What is the whole point of Christianity anyways?

[otseng]

What is the whole point of being a Christian?

Is it just to escape hell?
It is to just "believe in Jesus"?
Is it to enter heaven?
Is it just to have something to do on Sunday mornings?
Or is it something else?

[bernee51]

By comparing the teachings of your religion with those of the other religions..

As G.K Chesterton said "All religions are the same, especially buddhism"

Then it comes down to making up our own minds which make more sense.

exactly

Many who don't believe in God (not all) claim that everthing we have today sprang from nothing in a Big Bang.

And some may not

It is simply illogical that something sprang from nothing.

Except, of course, your god

Nothing from nothing gives nothing, no matter how long one waits.

No-thing, (as opposed to Nothing", is created of destroyed, it just changes in form. Nothing (as opposed to no-thing) cannot exist. If Nothing exists it is no longer Nothing.

So to say something comes from Nothing is illogical.

Is you god outside logic, or subject to logic?

Therefore, it makes more sense to me that God existed and He is the source of all that surrounds us.

Classic 'god of the gaps'. It can't be explained, ergo, 'goddidit'

I cannot accept that as a reason to accept a supernatural being.

The gap is getting smaller - the RCC once decried evolution as heresy, it is now accepted.

You god, however, does not stop at the gaps...he is endowed with a whole lot more.

Which makes more sense to you? Why?

Universal laws like the one quoted above. Why? Because they are observable.


cheers

b


]

[bernee51]

]

God is the ever present being. Without beginning and without end. The only absolutely necessary being because everything else comes from Him.

Is your god 'something'? Something cannot come from nothing (remember?). Or is your god 'Nothing'.

I claim that the universe is ever present, has been and always will be. It's present form may have started with a 'big bang', and may end with a wimper.

There is as much evidence of that as there is of your god.

Nothing can be created or destroyed, it just changes in form.

cherrs

b

[FreddieFreeloader]

exactly! It's like seeing patterns and meanings in clouds, in the sense that there is no external dictation of what one should see. However, it is only to those who deny what value an individual can find in a cloud, that the cloud seems meaningless.

and the cloud seems meaningless until its a thundercloud.. but then again it still may seem meaningless to you, im giving you the benefit of the doubt.

This cloud metaphor has gone far enough, because I have no idea what that means.

So Hitler felt that Jewish lives were meaningless. Do you then think his views were no better or no worse than the majority of people who believe that their lives were meaningful and deserved better treatment than what Hitler did to them?

If Hitler felt that Jewish (or homosexual, communist, socialist, gypsy, dissenting clergy, physically or mentally disabled or african-german) lives were meaningless, he probably wouldn't gone through the process of killing so many.
Apart from that, I'm not really sure about what you mean by "no better or no worse", because that might imply that there are some objective standard to compare his views with. And, I don't think we quite agree on what "meaningful" or "meaningless" means in this context.

From my own perspective, his views were meaningful, but horrible.

But, you're just begging the question. How do you know that evidence of something is reason to believe it is true? People construct scenarios all the time based on evidence that is false. What about Ptolemic astronomy. It had evidence, people believed it for over a thousand years. Why not consider it to be true?

No, that's not begging the question. I see evidence, and by induction (or by other people's induction) assume truth. I don't assume truth by default. How do you arrive at your conclusions?

I don't know much about Ptolemaic astronomy, but if I remember correctly it's geocentric and assumes that bodies are fixed upon crystal spheres. Sure... I might believe that, if evidence didn't go against it on both counts. As you said yourself "it had evidence". But that evidence is gone. That evidence now supports a different model. Theories of geocentricism and the crystal spheres were not based on the evidence, but on the model which incorporated said evidence. The evidence wasn't false, the conclusions were. That's the primary reason we should continue all scientific endeavors: Get more evidence. Make a better model.

Granted, had I lived 1000 years ago, I probably would have believed that the earth was flat. I wouldn't know any better. Now everybody knows better. Would you still claim that there is no difference whether one believes flat or spherical earth? In the future I might know even better still. If a new paradigm comes around, if it's well documented and logical, I'd might believe that instead. Regardless of how it makes me feel about myself, regardless of how it makes others feel about me. Right now, I'm going for, what evidence suggests, is the most likely scenario. How can I not? How can you not?

[Cephus]

detect what you believe are heat echoes of the big bang not because you can say "we know" therefore "we know". "we know" that to believe can be disputed.

Ah, the rantings of the ignorant. Don't you love it?

We expected to find background thermal radiation for many, many years before we ever did. It was a prediction made by the Big Bang theory. When we actually did detect the heat echoes, it was no surprise to anyone because we knew, from the theory, that they had to be there, it was just one more justification of the predictive power of science.

Please try again, and try not to look so foolish this time.

[perplexed101]

Ah, the rantings of the ignorant. Don't you love it?

Lol, love or leave it and take it to the grave.

We expected to find background thermal radiation for many, many years before we ever did. It was a prediction made by the Big Bang theory. When we actually did detect the heat echoes, it was no surprise to anyone because we knew, from the theory, that they had to be there, it was just one more justification of the predictive power of science.

Lol, another line of dribble .. we expected.. perhaps that is what you expected as you wait like a puppet from people who change theories like socks. The big bang has been proven to have more holes than swiss cheese.

Take the following to your "we expected" and see if they can answer it:

what produces fluctuations in nothingness when nothing is no thing; not anything?

"we expect" an answer.

[McCulloch]

Ah, the rantings of the ignorant. Don't you love it?

Lol, love or leave it and take it to the grave.

Both of you have been being rather uncivil. This is against the rules.

We expected to find background thermal radiation for many, many years before we ever did. It was a prediction made by the Big Bang theory. When we actually did detect the heat echoes, it was no surprise to anyone because we knew, from the theory, that they had to be there, it was just one more justification of the predictive power of science.

Lol, another line of dribble .. we expected.. perhaps that is what you expected as you wait like a puppet from people who change theories like socks.

Another uncivil comment and ad hominem (abusive) as well. If you understood the nature of science, you would understand that unlike divine revelation, theories change. What you missed is that all of the various forms of the Big Bang theory predicted the background thermal radiation before it was found. The predictive power of science is greater than the predictive power of divine revelation.

The big bang has been proven to have more holes than swiss cheese.

Cite some sources to back this one up. I was unaware of the number of physicists abandoning the big bang theory, but I have not been in touch. Which theory are the scientists now favouring?

[perplexed101]

Cite some sources to back this one up. I was unaware of the number of physicists abandoning the big bang theory, but I have not been in touch. Which theory are the scientists now favouring?

Abstract
The BAL z = 3.91 quasar's high Fe/O ratio has led to a reexamination of big bang's spacetime expansion postulate and the discovery that it predicts a CBR redshift of z > 36000 instead of the widely accepted z ~ 1000. This result leads an expansion-predicted CBR temperature of only T = 0.08 K, which is contradicted by the experimental TCBR = 2.73 K. Contrary to long-held belief, these results strongly suggest that the F-L expanding spacetime paradigm, with its expansion redshifts, is not the correct relativistic description of the universe. This conclusion agrees with the earlier finding (gr-qc/9806061) that the universe is relativistically governed by the Einstein static spacetime solution of the field equations, not the F-L solution. Disproof of expansion redshifts removes the only support for the Cosmological Principle, thus showing that the spherical symmetry of the cosmos demanded by the Hubble redshift relation can no longer be attributed to the universe being the same everywhere. The Cosmological Principle is flawed. Instead of the universe being both homogeneous and isotropic, instead it is only isotropic about a nearby universal Center. These results suggest that the new Cosmic Center Universe model, based on Einstein's static spacetime solution of the field equations, deserves the attention of the scientific community. One significant advantage of the new model is that it restores conservation of energy to physics, in stark contrast to the big bang, which involved gargantuan nonconservation of CBR energy losses amounting to more than thirty million times the baryonic mass of the visible universe (gr-qc/9806061).


The observation of a BAL quasar at z = 3.91 with a Fe/O ratio about three times that of the sun [1], contradicts big bang's nucleosynthesis prediction that it should be much less than the sun's in the case of high-z objects. Since this prediction is based on the assumption that the universe is governed by the Friedmann-Lemaitre (F-L) expanding spacetime solution of the Einstein field equations, this discrepancy raises the question as to whether there is a previously undetected flaw in this basic assumption.

We seek the answer by comparing the local Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) temperature with cosmic expansion's prediction. In theory any CBR photon emitted with standard wavelength, λs, has since expanded so as to now exhibit a presently measurable wavelength, λ, given by [2,3],

λ/λs = 1 + z = R / Re, (1)


where z is the present expansion redshift, and R and Re are, respectively, the expansion factors at present time, t, and at time of photon emission, te. One method of calculating the expansion's present rate of change of λ uses Equation (1) together with MTW's [2] assumption of the temporal constancy of Re, to obtain (dλ/dt)/λ = λ⋅/λ = R⋅/R, or,

λ⋅appx = Hλ = H(1 + z)λs, (2)


which agrees with the result obtained by Peebles [3]. The subscript in the above appears because Equation (2) is only an approximation due to the fact that it does not account for the temporal variation of Re. The correct expression for λ⋅ is obtained from Weinberg's [4] and Peacock's [5] derivation of the exact expression for z⋅ from Equation (1) by correctly including the temporal variation of Re, dRe/dte, whereupon,

dz/dt = [Re(dR/dt) − R(dRe/dte)(dte/dt)]/Re2. (3)


Both Weinberg [4] and Peacock [5] find dte/dt = Re/R, so the foregoing can be rewritten as

z⋅ = [(R/Re)(R⋅/R) − (R⋅e/Re)] = (1 + z)H − He, (4)


which, except for different notation, is equivalent to Weinberg's Equation 14.6.23, and identical to that obtained in Peacock's Problem 3.2. In both instances their calculations stop with the expression for z⋅, and neither comment about any unusual implications of Equation (4). Here, however, we continue the calculation to find the exact expression for λ⋅. To do this we first remember that redshift determinations of distant galaxies are always obtained from Equation (1) on the premise that λs represents the exact laboratory standard emission line value corresponding to λ, the present astronomically measured, redshifted wavelength. From this it follows that λs is a constant for all times, and hence that Equation (1) leads to z⋅ = λ⋅/λs. Equating this quantity with the last expression in Equation (4) leads to

λ⋅ = λs[(1 + z)H − He], (5)


where λ⋅ represents, as earlier stated, the present rate of wavelength increase of any arbitrary photon that was emitted at He = R⋅e/Re, and time, te, as measured after the big bang at t = 0. In theory Equation (5) is a prediction that applies to all photons, those arriving from a distant galaxy as well as those in the CBR. For an expanding universe λ⋅ > 0, and since H ~ t−1 for the various Friedmann models, then all photons presently measured locally must obey the redshift condition, 1 + z > He/H = t/te. If we let t = te + Δt, where Δt is the elapsed time from photon emission to the present, we find

z > Δt/te, (6)


which is expansion's prediction of the minimum redshift to be expected from the measurement of any arbitrary group of photons emitted with the same standard laboratory wavelength, λs, and having a common origin at time te. Its unusual implications begin to be evident when it is applied to objects with z > 6. But its most extraordinary implications are even more evident when applying it to redshifts in the early stages of the CBR.

For example, if we apply Equation (6) to the big bang's CBR at time te = 1 s, when the radiation temperature of its primordial photons is theorized to be ~ 1010 K, we find the elapsed time from then to the presumed time of decoupling, when the redshift is theorized [6] to be z = 1089, is only Δt ~ 1000 s, or less than half an hour. This value sharply contradicts the 3.8 × 105 yr value recently reported by Bennett [6].

We can also use Equation (6) to find the expected present value of the CBR temperature by utilizing the most recent estimate [6] of the big bang at t = 13.7 × 109 yr. On that basis &#916;t &#8771; 5 × 1017 s. Thus it follows that when the dynamic variation of Re is correctly included into the calculation of expansion's effect on CBR photons, we find the present CBR expansion redshift and the corresponding CBR temperature are predicted to be zexp > 5 × 1017 and TCBR < 2 × 108 K, respectively. Even if we just apply Equation (6) to the usual scenario where the CBR temperature is predicted to be ~ 3000 K at decoupling when te = 3.8 × 105 yr [6] we still find predictions of zexp > 36000 and TCBR < 0.08 K.

Obviously, both sets of predictions are severely contradicted by the presently observed 2.73 K. Thus, instead of present CBR observations confirming the most important predictions of big bang cosmology, we find they contradict them. It appears there must be a major flaw in big bang's underlying postulate, which is the assumption that the universe is governed by the Friedmann-Lemaitre solution of the field equations. Even more evidence of the very serious nature of this flaw comes from noticing the extraordinary implications of Equation (5). It reveals that the present rate of expansion-induced wavelength change of any photon depends on both the present value of H, and its value at time of emission, He. If this were true, then photons in the CBR must have retained a memory of the value of He at emission 13.7 × 109 yr ago, and moreover, in some unknown way, must now be able to process that memory on an instantaneous basis in order for Equation (5) to hold. Such a requirement is bizarre. Photons having a memory of the Hubble value at emission is in contradiction to all of modern quantum electrodynamics.

Disproof of expansion redshifts removes the only support for the Cosmological Principle, thus showing that spherical symmetry of the cosmos demanded by the Hubble redshift relation can no longer be attributed to the universe being the same everywhere. The Cosmological Principle is wrong. Instead of the universe being both homogeneous and isotropic, instead it is only isotropic about a nearby universal Center. Thus we find that a new model of the cosmos is needed, one that is not based on the universe being governed by the F-L paradigm, but which is based on observational evidence of a nearby universal Center, and which can also account for the BAL z = 3.91 quasar with its high Fe/O ratio. A new model with these properties has already been developed [7]. It is based on the universe being relativistically governed by the Einstein static spacetime solution of the field equations [8], which is the same relativistic format used to successfully construct the earlier, preliminary version of this model [9,10]. It now deserves the attention of the scientific community because of its ability to account for eight other major predictions of the big bang, but without its spacetime expansion assumption. One significant advantage of the new model is that it restores conservation of energy to physics, in stark contrast to the big bang, which involved gargantuan nonconservation of CBR energy losses amounting to more than thirty million times the baryonic mass of the visible universe [8].

References
Hasinger G, Schartel N, and Komassa S, Discovery of an ionized Fe-K edge in the z = 3.91 Broad Absorption Line Quasar APM 08279+5255 with XMM-Newton, 2002 Astrophys. J. 573 L77 [astro-ph/0207005]

Misner C W, Thorne K S, and Wheeler J A 1973 Gravitation (New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.) pp 712, 783, 794

Peebles P J E 1993 Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton University Press) p 95

Weinberg S 1972 Gravitation and Cosmology (New York: John Wiley & Sons) pp 416, 451

Peacock J A 1999 Cosmological Physics (Cambridge University Press) p 618

Bennett C L et. al., First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results, 2003 Preprint astro-ph/0302207

Gentry R V, New Cosmic Model Accounts For Eight Of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without Using The F-L Paradigm, 2003 Preprint Submitted to CERN

Gentry R V and Gentry D W, The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta, 1998 Preprint gr-qc/9806061

Gentry R V, A New Redshift Interpretation, 1997 Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 2919 [astro-ph/9806280]

Gentry R V, The New Redshift Interpretation Armed, 1998 Preprint physics/9810051

http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.htm

...its funny how upon Einstein's death a book by Velikovsky was found open on his desk.

[McCulloch]

Cite some sources to back this one up. I was unaware of the number of physicists abandoning the big bang theory, but I have not been in touch. Which theory are the scientists now favouring?

...

http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.htm

You have now cited one source, Robert V. Gentry.

Since very few of us have the proficiency in astrophysics to evaluate these claims, we will have to wait for those who do.

Such as Thomas A. Baillieul

If, as you say, the Big Bang has "more holes than swiss cheese", then scientists are or have evaluated these claims, and re-evaluated their postitions. Have Robert Gentry's arguments been swaying the leading scientists in his field. Unless you are a leading astrophysicist, then your assessment of his position is not of much value. Nor is mine. This is what science is all about.

[perplexed101]

double post

[perplexed101]

If, as you say, the Big Bang has "more holes than swiss cheese", then scientists are or have evaluated these claims, and re-evaluated their postitions. Have Robert Gentry's arguments been swaying the leading scientists in his field. Unless you are a leading astrophysicist, then your assessment of his position is not of much value. Nor is mine. This is what science is all about.

It is true as you state, i have provided one source but what point is it to provide more if after every point given, you repeat the same defensive maneuver?

if you can answer the following based upon the emphasis and conformity of the "big bang" theory, i will recant my opposition towards the "big bang" theory:

what produces fluctuations in nothingness when nothing is no thing; not anything?