Can you handle the Truth?

Started by Tim Rout432 pages

Originally posted by Da Pittman
The only proof that you try to give that God is real that is not in the Bible is to say look around you at the complexity of the universe and that it has to have a divine creator. This is not proof but a lack of knowledge, not just on your part but on all of humanity. Just because we don’t understand the universe doesn’t mean that it was made by some all powerful being and it is only complex to us because we don’t understand it just as a car or plane would be to a caveman. This would be beyond their greatest minds but is common knowledge to us because we have the understanding just as the technology a 1000 years from now will be unheard of now. So what you site as proof is nothing but a lack of knowledge, you have no proof other than conjecture and speculation.

You say that the greatest minds can not figure it out and I would say so what, the greatest minds thought the Earth was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth.

I understand your conclusion that a lack of alternative explanations does not, in itself, constitute evidence for the existence of a designer. Just because science cannot presently explain the origins of life (for example), does not negate the possibility of future discoveries. Or does it?

Intelligent people often make judgments based on the preponderance of the evidence. While the failure of a secular origins theory does not constitute evidence, the failure of EVERY secular origins theory has to make us wonder.

Walter Bradley, famed PhD in materials science, and author of “Origins Of Life And Evolution Of The Biosphere”, said the following with regard to the plausibility of divine design:

“If there isn't a natural explanation, and there doesn't seem to be the potential of finding one, then I believe it is appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation. I think that's the most reasonable inference based on the evidence.” [“The Case For Faith”; Lee Strobel, p.151]

When one concludes, as Bradley has, that the spontaneous generation of life would require the suspension of known physical laws, then science has truly arrived at a dead end on this issue. Random Chance fails the probability test in that, even if secular Big Bangers are correct and the universe is some 14 billion years old, this is still insufficient time for life to have spontaneously erupted on earth. Chemical Affinity fails the actuality test, in that the sequencing of base proteins is unrelated to their theoretical attractions. Self-Ordering Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics fails the analogy test, in that non-biological processes do not translate into the extraordinary complexities of the biological sphere. The Space Seed theory – the idea that life was planted here by aliens, or fell from the sky in a comet or other cosmic body – lacks even the most marginal fiber of supporting evidence. The Ocean Vent theory fails the information test, since it does not answer the fundamental question “How did DNA information originate?” And of course, Life From Clay, as proposed by Scottish chemist A.G. Cairns-Smith was ultimately rejected (even by him) as utterly impossible, given that crystalline formations lack the requisite complexity of biological forms.

Barring the improbability of a scientific solution to the origins question, one must begin to ask if perhaps life began in some unique, unrepeatable way. Unfortunately, an unrepeatable occurrence would negate the possibility of scientific confirmation, since that which is not repeatable cannot be scientifically investigated.

But if there is likely no scientific solution waiting to be discovered, as Bradley suggests, and if science itself is incapable of dealing with the unrepeatable, then what is a rational person to do? Since scientific laws seem insufficient to the task, perhaps metaphysical laws might have more success. As Dr. William Lane Craig states in his landmark address on divine origins, the first law of metaphysics states: “Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.” Christians believe this cause is God.

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1203

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe did not exist prior to any purported big bang.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm

Please, don't believe people who have a hidden agenda. Science cannot say anything on the subject of before the BB.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I don't have a religion, I have a relationship with God through His Son Jesus the Christ. So, yes I am different.

It is fine with me, if you wish to change the name of your religion to relationship.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm

Please, don't believe people who have a hidden agenda. Science cannot say nothing on the subject of before the BB.

Conspiracy theorist?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is fine with me, if you wish to change the name of your religion to relationship.

What religion?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is fine with me, if you wish to change the name of your religion to relationship.

Question: are you in religion with your father? How about you mother? Sibling?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Conspiracy theorist?

You gave me a link to Dr. Hugh Ross. He is a quack. 😆

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What religion?

I guess it would be the religion of relationship. 😆

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Here, I'll add some delicious copypasta too:

Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenarios for the future of the universe. If the mass density of the universe were greater than the critical density, then the universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would become denser and hotter again, ending with a state that was similar to that in which it started—a Big Crunch. Alternatively, if the density in the universe were equal to or below the critical density, the expansion would slow down, but never stop. Star formation would cease as all the interstellar gas in each galaxy is consumed; stars would burn out leaving white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. Very gradually, collisions between these would result in mass accumulating into larger and larger black holes. The average temperature of the universe would asymptotically approach absolute zero—a Big Freeze. Moreover, if the proton were unstable, then baryonic matter would disappear, leaving only radiation and black holes. Eventually, black holes would evaporate. The entropy of the universe would increase to the point where no organized form of energy could be extracted from it, a scenario known as heat death.

Modern observations of accelerated expansion imply that more and more of the currently visible universe will pass beyond our event horizon and out of contact with us. The eventual result is not known. The ËCDM model of the universe contains dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. This theory suggests that only gravitationally bound systems, such as galaxies, would remain together, and they too would be subject to heat death, as the universe expands and cools. Other explanations of dark energy—so-called phantom energy theories—suggest that ultimately galaxy clusters, stars, planets, atoms, nuclei and matter itself will be torn apart by the ever-increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip.

It should be noted that a lot of the info you're linking to is from the early 90's. The following post contains information from no more than 5 years ago.

"Dr. Ross's origins model has stood the test of time for nearly two decades, literally receiving further validation on a monthly basis as physics and astronomy journals publish new papers. I believe you'll enjoy this ground-breaking information from Hugh Ross" (©1994-2007 Cosmic Fingerprints and Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, Illinois).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I guess it would be the religion of relationship. 😆

That sounds like an oxymoron.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question: are you in religion with your father? How about you mother? Sibling?

😕

Did you mean to ask if my family is a member of the same religion that I am?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You gave me a link to Dr. Hugh Ross. He is a quack. 😆

Prove it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😕

Did you mean to ask if my family is a member of the same religion that I am?

No, I am trying to see how you would define your interaction with them. Is it a religion or relationship that you have with them?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Prove it.

It's an opinion. 🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's an opinion. 🙄

Your opinions are not valuable in this particular discussion. We are dealing only with the facts pal.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, I am trying to see how you would define your interaction with them. Is it a religion or relationship that you have with them?

I could call the color "red", "blue", and if I worked at it, I could believe that "red" was "blue". However, when I tell someone else that "red" is "blue", they would not believe me. Why is that? Why would they not believe me when I tell them that "red" is "blue"?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your opinions are not valuable in this particular discussion. We are dealing only with the facts pal.

cockboat is composed of cock and boat.

Originally posted by Robtard
People (aka Atheist) do doubt God exist, reason is irrelevant.

Reason is paramount. There is a reason why people do things.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your opinions are not valuable in this particular discussion. We are dealing only with the facts pal.

If my opinions are not valuable, then nether are yours.

Sigh, well it's no-pants-o-clock for me. As far as I'm concerned, ad hominems are more beneficial in this display of brickwall tactics. JIA, until you are able to provide supportive data from a neutral source (read: unbiased), and you will have no traction in any form of scientific debate. You will only be satisfied by your own self-satisfaction of having an answer to everything, regardless of whether it is right or not. You are 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag. Bravo.