What Really Is A "christian" Anyway?

[Max]

Good question. In my churched youth, I was taught that it was anyone who really accepted jezus kryst as their lord and saviour. And you had to be really, really, really serious about it. Many church-goers would be surprised when they found themselves in hell!

 

On the other hand, that definition doesn't fit most of the millions who self-identify as xtian when asked on a survey. Most of them just stick with whatever church their parents took them to, and aren't even familiar with most of the dogma. They attach religion to all sorts of cultural values with little understanding of what it really is at it's core.

 

And when someone who identifies him/herself as a xtian does something unaccepatable, the faithful are quick to point out that that person wasn't a "true christian." As soon as someone's behavior becomes aberrant enough, what they profess to believe is considered irrelevant.

 

So we've got two levels of identification going on here: a general societal definition, and a fundamentalist definition. The big numbers come from the general definition, but those who seek political power based on those numbers are using the fundamentalist definition. No wonder we can't make sense of it all.

[Guest Valk0010]

The same can be said for atheism, no. All beliefs have to stand the test if evidence. No belief gets a free ride.

Two things, I find contradictions between christianity and science regularly. A easy example is not even darwin, but hutton's geology. Plate tectonic's is pretty well undisputed nowadays, but you can't really be a intelligent design advocate and respect hutton's work in geology. It leads to a contradiction even in Christianity. Second I bet their some people who say that there is 100 percent no chance any god can ever exist. You got a point on that, if we are talking about atheism of that variety, most people as far as I am aware say the follow: I don't know if there is no god at all in the universe, but I see no reason to believe in one.

 

As far as the teleological argument, one look at the supposed design and you would have to say that the designer was a moron. Who for example would design a eye if there where a god, that has to have the brain process the sensory information sent to the eye in such a way that we don't see upside down. The sensory information comes into our eye upside down as far as I am aware. No god would think, yep good design. Or how about a example from biology as far as it relates to sexuality, men are designed to continuously create sperm, yet in the society this designer(christian god) wanted(marriage and monogamy) that is totally unnecessary. They are many more examples of this kind of thing that makes me suspect, that if the teleological argument was sound, then those situations wouldn't occur.

 

As far as the kalam arguement, are you being a little arrogant, in determining that we know enough in physics, the grant the arguements key premises. Even the big bang itself is being questioned as a theory and why was there a cause and all that jazz. But since physics in not something I deal well in lets just simply break down the arguement.

 

from the wiki on it I am going to use the classical verison of the argument till you tell me why I shouldnt

 

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
   
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
   
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
   
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)
   

 

Let attack it in reverse order. First there is a argument from ignorance, just because there is no scientific explanation currently, doesn't mean there won't be one. While I don't accept the theory because i need more evidence, for example I find the theory presented by lee smolin fascinating (at least as presented by the bbc horizon episode about what happened before the big bang). Also can you think of a mind that is able to exist without matter, is it a posteriori possible. It may be a priori possible, but so what a lot of falsehoods are. Marxism comes to mind there. Works in theory but not in practice. I am not qualified to hash the debate about how mind is connected, we just currently see no reason as far as I am aware to say that a mind can exist without a brain. Your raising more question then you solve on that point. As far as the universe having a cause to its existence, well define existence and define cause. I will refer to lawerence krauss on this point from if recall his aai 2009 lecture, about how nothing in a physic sense is not a vacuum in the sense that most people are aware. It has physical properties, like the supposed nothing has mass, and there other physical things going on, yet its still for all practical purposes nothing. I do not have the expertise in physics to say what kinds of things existed pre big bang. But if my limited knowledge of it is correct, then in some form or another, the universe has always existed, just in different forms. Some of those forms have been yet discovered. Now as the the universe having a beginning to existence, if it didn't come out of a vacuum the question is how did the proverbial light-switch get flicked on. Positing a theistic answer currently to that would be a god of the gaps.

 

Anyway thoughts on this video, I am curious what you have to say on it

 

[Guest wester]

"Just because something has a social construct does not make it untrue."

 

Like when Winston in 1984 comes to understand that 2+2=5 is true while he is staying in Room 101.

2+2=5 is true because the party says that it is true. That is all you know and all you need to know.

 

You can live your whole life with a cage of rats strapped to your face and believe whatever you are told to believe is true, or you can remove the cage, stand up, open the door and walk out of Room 101.

 

The choice is yours.

 

"That millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make those people sane."

- Erich Fromm

 

Have a nice day

[OrdinaryClay]

The same can be said for atheism, no. All beliefs have to stand the test if evidence. No belief gets a free ride.

Two things, I find contradictions between christianity and science regularly. A easy example is not even darwin, but hutton's geology. Plate tectonic's is pretty well undisputed nowadays, but you can't really be a intelligent design advocate and respect hutton's work in geology.

 

HI Valk0010,

 

ID does not prevent a belief in geological history. I fully believe in an old earth. I believe the earth is 4.5 byo, and the universe is 13.7 byo. So I as a Christian have no conflict with plate tectonics. The doctrine of young earth creationism is not mandated by scripture.

 

As far as the teleological argument, one look at the supposed design and you would have to say that the designer was a moron.

 

 

The teleological argument more properly deals with cosmic fine tunning. This professor deals with the subject very thoroughly. http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/

Here is an excellent paper http://home.messiah....ng/FINETLAY.HTM

This article is good too: http://www.leaderu.c...docs/teleo.html

 

 

As far as the kalam arguement, are you being a little arrogant, in determining that we know enough in physics, the grant the arguements key premises. Even the big bang itself is being questioned as a theory and why was there a cause and all that jazz. But since physics in not something I deal well in lets just simply break down the arguement.

 

from the wiki on it I am going to use the classical verison of the argument till you tell me why I shouldnt

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
   
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
   
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
   
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)
   

 

The KCA deals only with known science agreed to by the majority of physicists. It does not go beyond that. The fact that the universe originated in a singularity is well established empirically and undisputed by physicists. It is important to understand that current physics before the singularity is all speculation (it is not even a theory). It is important to realize that the Christian position deals with science in this case the atheist position deals with speculation.

 

4 is not part of the KCA, the deduction of the KCA is 3. If any Christian used 4 as a reason to believe in God they would be mistaken. The case for a personal creator based on the deduction of the KCA is based on positive reasoning and is not an argument from ignorance.

 

A disembodied mind is explained here via a question from a skeptic: http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=8429

 

Anyway thoughts on this video, I am curious what you have to say on it

The KCA does not deal with the quantum vacuum. Krauss knows this, but is playing word games. The nothing we are talking about in the KCA is no laws of physics and no QV - a true nothing. There is no reason to just assume they have always existed. To assume the universe always existed with no explanation in physics is actually magic in another form.

 

Read this thread regarding Krauss. He is being discredited by knowledgeable non Christians.

http://www.bautforum...s-Create-Matter

 

 

Here is the entire debate between Dr Craig and Krauss in segments. You can pick and choose what you want to listen to.

 

Krauss vs Craig

[bdp]

All beliefs have to stand the test (of) evidence.

 

Yours fails, douchetard.

[Denyoz]

Yours fails, douchetard.

 

douchetard? Baaah ha! ha! ha! ha haaaaaa! One point for the new word.

[Guest Valk0010]

The same can be said for atheism, no. All beliefs have to stand the test if evidence. No belief gets a free ride.

Two things, I find contradictions between christianity and science regularly. A easy example is not even darwin, but hutton's geology. Plate tectonic's is pretty well undisputed nowadays, but you can't really be a intelligent design advocate and respect hutton's work in geology.

 

HI Valk0010,

 

ID does not prevent a belief in geological history. I fully believe in an old earth. I believe the earth is 4.5 byo, and the universe is 13.7 byo. So I as a Christian have no conflict with plate tectonics. The doctrine of young earth creationism is not mandated by scripture.

 

As far as the teleological argument, one look at the supposed design and you would have to say that the designer was a moron.

 

 

The teleological argument more properly deals with cosmic fine tunning. This professor deals with the subject very thoroughly. http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/

Here is an excellent paper http://home.messiah....ng/FINETLAY.HTM

This article is good too: http://www.leaderu.c...docs/teleo.html

 

 

As far as the kalam arguement, are you being a little arrogant, in determining that we know enough in physics, the grant the arguements key premises. Even the big bang itself is being questioned as a theory and why was there a cause and all that jazz. But since physics in not something I deal well in lets just simply break down the arguement.

 

from the wiki on it I am going to use the classical verison of the argument till you tell me why I shouldnt

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
   
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
   
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
   
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)
   

 

The KCA deals only with known science agreed to by the majority of physicists. It does not go beyond that. The fact that the universe originated in a singularity is well established empirically and undisputed by physicists. It is important to understand that current physics before the singularity is all speculation (it is not even a theory). It is important to realize that the Christian position deals with science in this case the atheist position deals with speculation.

 

4 is not part of the KCA, the deduction of the KCA is 3. If any Christian used 4 as a reason to believe in God they would be mistaken. The case for a personal creator based on the deduction of the KCA is based on positive reasoning and is not an argument from ignorance.

 

A disembodied mind is explained here via a question from a skeptic: http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=8429

 

Anyway thoughts on this video, I am curious what you have to say on it

The KCA does not deal with the quantum vacuum. Krauss knows this, but is playing word games. The nothing we are talking about in the KCA is no laws of physics and no QV - a true nothing. There is no reason to just assume they have always existed. To assume the universe always existed with no explanation in physics is actually magic in another form.

 

Read this thread regarding Krauss. He is being discredited by knowledgeable non Christians.

http://www.bautforum...s-Create-Matter

 

 

Here is the entire debate between Dr Craig and Krauss in segments. You can pick and choose what you want to listen to.

 

Krauss vs Craig

I will be succint in answering you about KCA. Craig(I didn't know you would a wlc follower), might as well add the forth point from the classic verison of the argument. Because really he had to make us say that the 4 point the in classical verison is correct. Its playing with words to do anything else. Btw, you accuse Krauss of playing with words, when your doing just that defending KCA and the teleological. Its hypocritical. Your playing with words, by trying to define physic in such a way that I see no reason to define it. You really should include quantum mechanics as a whole when dealing with the KCA. To do otherwise is lying. If there is a quantum nothing before the universe, then the universe didn't come out of a vacuum. Therefore one of the base premises of KCA is mute because the universe has always exist even if was for a time only on the quantum level. The burden of proof is on you, to say that before the singularity whatever it was, there was vacuum nothing. Your going to have to do better then just claim it as a given. Now I seriously doubt seeing as we really only know about C, live currently in around M, that you can't really say much about A and B. B being the singularity and A being before it, that we could even put god in as a explanation. Even what exactly the singularity is, is being debated still. We haven't even begun to truely understand origins as far as I am aware. Even the big bang theory has its issues, like why is the universe expanding at a accelerating rate as a example. You got to prove a ton of shit wrong first before you can do that. If your positing god as a stop gap to not knowing at the moment, your being dishonest. I am not aware of us being at the stage where we can even do that with any real certainty. String theory or m theory comes to mind. These are far from accepted scientific theories. And are barely at the stage where one could call them disproven. To use a historical analogy, as far as physics goes, we are basically at the stage in our level of understanding, where tycho was about astronomy. Burden of proof is on you, to say otherwise. All I am saying is I don't think we know enough to even grant KCA's basic premises about physics. Reading a little bit more about this subject, I had another thought. Did energy all of the sudden come out out of nothing as well. If your right, it did. But if energy can't be destroyed, only converted, then it would have to been as some level conserved. If it also can only be converted now, who says it could have not just been always converted. That does sort of fly in the face of the idea of a universe from vacuum nothing. Even if krauss is wrong, which I will have to look more into, he has the basis premise correct i think, the universe didn't come out of a vacuum. You had to have something there to have the singularity, but what is that something, what was its properties? You may call it speculation, I call it thinking about the forefront of human knowledge. Sure it may be speculation, but throwing god in, is cowardice.

 

I am not a dualist in the classical sense. It really doesn't cut it for me to say that its apriori possible for a mind to exist without matter. Is sophistry to ignore a simple fact, we have no evidence of a mind existing without a brain. Are minds are dependent on our brains based of what is currently been scene.. Its shakey, to say that the supposed creator of the universe, was a mind without a body because we have no evidence of that existing. I am not even making a argument against there existence. I am not even saying we have prove that its impossible. But just because something is possible doesn't mean it happens. I am not even saying, no it can't happen it may happen a 100 years from now for all I know. Just why believe something exists without evidence. You can create just about anything you want, but does that mean it actually exists. I am making a bit different argument then Craig was trying to answer.

 

As far as the telological arguement, so what if it only applies to physics, I guess the designer only worked on physics questions in his head. If a designer designed from a physics standpoint, there is no real rational reason to say wouldn't apply the same fine tuning to biology. One follows the other, if it would have happened in physics it would have happened in geology.

 

As far as hutton's geology, yes it really does only work for creationism. But its my view that Christianity only supports young earth creationismism unless it decides to be dishonest. So I guess Paul really meant jesus was the second mythological figure named adam. You can't really get more plainer then that. Old earth creationism is a form of special pleading as far as I am concerned.

[Tealeaf]

I do believe special revelation, such as the Bible, is evidence for God, but I also have spent a lot of time studying natural theology. I find the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument the most convincing, but there are others as well.

 

Why is the bible anything special? There is NOTHING - not a single thing - ancient middle eastern desert dwellers couldn't have written into it. It's contradictory in numerous places. It's plainly wrong hundreds of times. It's full of all sorts of evil and primtive things you yourself would not do today. And it makes absolutely no reference to any of the advanced scientific principles of today you want to use to defend it. And..no one has shown up in oh....about ~2000 years to update it's claims.

 

"Special revelation" So in other words, you believe in whatever bullshit you want to believe in. Seriously as an adult, how can you think this is intellectually honest? People specially "reveal" all sorts of things. David Koresh did. Why aren't you on your knees to him? The Jesus story isn't much different.... A guy makes nutty claims that get him and his cult members killed.

 

I won't get into the 'arguments' as others have already taken it.

 

Actually I've studied heavily in all the relevant sciences. I've found no contradictions with my faith in Jesus Christ.

 

The stupid! It burns!

 

I don't even know where to begin on how bubble-thoughted and bullshit-riddled this is. Let's just say you have studied 'heavily' in the 'relevant' sciences (though I'm skeptical of what in particular, because religion is at odds with an aweful lot of science, and what you consider 'heavily'). So what? It doesn't matter what you study, you're always going to be looking out for Number 1: YOUR faith in your invisible dead zombie lord. What you're boasting is your ability to compartmentalize whatever it is you supposedly learn and not let it affect your faith.

 

Also, you've already shot any credibility you might have had in the back of the head within this same reply post. You believe in "special" revelation.... In other words special pleading. So of course with all your own "special" ways to look at things you aren't going to find any contradictions.

 

Furthermore, you believe in a supposed person you've never met and for which there is no physical/verifiable evidence. You believe in magical claims written of him; not even BY him. You believe in another plain of existence which we cannot verify or test, but somehow has implications on us here. This is all intellectually dishonest to the core.

 

The same can be said for atheism, no. All beliefs have to stand the test if evidence. No belief gets a free ride.

 

And your beliefs do not stand the test of evidence. You'll say there's evidence.... But then what you present will be like delivering a plastic Hotwheels car to a customer expecting a brand-new Ferrari. If you think the bible is evidence for anything, your standards of evidence are pretty flimsy. You wouldn't just go believing the claims of any other ancient text(s). But you do it with the bible and are dishonest enough to go making excuses for it. I'm sure you dabble in the 'this is a metaphor, this is literal, etc. etc.' bullshitery too because....you know....by faith. Goodie.

 

Atheism is about not presenting claims for which there is no evidence. There's no "free-ride." Just honesty in NOT proposing things for which there is no evidence or reason to do so. Such as practically everything in the bible.... Or any other religious text. All of theism has no reality outside the minds of human beings who WANT it to have a place, or were programmed with it from youth. And sure we can get really existential and say that about anything.... But then you'd be playing word games again. I'm sure just about every other living thing on this planet wouldn't give a flying fuck if humans vanished; taking their beliefs and propositions about the invisible and the imaginary with them.

 

Finally, of all this science you've supposedly been studying, I must point out that you must have skipped over the Abnormal Psychology texts what with your heavily Abe-gasmic professings of faith. How does what happened to Abraham in his - personal - 'revelation' NOT a classic description of schizophrenia? Forget trying to apply bible fairytales to modern science, we've all seen that load of "special" bullshit before. Why don't you try comparing Abraham or Abram (before he had another name-changing bout of schizophrenia) to some mental health standards?

[OrdinaryClay]

I will be succint in answering you about KCA.

The KCA does deal with QM. QM results from the laws of physics. The vacuum, and the nothing Krauss is talking about, is the quantum vacuum(did you read the link at bautforum I gave you were Krauss was dismantled by non Christians). The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created. There is no physics yet that describes how the laws of physics came into existence. - "and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it" -- Alan Guth This guy is no Christian, but he is an eminent MIT cosmologist.

 

As far as hutton's geology, yes it really does only work for creationism. But its my view that Christianity only supports young earth creationismism unless it decides to be dishonest.

You are mistaken.

[OrdinaryClay]

The same can be said for atheism, no. All beliefs have to stand the test if evidence. No belief gets a free ride.

And your beliefs do not stand the test of evidence. You'll say there's evidence....

Yes, I do have evidence, and I've watched the evidence I believe in defeat multiple attempts by professional atheists to overcome this evidence and they have teetered around and fallen. Oh, sure, they'll huff an puff about how unfair the debate was, but when you listen to their words it is like being presented with a plastic Hotwheels when expecting a brand-new Ferrari.

[Guest Valk0010]

I will be succint in answering you about KCA.

The KCA does deal with QM. QM results from the laws of physics. The vacuum, and the nothing Krauss is talking about, is the quantum vacuum(did you read the link at bautforum I gave you were Krauss was dismantled by non Christians). The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created. There is no physics yet that describes how the laws of physics came into existence. - "and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it" -- Alan Guth This guy is no Christian, but he is an eminent MIT cosmologist.

 

As far as hutton's geology, yes it really does only work for creationism. But its my view that Christianity only supports young earth creationismism unless it decides to be dishonest.

You are mistaken.

As far as me being mistaken, how so? As to the KCA, I think I have only one point left to state, because what you CLAIM to be certainity. And will use that link criticizing krauss to make my point.

 

He is speculating, pure and simple. NO ONE knows the conditions at the Big Bang and NO ONE knows how to apply quantum mechanics or anything else to that particular point in space-time.

I would add, even christian apologists or people like you are doing the exact same thing. Speculating. I will concede the point that krauss may well be wrong, I admitted that earlier I thought (I don't know enough to make a claim either way, I have never even taken a physics class even in high school). Which is why I try to avoid the physics aspects of the KCA. This why I I think the jury is still out on the basic premises of KCA in regards to physics (the no one knows bit). Not to mention the bit about minds existing without needing matter. Its why I keep mentioning the argument from ignorance, maybe in 200 years the KCA will have evidence behind it and not be a logic toy alone. But right now, its still hasn't. A argument needs to have evidence weight not just logic weight. As iirc Hawking once said, we don't know what happened before the big bang. The little research I understand in the subject says even more, that we don't even know for certain what happened a few seconds after the big bang. How the hell can we say the KCA is valid if that is true. There is just not evidence to support it yet. I am not saying even its been disproven. There is just not enough to say either way from that perspective. If you going to accuse me of speculation, I better accuse you of it too, its another problem with KCA as far as I am concerned, it can't tell us anything about the designer. I was once a deist because of things like KCA. The flaw in my thinking there was you can't without total speculation even talk about what that designer is. Say its a computer, with only two capabilities, create and destroy. That computer could exist for all time, just doing those two things and we have multiple universes happen again and again, over and over and we are just universe M or something like that. Under KCA that can be possible. Doesn't mean its true. Or it could be the christian god, you just can't really know. You would of course probably say that something had to create that computer, I would say the same with god. If your wanting to avoid speculation and possibility and look for real answers, the KCA is not the way to go. Its the reason I say, I don't know how the universe came into existence, but I don't think you do either. There may be a god of some sort that was a first cause, gave us half ass fine tuning, and gave ethics and logic( I would say at best we only need a god for the first one if we need one at all). Deism is a fallacy because it says that just because we don't know there has to be a god. Again burden of proof is on you, to say we have all the answers we need and should just say fuck it and become god believers, rather then waiting for more evidence in spite of ignorance. I have yet to see it from anyone.

 

 

As far as young earth creationism. How you explain Paul in referring to adam? How is adam a historical figure, yet, what happened on each day of creation, mythology or factually inaccurate. I get the argument about how supposedly a day doesn't mean a day, but that doesn't change the issue. Either the story is factually true or it isn't. Either it happened as the bible stated exactly or it didn't at all as far as I am concerned.

[Guest Valk0010]

The same can be said for atheism, no. All beliefs have to stand the test if evidence. No belief gets a free ride.

And your beliefs do not stand the test of evidence. You'll say there's evidence....

Yes, I do have evidence, and I've watched the evidence I believe in defeat multiple attempts by professional atheists to overcome this evidence and they have teetered around and fallen. Oh, sure, they'll huff an puff about how unfair the debate was, but when you listen to their words it is like being presented with a plastic Hotwheels when expecting a brand-new Ferrari.

Not convincing me so far, though I am sure you will pull the WLC defense and call it a smokescreen and say I am close minded.

[BrotherJosh]

Read this thread regarding Krauss. He is being discredited by knowledgeable non Christians.

http://www.bautforum...s-Create-Matter

 

Right....http://www.nsf.gov/n...g=NSF&from=news

 

WLC and his Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sham. The guy is a huckster, a snake oil salesman who happens to be talented at debating. It's Ontololgy dressed up in scientific words. Putting lipstick on a pig is a good comparison. Much like how Deepak Chopra sprinkles his talks with random scientific words, Craig does the same.

 

You are mistaken.

[Guest Valk0010]

Read this thread regarding Krauss. He is being discredited by knowledgeable non Christians.

http://www.bautforum...s-Create-Matter

 

Right....http://www.nsf.gov/n...g=NSF&from=news

 

WLC and his Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sham. The guy is a huckster, a snake oil salesman who happens to be talented at debating. It's Ontololgy dressed up in scientific words. Putting lipstick on a pig is a good comparison. Much like how Deepak Chopra sprinkles his talks with random scientific words, Craig does the same.

 

You are mistaken.

 

Kant contends that the cosmological argument, in identifying the necessary being, relies on the ontological argument, which in turn is suspect.

That quote isn't intended to you directly josh its just backing up with point with a philisopher that is liked by christians.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

[Guest Valk0010]

Ohh and to the point of everything having a beginning at some point, even energy. Clay, proof please!

 

You may say some of my questions are irrelevant, but you can't have it both ways. You can't establish god is a cause, without eliminating any option for a natural cause. Far as I can see we are not even close to being able to start picking off enough natural explanations to put god in.

[OrdinaryClay]

Not convincing me so far, ...

That's not my job.

[bornagainathiest]

I will be succint in answering you about KCA.

The KCA does deal with QM. QM results from the laws of physics. The vacuum, and the nothing Krauss is talking about, is the quantum vacuum(did you read the link at bautforum I gave you were Krauss was dismantled by non Christians). The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created. There is no physics yet that describes how the laws of physics came into existence. - "and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it" -- Alan Guth This guy is no Christian, but he is an eminent MIT cosmologist.

 

As far as hutton's geology, yes it really does only work for creationism. But its my view that Christianity only supports young earth creationismism unless it decides to be dishonest.

You are mistaken.

 

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

 

Alan Guth, huh?

 

Would this be the same Alan Guth who's an eminent MIT cosmologist and who wrote this paper, building on the work that you've cited...?

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

 

Eternal Inflation and it's Implications?

 

Well, here's an implication of eternal inflation for you, then.

 

If the universe continues to inflate eternally, then all possible conditions within the inflating region must eventually be realized. And not just once, nor many times but an infinitely-recurring number of times. Therefore, the Earth will be replicated infinitely, as will you and I and every event that ever happened in our history - such as the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

St. Augustine touched open this in his work, The City of God, but found the idea of Christ dying more than once unacceptable and therefore awarded this planet a special status, making it central to Creation and the only place where God was incarnated as Jesus.

 

So which is it, OC?

Are you cherry-picking only what you need from Guth's work or will you accept the full implications of all of it?

 

BAA.

 

 

p.s.

Are you serious?

That physicists agree that the quantum vacuum must have been 'created'?

Since when do physicists invoke supernatural causes for natural phenomena?

That's not within the remit of science, as you know, I know and they well know - so please cite where these 'agreeing' physicists attribute the origin of the quantum vacuum to a Creator!

[bornagainathiest]

From the Alan Guth page that OC links to...

 

"Although Guth's initial proposal was flawed (as he pointed out in his original paper), the flaw was soon overcome by the invention of "new inflation," by Andrei Linde in the Soviet Union and independently by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt in the US. After more than 20 years of development and scrutiny the evidence for the inflationary universe model now looks better than ever."

 

So what is this "new inflation", OC?

Is it this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation ...maybe?

Or this... http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf ...?

 

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

 

More from OC's link...

"Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Inflation has ended in our part of the universe, but very far away one expects that inflation is continuing, and will continue forever. Is it possible, then, that inflation is also eternal into the past? Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it."

 

Now, what OC's done is to crop the above paragraph down to the last seventeen words and then to deliberately take the word, 'creation' out of it's context and put his own deceitful spin on it.

 

OC wrote...

The KCA does deal with QM. QM results from the laws of physics. The vacuum, and the nothing Krauss is talking about, is the quantum vacuum(did you read the link at bautforum I gave you were Krauss was dismantled by non Christians). The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created. There is no physics yet that describes how the laws of physics came into existence. - "and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it" -- Alan Guth This guy is no Christian, but he is an eminent MIT cosmologist.

 

Here's how OC constructed his deceit.

 

1.

Guth, Vilenkin and Borde were examining the question, 'is the universe past-eternal?' Meaning, was there something (physical and natural, not supernatural) that somehow came before the Big Bang event. They concluded that the inflating region of spacetime (our universe) must have a past boundary. That boundary is the Big Bang event. It's a kind of brick wall that prevents us from gaining any information from 'beyond' or 'before' that boundary. Guth et al have simply concluded that there is currently no physics that can address the question of what came before. That is all they do.

 

2.

They then speculate that a new physics is required to understand how the cosmos came into being. Unfortunately this is phrased used the words, "...perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed." Here the word creation is being used purely in it's secular and scientific context, without any kind of religious, theological or metaphysical inference of a Creating God. But OC sees his chance!

 

3.

He writes... "The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created."

But what these physicists are not saying is that this First Cause is anything other than a NATURAL one. Being physicists, it's not within their remit to draw supernatural conclusions. Nor is it within their remit to even make supernatural speculations. That is why I've called OC out and asked him to show me where these physicists go beyond speculating about a NATURAL cause and instead talk about a supernatural one.

 

4.

If any physicist of Guth's, Vilenkin's or Borde's stature did invoke a supernatural Creator to explain the existence of the universe this would be BIG NEWS! Blogs and forums all across the Internet would be buzzing about it. It would be in the press, on tv and on radio. It would be world news.

Also, there would be questions raised at the universities where they hold they tenures. Serious questions about why they've deviatied from their scientific study of NATURAL causes and veered into supernaturalism.

None of this has happened. So, what OC is trying to do here is to quietly and cleverly introduce the notion that these physicists are considering the possibility of a supernatural Creator God, when they clearly are not.

 

5.

OC introduces the false idea in this sentence... "The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created." ...when they don't. He puts his false claim first and then rounds off with Guth's authorative-sounding, but out-of-context quote. (see #2), making it look as if Guth backs up his position. This is not so. Neither Guth nor any of the mentioned physicists do anything of the sort.

 

Instead, OC has craftily twisted their words to his own dishonest ends.

 

Yes, folks!

 

The Christian apologist is lying!

 

Please spread the word.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

p.s.

Above the dotted line I ask OC if he holds to ALL of Alan Guth's cosmological theories. If he is dealing honestly he should and should therefore accept that Guth's work indicates an ETERNALLY inflating universe. If he takes some of Guth's work but not all of it, that is cherry-picking!

[♦ ficino ♦]

Not convincing me so far, ...

That's not my job.

We're debating the Kalaam argument again?

[Thackerie]

You've picked the god of an ancient character of fiction and aligned yourself with it. Please, sir, tell me how that is any different than picking any other of the plethora of gods (equally invisible) humanity has cooked up....

 

I do believe special revelation, such as the Bible, is evidence for God, but I also have spent a lot of time studying natural theology. I find the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument the most convincing, but there are others as well.

 

Do you deny all of history outside of anything the bible says? Do you squish the vastness of the universe into the bible's little picture?

 

Actually I've studied heavily in all the relevant sciences. I've found no contradictions with my faith in Jesus Christ.

 

Do you not find it perplexing that billions of people have lived and died believing in all sorts of things different than you but just as hard as you? Do you not find it kind of shallow to assume you have the answers to everything, or an acceptable embrace of ignorance as a virtue by faith before you're presented with any situation?

 

The same can be said for atheism, no. All beliefs have to stand the test if evidence. No belief gets a free ride.

 

So, then, atheism gets a free ride since atheism means no belief (in gods). And that is all it means, despite whatever indoctrination you may have swallowed that says anything otherwise.

[OrdinaryClay]

From the Alan Guth page that OC links to...

 

"Although Guth's initial proposal was flawed (as he pointed out in his original paper), the flaw was soon overcome by the invention of "new inflation," by Andrei Linde in the Soviet Union and independently by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt in the US. After more than 20 years of development and scrutiny the evidence for the inflationary universe model now looks better than ever."

 

So what is this "new inflation", OC?

Is it this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation ...maybe?

Or this... http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf ...?

 

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

 

More from OC's link...

"Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Inflation has ended in our part of the universe, but very far away one expects that inflation is continuing, and will continue forever. Is it possible, then, that inflation is also eternal into the past? Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it."

 

Now, what OC's done is to crop the above paragraph down to the last seventeen words and then to deliberately take the word, 'creation' out of it's context and put his own deceitful spin on it.

 

OC wrote...

The KCA does deal with QM. QM results from the laws of physics. The vacuum, and the nothing Krauss is talking about, is the quantum vacuum(did you read the link at bautforum I gave you were Krauss was dismantled by non Christians). The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created. There is no physics yet that describes how the laws of physics came into existence. - "and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it" -- Alan Guth This guy is no Christian, but he is an eminent MIT cosmologist.

 

Here's how OC constructed his deceit.

 

1.

Guth, Vilenkin and Borde were examining the question, 'is the universe past-eternal?' Meaning, was there something (physical and natural, not supernatural) that somehow came before the Big Bang event. They concluded that the inflating region of spacetime (our universe) must have a past boundary. That boundary is the Big Bang event. It's a kind of brick wall that prevents us from gaining any information from 'beyond' or 'before' that boundary. Guth et al have simply concluded that there is currently no physics that can address the question of what came before. That is all they do.

 

2.

They then speculate that a new physics is required to understand how the cosmos came into being. Unfortunately this is phrased used the words, "...perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed." Here the word creation is being used purely in it's secular and scientific context, without any kind of religious, theological or metaphysical inference of a Creating God. But OC sees his chance!

 

3.

He writes... "The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created."

But what these physicists are not saying is that this First Cause is anything other than a NATURAL one. Being physicists, it's not within their remit to draw supernatural conclusions. Nor is it within their remit to even make supernatural speculations. That is why I've called OC out and asked him to show me where these physicists go beyond speculating about a NATURAL cause and instead talk about a supernatural one.

 

4.

If any physicist of Guth's, Vilenkin's or Borde's stature did invoke a supernatural Creator to explain the existence of the universe this would be BIG NEWS! Blogs and forums all across the Internet would be buzzing about it. It would be in the press, on tv and on radio. It would be world news.

Also, there would be questions raised at the universities where they hold they tenures. Serious questions about why they've deviatied from their scientific study of NATURAL causes and veered into supernaturalism.

None of this has happened. So, what OC is trying to do here is to quietly and cleverly introduce the notion that these physicists are considering the possibility of a supernatural Creator God, when they clearly are not.

 

5.

OC introduces the false idea in this sentence... "The point is that even physicists agree this must have been created." ...when they don't. He puts his false claim first and then rounds off with Guth's authorative-sounding, but out-of-context quote. (see #2), making it look as if Guth backs up his position. This is not so. Neither Guth nor any of the mentioned physicists do anything of the sort.

 

Instead, OC has craftily twisted their words to his own dishonest ends.

 

Yes, folks!

 

The Christian apologist is lying!

 

Please spread the word.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

p.s.

Above the dotted line I ask OC if he holds to ALL of Alan Guth's cosmological theories. If he is dealing honestly he should and should therefore accept that Guth's work indicates an ETERNALLY inflating universe. If he takes some of Guth's work but not all of it, that is cherry-picking!

 

I never insinuated, implied, suggested or stated that Guth believed the creation was supernatural. His sentence is self-explanatory - "and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation,". He states plainly that he is talking about physics which is not supernatural. If you had read the context of my comments you would have seen I'm simply pointing out the universe is not eternal and we need an explanation for how it began. Atheists think is was through physics, as in Guth, theists think it was supernatural.

 

Your accusations get boring.

[bdp]

 

Your accusations get boring.

 

Nowhere NEAR as much as you do.

[bdp]

Not convincing me so far, ...

That's not my job.

 

NOW who doesn't know their bible?

[bornagainathiest]

(Snip)

 

I never insinuated, implied, suggested or stated that Guth believed the creation was supernatural. His sentence is self-explanatory - "and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation,". He states plainly that he is talking about physics which is not supernatural. If you had read the context of my comments you would have seen I'm simply pointing out the universe is not eternal and we need an explanation for how it began. Atheists think is was through physics, as in Guth, theists think it was supernatural.

 

Your accusations get boring.

 

Well I'm (not) real sorry to be boring you, OC!

 

On the other hand...

 

...if you're not too bored, maybe you could make the effort to reply to these questions?

 

This is copied from above. Please don't ignore or dismiss them again. If you do that people'll think your trying to avoid something.

 

So what is this "new inflation", OC?

Is it this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation ...maybe?

Or this... http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf ...?

 

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

 

OC wrote...

"I'm simply pointing out the universe is not eternal..."

 

Izzat so?

Seems to me that your asserting something that contradicts this 'New Inflation' that Guth, Linde and the others are exploring. You say (as if stating a fact) that the universe is not eternal. Why is it then that Guth et al talk in terms of Eternal Inflation?

 

Specifically, why is it that you seem reluctant to talk about any of the theological implications of Guth's model of Eternal Inflation? You're a smart guy and you know what they are, so why won't you go there?

Guth himself says... "Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely.

 

Really?

So that means the universe has been inflating (at a super-luminal and exponential rate) from the Big Bang event, up until now and will continue to do so - forever? So our observable universe is just a microscopic part of any ever-growing whole. And that would mean a never-ending universe filled with galaxies and planets and life, just like our own. Intelligent, self-aware, morally-conscious life. Life that's capable of free and unforced decisions to do good or to do evil.

 

Ooops!

But if they do choose to do evil, how can God possibly save them from their sins? Maybe He should incarnate Himself as one of them and take their punishment, just as He did on Earth? Then He'd have to die for as many alien races as populate the eternally-inflating universe. Wow! That's a never-ending job, if ever there was one.

 

Guth's work has some interesting theological implications, eh?

Seems to me that you're selecting certain aspects of his work while being totally silent about those that don't. Why is that, I wonder? Please explain.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[pratt]

sorry to enter the fray at this stage,,,,

 

who/what is a REAL Christianity?

 

It is one who believes that Jesus died for your sins. (Terms and conditions apply)