Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But you still have not answered my question: if you die right now, do you believe without any shadow of a doubt that you would go to Heaven? This is a loaded question.

What does this have to do with absolute truth? Other religions believe that they are going to some form of afterlife. If they believe in going to a certain afterlife, and they believe in a different god or gods, who is to say who is right or wrong? To me religion is important because it gives us a sense of peace and helps us to live a good life. If one is experiencing this through a different religion, how do you know they are wrong. Believing I can go to Heaven right now doesn't prove anything because I cant come back and tell everyone, "hey guys, there's a heaven!" Most people will find your replies insulting because you tell them it is the absolute truth, even though there is no way to prove it. Again, do not use the Bible as proof because there is no way to tell that the Bible is the definite religious text. Like the term meaning of life, there's many interpretations of this statement. Who is right and who is wrong though?

man, he's gonna say that he's right or the bible is right, and everything else is wrong.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Precisely my point. Thanks for answering my question. This is what I was trying to get others to answer.

Can you provide some reference to support your claim that the Big Bang Theory has been proven. If that is the case then why is it still referred to as a "theory" instead of as the "Big Bang Law?" Furthermore, inimalist I assure you that I am not the only one that does not see the validity in the Big Bang Theory. Actually, I am just agreeing with scientists on the the infeasibility of the Big Bang Theory (not all scientists endorse the Big Bang Theory as a viable answer for the formation of the universe).

[B]Physicists Say Big Bang was 'Nothing Special'
By SPACE.com Staff

posted: 27 October 2004
11:59 am ET

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_bang_041027.html

"...The duo wondered why time flows in only one direction, and whether the Big Bang -- a theory that has not been proven-- arose from an energy fluctuation in empty space that conforms to the known laws of physics...."

--Sean Carroll, an Assistant Professor in Physics at the University of Chicago and graduate student Jennifer Chen.

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04/administration-official-big-bang-is-just-a-theory/

(Click on the above link and read the fifth paragraph down from the top)

BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE 1 William C. Mitchel
( As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)

http://www.nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm

"...Due to the efforts of those and other fighters for evenhanded cosmological investigation and, despite the powerful influence of mainstream BB cosmologists, evidence against the BB has been building to the point where the world may soon start to doubt it. Some of that evidence is briefly reviewed in this paper...."

Cosmology and the Big Bang
By David Pratt
Part I

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bng.htm

“…The big bang hypothesis has clearly not yet been proven and it is therefore important for all the alternatives to be discussed with an open mind. Unfortunately the big bang seems to have become an article of faith for a great many scientists; in 1951 it even received the blessing of Pope Pius XII Geoffrey Burbidge points out that astronomical textbooks no longer treat cosmology as an open subject, and that cosmologists are often intolerant of departures from the big bang faith. Researchers who question the prevailing orthodoxy tend to find it more difficult to obtain access to funding and equipment and to get their articles published. A few years ago Halton Arp was denied telescope time at Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories because his observing program had found evidence contrary to the standard big bang model….” (Scientific American, February 1992, p. 96). [/B]

ya

not to just cop out and do an appeal to authority

but come on

you can't be trying to make a scientific argument. You aren't a physicist, you don't understand the nuances of astronomy. You don't even use theory or law properly as they pertain to science...

Like, what do you think you have proven? Go find some peer review articles that have feasible explanations for the CMB radiation that doesn't in some way involve a big bang type event.

Your cherry picking of opinions and VERY selective quotes are at best intellectually dishonest, and it is only the fact that I am sure the cosmos are completely unknown to you that I don't call you an outright liar.

This might sound harsh, but anything less is just going to turn into you throwing misquotes at me at infinitum while saying my postulates don't hold up because I cannot answer the most difficult questions in the world. I have no interest in these shenanigans, and honestly, I know you are smarter than this.

Originally posted by fini
man, he's gonna say that he's right or the bible is right, and everything else is wrong.

Seriously this guy's way of thinking does not make sense. He'll use the Bible as fact but wont take other's ideas into consideration. He will throw questions attacking small details of theories, but when people question why the Bible is truth he merely pulls out a quote. How do we know that these quotes are proven? They are all a matter of speculation and belief.

We HAVE ALLL went through this before with him. Trust me you are hitting your head against a brick...... no make that a STEEL wall on trying to make him understand anything.

LMAO, he was trying to link big bang theory to laws of motion and conservation fo energy. LOL............ if he knew anything, he would know that at the big bang, everything happened close to the speed of light and the laws of motion DO NOT hold at that speed. hehehehe

Originally posted by fini
HMMM, JIA you think you know what will happen to your soul after you die.
AND SO DOES everyone else here. They know where their soul is going, or what it will be doing once life has passed on. WE DO NOT NEED you to tell us that.

HEY, you say [b] that the big bang theory has not been proven
BUT so has the existance of GOD. WE believe( those who believe) that God exists. WE dont need proof because our hearts and minds have accepted that.
JUST the same goes for those that believe in the theory of the Big Bang. It makes logical sence so thus it is accepted by the hearts and minds of some. That is up t someone to accept by themselves. They should not go around and say that IS THE ONLY way and any other way is wrong. WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING. You accept the version of creation that best suits you. Why must you come here and try to enforce it on us????

Dont go quoting books, crying for the hundredth time to accept jesus and all of that, we've heard it before. Funny how you give some type of answer when I get annoyed with you, but a calm post you ignore totally.

and just to add. The theory of the big bang, goes quite nicely with the creation of the universe according to hindu scripture. That along with my physics background, I see the logic in the theory. [/B]

Whose JIA? JUST KIDDING! Put your crossbow, flamethrower, and harpoon down. I was just joking. Can I be frank with you fini? I have had dialogues with you. But from day one your posts have been very abrasive towards me. I don't believe that non-abrasion should reap abrasiveness. I have not sown anger, bitterness, name-calling and so forth towards you, so my mind tells me that I should not reap it from you. I admit I am adept at getting under your skin, but it is never intentionally. I do not know if you are disposed to be ornery(naturally) or if it has something to do with a lack of genuine peace that you feel with your religion. That is why I asked you if you wanted to get born again. I was not being facetious. Anyway, I am taught by Jesus to love my enemies, bless those who curse me, do good to those who hate, me and pray for those who despitefully use me and persecute me. Furthermore, I am taught by Jesus not to repay evil for evil or to be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good. That is why no matter how hurtful your remarks I continue to respond with the love of Christ in my responses to you. I think that you genuinely feel my Christian love. What calm posts of yours have I ignored?

Originally posted by inimalist
ya

not to just cop out and do an appeal to authority

but come on

you can't be trying to make a scientific argument. You aren't a physicist, you don't understand the nuances of astronomy. You don't even use theory or law properly as they pertain to science...

Like, what do you think you have proven? Go find some peer review articles that have feasible explanations for the CMB radiation that doesn't in some way involve a big bang type event.

Your cherry picking of opinions and VERY selective quotes are at best intellectually dishonest, and it is only the fact that I am sure the cosmos are completely unknown to you that I don't call you an outright liar.

This might sound harsh, but anything less is just going to turn into you throwing misquotes at me at infinitum while saying my postulates don't hold up because I cannot answer the most difficult questions in the world. I have no interest in these shenanigans, and honestly, I know you are smarter than this.

I read everything that you wrote. However, you have not answered my question. You stated that the Big Bang Theory has been proven. I asked you if you could provide references to this. Well, cany you?

Originally posted by fini
We HAVE ALLL went through this before with him. Trust me you are hitting your head against a brick...... no make that a STEEL wall on trying to make him understand anything.

LMAO, he was trying to link big bang theory to laws of motion and conservation fo energy. LOL............ if he knew anything, he would know that at the big bang, everything happened close to the speed of light and the laws of motion DO NOT hold at that speed. hehehehe

My questions are simple. It appears based on what I have read that the simplicity of my questions are somewhat troublesome because they cannot be answered (and they are simple questions). I am not asking anyone to tell me where Jimmy Hoffa's body is located, or where the missing links can be found, or how to win the lottery at will. I am asking basic questions. If you hold some system of beliefs then you should be able to explain those beliefs to someone else without getting flustered and agitated. If you are convinced about something then why get upset when someone else asks simple questions about it that contradict what you believe? You are supposed to know that you know that you know without any shadow of doubt. Hey, that is how I am. There isn't anything that can convince me that the Bible is not true. No Da Vinci lies (I mean codes), no lies about Jesus' bones being discovered, none of that tommyrot will work on me. Well, why you ask?

Because I am satisfied.

Because I am well persuaded.

Because I am assured.

Because I am ab-so-lute-ly, pos-it-tive-ly, and un-e-quiv-o-cal-ly--convinced!

And you know what: that is how you should be about your beliefs.

That is the problem JIA. You want us to be open to the possibility that science is wrong when you are not open to the possibility that the bible is wrong. Once you open your mind we will open our minds and then we can have a productive conversation. Until then you give us nothing, and we give you nothing. Your beliefs do not impress us because you come across as an authority that you cannot back up. Come down to Earth and admit that you don't really know, instead of trying to make us admit that we don't know.

Originally posted by inimalist
ya

not to just cop out and do an appeal to authority

but come on

you can't be trying to make a scientific argument. You aren't a physicist, you don't understand the nuances of astronomy. You don't even use theory or law properly as they pertain to science...

Like, what do you think you have proven? Go find some peer review articles that have feasible explanations for the CMB radiation that doesn't in some way involve a big bang type event.

Your cherry picking of opinions and VERY selective quotes are at best intellectually dishonest, and it is only the fact that I am sure the cosmos are completely unknown to you that I don't call you an outright liar.

This might sound harsh, but anything less is just going to turn into you throwing misquotes at me at infinitum while saying my postulates don't hold up because I cannot answer the most difficult questions in the world. I have no interest in these shenanigans, and honestly, I know you are smarter than this.

My question for atheists, agnostics, intelligentsia, academics, scholars, the erudite, the learned, the educated, all scientists, and anyone else who wants to put their two cents in. The “Socratic Law of Causality (i.e. the Law of Cause and Effect)" states that everything happens for a reason (i.e. everything is a result of the Law of Cause and Effect). You see, every effect must be preceded by an adequate cause. For example, a fierce wind blows causing a tree, its leaves, and its branches to sway back and forth severely, suddenly the tree becomes uprooted. This is an example of an adequate cause. However, if the wind blows gently there will not be enough adequate force to cause the tree to sway back and forth violently. The wind will simply rustle the branches and leaves, but it will definitely not uproot the tree. Another example: computers don’t become infected with viruses and worms because someone spilled ketchup on them; the airplane did not fly at mach speed because it was equipped with the latest propeller. These would not be adequate causes. It is amazing to me how children grasp this concept of cause and effect. They want to know why the sky is blue, or why cats purr, or where babies come from. They just innately know that everything comes from something else or that every effect is preceded by an adequate cause. The notion that something comes from nothing or that matter came from non-matter is inconsistent with the established rule of cause and effect--not to mention exceedingly illogical. So, I said all that to say this:

What force, agent, or catalyst precipitated the Big Bang explosion—I mean expansion (some believe that the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter, but an expansion of space which carries matter with it)? The answer cannot be that it is not important. That to me is not a valid answer.

This fundamental question has yet to be answered. This is a loaded question because I intend to further elaborate my question.

JIA this is the answer to you question: There is no beginning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
JIA this is the answer to you question: There is no beginning.

Shakyamunison, boy its been a while since we have dialogued. How are you doing?

Hey, can you furnish just one exception where the Law of Cause and Effect has not held true?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Shakyamunison, boy its been a while since we have dialogued. How are you doing?

Hey, can you furnish just one exception where the Law of Cause and Effect has not held true?

To answer your question: no I cannot give you an exception.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

What force, agent, or catalyst precipitated the Big Bang explosion—I mean expansion (some believe that the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter, but an expansion of space which carries matter with it)? The answer cannot be that it is not important. That to me is not a valid answer.

Nobody says the answer is unimportant, and I have answered this

However, again

stop using science. The "Socratic law of cause and effect" is not a real scientific principal, nor does the lack of understanding of the causality of the origins of the universe refute in any way the theory of the big bang

The most convincing evidence for the Big Bang comes from the CMB radiation. Until you can postulate a theory that describes our observations of CMBR better than the big bang theory, you have no point.

The only reason scientists propose the big bang theory is because it fits the evidence without having to add in more unknown assumptions. As it stands now, there are many, such as the assumption that something must have started the big bang.

Why are you so proud that you trust a book written thousands of years ago to answer modern questions... Thats weird... But then again, I understand cognitive dissonance...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Hey, can you furnish just [b]one exception where the Law of Cause and Effect has not held true? [/B]

Quantum mechanics and all other sub atomic processes

Originally posted by inimalist
Quantum mechanics and all other sub atomic processes

Perhaps, but the uncertainty principle only means we cannot know, it doesn’t exclude causality.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps, but the uncertainty principle only means we cannot know, it doesn’t exclude causality.

ya

but there are limits on the uncertainty principal

It is used more as a guideline to keep scientist's ego in check, there is always the assumption that we do know what we are doing and that past experience is comparable to current trials. Technically we don't know that 1 + 1 = 2 given the uncertainty principal.

However, I do agree that sometime, possibly with a unified field theory, we will understand more about the mechanisms of Quantum level stuff, but as far as everything we have looked at so far goes, certain behaviour seems to happen sans cause.

It was this that Einstein hated about Quantum mechanics. As his career was sort of ending and Schroedinger and Feynman's careers were taking off, he said many things about how he would rather work in a casino than be a physicist if Quantum mechanics turned out to be correct. Which they did... So far as we know

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(For kicks) AngryManatee, I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell me, I likewise will tell you whether I have a background in quantum physics or not. Fair enough?

Have you ever created an actual, working universe (like the one God created that needs no oil changes, tune ups, or tire rotations)?

Yes I have created a universe. I will be writing a book about it soon enough. Everything in this book that I am writing is true.

Originally posted by inimalist
ya

but there are limits on the uncertainty principal

It is used more as a guideline to keep scientist's ego in check, there is always the assumption that we do know what we are doing and that past experience is comparable to current trials. Technically we don't know that 1 + 1 = 2 given the uncertainty principal.

However, I do agree that sometime, possibly with a unified field theory, we will understand more about the mechanisms of Quantum level stuff, but as far as everything we have looked at so far goes, certain behaviour seems to happen sans cause.

It was this that Einstein hated about Quantum mechanics. As his career was sort of ending and Schroedinger and Feynman's careers were taking off, he said many things about how he would rather work in a casino than be a physicist if Quantum mechanics turned out to be correct. Which they did... So far as we know

to late to edit.... sorry for the dbl post

EDIT: Oh man, I think I messed this up... The Uncertainty Principal is a real physical thing, not a philosophy of science thing, right? My bad, I guess my answer here is a big shrug and nod in the direction of the people I have heard talk about the randomness of quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My questions are simple. It appears based on what I have read that the simplicity of my questions are somewhat troublesome because they cannot be answered (and they are simple questions). I am not asking anyone to tell me where Jimmy Hoffa's body is located, or where the missing links can be found, or how to win the lottery at will. I am asking basic questions. If you hold some system of beliefs then you should be able to explain those beliefs to someone else without getting flustered and agitated. If you are convinced about something then why get upset when someone else asks simple questions about it that contradict what you believe? You are supposed to know that you know that you know without any shadow of doubt. Hey, that is how I am. There isn't anything that can convince me that the Bible is not true. No Da Vinci lies (I mean codes), no lies about Jesus' bones being discovered, none of that tommyrot will work on me. Well, why you ask?

Because I am satisfied.

Because I am well persuaded.

Because I am assured.

Because I am ab-so-lute-ly, pos-it-tive-ly, and un-e-quiv-o-cal-ly--convinced!

And you know what: that is how you should be about your beliefs.