standing_alone

Bonky, if you persist in your position that believing in God is similar to believing in “cosmic elves”, or whatever, then there’s nothing I can tell you that would make sense to you. Sorry. And make sure you inform yourself what being an atheist actually means, because you’re not making sense even by atheistic standards. As for accessing the data, that’s sad. So you, just like so many, really believe that you have access to the secrets of the universe, do you? That’s also ironic: because even if it would be so, even entirely so, that wouldn’t give you the smallest escape from God, would it? In other words, in this case the real data is there. So why don’t you access it? Sorry, Bonky. And keep in mind this: no one can save your soul if you don’t want it. It must be your decision. Farewell, people. See you all at the feet of the actual Truth. When flowers are separated from weeds, forever.

No, Bonky, I’m not begging any question about elves, or whatever. But I am putting forward the question (your question) about God, as the Creator. If you want to believe that it was elves that created the universe, you’re of course free to do so, although you wouldn’t be making any sense. God, by definition, is the only Creator. That’s one of His attributes. Please tell me what theories you do believe in, and why. Just a few arguments, so that I’ll have an idea about what you understand by “convincing”. Which should be indeed “commendable, not upsetting”. Hence my prior challenge, about the existence of anything. But make sure you understand that if you don’t want to be convinced, you’ll never be convinced. Of anything. And God is the last that in general people want to be convinced about. And vice versa, if you want to be convinced of some things (such as certain theories), you’ll stay convinced no matter the amount of arguments against them. So be honest with both yourself and me, and don’t waste anyone’s time, please.

Enoch, actually “re-ligare” doesn’t say to whom the initiative to reconcile belongs. But of course that doesn’t mean that we should mistake religion with what people, including many Christians, make of it. If by religious people, or supporters of religion, we understand people like the Pharisees, then I agree with you that they are wrong. If instead we understand by religion God’s attempt to reconcile man with Himself, then the term was properly used. No, I can’t “ CITE a source supporting what "You Think" “. But the fact that you ask me for one is very disappointing. I mean, if I would think what others tell me to think, then I wouldn’t actually think, would I? And if you look for others to tell you what to think, why exactly aren’t you an evolutionist? As for faith in case of big bang supporters, I stand corrected. Indeed, in their case is blind faith. A Christian should indeed be more careful when using the term ‘faith’. As for: “ My arguments are based on the Exact Opposite of Arguments from Ignorance; they are based on Experimentally Validated Scientific Laws. ”, well, you certainly extend them beyond validation by experiment. In other words, you still have to prove that what we see on Earth is valid everywhere in the universe. Good luck. And no, it’s no “Argument from Ignorance”, as you continuously claim. It’s instead your blind faith that it is so. Just as in the case of the atheists, by the way. I haven’t checked any of your links from your quantum trip, nor will I. I’m pretty sure whatever they say it’s been said before, as well as the arguments against them. I can’t tell, though, if you’re serious or not when you claim that “A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist”. If you’re serious, then you splendidly refuted yourself (your expectation for universal laws). Coming yet again (why?) to alternative explanations, not only I gave yesterday one clear example, but I gave today yet another one. It seems that a dialogue with you is very tiring. As for the Laws not being “Codified” before “……”, you still miss my point that the former laws are not the current laws. If they are (universal) laws, in the first place. I find this dialogue very strange, and pointless since you too seem a YEC, and hence there is nothing fundamental separating us. Other than, again, your illusion that you know the universe. So, on my side, I’m stopping this here. Good luck in your future dialogues (not with me).

I'm sorry, but is that why you believe in big bang, and the rest of the formal (wildly theoretical!) paradigms, because they "have anything concrete to offer"? Please share that particular anything that you find in them as... concrete. As for the evidence for God, please show me how can anything exist without God. Literally anything. But please don't waste my time. In other words, if your mind is already settled in a certain position, no matter what one tells you, please be honest and tell me that.

And Bonky, could you please tell me why are you a non-believer? The decisive argument. Thanks.

Bonky, about the Creator we can only know what He tells us about Him. Hence, as Teditis correctly observed, the Bible. As for the universe, well, we do know some basic things, such as it’s full of stars. But don’t we already know that too from… the Bible? OR that it is expanding. But don't we already know that also from... the Bible?

Joshua260: 1. Actually, you should agree with Doppler effect, since no one (literally) can observe space, or what space is doing. 2. There were no “Einstein solar eclipse experiments”. There were observations. And they were not Einstein’s, they were Eddington’s. And it wasn’t that the result compelled him, it was that Eddington wanted so much Einstein’s theory to be true, for several reasons, none of them scientific (including peace between scientists, post-war). Also, there was no “Einstein miscalculation”. It all started from the initial assumptions. His calculations were correct, in both cases. As for the light being bent nevertheless, that was proposed by Newton, long before Einstein. 3. I wasn’t saying at all that “gravity could be related to electromagnetism”. I was only suggesting to you to always look for alternative explanations. In this case, the one proposed by supporters of the plasma universe seems reasonable to me. Although, given my philosophy, I will never step up to support their universe (which, regardless, has its own problems). See for example, Dowdye. You can find out a few things about him in this article: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/739183-former-nasa-physicist-disputes-einsteins-relativity-theory/ You can find a list of his papers and presentations here: http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Scientists&tab2=Display&id=435 You certainly can’t find his papers on arxiv (but you could try NPA) - and by the way, why exactly is that? How can supporters of Einstein explain this censorship? In so many cases? Is it about science, or is it not? Apparently, it’s not. 4. It’s also factual that Einstein's last value was given a century before him… (5.) And I still think you don’t understand me. It’s not certain at all that gravity bends light, regardless who said it first. Dowdye couldn’t find light bending at several distances (radii) from the sun (as shown in several of his papers). Plasma cosmology supporters are basically saying that it’s the plasma (the solar plasma atmosphere) responsible for the bending. Some even have maths, leading to the same result as Einstein. Now you have one result, in agreement with observations, but 3 very different theories. So, again, which criterion we use to differentiate which is true, if there is even one true amongst them? (6.) To whom does the relationship energy-mass, and even the equation “E=MC2” belong? You’ll probably answer Einstein, but… are you sure? So here’s me, repeating myself: make sure you check the actual truth behind what you learned in school, because most of the things you learned there are false. Certainly all the things that are 100% theoretical.

Enoch2021, please let’s not scrutinize every word, otherwise, if we must define each word we use, we can’t really communicate. So by religion I meant your Christian faith. And yes, I think you are wrong by considering that the so-called laws of nature (what we observe on Earth or very nearby) are truly the laws of nature (i.e. universal). However, even if you right, that is pretty much forever unprovable, so it’s not science. And no, I’m not saying at all that big bang is possibly true. It’s certainly strange to accuse me of saying that, since I’m the fellow who started this thread against big bang. I welcome your support for the scientific method. Indeed, before even debating if big bang is true or not, people should know that it’s not even science. It’s simply faith that the universe did this, and it did that, so that it eventually would align itself with current observations. Only that the universe must have done a lot of things to eventually align with observations, and that’s one of the most severe problems of the paradigm. Not only its supporters have to take things on faith, but they have to take a lot of things on faith. As for my “Argument from Ignorance”, OK I will accept that if you accept that you make your arguments from the position of all-knowing. Is it God you’re proclaiming here, or is it yourself? So yes, I stand behind my (and apparently Tristen’s) position that (obviously!) we don’t know what we don’t know. Feel free to show me how you do know what you don’t know. If you believe there are no different laws in other parts of the universe, feel free to prove it. I'm very skeptic about that. You have to take it on faith, one way or the other (actually, in one case not so much on faith, since for example they can’t seem able to find other Earths out there). As for “Argument to the Future”, oh boy. Again, you seem to believe yourself to be all-knowing. My friend, even when you make an experiment, and then you repeat it, and then again, this doesn’t exclude alternative explanations – current or future or even past, since for example I believe aether was banished prematurely. As for proving things to other people, if you think you can prove anything (other than their core beliefs) to people that believe that Moon, or anything, isn’t there when they’re not looking, then please do so. As for “alternative explanations within current physics”, if you would have been patient to read the example that followed you wouldn’t put that question. I agree with you on Genesis. Although, where exactly did your all-knowing physics go? Please don’t see a dispute between us, because there isn’t - other than you claiming to have access to cosmic understanding. Forgive my battle stance, but it’s you who actually brought it out, with your sharp questions and arguments.

FresnoJoe, indeed. In other words, for decades the paradigm has been (and for many it is so even today, since the majority of big bang supporters still hold to Doppler interpretation) that the universe is geocentric, and nobody seemed to notice. For me, that’s first class entertainment, since they have claimed for centuries that the universe isn’t geocentric… As for the Coma Cluster, that’s where a major formal problem had started (Zwicky, dark matter). The (rest of the) article is mostly dealing with old things. Post-them, mainstream has a whole new set of problems. Not that they really solved their previous problems…

I thought about what I said yesterday, and I think the position of any Christian who claims we can understand the universe is actually much worse. For example, even if we would have complete access to the actual secrets of the universe that we observe, we could still say absolutely nothing about how it was created. For at least 2 reasons: the first is that we can never ever fully understand anything (we are created, while God is the Creator), and the second is that the universe that we observe is the fallen creation. It would be like analyzing the dusty remains of a dead fellow and giving expert opinion of how the living fellow actually was, and what exactly was he doing while living.

Rather then can't, it's probably I won't. Otherwise what you said (and you are right) wouldn't make sense ("why would Jesus command us to do something we "can't" do?"). As for the world, I suggest you don't look upon its ways, or even its opinions. Indeed, "love" is one of the most used words, and guess what's actually missing from the world? As for the definition of love, I stand behind what I already said. That's how I see it. But that doesn't mean that I don't agree with your paragraph on that. Although I would complete my definition with this: you love somebody when they are always present in your thoughts. In fact, I think this comes first. But that's obviously not enough, per se, for love, since people we hate are also present in our thoughts.

And, Joshua, sorry but you’re also formally wrong about the Doppler effect (universe “speeding away from us”). Let me put it this way: if the formal cosmic expansion is like (let alone the) Doppler effect, then not only is the current formal explanation wrong (expansion of space instead of galactic motion) but the universe also becomes geocentric. To me, that really looks unavoidable.

I find the dialogue between Tristen and Enoch2021 interesting. Enoch seems to believe that we have access to the universe’s secrets. While that’s aligned with his philosophy (actually religion), meaning that his position (unlike in case of atheists) seems solid, I think it’s actually wrong. Enoch uses what we call science (such as the laws of thermodynamics) to show how horribly wrong the mainstream paradigms are - in this case, big bang. My position however is radical; we don’t know that what we see on Earth (and verify through endless experiments) is actually true out there, in the depths of cosmos. Hence, any cosmology is blind faith without even starting. One has to (blindly!) believe in the principle of mediocrity to even think about conceiving a cosmology. And, just like all the formal principles (including or even foremost the cosmological principle), this one too has been shown wrong, rather than right. Regardless of that, a Christian shouldn’t believe in the mentioned principle, since that’s the very first step in any naturalistic (meaning atheistic) pursuit of ‘understanding’ the universe. But indeed, as Enoch has shown, even if we temporarily admit that physics on Earth are literally universal physics, the big bang universe doesn’t stand at all, which is so ironic. It’s even worse for the mainstream: not only we don’t know about the future discoveries (since obviously they are in the future), but there are already alternative explanations within current physics. So which one we choose, and on what criterion exactly? An example: Joshua260 believes that “Einstein did indeed prove that gravity pretty satisfactorily (or actually the curvature of space) bent light coming to earth while passing close by the sun.” Firstly please note the word he chose to use: “prove”. So strong a word, since in reality we can prove very few things, if actually any at all (for example, heavily influenced by the formal interpretations in the quantum mechanics, themselves influenced by ‘religious’ beliefs from deep Asia, quite a few physicists ask themselves, and anybody, if the Moon is actually there when they’re not looking). Then, he obviously ignores that the idea of light bending by gravitation was actually forwarded by Newton, centuries earlier. In other words, if Einstein would have indeed proved light bending, then he would proved Newton right, not himself right. How about the value? Well, there is the historical fact that initially Einstein proposed only half the later, final value. Bringing him, again, on par with Newton. But even the later figure (the doubled one) was actually given long before Einstein. Here’s a name you should research: Georg von Soldner. And finally, we have those alternative explanations. Such as the one forwarded by the proponents of the electromagnetic universe. Explanations, of course, totally ignored by mainstream, which in both schools and media makes not science but only propaganda to its own paradigms. Joshua, please forgive me if I somehow offended you, that was not my intention, I assure you. But if you only repeat what you’ve been taught in schools, instead of checking for yourself what the truth is, then you’re certainly not doing science. Only propaganda, at best. And a Christian should know (both from the Bible and from his own life) that the world is a world full of lies, not full of truth. And Joshua, formally only half of the so-called light bending comes from the claimed curvature of space. And in fact, it’s space-time. And in fact, the initial value of Einstein ignored precisely this. Ironic, wouldn’t you say? Now, given all of the above, you tell me: what exactly is the truth? Because it certainly seems to me that we, Christians, should avoid partial (temporary) truths and instead stick to the only absolute truth. Which, if it is indeed absolute, it cannot be excluded no matter what discoveries in astronomy, or whatever field of science, or even philosophy. And guess what has happened so far?

Riverwalker, indeed. Christian evolutionists should think about this: how exactly did Jesus heal people? Did He somehow took a long (evolutionary) time, or was it instantly? Hence, if that’s how (Son of) God does things, then why exactly is it not so in Genesis 1? Solely to make room for human theories? Really? And theories that are in fact… naturalistic? So that God would do things in a way that… excludes God? I find that utterly pathetic. But when God is in my heart, I instead find that heart breaking. To not have a free mind, to be deeply chained into the ways of the world, that must be really bad…

Thanks, Hmbld. But no, I can't say I really, actually care for others – and that’s the problem. Nor should "care" resume to feeling.

Willa, thanks so much for your thoughts. Indeed, as one pastor that I really like put it, it’s God from beginning to end. There’s no “us” anywhere in between, other than having the wisdom to accept the reality: God. More and more, until we finally walk His way, not ours. This, ironically, also teaches us what otherwise should be a basic teaching, even the very first: that God is, well, God. No other way can stand besides His. I mean, He’s either the Creator of everything, and hence everything we need we can only find in Him, or He is not (and then we should all commit suicide in mass, since there’s no meaning and no purpose to anything at all) - there is simply no middle ground. This is bad news for those that love the world, but it has always been, so nothing new under the Sun.

Thanks, Willa. But please submit an idea, or a short story. Here’s another one. I think it was Juniperus who, awaited by a large assembly, instead stopped short of the city and started swinging and playing like a child. To everyone's disappointment, of course, since they were expecting complicated theological lessons. So: 1. we don't need really anything in this world (while that may seem radical to many, it's actually Biblical) 2. we must be as children, to enter His kingdom And a renewed call to everybody to contribute.

Sorry, but no, he didn't.

Enoch2021, speaking of deGrasse, I found him offering a personal explanation for flatness. One that, if I remember correctly, couldn’t find at any other supporter of big bang. And a wrong explanation, of course. Just like all the others…

Thanks for the welcome, Kwikphilly. And what does it tell you, that despite the number of arguments against big bang people still believe in it? But the true irony is that I could not find amongst the opponents, nor personally conceive, more damaging arguments against big bang than those forwarded by the very proponents of big bang…

No comment, really? For me, that's deep. And please contribute.

MorningGlory, thanks for your thoughts. Hmbld, I would say it's a deep care for the others. Sacrificing yours so that they can have theirs. And with this occasion I have to correct myself. I stood last night thinking about it, and I had it wrong. The reality remains that I'm truly incapable to love others. It's only that sometimes, rarely, I leave God stay for a bit, only a tiny bit, in my heart. In other words, that broken heart is His, not mine... Oh, boy. It seems that I'm still in deep trouble. I just needed to make this confession. It had actually followed me through the night, and it was pretty much the first thought of the day. So I had to let it out. Sorry if I let anyone think that I'm actually a Christian.

Nobody-2441, how ironic what you say, since Galileo had no evidence whatsoever for his claim. (Admitted as such even by today formal sources, just in case you want to dispute that…) And the situation stayed like that for a couple of centuries more… And it’s not YECs that have to prove anything. It’s not YECs claiming to understand the universe. To the contrary, it’s OECs and atheists that have to prove their big bang, or whatever. So why don’t you do that? Really looking forward. And you should start by defining what science is, because not only is big bang wrong, but it’s not even science, whatever formal definition of science you would pick up… It’s also ironic that both OECs and atheists accuse YECs of “anti-intellectualism”, forgetting from whom exactly this “intellectualism” they hold so dear comes from, in the first place. As for making stuff up, I personally can hardly imagine of a more appropriate description for big bang. Spot on.

I have thought about a thread with great stories towards faith, so here it is. Please contribute, so that our faith can only grow. Also let’s please disregard the denominations, and instead find the common ground. It is said that St. Basil the Great was taken into a tour of a great Egyptian bazaar (with all the little and many times shining things in the world, which reminds me of Saga’s song Pitchman). His companion, lower in grade in Church hierarchy, surprised, had noted an increasing joy on Basil’s face (and probably said to himself: “Got you, master”). Eventually, the companion asked St. Basil: “Why the joy?” St. Basil replied even more joyful than before: “How else, when I find that there are so many things in the world that I don’t need…”

There was a time that now I can hardly imagine one could have been a better pharisee than me: impeccable theoretically, and utterly miserable practically. But now I think there is hope even for me. Since, again, I am utterly incapable for love, this late love for others must be a gift from above. Truly infinite His mercy must be, if He looks upon even one like me… And you are right Wingnut, I am my own worst enemy... Truly ironic, the Bible calls it a heart problem...