Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
James Redford

God's Existence Is a Mathematical Theorem within Standard Physics

Recommended Posts

Where there is no substance there is no math. God cannot be determined by laws of physics or equations. Just like dark energy or the voids of space. God is Spirit not physical 

Edited by Mike Mclees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

however there is this

Rom 1:20

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
KJV
for all that is here speaks, as to point to, of an infinite reality of unfathomed power in abilities....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When God interrupted the lives of those living in Israel 2000 years ago, He did not come to change their understanding of science or Mathematics. The Jews were a very superstitious people; they thought the Earth was flat. God did not come to tell them that in 2000 years a man would walk on the Moon. He did not come to change how unscientific their ideas were; He came to let them know who was in charge. Mathematics describes with unbreakable symbols things which occur---and even create unusable systems of things in the real world which don't. But it doesn't tell why. All the theorems and proofs in the world will not generate for any man a brand new heart, but the Spirit of God can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 3:45 PM, childoftheking said:

 

You have no idea of what my intentions were by quoting Galileo in my original post within this thread.   You cannot properly deduct by any form of reasoning I was manipulating God to a set of numbers.  This thread is about how can we Tell God exists through Mathematics, not describe God via Mathematics.   And by looking at this from the very viewpoint of God, and Him claiming, he used Mathematics and Science (that is what measuring and stretching a line consists of) in His Creation is far from defining God at all.   In fact, to say that is defining God has no logic to it at all!!

 

We are Created in His Likeness.   When you know that God used Mathematics and Science, that is a big REVEAL that there will be humans who achieve in both Mathematics and Science because that is a part of WHO GOD is!!

 

Whoever taught you in whatever church Denomination you grew up in, was not very bright, if you conclude that God and Mathematics cannot co-exist.   And if this is your own understanding, you need to take some serious in depth Seminary classes.   I could suggest a few Biblical Universities to you, but you have to go in thinking I can learn something, not how you are thinking like you have a clue.   Because your assumption of what I was doing, has been off the mark the entire time.

 

 

I quoted Galileo and specified his work in "Patterns," because God's Holy Word reveals that God used Mathematics/Science in His Creation and the Book of Hebrews specifies He did it in "Patterns."   We see this by the variety of dogs from the wolf, coyote, to the various species of domesticated dogs.   But they are ALL DOGS and they are ALL "Patterned" in like fashion.   The same can be said with trees, grass, mammals, amphibians, fish, humans, and the list of Creation goes on and on and they are all in "Patterns."

 

So, to offer scripture trying to discredited me, which is a very BIG RED FLAG that you do not even understand anything I have posted.   Alerts me, that your understanding is still in the stages of milk.   The meat is when you have the knowledge of specifics about God.  Your answers, just provide a general and very broad spectrum that is so far off this topic, it makes me wonder why you are even posting on this topic!!

Perhaps your OP and following Posts have been somewhat 'misleading' we may have formed a wrong opinion of your views...which you are now expressing in a more acceptable form. Whether Patterns, Maths or Science - God invented all and is using all in His Creation, but HE does NOT consist of them as you gave us first to believe. Glad it is getting sorted now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 4:44 PM, James Redford said:

As the title indicates, God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

Tippler's paper describes a universe that assumes that in the far future it is completely colonized by intelligent beings that somehow discovered how to reverse the expansion of the universe and create a contracting universe. That is  a lot of assumptions, and does not definitely prove anything.

Yes, he did publish that paper, and it was peer reviewed. That action does not legitimize the contents of the paper, but rather laid it out for examination and criticism. Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics.

In other words, it failed the acid test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

Tippler's paper describes a universe that assumes that in the far future it is completely colonized by intelligent beings that somehow discovered how to reverse the expansion of the universe and create a contracting universe. That is  a lot of assumptions, and does not definitely prove anything.

Yes, he did publish that paper, and it was peer reviewed. That action does not legitimize the contents of the paper, but rather laid it out for examination and criticism. Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics.

In other words, it failed the acid test.

Hi, Eman_3. That's not how truth works. Truth is not a popularity contest. Indeed, truth by its intrinsic nature is antidemocratic, since it cares not a whit whether people like it or not. The statement that 2+2 = 4 on the real line is true regardless if the whole world disbelieved it.

As far as anyone knows, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is correct. No one has ever been able to devise a valid argument against it, despite many vainglorious attempts. The Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem (i.e., logical proof) per the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the following resource:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB .

The evolutionary psychological reason for the bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian demons seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", State-Terror Archive, May 8, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190509025132/https://stateterrorarchive.blogspot.com/2019/05/societal-sadomasochism.html , https://archive.is/tLeu4 , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0509-1152-02/stateterrorarchive.blogspot.com/2019/05/societal-sadomasochism.html .

And you greatly underestimate the hatred of many in academia for belief in God, especially Christianity. This is the same Western academia that defended and covered-up for the USSR and Mao Tse-tung's China. During which time the Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects, while the Communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own noncombatant subjects.

Western academia in no small part helped enable those mass-slaughters with its faithful adoration of those regimes and the God-hating antitheist socialist ideologies upon which they were founded. Instead of shining a spotlight on the tyranny and horrors of Communism and thereby helping to diminish it by focusing world attention on it, they instead acted as Communism's intellectual bodyguards. Still to this day not much is said in academia or the major media about the biggest mass-slaughters by far in human history.

Edited by James Redford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2019 at 4:05 PM, enoob57 said:

Rom 1:20

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
KJV
for all that is here speaks, as to point to, of an infinite reality of unfathomed power in abilities....

The verse is often presented as a refutation of "sola scriptura" and it is, but it also indicates that all men have  reason to know that there is a creator.  Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, James Redford said:

Hi, Eman_3. That's not how truth works. Truth is not a popularity contest. Indeed, truth by its intrinsic nature is antidemocratic, since it cares not a whit whether people like it or not. The statement that 2+2 = 4 on the real line is true regardless if the whole world disbelieved it.

As far as anyone knows, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is correct. No one has ever been able to devise a valid argument against it, despite many vainglorious attempts. The Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem (i.e., logical proof) per the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the following resource:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB .

The evolutionary psychological reason for the bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian demons seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", State-Terror Archive, May 8, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190509025132/https://stateterrorarchive.blogspot.com/2019/05/societal-sadomasochism.html , https://archive.is/tLeu4 , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0509-1152-02/stateterrorarchive.blogspot.com/2019/05/societal-sadomasochism.html .

And you greatly underestimate the hatred of many in academia for belief in God, especially Christianity. This is the same Western academia that defended and covered-up for the USSR and Mao Tse-tung's China. During which time the Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects, while the Communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own noncombatant subjects.

Western academia in no small part helped enable those mass-slaughters with its faithful adoration of those regimes and the God-hating antitheist socialist ideologies upon which they were founded. Instead of shining a spotlight on the tyranny and horrors of Communism and thereby helping to diminish it by focusing world attention on it, they instead acted as Communism's intellectual bodyguards. Still to this day not much is said in academia or the major media about the biggest mass-slaughters by far in human history.

From Wiki  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics. Some critics say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed the Final Anthropic Principle, (FAP), the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP). Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle is "pure speculation" with no claim on any special methodological status, despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle", but considers the Omega Point hypothesis to be an interesting philosophical hypothesis in its own right. Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable". A review in the New York Times described Tipler's "final anthropic principle" argument as "rather circular"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Eman_3 said:

From Wiki  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics. Some critics say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed the Final Anthropic Principle, (FAP), the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP). Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle is "pure speculation" with no claim on any special methodological status, despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle", but considers the Omega Point hypothesis to be an interesting philosophical hypothesis in its own right. Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable". A review in the New York Times described Tipler's "final anthropic principle" argument as "rather circular"

Hi, Eman_3. As I said above:

That's not how truth works. Truth is not a popularity contest. Indeed, truth by its intrinsic nature is antidemocratic, since it cares not a whit whether people like it or not. The statement that 2+2 = 4 on the real line is true regardless if the whole world disbelieved it.

As far as anyone knows, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is correct. No one has ever been able to devise a valid argument against it, despite many vainglorious attempts. The Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem (i.e., logical proof) per the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Further:

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Ellis and Dr. David Coule (see G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the universe?", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739). In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

In his review (see Lawrence Krauss, "More dangerous than nonsense", New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53) of Prof. Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics of Christianity and actually read Tipler's physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going off of in said review is Tipler's mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics of Christianity without researching Tipler's technical papers in the physics journals. Krauss's review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss's pronouncements. His readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it's clear that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to present the rigorous technical details.

Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)

As pointed out with Ellis and Coule's criticism, this isn't the first time that this ironic outcome has befallen critics of Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that's the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.

Concerning Martin Gardner's review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Tipler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), notice that Martin Gardner never states any error on Tipler's part within said review. However, I do find the below exchange between Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner's aforesaid review of Barrow and Tipler's book. Note Gardner's two-word reply to Tipler.

* Frank J. Tipler, reply by Martin Gardner, "The FAP Flop", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 19 (Dec. 4, 1986), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4946 , https://webcitation.org/67Fw7SAdg . In reply to Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986), https://archive.is/QXsv3 , https://webcitation.org/6c7ZmxVbU .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Kingsoftheeast
      Glory be unto the Father, and praises unto His Son Jesus Christ. 
    • By Behold
      On Christmas Day, we as believers, and a whole lot of the unsaved world celebrate CHRISTmas.
      Thats correct, you can't have Christmas, without CHRIST in the word, tho you would think you can as everywhere you go now, you hear....>"happy holidays", instead of  "Merry CHRISTmas".
      This lightly annoys me, so i always reply...... MERRY CHRISTMAS, whenever i find myself in the presence of a politically corrected dip stick.
      So, try this that im about to show you.... on your family and your friends and your neighbors, as it will be quite an experience for you to enjoy, while they get to partake, also.
      Do this :
      On Christmas eve, or before...... bake a birthday cake, or buy one from your local Walmart or .....similar.
      On Christmas morning, when all are gathered with you, or on Christmas eve, ( or Both) if you are game........show them the cake with one Candle LIT, and have them sing this with you.
       
      "Happy Birthday to you.  
      Happy Birthday to YOU
      Happy Birthday LORD JESUS...... Happy Birthday to YOU".
       
      Try that.
      It'll bless you, and it'll help them to see the LIGHT.
       
       
      Merry CHRISTmas,
       
       
      <B><
       
    • By Abby-Joy
      Interesting puzzle pieces leading to implementation of the MOB....   
       
    • By Jonathan BeWell
      Praise the Lord, hallelujah!
      Praise You, God, for your purity and perfection!  Praise You Lord, Jesus Christ, for saving me and my testimony!  Glory be to You, God, our Father who art in Heaven!  Thanks be to the Holy Spirit's comfort, teaching and guidance!  All we know, understand, experience and struggle with is for your glory, perfect plan and unquestionable will.  I shall not want or crave anything outside of Jesus Christ's way.  Let me know if so, let me understand what You want for us is best.  May I pick up and carry my own cross, denying myself for You.  I worship You as all knowing, powerful and gracious.  May I draw closer to You and keep You as top priority in my family's lives.  You are first, my family is second and I am here to serve.  May I serve you reverently, fully and completely.  May there be less of me and more of Jesus Christ instead.  Jesus, You are thee only way, light and salvation.  All I need is You.  God, You take care of the rest.  You are in control, God, making and letting everything happen.  I am in awe and wonder of your creation.  I am eternally grateful, worshipping You and your Son for thee ultimate sacrifice and act of love.  This body is your temple, use it as You will.  Bend me from my will to yours.  It is all about You, everything concerns and relates to You!  Yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever, in Jesus Christ's name, amen!
      Sincerely yours,
      GregoryB
    • By Godfearingfeminist
      Warning: there are some dark topics in this post such as bullying, stranger danger, sexual references.
      Something I think about a lot - not surprising since social media is pretty much ingrained in most people's daily routines these days - is how Christians use and let their children use social media. Are some apps okay and others not? Or do you ban it completely in your household? Do you track your kids activity or put protective passwords on the internet? 
      I've thought about this a lot in the past, but thought I'd post about it now because at the moment, I'm sitting in my 13 year old sister's room while she's on her phone talking to a stranger over WhatsApp. The stranger is a teenager who is confused about their gender. They already had reassignment surgery and now a couple years later they want to change back, so my sis tells me. They're also a self harmer, which I have sympathy for, but I don't really want my sis exposed to any pictures or gory info about this person's experiences with self harm. 
      My sister is mature, but lacks common sense sometimes. The stranger has been harassing her for months, saying that she loves her and that she belongs to her. Even though my sis has made it perfectly clear they're not 'together' this person keeps insisting they are and she knows one of my sister's friends in person apparently. That's kinda creepy.
      I only use FB and IG for business promotion now, but in the past I've had messages from strangers on IG which turned out to be naked pics or porn, and I'm a bit worried my sister has experienced this too. Of course I can't do anything about it since she's not my child. I've told her to block the person but she says she feels bad if she ignores them as they guilt trip her with sad stories about them. I've got all her passwords so I can monitor what she's doing online. I trust her, she's not an idiot, but I don't trust other people on the internet. (How ironic that I'm posting this on an online forum 😂)
      She's sweet and innocent and smart, never had a boyfriend, whereas her real friends have had boyfriends and girlfriends and done things with them. She knows I don't think she's in the right circle, but she thinks she knows what she's doing. I can't blame her, I was the same at her age, however I always say I was born first so I could do all the stupid stuff so they wouldn't have to. I was hoping they'd learn from my mistakes lol. 
      Point is, the internet can be a dangerous place, especially for kids. For most people these days images of sex/violence, deadly internet pranks/trends and online bullying is normal and not something to be especially anxious about, but for Christians who actually practice what they preach and try their best to keep themselves and their families away from these things in real life, the internet and social media is something worth protecting ourselves and our children from.
      So I want opinions from fellow Christians. Is it okay to let your kids/younger siblings on the internet unsupervised, or should we block some things? Or can some kids be trusted to obey their parents if they set some basic rules for using the internet? Should kids be banned from social media all together? By kids I mean people under 16. Other than staying in touch with friends, I don't see the point in people younger than 16 having social media. Sure sometimes their picture gets likes and it makes them feel good for a bit, but sometimes they don't get any likes or response on their posts at all and believe me, in a teen's mind the bad will always outweigh the good, whether they're Christian or not. It's like if a hundred people all gave you a compliment. You'd appreciate them, but if someone insulted you, you'd think more about the insult than the compliment. 
      I don't know, maybe I'm just one of those people who doesn't understand it despite my age. I grew up poor and while some of my friends had all the latest tech as soon as it hit the shops, I had to use a landline or my legs to stay in touch with people until I was fifteen, when I finally got my own laptop. I didn't have a decent mobile phone (that I didn't have to share with my 2 brothers) til I was seventeen and even then I never had credit, so I wasn't constantly available to everyone. I just find it weird that such young kids are so easily accessible to friends and strangers alike I guess 😕
      What do you think and what are some good and bad experiences you or your children have had on the internet??
       
×
×
  • Create New...