I'v decided that I'm not gonna persue the subject of religion any furthur on these blogs. Its caused me nothing but grief LOL. I think I may have gotten too big for my boots with this one. I really shouldn't be so opinionated.
Sorry to anyone i'v offended. I know I can't win against people who believe so strongly in a deity. You have my respect, but I shall never be converted.
BeeJay x
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Do not worry, I was not offended, please do not stop seeking truth, good honest debate is healthy. I did not want to be converted either, I was happy as an atheist, but God had other ideas. It was not a coincidence that you received that tract. God is sending you a message. That he exists, nothing comes from nothing, this universe came from something. That is is Holy and perfect, as we are not, that a day where he will judge the world is coming, if we have sinned, lied, stolen, blasphemed,then we will be guilty and end up in hell, God sees hatred as murder, and lust as adultery, listen to your conscience, you know he is real and so is sin. You see Darwin really is not equipped to fight his creator, none of us are, he holds infinity in the palm of his hand, what are we to him? There is hope and free pardon if you wish it. www.goodpersontest.com, and much proof for the existence of God, that the bible is true etc, most are not brave enough to look for it.
ReplyDelete"I shall never be converted"
ReplyDeleteHmmmm, perhaps this could be a case of "famous last words"
I would dearly like to discuss the Kalam cosmological argument with you.
I wish you well
Myrtle
Kalam Cosmological Argument? is that the one concerning the supposed Infinite nature of the universe? I don't what know what to believe when it comes to that argument. Although I believe that the Universe started at an single point and wasn't in existance before then, I cannot see how it could have started without a cause. Thus, I believe that the only reasonable explaination without the existance of a theoretical omnipotent being would be the Big Crush/Big Bang theory, where there was another universe in existance before ours came about, which for one reason or another, began to contract and eventually recessed to the original starting point. Where that all started however, I have no explaination. I do find it hard however, to believe in the christian deity, for various personal reason I shall not disclose. :)
ReplyDeleteMaybe the phrase, "I shall never be converted" was SLIGHTLY melodramatic, but my blogs always end with a powerful statement or so lmao.
All the best,
BeeJay
"The kalam cosmological syllogism" which is stated:
ReplyDeletea. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
b. The universe has a beginning
c. Therefore the universe has a cause
"the Big Crush/Big Bang theory, where there was another universe in existence before ours came about, which for one reason or another, began to contract and eventually recessed to the original starting point."
ReplyDeleteThis is known as the oscillating universe theory. Do you think this idea is preferable to the 1) “point of singularity” from a vacuum flux or 2) a multiverse?
M
Err, dunno. My dad's the Physicist, I'm the Drama Student xD But I would like to think that the Oscillating universe theory could fit nicely into a multiverse, considering the oscillation as a kind of circular lifespan of a universe. (with our universe being only one of many universes, possibly some parallel and convergant). I'm not sure quite what you mean by "a point of singularity from a vacuum flux", but I think I would prefer the above theory.
ReplyDeleteB
Beejay,
ReplyDelete“At the point of singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the universe
originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo”
(John Barrow & Frank Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principal 1986)
“The evidence points to the universe we inhabit as having a cause but there are currently only numerous guesses as to what caused the “Big
Bang.”
Options:
Either the universe is caused or uncaused; for naturalists,there are two logical options, it came from nothing by nothing or it has always been here. 2+2=4 numbers don’t exist in the real world but they are nevertheless real. In the same way the Einstein’s equations don’t exist in the real world they only explore explain and symbolically represent the ontological nature if reality. Minds like yours and mine don’t physically exist rather they are immaterial entities that have immaterial properties. Energy, matter, mass and space-time did not exist (whilst it is tempting to say prior to the Big Bang, we cannot because there was NO prior to the Big Bang) they came into existence ex nihilo.
Matter, energy & time are not expanding into the vacuum of space but rather are stationary in it and space itself is expanding. The common illustration is buttons glued to a balloon that is being inflated. The buttons grow increasingly distant to each other but stay the same in relation to the space they occupy. From what we know scientifically we can logically deduce the following:
1 100% of things that came into being have a cause
2 The universe has a beginning
a) its beginning is supported by the accepted data:
i) The oscillating universe is discredited
ii) The Multiverse is speculative, unlike the Big Bang where there is
hard evidence
b) The universe is not infinitely old
i) Red shift and micro wave radiation show its finitude
c) There was no prior space-time to the Big Bang
d) There was no matter, energy or vacuum prior.
Conclusion
1 The universe has a cause & therefore the cause must be outside time & therefore timeless 2 The universe exists in space therefore the cause must be spaceless 3 The universe is an entity made of matter &therefore the cause must be immaterial
Deductive logic based on current science.
It makes sense. I am not quite sure how it would be possible to discredit any theory to do with this subject, as these questions are likely never to be answers. As you say, this is all logic from certain people's perspectives. Whether it would class as true science, I am unsure, as although its a theory based on deductive logic, it makes alot of assumptions.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, there is one big whole that neither of us can explain; What timeless, spaceless, immaterial force created the universe?
That is a question of faith, not science. I believe in a few things, but I am not going to disclose them, as it would lead to Christian Scientists flaming me probably. I do not believe in a singular all-powerful deity with the power and/or right to control the path of a soul.
At the end of the day, belief is individual. I think that it's best for people to not force their religious beliefs on others.
Thank you to everyone who has debated with me about science and religion. It's been enjoyable, but I would like to call an end to it. Some questions can never be fully answered by science, especially ones concerning the deep past of the universe. Science muct be testable. Religion can never be tested by anyone, no matter what anyone says.
All the best to everyone.
May your deity bless you, no matter what you believe.
BeeJay
I feel so dumb haha.
ReplyDelete