Infinite time?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[LittleNipper]

I would suggest a reading of the book of Daniel. Atheists like to suggest it was a forgery; however, their reason for this is that it so accurately predicts future, that it is either a later forgery or the absolute proof that GOD knows the future before it happens and expressed such events to Daniel in visions, who then wrote them down.

Your claim about atheists is not accurate. I prophecy that you will not amend your thinking though, because atheists are the chosen opponents of Christians to unite against. Something that is very common in cults I would add (Us vs Them thinking).

While some conservative scholars hold that Daniel existed and his book was written in the 6th century BCE, most scholars agree that Daniel is not a historical figure and that much of the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic king Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Sorry, but you can't accurately blame those god hating atheists or whatever it is you tell yourself that atheists do for this one.

Via faith, which is a mechanism in order to believe in false things, you can believe whatever you want about humans predicting the future or returning from the dead or that snakes and donkeys at one time spoke, but you can't expect others to respect such a mechanism. You made that bed and you need to sleep in it.

Furthermore, you are an atheist yourself as far as god concepts go, less one. An atheist is just like you, they just take their lack of god beliefs one god further then yourself. You have more in common with atheists than you realize. You are literally over 99% atheist and less then 1% believer in the gods. This takes the perceived sting out of your inaccurate claim about atheists IMO.

I find that no matter what forum I'm on, it's nearly always Atheists and Agnostics against Christians. So that must make Atheism and Agnosticism cultish. I'm convinced that GOD created the Universe, and that HE both loves and saved me. And that separates Christianity further than the East is from the West with regards to Atheism. Other gods are just so much man fabricated statuary.

[Clownboat]

I find that no matter what forum I'm on, it's nearly always Atheists and Agnostics against Christians.

You are the common denominator in this.

So that must make Atheism and Agnosticism cultish.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow. Your actions are the same actions that cults participate in. Such actions provide unity for the group when they have a common thing/enemy to unite against. There is nothing for atheists to unite together about nor any temples or churches for them to organize in. Therefore your charge doesn't follow as a whole.

I'm convinced that GOD created the Universe, and that HE both loves and saved me.

I was a born again, spirit filled, drunk in the Holy Ghost evangelist for over 2 decades. I was once convinced as you are now, so these words are unimpressive. Statements of faith are additional behaviors that cults participate in though ironically.

Other gods are just so much man fabricated statuary.

The logical fallacy of special pleading at its best!

Not one word about how I prophesied that you would not correct your thinking about the book of Daniel nor atheists. I literally predicted the future! Why would claimed prophecies only be meaningful when found in religious promotional material that was written by unknown humans at an unknown time? I don't understand this, can you help, or just offer me another statement about your faith?

[LittleNipper]

I'm convinced that GOD created the Universe, and that HE both loves and saved me.

I was a born again, spirit filled, drunk in the Holy Ghost evangelist for over 2 decades. I was once convinced as you are now, so these words are unimpressive. Statements of faith are additional behaviors that cults participate in though ironically.

So, what made you do an about face?

[Clownboat]

I'm convinced that GOD created the Universe, and that HE both loves and saved me.

I was a born again, spirit filled, drunk in the Holy Ghost evangelist for over 2 decades. I was once convinced as you are now, so these words are unimpressive. Statements of faith are additional behaviors that cults participate in though ironically.

So, what made you do an about face?

When I stopped pretending to know things that I didn't. Ironically, also reading the book from cover to cover didn't help. Have you tried reading it?

[LittleNipper]

I'm convinced that GOD created the Universe, and that HE both loves and saved me.

I was a born again, spirit filled, drunk in the Holy Ghost evangelist for over 2 decades. I was once convinced as you are now, so these words are unimpressive. Statements of faith are additional behaviors that cults participate in though ironically.

So, what made you do an about face?

When I stopped pretending to know things that I didn't. Ironically, also reading the book from cover to cover didn't help. Have you tried reading it?

We are human. It's not uncommon to not know or understand everything. Yes, I've read the entire Bible and have studied it. I've never read a better explanation anywhere.

[Clownboat]

We are human. It's not uncommon to not know or understand everything. Yes, I've read the entire Bible and have studied it. I've never read a better explanation anywhere.

The bold explains why you are in the position you are in then.

I find the claim to be odd though and here is why:
- You can find and likely know many already previously held religious beliefs that science has found the actual mechanism for.
- Can you inform us about a previously held scientific discovery that a religion has shown to be wrong and provided the correct mechanism for? If not, how is it reasonable to call it the best explanation?

Applying faith to a religious idea because of where a person happens to be born just isn't a good mechanism for arriving at truths, yet that is how religions work (with exceptions of course). Don't you agree and find that to be an odd way to claim to know things?

[William]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

Time is an interesting concept. It appears to have everything to do with the movement of objects in relation to each other and thus is measurement - not of distance between objects but duration, such as how long it takes for a moon to orbit a planet.

Thus time has to do with beginnings and ends within the observable landscape of mutually interactive objects.

[LittleNipper]

We are human. It's not uncommon to not know or understand everything. Yes, I've read the entire Bible and have studied it. I've never read a better explanation anywhere.

The bold explains why you are in the position you are in then.

I find the claim to be odd though and here is why:
- You can find and likely know many already previously held religious beliefs that science has found the actual mechanism for.
- Can you inform us about a previously held scientific discovery that a religion has shown to be wrong and provided the correct mechanism for? If not, how is it reasonable to call it the best explanation?

Applying faith to a religious idea because of where a person happens to be born just isn't a good mechanism for arriving at truths, yet that is how religions work (with exceptions of course). Don't you agree and find that to be an odd way to claim to know things?

The elasticity of fossil remains https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... -creation/ There are far too many variables that point to Creation and not Billions of years and the chance model.

[Clownboat]

The elasticity of fossil remains https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... -creation/ There are far too many variables that point to Creation and not Billions of years and the chance model.

You have to be kidding! Have you never read their statement of faith?
"...it is imperative that all persons employed by the AiG ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith and conduct themselves accordingly."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fait ... DMQAvD_BwE

The reason is obvious as to why no religion has ever overturned something we have discovered via the scientific method. Religious claims come and go.

[benchwarmer]

The elasticity of fossil remains https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... -creation/ There are far too many variables that point to Creation and not Billions of years and the chance model.

You have to be kidding! Have you never read their statement of faith?
"...it is imperative that all persons employed by the AiG ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith and conduct themselves accordingly."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/fait ... DMQAvD_BwE

The reason is obvious as to why no religion has ever overturned something we have discovered via the scientific method. Religious claims come and go.

Hey, at least they admitted they are pulling their apologetics from Answers in Genesis. Quite funny in the Science and Religion section where we expect some measure of science, not just religion.

Reading anything from AIG is a study in what lengths apologetics will go to in order to 'keep the faith'. I'm a little disappointed that in this day and age of easy access to actual science this pseudoscience gains any traction. I guess if you need to shore up your faith and have something to that looks 'sciencey' to show your doubting friends, it's the best they've got.

Dear readers, if an organization has a statement of faith that forces you to think/teach/publish/work/etc only their way, that should be a clue they are not interested in truth, but only in control.

I'm genuinely curious how universities who do this manage to remain relevant in the area of research. I can't imagine their research papers being taken seriously by their peers when one always knows the constraints put on the work. Anyone with experience on this? If you are asked to peer review something, does it immediately raise all kinds of red flags if it's from one of these places?