Ross's book is a good read.

Originally posted by jaywill


Computer Science was my bachalor's degree.

Describe and explain the theoretical difference in computing capability between a pushdown automaton and a Turing machine.

==============================

the fossil record trumps Creationism and ID, etc. etc. etc.

==================================

Why didn't somebody TELL me ???

Piltdown Man rules !

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================

The conditions were just right on Earth. However, it could have been that the conditions were right on Alpha Centauri IV, or whatever, and then it would still be an issue. Let me boggle your limited mind for a sec:

============================================

Two books come to mind in response to your y to address the issue. And His resurrection is a central part of that remedy.[/b]

…Some suggest that the cock roach has more reason to inherit the globe than the human race. I think we have lost our sense of uniqueness among the other entities in the universe….

Apart from our intellect and technology, why should we be more unique than a cockroach?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Some suggest that the cock roach has more reason to inherit the globe than the human race. I think we have lost our sense of uniqueness among the other entities in the universe….

Apart from our intellect and technology, why should we be more unique than a cockroach?[/b]

First of all would our "intellect" and "technology" be insignificant? Just those two matters alone draw a huge difference between human being and cock roach.

First I would not quickly dismiss these differences as minor ones.


Secondly, there is the spiritual. As far as we know we among all the creatures have a reaching out towards God or towards the eternal and transcendent meanings of our existence.

If you find me something like a discussion forum where cock roaches are daily debating thier origin, destiny, and meaning of life, I might have to retract that.

They build no temples for worship. From where did we derive the need to do so?

Man is searching and grasping out for a transcendent life or meaning to it. Do you think the cock roach concerns itself with the question of whether there is life elsewhere in the universe?

Man, IMO, longs to know if some civilzation out there among the stars has progressed further than the human race. The imaginations of modern people are quite occupied with the possibilty that we humans could learn so much more by an ADVANCED civilization elsewhere.

This may seem like only a longing for better technology. However I think it also masks a longing for moral and ethical advancement. And that is related to spiritual progress, I think.

Having said that, I am not saying that the cock roach is not significant. We share creaturehood with them. But on the pinnacle or order of lives I think most people consider them on a far lower level in every way to human beings.

I was told that in the fall of the Greek culture in dispair one town elected an ox to be the mayor of the town. Or it could have been a goat. Likewise I think there is a kind of modern nihilism which would throw up hands and say "We're no better than cock roaches!"