Can a Christian really think freely?

[DeathWorship]

so yesterday i said i would have an explaination for our (me and my friend's) theory for no concious though, i called him last night and told him to explain it the best he could.. and the truth is.. it's extremely flawed.. he based it all on experiments him and a lab partner were doing in lab. it is a PERSONAL belief of his.. but to try and explain it in detail is futile..

 

we can't all be perfect. only Invictus..

[invictus1967]

Mr. Neil,

 

A homepage doesn’t have to be Uncle Bill’s trip to the beach. The reference you gave was nothing more than some guy coming up with an opinion then finding webspace to publish it.

 

It was an “essay”, that is what you called it. It is a hypothesis based on other hypothesis’s. The author himself says “deduce predictions”. In fact, he uses the word “prediction” over 20 times in the opening page of his “essay”.

 

He is trying to give “evidence” from our past by using “predictions”. He is trying to “predict” the past.

 

His little “essay” is nothing more than a homepage minus Cousin Jim’s bachelor party pictures.

 

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

 

HanSolo,

 

I admit that I have not researched the Ekpyrotic Universe model in any detail at all. However, what I do know about it didn’t give me any reason to.

 

From what I understand of it, the Ekpyrotic Universe model is a theory of 2 different three-dimensional worlds colliding in a 4-dimension producing our universe.

 

The rational for creating this theory is based on the idea that the “Big Bang” theory could not account for the formation of stars, galaxies, and such in our universe. That completely dismisses the documented discoveries of Smoot’s Berkley team.

 

There is also no evidence for any other dimensions beyond our current universe. There is no evidence to support “string” theories. This theory is based on other unproven theories, with no evidence at all.

 

It is from people uncomfortable with the idea of all the evidence pointing to a Creator. They come up with theories and then use those theories to produce other theories. And they dismiss evidence when it contradicts those theories.

 

In short, the Ekpyrotic model is a much bigger leap of faith than any creationist account.

[Mr. Neil]

His little “essay” is nothing more than a homepage minus Cousin Jim’s bachelor party pictures.

It is in no way "little". It's a multi-page document. Proof again that you didn't read it.

 

Perhaps "essay" was a poor term to use, but had you actually gone to the site and read at least a portion of the article, you would know that it provides detailed explanations and references of evidences recorded by scientists. But clearly you have no intention of doing that.

 

You just love digging yourself into a deeper hole, don't you? You're a liar and therefor no longer deserving of serious responses. You have shown that you are not willing to engage in an honest debate, and you're proving me right by trying desperately to handwave a very detailed documentation of scientific discoveries, which you keep describing with words such as "homepage" and "little", when neither of these terms apply to what I gave you. In fact, they're antithetical.

[invictus1967]

Mr. Neil,

 

I did read the “essay”, have you?

 

Go back and look at the opening page, how many times does the author use the word “prediction” when trying to explain the past?

[invictus1967]

thankful,

 

What “clear scientific proofs” are you referring to?

 

Care to give some sources for these “proofs”?

[invictus1967]

I have never claimed I had “proof” of anything. However, I have given evidence to support what I post. Many on here don’t agree with the evidence, but I do give it nonetheless.

 

You made a claim of “clear scientific proof”. I am simply asking you to back that claim.

 

I have never made such a claim, so this “you first” jazz doesn’t cut it.

[invictus1967]

thankful,

 

I have never said that I could proof Christianity, nor have I ever denied that I was a Christian.

 

I openly admit that Christianity is FAITH based.

 

However, my belief that there is a God is based on evidence.

 

How exactly is that twisting my words?

 

I have never claimed to have “proof” of anything, but I have offered evidence of a God. Whether you choose to accept the evidence is up to you, but I have offered evidence.

 

You made a claim of “clear scientific proof”. If you can’t back up such a claim, don’t make it.

[Vigile]

thankful,

 

I have never said that I could proof Christianity, nor have I ever denied that I was a Christian.

 

I openly admit that Christianity is FAITH based.

 

However, my belief that there is a God is based on evidence.

 

How exactly is that twisting my words?

 

I have never claimed to have “proof” of anything, but I have offered evidence of a God. Whether you choose to accept the evidence is up to you, but I have offered evidence.

 

You made a claim of “clear scientific proof”. If you can’t back up such a claim, don’t make it.

 

Perhaps you should change your name from Invictus to Infuriating. You are seriously thick.

 

As I stated on the other thread, you are likely running around pissing off your fellow christians as well. I met a few like you when I was in church. Sheesh.

[Ouroboros]

I admit that I have not researched the Ekpyrotic Universe model in any detail at all. However, what I do know about it didn’t give me any reason to.

 

From what I understand of it, the Ekpyrotic Universe model is a theory of 2 different three-dimensional worlds colliding in a 4-dimension producing our universe.

 

The rational for creating this theory is based on the idea that the “Big Bang” theory could not account for the formation of stars, galaxies, and such in our universe. That completely dismisses the documented discoveries of Smoot’s Berkley team.

 

There is also no evidence for any other dimensions beyond our current universe. There is no evidence to support “string” theories. This theory is based on other unproven theories, with no evidence at all.

 

It is from people uncomfortable with the idea of all the evidence pointing to a Creator. They come up with theories and then use those theories to produce other theories. And they dismiss evidence when it contradicts those theories.

 

In short, the Ekpyrotic model is a much bigger leap of faith than any creationist account.

 

But seriously.

 

The Big Bang is unexplained.

Right now there only exist hypothetical ideas to explain to the Big Bang

On of them is Ekpyrotic Universe model, another is God created it, and there are other.

Now to take the leap to EU or God, takes only a leap of faith, if you decide that one or the other is the only and definite solution.

They’re both only hypothetical, and I don’t make the leap to say EU is the only explanation, nor do I claim EU must be the definite solution.

And herein will you see the big difference between You and Me.

You have made your choice of explanation.

I haven’t.

And also as you can see, there are alternative explanations.

 

The evidence is still not pointing to a Creator.

 

That you reject multiple dimensions and string theory that easy, is the reason why scientific method works better to find the answers to the mysteries of the world. You have already made up your mind, based on a preconception of your faith. Science will throw out string theory if it’s proven wrong, but unfortunately for you, string theory does work to certain degree.

A scientist come up with new ideas all the time, and test and analyze it until the either have to discard it or can report it to other scientist that prove and test even more.

You have already made up your mind to explain the unexplainable. So you are not walking the road anymore; you’re sitting down and sulking on the side of the road. Scientists keep on walking and explore, investigate and try new roads all the time.

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you.  My clear proof is based on what the bible says.  The other things you all are discussing are out of my area of knowledge, WAY out of my area of knowledge. 

 

I have said that I don't know whether or not there is a creator.  Many intelligent people past and present have believed in a creator but do not believe in the Judeo/Christian god.  As of now, I still want to believe in a higher power, but believe that it/he/she/them have not been revealed in anything other than nature itself.  But honestly, I don't know, call it hiding, but it's honest.

You see Thankful. Invictus doesn't understand the word "doubt".

He is 100% pure Faith. He doesn't doubt, ever...

And that's why he doesn't understand the difference between "rejecting" God and losing faith. He claimed that we all rejected God; he's a true Pauline Theologian, so let me present to you, our own St Paul, in flesh and blood, talking to us on this web.

 

Now I undestand why St Peter was so upset.

[Mr. Neil]

Go back and look at the opening page, how many times does the author use the word “prediction” when trying to explain the past?

Way to take words out of context, moron.

 

Scientists don't "predict the past". They predict what will be discovered about the past.

 

Again, proof that you're a dishonest little troll. I told you that I'm not interested in discussing evolution in this thread. That would hijacking. I'm simply bringing to the attention of Thankful and everyone else that you're blatantly dishonest and not willing to actually read the reference that I gave you.

 

And now you're going to keep condemning a multi-page document simply because I improperly referred to it as an "essay". You're simply not willing to read it for yourself and draw conclusions based on what it says.

 

Invictus, I see no reason to take you seriously. You've clearly no intention of debating honestly, and I want everyone else to know that. You're not worth anyone's time here.

[crazy-tiger]

Y'know... I'd really like to know why Invictus keeps ignoring me.

 

You don't think it's anything to do with the fact that I demolished his "evidence" by pointing out it's the exact same type of evidence that he's asserted isn't evidence at all...

 

Or maybe it's because he's realised he's got no way of refuting what I've said, so he'll ignore me in the hopes that I'll go away...

 

Possibly it's because I'm not giving him anything to nit-pick... what I AM doing is showing him that his argument is very, very badly flawed and that any attempt to fix it also bolsters any opposing arguments...

 

 

Anyone got any clues to which it might be?

[Amanda]

I know. Thats why I like you.

 

Sometimes I act my age and some people think it's funny. I am imature for my age I think though. But I am not a dumbo, I'm just childish.

 

I am a child so what of it? hehe!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then you are infinitely wise, open minded and curious, exist in awe and wonder, and I envy that art you have mastered. As in the book Ecclesiastes says... its all folly. You seem to enjoy the academic, yet you can let it go. Splendidly delightful!

[Vigile]

Y'know... I'd really like to know why Invictus keeps ignoring me.

 

You don't think it's anything to do with the fact that I demolished his "evidence" by pointing out it's the exact same type of evidence that he's asserted isn't evidence at all...

 

Or maybe it's because he's realised he's got no way of refuting what I've said, so he'll ignore me in the hopes that I'll go away...

 

Possibly it's because I'm not giving him anything to nit-pick... what I AM doing is showing him that his argument is very, very badly flawed and that any attempt to fix it also bolsters any opposing arguments...

Anyone got any clues to which it might be?

 

 

I'll take D, all of the above, but as he is an argumentative little bastard that just has to be right and get in the last word, I think C is the better explanation for his lack of attention to your points.

 

BTW, I enjoy following your logical points and criticisms. Very sharp.

[Ouroboros]

Y'know... I'd really like to know why Invictus keeps ignoring me.

 

You don't think it's anything to do with the fact that I demolished his "evidence" by pointing out it's the exact same type of evidence that he's asserted isn't evidence at all...

 

Or maybe it's because he's realised he's got no way of refuting what I've said, so he'll ignore me in the hopes that I'll go away...

 

Possibly it's because I'm not giving him anything to nit-pick... what I AM doing is showing him that his argument is very, very badly flawed and that any attempt to fix it also bolsters any opposing arguments...

Anyone got any clues to which it might be?

I think the reason is because until now I have been taking Invictus seriously and a possible contender for the debate, but the truth has now clearly come to light.

 

On the other hand you my dear CT saw through his façade early on, and he noticed that, so he didn’t bother to answer to you, because you saw his true nature behind his mask.

 

CT, he didn’t answer you because you knew what kind of person he was, and I didn’t, so I was forced to debate without end and without result.

[Ouroboros]

There is also no evidence for any other dimensions beyond our current universe.

So where is God then? Is he in our universe, under the laws of this universe? Doesn’t that imply that God is a mere product of the universe then? The word Pantheism comes to mind.

 

You have to believe in parallel universes or other dimensions to explain God’s existence. If you claim God exists outside any dimensions…Then I will have the laugh of the year.

[invictus1967]

You say I “claim” you all have “rejected God”. Are any of you here ready to profess there is a God?

 

I do not doubt my faith, but I am not 100% pure faith. I have looked at (and presented here) evidence to support a belief in God. My faith is based on this evidence.

 

I have never once tried to persuade anyone that I or God wanted you to be Christian. I simply presented evidence that this universe had a beginning and thus a Beginner.

 

I will admit that the Ekpyrotic model is the best anyone here has come up with, but since that last post I made concerning it, I have done a little more reading.

 

The original Ekpyrotic model has already been proven to not work and has since been replaced with a cyclic scenario “which also suffers from many problems, including the yet unsolved problem of the cosmological singularity” (Andrei Linde, Stanford University).

 

Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University, one of the guys behind this theory, himself admits that- “Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory”. Notice that he said “unproven ideas”, no mention of any actual evidence.

 

How scientific is it to throw out the evidence in favor of “unproven ideas”?

[Ouroboros]

I admit that I have not researched the The rational for creating this theory is based on the idea that the “Big Bang” theory could not account for the formation of stars, galaxies, and such in our universe. That completely dismisses the documented discoveries of Smoot’s Berkley team.

No it doesn’t dismiss the Smoot’s findings, it complements cosmology with an additional explanation that can be researched and tested. The ripples of time can be explained with the braneworlds. So the EU can actually help define and explain the time ripples, so Smoot should be happy…but no he’s not…because his proof of God went poof.

[Ouroboros]

You say I “claim” you all have “rejected God”.

Yes I do, because of your earlier post, this one:

We are not restricted to the authority of the Bible, we simply choose to accept it. We are “free” to think of a Creator, but we can also reject Him as you have done.

 

Once you reject the Creator, your thoughts are no longer “free”.

 

In regards to our origin, you are not “free” to think in terms of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution. Your thoughts are restricted to those areas because anything beyond them implies God.

 

 

Are any of you here ready to profess there is a God?

You gotta be kidding me! I explained that to you. I opened my heart to explain this to you, and you frigging didn’t read it! You disappoint me mister.

 

I do not doubt my faith, but I am not 100% pure faith. I have looked at (and presented here) evidence to support a belief in God. My faith is based on this evidence.

 

I have never once tried to persuade anyone that I or God wanted you to be Christian. I simply presented evidence that this universe had a beginning and thus a Beginner.

It has a beginning, thus it has a beginning.

 

I will admit that the Ekpyrotic model is the best anyone here has come up with, but since that last post I made concerning it, I have done a little more reading.

 

The original Ekpyrotic model has already been proven to not work and has since been replaced with a cyclic scenario “which also suffers from many problems, including the yet unsolved problem of the cosmological singularity” (Andrei Linde, Stanford University).

No, it’s not proven not to work. The cyclic scenario is older then the braneworlds.

Sure there are problems with it, no one expected it to be perfect, but that is how science works. You test different ideas and new ideas spawn.

 

Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University, one of the guys behind this theory, himself admits that- “Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory”. Notice that he said “unproven ideas”, no mention of any actual evidence.

Very true too, it’s based on unproven ideas in string theory, but he didn’t say string theory is unproven. You have to analyze the written text a little more, and the truth will shine it’s light for you.

 

How scientific is it to throw out the evidence in favor of “unproven ideas”?

You base your evidence of God on the scientific proof of Big Bang. Even Big Bang is a hypothesis and not yet a theory. So do you say that if Big Bang is disproved, that your argument for God suddenly collapses? So God only exists because Big Bang exists?

 

You have to make up your mind if you believe in the scientific process or not. You base you belief on it, but yet you reject it when further steps are taken!

 

Make your frigging mind up!!!

 

***

And to add to the disaster, there are a bunch of other models how the universe came to be. There is the model (the name slips my mind) that the universe has different states, just like water, vapor, liquid and solid. And that before the big bang it was in the solid state, now we're in the vapor state.

 

The other model suggests vacuum bubbles, and could be an explanation to how black holes are created.

[Mr. Neil]

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

 

As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that inflationary theory is based on quantum field theory, a well-established theoretical framework, and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for twenty years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment.

Quote-mining is such a dubious practice. So much time is wasted when we have to go back to the original resource and explain why something has been taken out context.

 

Thankfully, Han has already done that for us...

 

Very true too, it’s based on unproven ideas in string theory, but he didn’t say string theory is unproven.

 

You have to make up your mind if you believe in the scientific process or not. You base you belief on it, but yet you reject it when further steps are taken!

Oh, he's all over the place. He can't decide if he accepts the scientific process or not. He'll accept it in cosmology (to some extent), but he'll reject it if it's biology, for some reason.

 

Science is not a buffet table. Stop treating it like you would the Bible.

[crazy-tiger]

You have to make up your mind if you believe in the scientific process or not. You base you belief on it, but yet you reject it when further steps are taken!

 

Make your frigging mind up!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Han, buddy...

 

He's doing this so that he's getting the best of both worlds.

He'll accept science as long as it confirms his beliefs, but the moment it starts to even suggest that it might contradict those beliefs, he'll reject it.

 

It's a dishonest way of using science, since it decides ahead of time what evidence is right or wrong. It's the Modus Operandi for Creationist Science...

[Amanda]

Hi Lokmer... I certainly get a mental workout hanging out with all you mental gymnist... if it would only tone the body.... ahhhhhhh ....anyway

No, Pantheism is summed up in the statement "All creation is God, and God is all creation."

 

Panentheism says "All creation is God, but God is more than all creation."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One might precede the other. So wouldn't the next step say that God also includes a transcendant part that is separate from creation...

 

Monotheism says "God is transcendant, apart from creation, and a person."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I have a body... all my body is me... yet I am more than just my body... I have an animating force that transcends my body that makes me a living person. Without that animating force in my body, am I no longer me? Perhaps I am just dust. Hqwever... without my body, am I no longer me... or something else? NO ONE knows for sure, although it seems that science is starting to lien towards there is still something that may linger... perhaps our body and 'spirit' are joined by our mind, we have thoughts, we also have an 'awareness' of those thoughts... and perhaps that 'awareness' is the transcendant part?

 

Pantheism and panentheism are both impersonal.  Monotheism is personal. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Each part of creation is rather impersonal to each other part, yet could there be a more personal collective awareness.... as to what has led to our impersonal approach to nature to our now ecological priorities... each part is important and interconnected, therefore making all parts personal?

[invictus1967]

Why didn’t you finish quoting what I wrote? Are you saying you profess a belief there is God? If so, I will apologize for insinuating in any way you had “rejected God”.

 

There is clear evidence to support the universe having a beginning. I can repost all of it AGAIN if you like.

 

As far as Smoot’s findings. When stating why they came up with this theory, Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University said the Big Bang produced “no natural mechanism for making stars, galaxies and larger scale structures in the universe”. That is exactly what Smoot’s findings did provide.

 

Regarding string theory, sure he didn’t call it unproven. But has it been proven??????

 

From the office String Theory website- “String theory predicts possible extra dimensions of spacetime.”

 

The official website says “predicts possible”. Steinhardt didn’t say string theory had not been proven because it is common knowledge (well, you didn’t seem to know this) that it hasn’t been proven.

 

The simple fact that the word THEORY is used means it is UNPROVEN.

 

If it hasn’t been proven, that means (just in case you didn’t know this either) it is UNPROVEN.

[Mr. Neil]

Nothing in science is "proven", you moron.

[Ouroboros]

Why didn’t you finish quoting what I wrote? Are you saying you profess a belief there is God? If so, I will apologize for insinuating in any way you had “rejected God”.

I don’t profess a belief in God.

And again, I explain before that if enough evidence would provide itself I would believe in a deity, but I wouldn’t profess to a theos.

 

Btw, you stated the question:

You say I “claim” you all have “rejected God”. Are any of you here ready to profess there is a God?

So are you preaching and trying to convert us or not?

I didn’t reject God, as I told you.

And I don’t profess to a God.

 

 

There is clear evidence to support the universe having a beginning. I can repost all of it AGAIN if you like.

I know the quotes, and I’ve been giving you quotes too!

 

 

As far as Smoot’s findings. When stating why they came up with this theory, Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University said the Big Bang produced “no natural mechanism for making stars, galaxies and larger scale structures in the universe”. That is exactly what Smoot’s findings did provide.

So you’re saying Big Bang couldn’t have happened? So Big Bang wasn’t the Something after the Nothing then? So maybe there was Not a Nothing before the Something after all, but another explanation exists, so the Kalam argument fails again! Make up your mind! Does the scientific method work or not?

 

And what is natural or supernatural. Quantum Physics are clearly supernatural, so yes, no natural mechanism made start, but the supernatural quantum gravity and whatnots.

 

Is it this George Smoot you’re talking about:

…

Finally, COBE was launched on 18 November 1989. By early 1990, it had confirmed that the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation was a perfect "black body". Then, in 1992, came the discovery of cosmic ripples—the primordial "seeds" of great clusters of galaxies in today's Universe. Everyone was deliriously happy. COBE was arguably the most successful scientific satellite in history. Then the controversy began.

Smoot stunned his colleagues by collaborating with the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory on a press release sent out two days in advance of the NASA embargo. It gave the impression that the work had largely been done by Smoot and Berkeley. It violated a solemn agreement that he had signed along with other members of the COBE team. Later, under intense pressure from his colleagues, Smoot apologised in writing. But the damage had been done. In the eyes of the public, Smoot was COBE.

…

He was a dubious person, in my opinion.

 

 

Regarding string theory, sure he didn’t call it unproven. But has it been proven??????

 

From the office String Theory website- “String theory predicts possible extra dimensions of spacetime.”

 

The official website says “predicts possible”. Steinhardt didn’t say string theory had not been proven because it is common knowledge (well, you didn’t seem to know this) that it hasn’t been proven.

 

The simple fact that the word THEORY is used means it is UNPROVEN.

 

If it hasn’t been proven, that means (just in case you didn’t know this either) it is UNPROVEN.

Regarding string theory, true it’s not proven, but it is the best candidate to explain phenomenon in quantum mechanics. Like one scientist said:

 

String theory is a science in progress; we are still learning new and unexpected things about it everyday. Whether or not string theory actually describes the universe that we live in is not known - yet. As we will see it has remarkable potential to do so.

Btw, you said you’re not trying to convert us to believe in God. Good! That at least settles one part of the discussion. You aggressive confrontational method to argue didn’t leave much to wonder if you were or were not. So now we at least know.

 

My argument is that with multiple plausible explanations to how the universe came to be, there is still no need to make the jump to say God is the only explanation.

 

We have now discussed alternative solutions that have little proof, but have evidence.

 

God is just as plausible and have just as little proof, and the only evidence you provide requires that the scientific data and theories are correct.

 

So why make the jump before the diving board has been built? Scientist doesn’t know if there is a diving board, but you use the diving board to argue God.

 

You base your belief on science and fideism; I base it on science only. Sure I use belief and faith too, but I minimize it to the bare bone, and waiting for the next discovery to come.