alphaparticle

This looks like a family/domestic violence issue more than atheist vs Christian, truly. It makes it more interesting to make it the latter I guess, but it looks a lot more trivial to me.

you really can't say that about them all. I said it about the entity which caved, and that I hold to. I don't need to, neither did I, nor would I, claim that every republican is spineless, but I think that is clear enough in my post. well, that isn't what you said and it does not describe the people representing Oklahoma. and it was a bit offensive. Most of our people are just as upset as are you. It's a fact that the republican party leadership folded like a loose leaf notebook piece of paper. If I were a member of that party I would be upset also.

you really can't say that about them all. I said it about the entity which caved, and that I hold to. I don't need to, neither did I, nor would I, claim that every republican is spineless, but I think that is clear enough in my post.

What I learned: The republican party has no spine after all.

GE, I suppose it never crossed my mind that God promised ease all of the time so I am always a little surprised when people think that ought to be the case. It occurred to me as I thought about that today in responding to your thread perhaps part of that is due to my background. The nationalism thing bothers me a lot and I'd go so far as to say that if anything is a modern day idol love for the flag is. It doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't respect leaders and laws (admittedly that was a hard thing I had to swallow when I went through the NT!) but when it gets to the point of dividing believers how can it be a good thing?

I don't think that explains it Thomas to be honest. I don't know who goes into science thinking "the RCC punished Galileo therefore I am not going to be a Christian". It seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Alright, i'm too lazy to extract the quotes at the moment so I will go down the list. Yes, there is objective evidence for God's existence. I just do not think it's conclusive on its own. The issue is, you didn't care to respond to the argument I presented. That's fine, but there's not much I can do with your "just because" interpretation, which is an inaccurate representation of that block of text you quoted. It's that Christianity provides a narrative framework that happens to explain disagreements, among other things.

It surprised me because many people think the Big Bang occurred without God. There are many of them. I don't see how that is relevant. What, why not? There are atheists who think the Big Bang happened. There are CHristians who think the same. I don't see why you should be surprised to run into Christians who think it happened.

I got you Paul, that helps me make sense of your statements. Cool. I'm an theistic evolutionist type, or maybe a bit stronger into the ID territory than that, but I could be wrong too.

What light? What light before the sun or other stars? We have discovered the lasting reflection of a pre-Star light pervading the entire universe everywhere we look (which is visible at 3 Kelvins) believed by many to be the afterglow of the Big Bang...this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter" (believed by many to be like anti-matter and by others possibly the source of matter)...and He said (sound), let there be light and there was light (this strange form of electro-magnetic radiation)...they were simultaneous and instantaneous and are the "STUFF" the universe and all its inter-dependent forms, functions, forces, etc., were made out of when He spoke the worlds into being. Also called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation....see http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang. It's highly isotropic and homogeneous, suggesting that the visible universe at some point in its early past was all spatially close enough to be in an equilibrium. This is blackbody radiation that has been redshifted due to the subsequent expansion of the universe (it's also 2.7 K). It's not strange. It's easily explainable in this way. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? : ".this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter"" Dark radiation? contradiction in terms. Are you confusing that with dark energy? Dark matter we know exists because of the gravitational affects it has on galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark energy is inferred to exist from the expansion rate of the universe. No! I am not confusing anything...try... “Dark radiation is a postulated species of radiation that mediates interactions in the dark sector. That is, just the way photons mediate electromagnetic interactions between particles in the Standard Model (baryonic matter in Cosmology), dark radiation is supposed to mediate interactions between dark matter particles.” Ackerman, Lotty; (2008). Dark Matter and Dark Radiation. arXiv:0810.5126. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..79b3519A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.023519. "The Case for Dark Radiation". Maria Archidiacono. Retrieved 18 June 2012. "The Generalized Dark Radiation in Brane Cosmology". Nikolaos Tetradis. "The search for Dark Radiation". Maria Archidiacono, Erminia Calabrese, Alessandro Melchiorri. Retrieved 18 June 2012. "Dark radiation from particle decays during big bang nucleosynthesis". American Physical Society. Retrieved 18 June 2012 The "theory" that this is a reflection left by the Big Bang (like what we see in our vision after a Flashbulb goes off) speaks to the question I was addressing...that there was a light before there were stars...point made and I hope taken... In His love Brother Paul ahhh okay. Fair enough. I admit it wasn't a term I am familiar with, obviously. I still don't see what dark matter (and possible interactions between dark matter particles) has to do with anything. The rest of what I said stands though. Yes, in the Big Bang model it is obvious how there was light because there was much energy in the early universe. I don't see how it makes sense in the context of God having created everything as expansive as it is. My point is that it is directly evidence that the universe was much hotter... and ... closely enough packed together to be in an equilibrium state... before expanding. What you are missing here is that the radiation in question is *redshifted* due to the expansion of spacetime, and it is highly isotropic and homogeneous. Those all speak strongly to a Big Bang scenario. As you said...fair enough...the expansion is just noted as indicating a beginning (extrapolated in reverse to a place of non-thingness)...other wise you end up with the "cosmic egg" scenario where all the Universe always existed (thus is eternal) and was just a super-compacted and infinitely dense dense point or even a huge black hole ever imploding until it reached a condition of instability and then exploded...creationism simply says "in the beginning...God, because language would limit us to say "before" the beginning when we know time begins with the beginning...perhaps God said and Light was is the bang they are dimly discerning... Okay. So let me see if I understand you correctly. You'd be find positing a Big Bang like scenario? How about ages here. May I ask if you are young earth?

I'd agree with that GE. Many of these verses seem to be quoted out of context to support various kinds of nationalism inappropriately. I'm not surprised it would be done with the prosperity gospel also.

It surprised me because many people think the Big Bang occurred without God. There are many of them. There are. I don't see how that is relevant.

Yes, but you can test C 14 radioactive decay against other dating methods. i don't understand what the special attention on carbon dating is, as there are many other radioactive isotopes that are used for dating, all of which give a consistent picture. I see the reference to at least one other method, so are you an Old Earth but no evolution type?

What light? What light before the sun or other stars? We have discovered the lasting reflection of a pre-Star light pervading the entire universe everywhere we look (which is visible at 3 Kelvins) believed by many to be the afterglow of the Big Bang...this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter" (believed by many to be like anti-matter and by others possibly the source of matter)...and He said (sound), let there be light and there was light (this strange form of electro-magnetic radiation)...they were simultaneous and instantaneous and are the "STUFF" the universe and all its inter-dependent forms, functions, forces, etc., were made out of when He spoke the worlds into being. Also called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation....see http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang. It's highly isotropic and homogeneous, suggesting that the visible universe at some point in its early past was all spatially close enough to be in an equilibrium. This is blackbody radiation that has been redshifted due to the subsequent expansion of the universe (it's also 2.7 K). It's not strange. It's easily explainable in this way. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? : ".this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter"" Dark radiation? contradiction in terms. Are you confusing that with dark energy? Dark matter we know exists because of the gravitational affects it has on galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark energy is inferred to exist from the expansion rate of the universe. No! I am not confusing anything...try... “Dark radiation is a postulated species of radiation that mediates interactions in the dark sector. That is, just the way photons mediate electromagnetic interactions between particles in the Standard Model (baryonic matter in Cosmology), dark radiation is supposed to mediate interactions between dark matter particles.” Ackerman, Lotty; (2008). Dark Matter and Dark Radiation. arXiv:0810.5126. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..79b3519A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.023519. "The Case for Dark Radiation". Maria Archidiacono. Retrieved 18 June 2012. "The Generalized Dark Radiation in Brane Cosmology". Nikolaos Tetradis. "The search for Dark Radiation". Maria Archidiacono, Erminia Calabrese, Alessandro Melchiorri. Retrieved 18 June 2012. "Dark radiation from particle decays during big bang nucleosynthesis". American Physical Society. Retrieved 18 June 2012 The "theory" that this is a reflection left by the Big Bang (like what we see in our vision after a Flashbulb goes off) speaks to the question I was addressing...that there was a light before there were stars...point made and I hope taken... In His love Brother Paul ahhh okay. Fair enough. I admit it wasn't a term I am familiar with, obviously. I still don't see what dark matter (and possible interactions between dark matter particles) has to do with anything. The rest of what I said stands though. Yes, in the Big Bang model it is obvious how there was light because there was much energy in the early universe. I don't see how it makes sense in the context of God having created everything as expansive as it is. My point is that it is directly evidence that the universe was much hotter... and ... closely enough packed together to be in an equilibrium state... before expanding. What you are missing here is that the radiation in question is *redshifted* due to the expansion of spacetime, and it is highly isotropic and homogeneous. Those all speak strongly to a Big Bang scenario.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ? Yes. I am a Christian and I also think the Big Bang likely happened given the evidence. Why should this be surprising? There are many of us.

I have a an extra intensity full spectrum lamp to try to mimic sunlight... and coffee. So much coffee.

It seems likely that it's the same group of people.

That's because there is no accountability on any particular person. Politicians will do what it takes to get elected. Any politician who wanted to cut entitlement programs, be it democrat or republican, would lose, but can see in their term that things will stay afloat even if it means disaster later. They just pass it on. Similarly, if you wanted to be cynical, you could say that the people who are most reliant on entitlement programs now don't really care if it crashes and burns later so long as it happens after they are dead. So long as *I* get my check, what do I care what happens twenty years down the line? I think there is something like this mentality going on but that is combined with general societal ignorance about how money is generated and what it takes to keep things afloat. This latest generation of fiscal liberals (which isn't that different from republicans, let's be honest, in terms of increasing the budget of the government), says something like "no one deserves to go without healthcare" and then sticks their fingers in their ears when you question that the state is really the entity to promote the welfare of anyone or that it's not fiscally feasible etc. The real problem here is that too many people vote.

What light? What light before the sun or other stars? We have discovered the lasting reflection of a pre-Star light pervading the entire universe everywhere we look (which is visible at 3 Kelvins) believed by many to be the afterglow of the Big Bang...this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter" (believed by many to be like anti-matter and by others possibly the source of matter)...and He said (sound), let there be light and there was light (this strange form of electro-magnetic radiation)...they were simultaneous and instantaneous and are the "STUFF" the universe and all its inter-dependent forms, functions, forces, etc., were made out of when He spoke the worlds into being. Also called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation....see http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html Cosmic background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang. It's highly isotropic and homogeneous, suggesting that the visible universe at some point in its early past was all spatially close enough to be in an equilibrium. This is blackbody radiation that has been redshifted due to the subsequent expansion of the universe (it's also 2.7 K). It's not strange. It's easily explainable in this way. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? : ".this is the source of many ideas claimed under the name "dark radiation" and "dark matter"" Dark radiation? contradiction in terms. Are you confusing that with dark energy? Dark matter we know exists because of the gravitational affects it has on galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark energy is inferred to exist from the expansion rate of the universe.

Perhaps it's related to this? Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

I think it does. As I noted, when I see a rock I don't wonder, "Why the rock?". The rock "just is" and I don't see any logical problem with that conclusion. If we agree that there's no objective means to differentiate a created universe from a universe that "just is", and if we see no reason to ponder "Why the rock" when it comes to rocks, I see nothing illogical about concluding that our universe "just is" with no objective purpose. As the rock "just is", so is the universe in which it exists. Why the rock? What is the purpose of a hydrogen atom floating through space? For that matter, what is the purpose of the ebola virus that kills a child? IMO, when considering all things (both what we would call good and bad), it makes much more sense to conclude they "just are" than to try and invent some objective purpose for their existence. If we come up with a purpose for pretty sunsets, then we must also come up with a purpose for Vibrio cholerae. Didn't we just agree that order is not an exclusive property of a created universe? If the presence/absence of order isn't a means by which we can differentiate a created universe from one that "just is", how then do we tell the difference? If there is no means to do so, then one cannot claim one choice or the other is lacking in reasoning, correct? Gerald, It's nothing personal, but answering these questions would force me to repeat everything I have already typed out in length in the thread. All of these questions are ones that I at least attempted to address, sometimes multiple times, already.

Alpha, I am curious as to which arguments you found "helpful". Thanks! Sure. I found Leibnizian style cosmological arguments most thought provoking (and a couple of others but those even more due to my peculiar philosophical views at that point), and I found the argument for the historicity of the resurrection compelling. The latter in particular takes a lot of work to go through though, so it's not exactly something you could toss out there in an hour discussion and do it justice.

Yes. One of the recruiting posters for the physics department read "Master the Universe!". When people start to explain what they are doing and why, say, "why are we doing research at the LHC" I've heard things like "to know the mind of God" etc. I think you have a valid point here in that science can be such a powerful tool in terms of predicting and controlling nature perhaps that alone mitigates against religious belief by building up a particular sort of pride.

You're a christian? How do you mean if you don't mind me asking. I mean like, what is a christian to you? Blessings. What's a Christian to you? I believe Jesus died and was resurrected on the third day and through that I have forgiveness of my sins and will live forever with God. Very good alpha. I think that too. It looks like you know the blueprint to salvation, but you've said that God is drawing you in still. If God is still drawing you in then you are still a non believer, no? You are still being tested in the fire so..have you made that leap of fatih yet? For example, take a look at (Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.) The deception is confessing with your mouth but not truly believing in your heart. Who is Jesus Christ to you in your heart alpha. This is what separates true prophets from false prophets. Blessings. I don't actually think it your place to vet who is a believer or not here. I told you I am a Christian and even added further explanation. You can either take that at face value or not. Trying to dissect my writing for any possible ambiguities is supposed to accomplish what exact?

You're a christian? How do you mean if you don't mind me asking. I mean like, what is a christian to you? Blessings. What's a Christian to you? I believe Jesus died and was resurrected on the third day and through that I have forgiveness of my sins and will live forever with God.