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]

First of all my apologies for the time taken to reply. I have been trying to get in the forum but my browser couldn't find the site(I think maybe the host was updating).
I will answer each point but to make it more understandable I will answer in a different order than the points were made.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

As can be seen from the velocities of comets, as the gravitational force is applied for an extended period of time, the velocity of objects, from dust particles to super clusters, need not remain constant throughout its lifespan. While objects in regular orbits remain in a relatively narrow range of velocities, dependent upon their orbit, objects in elliptical orbits or with no obvious orbit, can have vastly different velocities at different times. Please explain to me why it is that all galaxies must maintain a constant velocity when BBT itself states that the universe started with an initial super expansion much greater than the rate of expansion that we see today.

Angular diameters don't increase
A third important prediction is that the angular diameters of galaxies will start to increase at high redshifts, rather than decrease as they do at low redshifts. Yet observations have shown that the angular diameters of high redshift galaxies approach a constant value with increasing redshift, and show no evidence for the predicted increase.

You say in this point that angular diameters DO decrease at low redshifts. Therefore at high redshifts the angular diameter IS greater than those at low redshifts, so this prediction would seem to be correct in essence. Is it that it increases to a lesser extent at higher redshifts that you find confusing or that a circle still only contains 360 degrees however much you enlarge it?
Or perhaps it is the belief that the BBT requires that we know exactly what the state of the universe was billions of years ago in repect to where every particle/wave was at any given time. The complete BBT is still a work in progress.

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

Here you are confusing additions to the theory with the underlying theory. As I have stated before, the theory is by no means complete and I do not suggest that every addition is correct but the addition of what may turn out to be incorrect hypothetical causes does not mean that the underlying theory is incorrect. The inflation of the universe is beyond doubt and that the universe was once much smaller is also beyond doubt, if you are to believe the data that has been amassed. Also, as I have mentioned previously, inflation could be driven by matter that may have existed AT SOME TIME in the history of the universe. I find it strange that you should suggest that absence of evidence regarding these hypotheticals is evidence of their non existence. Isn't that a little like an atheist saying that God does not exist because there is no physical evidence of Him? You may say that the existence of the universe is evidence of God while certain proponents of these hypotheticals might say the same about these forces.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

Since dark matter was a hypothetical to make the maths work and was introduced to explain the observations I don't really see the objection. The big bang theory was not based on the observed existence of dark matter, dark matter was introduced as an explanation of how it might work. I thought your argument was concerning the underlying theory not the theory as a whole.

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Again, how does this undermine the underlying theory of inflation? And as we have previously discussed, there is no real necessity that the energy appears out of nothing. This, in my opinion, is a mistake and even the most steadfast advocates of the theory say they don't really know where the energy comes from and that this "nothing" might not really be nothing in the normal sense of the word. The conservation of energy leads us to the conclusion that there must have ALWAYS been energy for energy to exist today, or at least the same total energy.

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

You expect the theory to be complete when we still have data coming in all the time. Scientists don't even claim to fully understand the inner workings of the earth or the sun, or how stars are made, yet you insist that scientists claim to know exactly how the universe got from it's initial state to the universe we observe today, THEY DON'T. No BB theorist claims to know the intricacies of the universe which is why so many observations are taken in the hope of gaining further insight. All this "contradictory" data you refer to has not been discovered by the opponents of the BBT but by the very scientists you claim wish to cover up its inadequacies. Far from covering up any discrepancies, these scientists, at the earliest opportunity, seek to make this information available to the scientific community and thereby pool the information, enabling the theory to become evermore accurate and complete.

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

Again, you cite evidence of the theory's shortcomings in regard to its completeness rather than evidence that contradicts the underlying theory which is based on observation. We know very little about the CBR to be honest and to expect that a theory as new as the BBT should know everything already is pretty unreasonable, especially as discoveries are being made all the time. If you could show me that the CBR observations dispove the inflation theory or support the theory of special creation I might well change my mind but NOBODY is suggesting that the BBT has all the answers and that it is in any way complete. The only people who say the BBT claims to be the finished article seem to be the creationists. You give evidence that the theory cannot explain all the observations but nobody really expects it to at this stage.
Please give evidence that refutes the theory rather than just evidence of it's incompleteness which is already universally accepted.

[perplexed101]

i dont avoid what is being observed as being contradictions towards the big bang theory, you on the other hand have taken Plato's advice to concentrate on the theoretical side and pay no attention to observational detail. You stress on incompleteness as a necessity for the established paradigm as if the theory rests upon what is observed to be incoherent unless what is observed should manage to fit within the theory of the big bang.

------------------------------------------

Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth” is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’

Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

[Curious]

i dont avoid what is being observed as being contradictions towards the big bang theory, you on the other hand have taken Plato's advice to concentrate on the theoretical side and pay no attention to observational detail. You stress on incompleteness as a necessity for the established paradigm as if the theory rests upon what is observed to be incoherent unless what is observed should manage to fit within the theory of the big bang.

This is not really what I am suggesting at all. Obviously there is no way we can seriously ignore data which does not fit into a particular theory, BBT or otherwise. It is my assertion however that such contradictions are due to interpretation of the data and not the data itself. It is obvious that gravity is a force that is real but does not explain why a compass needle points at 90 degress to the direction the the compass would fall if dropped. This is because gravity is not the only force that has an effect upon the compass, just as gravity is not the only force affecting the universe. At the sub atomic level, gravitational forces are virtually insignificant compared to EM forces and until there is a unification of these fields within a single theory it is impossible to say that this or that data gives anything more than clues as to what might possibly be true or false. Having said that, the data we have does strongly support the basic underlying theory of the BB. These "contradictory" observations may eventually turn out to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
While you may not ignore evidence that contradicts the BBT you seem to ignore the evidence that supports it. To claim you believe the BBT is flawed due to these inconsistencies strikes me as disingenuous as it is apparent that your real opposition to the theory is based on it's contradiction of the biblical version of events. If you took the same course of validation regarding the biblical version, perhaps you may find that the BBT has far more supporting evidence and far fewer observational contradictions than the version you seem to be advocating.

[perplexed101]

than the version you seem to be advocating

what version would that be curious?

[Pujitos]

Shouldn't it just be a matter of believing it because it is true,

Yaaaaay!
There is no point. It's just true. You believe it because to not believe would be to deceive yourself and deny what is real.

So how do you know its true a) for you and b) for the rest of the world.

This thread isn't about how I know Christianity is true, so I won't try and prove it or defend it here. There are other threads on this forum for that.
I just meant that if you believe it, you believe it. There is no "point". Regardless of whether it can be proven, what you believe is that there is no other belief that's correct. Therefore this is the one you have to believe. You could say the same thing for any religion, I guess.

[Curious]

than the version you seem to be advocating

what version would that be curious?

Well, since most, if not all, of your objections towards the BBT are also cited on various creationist web sites, and as the BBT does not itself make any claim one way or another about the original prime mover concerning the event (and therefore does not itself claim that God did not use this as a mechanism), I come to the conclusion(although I may be mistaken) that you most likely believe in the biblical version of creation.

[perplexed101]

than the version you seem to be advocating

what version would that be curious?

Well, since most, if not all, of your objections towards the BBT are also cited on various creationist web sites, and as the BBT does not itself make any claim one way or another about the original prime mover concerning the event (and therefore does not itself claim that God did not use this as a mechanism), I come to the conclusion(although I may be mistaken) that you most likely believe in the biblical version of creation.

LOL, the 33 scientists that disagrees with the big bang theory, would you call that from a creation website? i believe there is a possiblity that what is observed as contradictions to the big bang theory may lead towards plasma cosmology as a replacement to the traditional established paradigm.

[rapture101]

In my personal experience i'd have to say its not about hell nor heaven. For me and my Christian friends its about the joy of being able to serve God.Its about pleasing him and how awsome he is.Its about how forgiving he his and his unconditional love.I get this joy when I know im pleasing god.Its just awsome.And i get saport from everyone who belives they encourage me and its like one big happy family.I cant really explaine it.Its just wonderful.Im not saying its eaiser because its not it can be hard but God is one friend that wont stabb me in my back he'll always there no matter what I do.Anyone can have that if you want it.

In ChRiSt LoVe

aShLeY

[scorpia]

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?

Before it used to be to escape hell. This was a long time back when I was younger. But right now it doesn't seem to be about that any more. More along the lines of following an all-righteous God who knows all and loved mankind so much he dies for everyone.

So I sorta thought that the whole point of being a Christian is following and loving God

[Curious]

LOL, the 33 scientists that disagrees with the big bang theory, would you call that from a creation website? i believe there is a possiblity that what is observed as contradictions to the big bang theory may lead towards plasma cosmology as a replacement to the traditional established paradigm.

Cited on the websites not written by the websites, there is a big difference. Of course the big bang theory will ultimately be replaced by a superior model once more is known. Since it is the origination that the theory will describe it would be cosmogony rather than cosmology though.