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?

[Curious]

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 i will recant my opposition towards the "big bang" theory:

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

This seems a little off topic although it is a good question. You cannot have a fluctuation in nothingness as it then ceases to be nothingness altogether. You are correct that the Big Bang theory has many problems at first, second and nth glance, not least the actual name. An explosion in the vacuum of space would not create a bang at all bit this is just pedantry on my part. The theory however only is incompatible with energy conservation if we accept that everything came about from nothing. While it is true that within a closed system, total energy will remain constant, there is nothing though that restricts the input of energy from other systems. A roundabout may rotate at a certain speed and if no other forces act upon it, it will continue at the same speed. The mass energy plus the kinetic energy of the roundabout will remain constant but if something external to this system pushes it around, the energy will increase. If the energy from the Big Bang was input from another universe then conservation would not be an issue as both universes would count as a single system.

[McCulloch]

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?

So couldn't you cite a significant number of experts in this field who agree with Gentry? That would effectively remove my defensive maneuver. A theory is not established in science by the clever arguing of one scientist. Only after a theory has been examined by a number of skeptical experts and come through unscathed will it be accepted as a (provisionally) valid theory.

if you can answer the following based upon the emphasis of the "big bang", i will recant my opposition towards the "big bang" theory:
what produces fluctuations in nothingness when nothing is no thing; not anything?

I don't follow your logic here. You are saying that if I can answer the question about the fluctuations in nothingness, then you will accept the big bang? I have absolutely no clue as to what if anything causes fluctuations in nothingness. Does that change the truth value of the big bang theory?
However, you would be better to ask some of the physicists who assert that there were fluctuations in nothingness (not just creationist ones) for a more meaningful answer.

[perplexed101]

So couldn't you cite a significant number of experts in this field who agree with Gentry? That would effectively remove my defensive maneuver. A theory is not established in science by the clever arguing of one scientist. Only after a theory has been examined by a number of skeptical experts and come through unscathed will it be accepted as a (provisionally) valid theory.

yes i can cite more but seeing from the answer you have given in regards to the first it would do more harm than good to provide more. You gave yourself away in your inability to weigh the evidence provided.

However, you would be better to ask some of the physicists who assert that there were fluctuations in nothingness (not just creationist ones) for a more meaningful answer.

this is the kind of answer i would expect and you expect me to provide more evidential proof? lol. Dont get yourself involved unless you are prepared to answer the question. Who i am and what i know is of no concern to you. If YOU can answer the question based upon your own personal study in the matter of cosmology then i will provide more sources for refutation.

[Curious]

...If YOU can answer the question based upon your own personal study in the matter of cosmology then i will provide more sources for refutation.

Regarding the evidence given in the original quote, all these objections can be overcome by my original answer some posts up. It the separation of the universes involved was in anyway similar to the action of a "semi-permeable membrane" certain energy quanta may be able to shift from one universe to another, powered by some type of and quantum pump and quantum deficit. If the quanta are assimilated into more stable units then this would make it impossible for the energy to pass back. If the energy was not immediately assimilated then it could pass back or pass to the next universe which would account for the observation that the universe appears to contain far less energy than should be required to create it. The total energy of all systems could in this way remain constant while allowing for the creation of complex, stable universes.

[perplexed101]

powered by some type of

thats about the best it can be put into words? nicely done curious lol.

let me summarize your point curious in what you deem to be an arguement that can be overcome:

possibilities must exist in concepts defined actual or not exist at all

could there never be absolutely nothing?


Cosmological Argument (simplified)

Perhaps the most popular argument for the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument. Although many atheists have attempted to bring it into question, they have not been successful in refuting this powerful argument. Here it is, in basic form:


1.Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.The universe requires a cause.

The goal of this argument is to demonstrate that God is the best (or only) explanation for the universe coming into being.

Now, the first premise (1) seems fairly obvious. There are very good reasons to believe this premise because it means, in essence, that something cannot come into existence from nothing for no reason. What an inherently obvious truth! From nothing, nothing comes. However, although it seems so obvious, atheists have questioned this principle in order to bring the Cosmological Argument into question! The most common attempt to reject this intuitive principle is through, what are called, "quantum vacuum fluctuations". In essence, they propose that fluctuations of energy in these so-called "vacuums" in the middle of nothingness create "virtual particles" which generally just fall back into nothingness, but just once a virtual particle just happened to expand into the Big Bang, resulting in the eventual formation of the entire universe. There is a lot of technical jargon in this area, but it is important to remember that these so-called "vacuums" actually have pre-existing energy. Because of this, quantum vacuum fluctuations don’t create something from nothing, but merely involve the transfer of energy to material form.

Sometimes it is hard to decide what to make of all the technical jargon involved in the wacky cosmologies proposed by some scientists, but it is important to remember that "from nothing, nothing comes". This principle is so obvious that it brings into serious question any theory that denies it. If "nothing" has the ability to create something is it really nothing at all? I don’t think so.

The real reason, in my opinion, for the emergence of supposed quantum vacuum fluctuations as an objection to the Cosmological Argument is because the most common objection against the Cosmological Argument (That the universe has always existed) has failed miserably. This brings us to premise (2). Recall that premise (2) states that the universe began to exist. However, some atheists argue that the universe has always existed.

Now, this used to be the most common objection to the Cosmological Argument. However, in recent years, scientific evidence has shown unequivocally that the universe simply is not eternal. For example, the science of Thermodynamics (the Laws of Thermodynamics are among the most well-founded of any law in existence) refutes the notion of an eternal universe. Additionally, eternal universe models have failed to produce evidence, failed to produce mechanisms, and have failed to agree with the scientific data. (See my more detailed ARTICLE for documentation.) Therefore, most atheists have given up on this hopeless theory, and they have been forced to speculate with ludicrous suggestions about the universe creating itself from absolutely nothing. It seems like science is not making it easy on the atheists.

What can we make of the evidence so far? Premise (1) (Everything which begins to exist requires a cause) is one of the most fundamental laws of science. Additionally, atheistic attempts to deny this law have failed. Therefore, we can be highly confident in the truth of (1).

Premise (2) (The universe began to exist) is definitely correct. Scientific facts have completely refuted atheistic models of eternal universes, and all evidence seems to point to a universe with a beginning. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that a major shift in trends has taken place amongst the atheistic community. Instead of believing in an eternal universe, many prefer to support the notion that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing! This seems to be a tremendous testimony to the failure of the atheistic objection that the universe has always existed. Again, we can be highly confident in the truth of (2).

We can see that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the truth of (1) and (2). So, logically and inescapably we advance to premise (3), which states that the universe requires a cause.

Now, just because the universe requires a cause does not mean that God is the cause. Many atheists have pointed that out. However, in this certain case it seems that God is the only reasonable explanation. (For a definition of God, see HERE.)

First of all, the cause must be something that has existed eternally. If the cause were not eternal, then it would require a cause, and that cause would require a cause, and so on. Therefore, the original cause must have existed eternally. This is one characteristic of God.

Second of all, the cause must be something that can make a rational decision. This is because an eternally existing inanimate "cause" cannot create spontaneously. It cannot, in other words, "decide" when it wants to create something. Yet, since this inanimate cause must have existed eternally, it would have created the universe an eternity ago. Since there is nothing to suddenly "prompt" it to create, it would have had to already create the universe. This is an extremely important point, for if you have an eternal, decision-making entity- then you basically have God.

Therefore, it seems to follow inescapably that God exists and He is the reason our universe exists.

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/cosmo ... simple.htm

[Curious]

powered by some type of

thats about the best it can be put into words? nicely done curious lol.

Ok not the best explanation I'll grant. What I mean is that a pull or push in one universe might create something akin to a "difussion gradient" or a difference in "osmotic pressure" where "particles" might pass back and forth across the barrier. I doubt this explanation is any better.

let me summarize your point curious in what you deem to be an arguement that can be overcome...

...Perhaps the most popular argument for the existence of God is the Cosmological Argument. Although many atheists have attempted to bring it into question, they have not been successful in refuting this powerful argument. Here it is, in basic form:


1.Everything which begins to exist requires a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.The universe requires a cause.

The goal of this argument is to demonstrate that God is the best (or only) explanation for the universe coming into being.

1. I can't argue with this premise but although this universe did apparently have a beginning, the causative factor has not been observed and so we don't know if there is an eternal universe that caused this one. We can't say that this must have been caused because we dont know that it had a beginning.

2.True but this says nothing of the cause

3.True again but this does not tell us what the cause is.

...Second of all, the cause must be something that can make a rational decision. This is because an eternally existing inanimate "cause" cannot create spontaneously. It cannot, in other words, "decide" when it wants to create something. Yet, since this inanimate cause must have existed eternally, it would have created the universe an eternity ago. Since there is nothing to suddenly "prompt" it to create, it would have had to already create the universe. This is an extremely important point, for if you have an eternal, decision-making entity- then you basically have God.

I don't see how a cause must necessarily be able to make a rational decision concerning the effect. I seriously doubt that leprosy makes the rational decision to make your fingers drop off. That the creation of the universe would have happened an eternity ago makes no logical sense as if this creation initiated time, the act of creation "whenever" it occurred would still have happened at the same relative time in any case.

Therefore, it seems to follow inescapably that God exists and He is the reason our universe exists.

While I agree 100% that God does exist I am not convinced by the argument you put forward concerning the necessity of God for this universe to exist. The problem many people have with the God origin is that many theists state that only God needs not have a beginning when this is not necessarily the case. One of the main arguments concerning the Big Bang theory is regarding the beginning of energy, which we know, has no beginning or end. All we can tell is that this particular expansion seems to have had a beginning but it tells us nothing about what may have happened before or whether this cause had a beginning or not.

[McCulloch]

So couldn't you cite a significant number of experts in this field who agree with Gentry? That would effectively remove my defensive maneuver. A theory is not established in science by the clever arguing of one scientist. Only after a theory has been examined by a number of skeptical experts and come through unscathed will it be accepted as a (provisionally) valid theory.

yes i can cite more but seeing from the answer you have given in regards to the first it would do more harm than good to provide more. You gave yourself away in your inability to weigh the evidence provided.

I openly admit that I am not an expert in physics. Therefore, I cannot properly weigh the evidence provided. Very few can. Therefore, I must rely on those who are experts to weigh the evidence for me. All of us find ourselves in that situation in some field or other. So it is reasonable for me to ask you to provide a significant number of experts in the field who support your assertion that the "big bang has more holes than swiss cheese". If your assertion is true, then it should be a fairly routine matter to round up the names of leading physicists who agree. I am not asking for a consensus. While I disagree with you that providing more highly technical evidence would do more harm than good, it would not help me particularly either. But feel free to provide it, since there may be others here with the expertise to evaluate it.

However, you would be better to ask some of the physicists who assert that there were fluctuations in nothingness (not just creationist ones) for a more meaningful answer.

this is the kind of answer i would expect and you expect me to provide more evidential proof? lol. Dont get yourself involved unless you are prepared to answer the question. Who i am and what i know is of no concern to you. If YOU can answer the question based upon your own personal study in the matter of cosmology then i will provide more sources for refutation.

I have not taken a stand on the point of whether there were fluctuations in nothingness. I only questioned the validity of your statement regarding the big bang theory. You seem to have asserted that the big bang theory is not widely accepted by physicists. I only ask for evidence of that assertion. You have made a good start. You have provided one physicist with credentials who disagrees with this theory. That is not enough yet to say that the entire theory is bogus. In any field of expertise, you cannot expect consensus. Is your Gentry a lone voice in his field or is he part of a widely accepted trend? Surely that question merrits an answer. I have not significant personal study in the matter of cosmology, so any answers that I could provide would be of no value. That fact should not prevent me from asking relevent questions and asking for evidence to back up assertions which run against the grain of what little I know.

[perplexed101]

While I agree 100% that God does exist I am not convinced by the argument you put forward concerning the necessity of God for this universe to exist. The problem many people have with the God origin is that many theists state that only God needs not have a beginning when this is not necessarily the case. One of the main arguments concerning the Big Bang theory is regarding the beginning of energy, which we know, has no beginning or end. All we can tell is that this particular expansion seems to have had a beginning but it tells us nothing about what may have happened before or whether this cause had a beginning or not.

So basically you are affirming with Herbert Spencer although you are not agnostic?

[Curious]

So basically you are affirming with Herbert Spencer although you are not agnostic?

Am I? It seems unlikely, since we would have completely different views as to what is the prime mover in all this, that it could be judged as an affirmation of anything but singular points.

[perplexed101]

So couldn't you cite a significant number of experts in this field who agree with Gentry?

im surprised that you would ask this question when google is just a click away lol but since you insist on me inserting more big bang controversies or people who are willing to expound upon them i will entertain you with more:

how about 33 scientists in one?

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-BBB.html

http://zyx.org/CONTRA.html