06 Sep 11
Originally posted by jaywillThat is right. I belive in Jesus Christ, no matter what the scientist think
You know, whoever we are and whatever our level of education or intelligence, eventually in the big questions of life, we will put our trust in someone.
"Who do you believe?" is an ultimate question posed to every human being on the major questions of life.
Jesus Christ tells us right up front, quite candidly, initially, that with Him it is a matter of believing.
they have proven.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by jaywillWhat happens inside black holes is unknown.No, I don't accept the multiverse hypothesis as fact, nor do I think it includes the possibility of 'jumping' from universe to universe.
So you don't think man can ever travel through a black hole into an alternative universe ?
I had a long video in line dedicated to that one subject. I went to sleep on it, woke up, and they were ST ...[text shortened]... ck holes.
Contrary to popular belief, I kind of like both science and science fiction.
There are all sorts of ideas about what might be possible, but we don't know.
The best theory currently for describing high gravity situations is GR, and that breaks down under the conditions
found inside an event horizon. This is one of the major hurdles for a GUT to overcome.
Jumping from one universe to another is one highly unlikely possibility, but it is unlikely to be survivable
if it is. Certainly jumping into a black hole is liable to lead to uncertain death, and depending on the black
hole in question it could lead to certain death (ie black holes where tidal forces rip you apart before you
breach the event horizon).
You could be thinking of wormholes which are similar, also may or may not be possible, and tend to
go from one place to another inside a universe not from one universe to the next.
However that is all highly speculative, and definitely more Sci-Fi than fact, until such a time as evidence
has been amassed that proves otherwise.
The existence of other universes is suggested in some current attempts at a Grand Unified Theory.
However as it stands there is no test that has been done that differentiates between these hypotheses.
Evolution has entered into common parlance as a shorthand for something liked 'developed over its history'
which is far from what actual evolution by natural selection is about.
Thus you can have people talking about how galaxies 'evolved' over time, which has nothing to do with
the evolution of biological systems.
Evolution of biological systems is not seen as unlikely in the scientific community, it is seen as a known fact,
a certainty to the degree that anything in science is a certainty.
Abiogenesis is typically seen as likely to occur anywhere where you have suitable conditions, and it seems that
suitable conditions can be found all over the galaxy/universe.
I am curious though as to the video you were watching about people travelling through a black hole...
I don't suppose you could remember what it was or know somewhere hosting it on the web?
And both science and science fiction are useful and cool, so its great that you like them.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd this is my problem with your beliefs.
That is right. I belive in Jesus Christ, no matter what the scientist think
they have proven.
Beliefs matter, because they inform our decisions and influence our judgement.
We also tend to want to agree with and support those with similar beliefs.
I recently heard someone put into words something that I think best describes my position.
I want my beliefs, my knowledge, to be as close to the truth (ie the reality we live in)
as possible.
I want to hold as few things as possible to be true that are false, and false that are true.
and as many facts as possible that are true.
The ONLY way that has as yet been found of determining if a position you hold, or fact you believe
is true, is to test it against the Universe, with reality.
The only reliable way of doing that is the scientific method.
Because I do this I can justify my beliefs by showing evidence and reasoned argument that supports
my positions.
If/when I am ever shown to be wrong through evidence and reason I CHANGE my position.
You however are sitting there proudly saying you don't care what anyone finds out about reality,
you will believe something regardless, you wont change your position.
That worries me because if that position is wrong (and I hold it clearly is) you are making decisions
based on a flawed and mistaken view of reality.
You are at the very least making decisions based on an unjustified view of reality.
This is why (I believe that most) Atheists keep joining in the debate and trying to change minds.
Beliefs matter, and what you believe can affect me (and vice versa), the difference being you can
ask me why I believe what I believe and I can tell you, with evidence and reason.
I can justify my beliefs...
You can't/don't.
And if you can believe one thing with no valid reason, there is nothing to stop you believing anything
else with no reason.
EDIT: And just to forestall this...
Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of a specific belief. It is also not a religion and has no tenets.
There is no atheist position on anything. It is also not necessarily mutually exclusive with agnosticism.
There are some (like me) who don't just say "I don't believe in god/god's/insert deity here" which has no
burden of proof.
(And which is all that's needed to qualify as an atheist, although non-theist is possibly a better term)
but go on to say "I believe there is no god/god's/...."
which is a declarative statement that does have a burden of proof to justify.
This is not to say atheists don't or can't have beliefs, it's just that the atheist label tells you nothing about what
they are.
Note: there is also an argument that knowledge is a subset of belief that you are really really sure about your
justification for. I don't totally agree with this position, However to know something you do have to believe it
to be true, So under certain circumstances you can use knowledge and belief interchangeably but i don't think
it's helpful for the point of view of clarity.
06 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
What happens inside black holes is unknown.
There are all sorts of ideas about what might be possible, but we don't know.
The best theory currently for describing high gravity situations is GR, and that breaks down under the conditions
found inside an event horizon. This is one of the major hurdles for a GUT to overcome.
Jumping from one universe t And both science and science fiction are useful and cool, so its great that you like them.
What happens inside black holes is unknown.
There are all sorts of ideas about what might be possible, but we don't know.
The best theory currently for describing high gravity situations is GR, and that breaks down under the conditions
One of the reasons of interest to me as a Bible student, is that contrary to encreased science knowledge making the Bible more perculiar in some of its claims, it seems to render some less perculiar.
I mean on the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah as if they came from another dimension.
And the ascension of Christ ... to WHERE ? Where is this third heaven to which He ascended and is at the right hand of God ?
Some modern theories make me question skeptics - "Why then is it so hard to believe when the Bible says something similar ?"
Thanks for the gravity info. I actually have read and heard a lot on black holes.
found inside an event horizon. This is one of the major hurdles for a GUT to overcome.
There is a neat video about what it would appear to someone going down one of theses black holes.
Anyway, I am a Christian evangelist guy. And I think there seems to be a kind of "event horizon" with Jesus Christ too. I have seen some people get too close and get pulled into God.
There seems to be a event horizon sometimes around the Lord Jesus. He is eager and willing to receive us.
Jumping from one universe to another is one highly unlikely possibility, but it is unlikely to be survivable
Seems so today.
if it is. Certainly jumping into a black hole is liable to lead to uncertain death, and depending on the black hole in question it could lead to certain death (ie black holes where tidal forces rip you apart before you breach the event horizon).
Right. But some enthusiasts out there are putting thier hope in it.
And man, they are serious! And also the temptation to think of alternate universes as places where "my other life" is is gaining support in metaphysical beliefs.
This seems to me a kind of modern pseudo Hinduism - a kind of reincarnation through the multiverse theory.
You could be thinking of wormholes which are similar, also may or may not be possible, and tend to go from one place to another inside a universe not from one universe to the next.
However that is all highly speculative, and definitely more Sci-Fi than fact, until such a time as evidence has been amassed that proves otherwise.
Highly speculative.
It is kind of hard to locate exactly where Jesus Christ was talking about being when He uttered this:
"And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven." (John 3:13)
Already ascended? In the past descended? Is presently in heaven ?
Percular. Exactly where is He ?
The existence of other universes is suggested in some current attempts at a Grand Unified Theory. However as it stands there is no test that has been done that differentiates between these hypotheses.
Fascinating. But I have long believed that REALITY is more fascinating than any fiction. I mean the New Testament and God and man becomming ONE - firstly in the Person of Jesus Christ.
And secondly in the city of God at the end of the Bible - New Jerusalem.
Evolution has entered into common parlance as a shorthand for something liked 'developed over its history' which is far from what actual evolution by natural selection is about.
Thus you can have people talking about how galaxies 'evolved' over time, which has nothing to do with the evolution of biological systems.
I know that has nothing to do with biological evolution proper. But some have latched onto Evolution with a strong fervor and assign it to chemicals, matter, and the universe itself.
For these types biological evolution is just a continuation of the program.
Now if you ask me to go fetch you some of these types of thinkers, that will take me some time to dig them up. But I have heard that kind of talk over the years.
I would probably first check the late Carl Sagan. But I might be wrong. I know I have heard that kind of talk.
Evolution of biological systems is not seen as unlikely in the scientific community, it is seen as a known fact, a certainty to the degree that anything in science is a certainty.
Abiogenesis is typically seen as likely to occur anywhere where you have suitable conditions, and it seems that
suitable conditions can be found all over the galaxy/universe.
Maybe then you can answer the question that I have put to people and never seem to get a response.
What was the first act of natural selection ? Use your imagination. That's allowed.
What was the first occurence of Natural Selection in the abiogenesis process.
I will not hold you to saying you know. I simply ask if you can IMAGINE such a matter plausibly.
I am curious though as to the video you were watching about people travelling through a black hole...
I don't suppose you could remember what it was or know somewhere hosting it on the web?
And both science and science fiction are useful and cool, so its great that you like them.
I'll look for it and put it up. I have watched quite a few. So it may take time for me to remember the one that harped on mankind escaping into wormholes for future survival.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI told you guys there is no "Black Hole" to travel through. This is
What happens inside black holes is unknown.
There are all sorts of ideas about what might be possible, but we don't know.
The best theory currently for describing high gravity situations is GR, and that breaks down under the conditions
found inside an event horizon. This is one of the major hurdles for a GUT to overcome.
Jumping from one universe t ...[text shortened]... And both science and science fiction are useful and cool, so its great that you like them.
science fiction, like is on "Star Trek".
06 Sep 11
3 edits
Googlefudge, I think this was the video.
About 37 minutes into this long video the narrator talks about passages, gateways, life boats of alternative universes through wormholes - a bridge connecting universes - like a subway system to a different place.
This traveling was first proposed by Einstien and one of his students, Rosen, according to the video. That is traveling between different parts of the universe or different universes.
Start at 37 minutes into the video for this discussion.
Universe - Multiverse Parallel Universes - Discovery Channel
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou should be glad I am a Christian and not a Muslim for I have no desire
And this is my problem with your beliefs.
Beliefs matter, because they inform our decisions and influence our judgement.
We also tend to want to agree with and support those with similar beliefs.
I recently heard someone put into words something that I think best describes my position.
I want my beliefs, my knowledge, to be as close to the tr ...[text shortened]... erchangeably but i don't think
it's helpful for the point of view of clarity.
to force you to become a Christian. I want all of us to live together in peace
and in love. So there is no need to even debate this evolution theory.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHinds
That is right. I belive in Jesus Christ, no matter what the scientist think
they have proven.
That is right. I belive in Jesus Christ, no matter what the scientist think
they have proven.
The night I surrendered to Jesus, I was alone with God.
No one was there to tell me about biology, Quantum Physics, abiogenes, Roman politics, Jewish history, or science of any kind. These matters simply were not important to the transaction.
"Just As I Am" I came. And I received something that the world cannot give. And the world CANNOT take it away.
Praise God forever. Amen. I'm with you there.
06 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWell you seem capable of reading just about anything into anything. The fact is, the quote in question does not mention evolution and is not about evolution at all.
It is strongly implied in the phrase "life permitting".
Biological evolution does not include the Big Bang event.
There are some forms of Evolutionary thought that include non-living things, and including the evolution of the universe.
People do not always clearly draw thier lines between the Bio Evolution and the Whole Universe type of Evolution.
Well maybe we should clearly draw the line so that we know what we are discussing. This whole thread I thought you were talking about biological evolution when in fact you meant something completely different. And I think you are at fault for not clarifying it earlier.
I am going to give up on this discussion. You are either a very poor communicator, or just keep changing the meaning of your words to avoid admitting your errors.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are Christians who would like to force people into their faith (or kill them for not being in it),
You should be glad I am a Christian and not a Muslim for I have no desire
to force you to become a Christian. I want all of us to live together in peace
and in love. So there is no need to even debate this evolution theory.
and Muslims who like you have no desire to force people into their faith and are peaceful and loving
as you say you are.
The difference is there are peaceful and loving people, and vicious and violent people, and everything
in-between, regardless of their professed religion, or lack thereof. Classifying people by their religion
in this sense is not helpful.
I would say a better distinction is between moderates and extremists of all stripes.
On the debate of evolution....
Would you, if given the chance, vote to include ID or creationism (young earth or otherwise) in science
lessons, to be taught as an alternative, or instead of, evolutionary theory?
Would you, try to get others to vote likewise, and tell others that evolution is wrong, or that there are
viable alternatives that should be considered?
(beyond the scope of this forum where you obviously do just that)
If the answer to those is yes, or a qualified yes, then your trying to alter the views of others to be more like
your own. Which is not in of itself unreasonable, but in this case your views are unjustified and wrong.
And increasing the number of people, especially young people, who believe wrong things or things for the
wrong reasons, is at best problematic, at worst highly damaging to both them and society.
That is why the argument matters.
06 Sep 11
12 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Well you seem capable of reading just about anything into anything. The fact is, the quote in question does not mention evolution and is not about evolution at all.
[b]Biological evolution does not include the Big Bang event.
There are some forms of Evolutionary thought that include non-living things, and including the evolution of the universe.
...[text shortened]... or communicator, or just keep changing the meaning of your words to avoid admitting your errors.
Well you seem capable of reading just about anything into anything. The fact is, the quote in question does not mention evolution and is not about evolution at all.[/b] [/b]
The quote specifically does not mention the word "EVOLUTION."
I went to find what writing of Dawkins was being discussed in Craig's comments. Apparently it is a discussion of his book The God Delusion. I have not read The God Delusion..
I went to a review of the book's general subject matter. I came across this critique about Dawkins' treatment of Fine Tuning and Teleological arguments for the existence of God in the book The God Delusion.
This paragraph of the critque I submit:
"Richard Dawkins’ fourth premise offers his second argument against the design hypothesis. He lauds the explanatory scope of evolution as a counterproposal to actual design, claiming that evolution has rendered the design hypothesis nothing more than an illusion. We have already seen that Dawkins needed to subtly invoke the presumption of the non-existence of God in order to substantiate premise two, the falsity of the design hypothesis. In premise four, he attempts to support his refutation of the design hypothesis by offering evolution as the better, and simpler, alternative. Without a doubt, evolution is one of the strongest rivals of the design hypothesis, but it does not refute the God hypothesis. Even if we regard evolution through the eyes of its staunchest proponents, and ignore its presumed problems, it is not incompatible with the God hypothesis, the rejection of which appears to be the central theme of Dawkins’ book. "
Conceded - The word "Evolution" is not used in Craig's paragraph about Dawkins' theories. The quotation from Dawkins in Craig's video is from the book The God Delusion. And the premise of the book includes a strong advocacy that Evolution has rendered the Design hypothesis illusionary.
Well maybe we should clearly draw the line so that we know what we are discussing.
I agree with that.
This whole thread I thought you were talking about biological evolution when in fact you meant something completely different. And I think you are at fault for not clarifying it earlier.
I was talking about biological evolution !
Back to my comment: I said some atheists appeal to Multiverse theory to defeat probability issues centered on evolution arriving at the degree we see. I meant biological evolution.
I am going to give up on this discussion. You are either a very poor communicator, or just keep changing the meaning of your words to avoid admitting your errors.
Stop trying to get me to "admit" errors which are only errors in your own mind.
WHY SHOULD I ADMIT ERROR ?
Some ATHEISTS advocate Multiuniverse theory to encrease the chances of Evolution having done and will do what they talk about. That is things like the world of biology as we see it today or the human race surviving into the next century given the obstacles.
It is true that some atheists argue this way.
WHY SHOULD I ADMIT ERROR ?
Okay, the WORD "evolution" was not in Craig's paragraph about Dawkins.
I don't think you can counter that Evolution had nothing to do with Dawkins' arguments about his debunking teleological arguments by theists.
The error I will admit is that I thought he was on chapter four of Blind Watchmaker. Craig was discussing in that portion of the video something written by Dawkins in "The God Delusion". (Did I say we were on The Blind Watchmaker ??)
Warning! Warning! We are on The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
My Big Fat Hairy Error, twhitehead.
Yes, I suggest you do quit this exchange.
I'll do this. I'll read a whole book by Dawkins. Okay ?
I read most of chapter four of Blind Watchmaker in connection to this discussion.
And this is an one evaluators view of Dawkins' comments on Multiverse in same "God Delusion" book:
"Design in Nature – or are there multiple universes?
In premises five and six, Dawkins addresses the lack of an explanatory model in physics that rivals the explanatory value of evolution to biology. He suggests that multiverse theories may “in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology."
According to Dr. Craig, Dawkins fastens onto the Multiverse theory to argue against teleological arguments of Fine Tuning that resulted in the permitance of life in the Universe.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI believe in equal opportunity. Intelligent Design is not given equal
There are Christians who would like to force people into their faith (or kill them for not being in it),
and Muslims who like you have no desire to force people into their faith and are peaceful and loving
as you say you are.
The difference is there are peaceful and loving people, and vicious and violent people, and everything
in-between, regard ...[text shortened]... lematic, at worst highly damaging to both them and society.
That is why the argument matters.
opportunity in the classroom, even though it is a better scientific
theory than evolution. The students are indoctrinated into one way
of thinking without the opportunity to think about all the problems
with the theory of evolution. They come away with the belief that
evolution is proven fact as you have.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsActually I was never taught evolution in school, I missed the relevant years that would teach it.
I believe in equal opportunity. Intelligent Design is not given equal
opportunity in the classroom, even though it is a better scientific
theory than evolution. The students are indoctrinated into one way
of thinking without the opportunity to think about all the problems
with the theory of evolution. They come away with the belief that
evolution is proven fact as you have.
I was never brainwashed into believing in evolution, I was old enough to make informed decisions
and assessed the theory and evidence and made my own mind up.
However you answered my point which was that you champion your belief that evolution is wrong
and that ID is right, or that ID and evolution are equalish and should both be taught together.
This belief is wrong, (I have no hope of getting you to agree with this) and goes against the entire
scientific establishment (which is the only reasonable test for if something should be taught in
science classes in schools) and is also against what I hold to be true, what I believe.
I hold you have been indoctrinated by religion into holding your beliefs.
You hold I have been indoctrinated by science into holding mine.
But of the two science is the one that actively encourages people to question things and use there
own logic and reason. Science is the one that requires evidence to support and justify a position.
We disagree perhaps because we both care about people knowing the truth (I can't know your motivations)
but don't agree on how one should determine what the truth is.
We will always clash over this because I believe that knowledge, that which you believe to a high enough
degree of certainty to be true, can only be found through science and reason.
And that which you hold true can be challenged and changed if found wanting.
You believe something different.
And because we both (and others likewise) attempt to steer others towards our own methodologies and
beliefs, and away from those who don't match our world view.
This argument is set to continue until one side wins, or there is nobody left to argue.
The import is not if evolution is true or not (although that is important), but what method you use to
answer the question.
If your (in the general not personal sense) method is better, then you will get the right answer to
questions more often.
And of the two, science is the one that has a list of achievements rivalled by nothing else.
Technology proves science works.
We didn't go to the moon with faith.
Science makes our lives longer and healthier and happier.
The 50% child mortality rates and 30~40yr ave lifespan of the vast majority of our species history
was finally ended by science not religion.
People often talk about 'equal opportunity', and often do so in the context of gender or race discrimination, or
of the opportunities offered to those who are poor rather than rich.
But they also often misunderstand what equal opportunity means.
For example: Anyone born in America should have the opportunity to run for president, (with a possible exemption for
those with a unsuitable criminal record, or similar) but that doesn't mean that anybody should be able to win, to
actually become president.
To do the job well requires certain skills, abilities, and attributes, and if you don't have them then you are unsuited to the job.
Not everyone is able to do the job adequately, and I do have a certain recent president in mind when I say this.
People are not all equal (in anything you care to measure about them) and while everyone should be given the opportunity
to do the very best that they can do and achieve some people will always outshine others at certain tasks and some people
will be unable to do them at all.
I for one love to sing (when no one else is anywhere near) but can't do it with any kind of tune (not tone deaf, I can hear how
bad I am) which drives me nuts. I would love to be able to sing well, but I can't. My vocal box is just the wrong shape, or some
combination of how my vocal system works is unmelodious and I just can't hit any semblance of a tune.
So I shouldn't expect to win, or progress in any way in, any kind of singing competition.
What is my point...
ID and evolution are not equal
Evolution is a scientific theory and has been proved true (whatever you say to the contrary)
ID is not a scientific theory and has not been shown to be true (or even reasonable).
And has strong links to religion built in.
Thus ID should not be treated equally with Evolution.
07 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou say, "We didn't go to the moon with faith."
Actually I was never taught evolution in school, I missed the relevant years that would teach it.
I was never brainwashed into believing in evolution, I was old enough to make informed decisions
and assessed the theory and evidence and made my own mind up.
However you answered my point which was that you champion your belief that evolution is wrong links to religion built in.
Thus ID should not be treated equally with Evolution.
I say we would not have gone to the moon without faith.
You say, "ID is not a scientific theory and has not been shown to be true
(or even reasonable)."
Long time atheist Antony Flew disagrees with you and supported the
teaching of Intelligent Design in British schools. He said that he had
always followed the evidence, wherever it led him. The DNA evidence
had led him to believe in an intelligent designer. But he pointed out
that he had not converted to the Christian religion or any religion at
all. So apparently he did not see these strong religious links as you
claim are built in.
I also say Intelligent Design is not a religion; but it is a fact of
scientific observation.