Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Big Bang Never Happened?


Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

Accepted, BC.

 

With regard to the purpose of Ex-C as a whole and this sub-forum in particular, the discussions take place with the understanding that scientific issues are raised in relation to theological ones.  The two go hand-in-hand.  Please recall our dialog, to appreciate what I'm describing here.  We've talked about things cosmological and the theological/religious outworkings of the science.  Never just about science for science's sake.  Does that help?

 

For a worked example of what I mean, please go to the Testimonies area and look at the thread, "A Hindu Converts to Christianity and Recognizes His Error."  This was Bhim's very first post.  Now, he's joined Ex-Christian.net because he's an Ex-Christian, not because he's an astrophysicist.  When he contributes to the science in the Science vs. Religion sub-forum, he's doing to so... TO ENCOURAGE THOSE LEAVING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH ...just as he's done.

 

This doesn't apply to Forrest Noble.  He's not an Ex-Christian.  He's not even considering deconverting from Christianity.  He's only here for the science.  Or in his case... HIS science.  So, even though he was invited, his reasons for being here have nothing to do with Christianity at all.  Do you see the difference between him and Bhim?  He's not here to receive help in deconversion nor is he here to serve others in their deconversion.  He's here to serve himself and his own ends. Period.

 

Now, a word or two hundred about the rudeness and hostility of certain Ex-Christian members of this forum.

 

Here's three examples of what we tolerant and respectful people are up against.

 

1. The Stranger.

This 'Authentic Christian Believer' first posted in the thread, 'Why Do You Remain a Christian?' (The Lion's Den) on April 18, 2010.

Today, he's still banging his drum!  We're now on page #135 and on message # 2689.  Ok, not all of that is down to him, but he's still there - trying to save our souls and has been plugging away for years...never, ever giving up.  What are we to do in the face of such fanaticism?  Humor him?  Ignore him?  Challenge him?  Whatever we do decide to do, we can't just ban him - because he hasn't broken any rules.  We're stuck with him and probably will be for a long time to come.  The point for you to take onboard here, BC is that even 'good' Christians with noble intentions end up becoming monsters because their faith is absolute.  It's a mistake to assume the best about anyone on the Internet.  Assuming nothing is much safer.

 

2. Thumbelina.

This Soapbox Christian used confidential information from the Extimony forum in her attempts to evangelize a new member, who was trying hard to deconvert from Christianity.  She read the Guidelines (please go to the Testimonies sub-forum) and realized that Christians were forbidden to post there.  So, she sidestepped that ruling and 'lifted' private information from there in her mission to save this person's soul.  Another case of true belief justifying evil-doing.  These days she's confined to the Lion's Den, to prevent her from abusing and harming anyone else.  When she does 'pop' up, those of us on watch put out an alert about her - to spare the unwary from being hurt by her.

 

3. Rayskidude.

I caught this Creationist lying, broadcast the fact and exposed him for the hypocrite he is.  He's no longer active in Ex-C, but that doesn't mean he won't return.  He was another one of those never-give-an-inch Christians who would just go on and on and on and on, trying to win arguments by wearing the opposition down.  Please be on your guard, should you see that name.

 

4.

OrdinaryClay.

I've already warned you against this fanatic, BC.  He's been active (and been banned) in a dozen forums and there's no sign he's going to let up in his role as God's Policeman, any time soon.  His stated purpose is to hold people like us, intellectually and spiritually accountable to God.  He uses (his version of) logic and (his version of) reason to cut down anyone in his path.  Ditto, when it comes to evidence and scientific data.  And quotations from scripture.  Only what he says is ever valid.  There is no compromising or negotiating with him.  He only ever cuts people down and never builds anyone up.  Beware of him!

 

BC, I cite these examples to show you that members like T2M and myself know and recognize the dangers to be found across cyberspace.  We've dealt with hucksters, liars and two-faced do-gooders.  So, it's hardly surprising if we come across as harsh and insulting to those we know to be untrustworthy, is it?

 

A good rule to follow, imho, is to only trust those who've earned your trust.  I'm not saying that everyone else is out to get you.  Nope.  Just exercise a little more caution, that's all. Ok?

 

Gotta go now.  Be back later.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Accepted, BC.

With regard to the purpose of Ex-C as a whole and this sub-forum in particular, the discussions take place with the understanding that scientific issues are raised in relation to theological ones. The two go hand-in-hand. Please recall our dialog, to appreciate what I'm describing here. We've talked about things cosmological and the theological/religious outworkings of the science. Never just about science for science's sake. Does that help? Yes. I'd completely lost track of this and was just concentrating on the science. I certainly won't forget this again.

For a worked example of what I mean, please go to the Testimonies area and look at the thread, "A Hindu Converts to Christianity and Recognizes His Error." This was Bhim's very first post. Now, he's joined Ex-Christian.net because he's an Ex-Christian, not because he's an astrophysicist. When he contributes to the science in the Science vs. Religion sub-forum, he's doing to so... TO ENCOURAGE THOSE LEAVING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH ...just as he's done.

This doesn't apply to Forrest Noble. He's not an Ex-Christian. He's not even considering deconverting from Christianity. He's only here for the science. Or in his case... HIS science. So, even though he was invited, his reasons for being here have nothing to do with Christianity at all. Do you see the difference between him and Bhim? Yes. He's not here to receive help in deconversion nor is he here to serve others in their deconversion. He's here to serve himself and his own ends. Period.

Now, a word or two hundred about the rudeness and hostility of certain Ex-Christian members of this forum.

Here's three examples of what we tolerant and respectful people are up against.

1. The Stranger.
This 'Authentic Christian Believer' first posted in the thread, 'Why Do You Remain a Christian?' (The Lion's Den) on April 18, 2010.
Today, he's still banging his drum! We're now on page #135 and on message # 2689. Ok, not all of that is down to him, but he's still there - trying to save our souls and has been plugging away for years...never, ever giving up. What are we to do in the face of such fanaticism? Humor him? Ignore him? Challenge him? Whatever we do decide to do, we can't just ban him - because he hasn't broken any rules. We're stuck with him and probably will be for a long time to come. The point for you to take onboard here, BC is that even 'good' Christians with noble intentions end up becoming monsters because their faith is absolute. It's a mistake to assume the best about anyone on the Internet. Assuming nothing is much safer.

2. Thumbelina.
This Soapbox Christian used confidential information from the Extimony forum in her attempts to evangelize a new member, who was trying hard to deconvert from Christianity. She read the Guidelines (please go to the Testimonies sub-forum) and realized that Christians were forbidden to post there. So, she sidestepped that ruling and 'lifted' private information from there in her mission to save this person's soul. Another case of true belief justifying evil-doing. These days she's confined to the Lion's Den, to prevent her from abusing and harming anyone else. When she does 'pop' up, those of us on watch put out an alert about her - to spare the unwary from being hurt by her.

3. Rayskidude.
I caught this Creationist lying, broadcast the fact and exposed him for the hypocrite he is. He's no longer active in Ex-C, but that doesn't mean he won't return. He was another one of those never-give-an-inch Christians who would just go on and on and on and on, trying to win arguments by wearing the opposition down. Please be on your guard, should you see that name.

4.
OrdinaryClay.
I've already warned you against this fanatic, BC. He's been active (and been banned) in a dozen forums and there's no sign he's going to let up in his role as God's Policeman, any time soon. His stated purpose is to hold people like us, intellectually and spiritually accountable to God. He uses (his version of) logic and (his version of) reason to cut down anyone in his path. Ditto, when it comes to evidence and scientific data. And quotations from scripture. Only what he says is ever valid. There is no compromising or negotiating with him. He only ever cuts people down and never builds anyone up. Beware of him!

BC, I cite these examples to show you that members like T2M and myself know and recognize the dangers to be found across cyberspace. We've dealt with hucksters, liars and two-faced do-gooders. So, it's hardly surprising if we come across as harsh and insulting to those we know to be untrustworthy, is it? I'm struggling to appreciate what you say here. I understand people like that need to be dealt with and challenged etc. I don't understand why you should be insulting. When I was accused of shitting on the memory of dead people, I was devasted and so angry that I wanted to reply 'you fucking wanker' but I didn't (it's good to get that off my chest now). Is this 'harsh and insulting' behaviour I've received because I'm perceived as a huckster, liar or two-faced do gooder?

A good rule to follow, imho, is to only trust those who've earned your trust. I'm not saying that everyone else is out to get you. Nope. Just exercise a little more caution, that's all. Ok?
I go with the flow of the discussion at hand, and then over time you build up a history of how someone responds and how their personality is. Some people come across as decent , friendly and helpful early on (like yourself). If I say something that you don't agree with, from my experience of corresponding with you so far, I am sure you won't reply in a sarcastic or personally attacking way, even when you have to really lay the law down, like earlier. You were firm but still courteous. I really can't handle people who ooze hostility, sarcasm and who attack you personally. I ignore people like that.

Gotta go now. Be back later.

Thanks,

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought2much,

 

Sounds like sarcasm to me :(  But if my theories or anybody else's theories are correct and if mainsteam theory is wrong, then obviously the one with the correct theory has "a better understanding of the universe than actual cosmologists," in your words yellow.gif  Wow, lots of cool new emoticons here.

 

 

By the way, observations have already contradicted your "theory" even before the James Webb telescope goes up,

 

How so? What aspect of my theory are you referring to? Do you know of any observational links that you think contradict aspects of my model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought2much,

 

Sounds like sarcasm to me sad.png  But if my theories or anybody else's theories are correct and if mainsteam theory is wrong, then obviously the one with the correct theory has "a better understanding of the universe than actual cosmologists," in your words yellow.gif  Wow, lots of cool new emoticons here.

 

 

By the way, observations have already contradicted your "theory" even before the James Webb telescope goes up,

 

How so? What aspect of my theory are you referring to? Do you know of any observational links that you think contradict aspects of my model?

 

Sorry, but I refuse to engage in a discussion with someone who has lied to everyone on this forum in his first post and several posts thereafter about how he got here. You have proven yourself incapable of being truthful, even if your "theory" had the slightest bit of merit (which it doesn't), and as such you deserve no more of my time, nor do you deserve the time of anyone else here. You have poisoned this well through your own lies. Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info bornagainatheist,


 

This may be a little cynical :(  Although I am an atheist like yourself, I go to church sometimes, Christian, and like to sing the songs and talk to people, even listen to the sermons and benefit from the related philosophy. Most know that I am an "infidel" but invite me anyway and usually don't question me, but if so I make a joke of it and will not argue with them. 

 

My life does not solely involve my "own purposes." I am involved in two charities. In one I am on the Board of Directors and the treasurer: Better Vision for Children Foundation, presently USA and Mexico, and the other SRAI Foundation,  a foundation to help the rural poor of India. I myself am a WASP type Caucasian, not married, 69 years old, a vegetarian and womanizer yellow.gif   I also wrote another book that I hope to finish and publish next year called Living in Symbiosis, a how-to book on "happy living" (no religion).

 

After reading the theme of this forum, I will now interject ideas of Religion vs. Science in future postings in this thread, to conform with the intent of this sub-forum/ category :) I do enjoy helping others, especially explaining ideas which might improve their life outlook and resultant happiness.

 

regards,  Forrest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, but I refuse to engage in a discussion with someone who has lied to everyone on this forum in his first post and several posts thereafter about how he got here.

 

Sorry that you have a poor opinion of me, but I expect it will not take long for you to change your opinion  :)

 

regards,  Forrest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forrest- I don't believe your intentions are dishonorable. I recall you were helpful and courteous when I corresponded with on the other forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Now Forrest, you'd better not be trying to "womanize" our precious BC!!!

 

biggrin.png

 

I must admit that I haven't had a chance to read up on your back ground in forum trolling or whatever the accusation is. I've only seen the thread that BC first linked to and then your mild mannered appearence here in the thread. So I'm not sure what the immediate hostile reaction was all about. I guess I'll look back at it.

 

But the whole reason I posted Lerner's video series is because BC has been involved with following the ID / IC literature and she was apparently stressing that not all ID proponents are necessarily religious, as if that might some how bring justice to the situation. That got me thinking back on my time following the anti-BBT movement which is equally split up between theists and non-theists. There's a type of parallel going on. On the one hand we find religious fundies trying to negate the BBT and Darwinian Evolution in favor a young earth and special creation. But on the other hand we also find non-theists like yourself and others who oppose the BBT in favor of a much older universe, not a younger one, and whose opposition has zero to do with religious proselytizing.

 

I don't know if you read BC's email and then joined here before responding to her email or what happened, but if so why not just admit that you came here due to BC's invitation?

 

If you really did start off on a dishonest foot then I'm sure you must realize why you'd find such a hostile reaction from a few of the posters. What the other guys have said is correct, the purpose around here has to do with deconverting Christians who are struggling through issues and other deconverted Christians trying to be helpful in some way. That has been the case with BC and the rest of us so far, she's been mixed up in some pseudo-science and we've tried to sort through it all. I'm sorry to hear that she's felt wronged in the process however. I don't think any one ever meant for her to feel that way.

 

The deeper lesson in all of this cosmological speculation is that although there are non-theistic anti-BB theorists, that doesn't necessarily help the case for God and ID. In fact, the deeper we explore the rabbit hole of secular non-theistic anti-BB theories, the further we seem to get away from things like ID and theistic thinking. I've traveled far enough down this rabbit hole to know where it leads and I simply meant to start up a dialogue consisting of giving a guided tour into it's depths. In my thinking the motive has been addressed towards helping the situation by showing just how non-thiestic things become when one choosed to explore beyond the confines of the standard model.

 

If you'd like to help the situation as well then I have some questions (one at a time) that I'd like to ask you about your alternative theory so that we might consider them against theistic implication.

 

1) How old is the universe in your view, infinitely old or do you think it ever had a fixed beginning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forrest- I don't believe your intentions are dishonorable. I recall you were helpful and courteous when I corresponded with on the other forum.

 

Thanks Black Cat. Looking forward to future discussions with you.

 

regards,  Forrest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC, I cite these examples to show you that members like T2M and myself know and recognize the dangers to be found across cyberspace. We've dealt with hucksters, liars and two-faced do-gooders. So, it's hardly surprising if we come across as harsh and insulting to those we know to be untrustworthy, is it?

 

I'm struggling to appreciate what you say here. I understand people like that need to be dealt with and challenged etc. I don't understand why you should be insulting. When I was accused of shitting on the memory of dead people, I was devasted and so angry that I wanted to reply 'you fucking wanker' but I didn't (it's good to get that off my chest now). Is this 'harsh and insulting' behaviour I've received because I'm perceived as a huckster, liar or two-faced do gooder?

 

BC, I'm sorry but I cannot speak for anyone else, when it comes to what's passed between you and them.

 

However, I will clarify what I mean, so that there's no misunderstanding between us.

 

Please go back to the last two pages of the, 'Why do You Remain a Christian?' thread (in the Lion's Den) and go over my dialog with The Stranger.  You'll note that I've used no insults towards him.  Others have.  Each of us is responsible for our behavior in this forum and if a member chooses to insult another, that's entirely up to them. Ok, I won't take any nonsense from him and my patience (after years of trying to help him understand his delusion) is starting to wear a little thin, but I haven't yet called him any names.

Please also note that any and all Christian apologists entering the Den, do so at their own risk.  There's a carefully-worded warning and explanation of what they can expect if they begin aggressively evangelizing there.  The onus is on them to read the warning before they enter, not to just complain, after they've been roughly-treated.  Also, the name's a bit of a giveaway, wouldn't you say? 

 

There's something else you should know - which you may well be ignorant of. 

Many, if not most of the Ex-Christians in this forum have experienced very negative, abusive and damaging treatment at the hands of well-meaning, but deluded Christians.  Others have suffered much worse at the hands of wicked, malicious and downright evil Christians - sometimes even their parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, etc.  When I say 'suffered' I mean emotional, physical and sexual abuse. 

 

Emotional abuse, like being told (as a child) that those who don't love and obey God will be burned in Hell forever.  The not-so-subtle implication of this being that children who don't submit to Jesus and love Him, will be thrown into the eternal fire.  The stuff of nightmares!  Not for me, I might add.  But some members, when they were kids, have lain awake at night, trembling in terror at their parents words.

Physical abuse, like being beaten black and blue (please read Proverbs 13:24, 22:15 & 23:13) for minor misdemeanors.  Or being whipped and caned to drive 'demons' out of a wayward and disobedient teenager.   

The details of the sexual abuse I will not go into.  Not only is it sickening, it's also totally private and confidential information.

Many of us Ex-Christians have suffered at the hands of our Christian 'brethren' and consequently, we are not at all well- disposed towards them.  They have earned our scorn and our distrust. 

 

For example, I'm not on good terms with the 'Christian' who lead me to Christ.  After more than a decade of intense devotion to Jesus and evangelical Christianity my faith was beginning to waver.  When he saw this, he persuaded me to give him total control of my personal finances  - to fund missionary work abroad, so he claimed.  Being a committed Christian, how could I not trust my Brother-in-Christ?  What a naive simpleton I was!

As quickly as he could, he emptied my bank accounts to the tune of $12,500 - virtually impoverishing me at the time when my father was dying of Parkinson's Disease and my mother couldn't cope with her husband's decline.

This particular story hasn't yet come to an end BC, because he and I still live in our small community and not a week goes past when I don't see him. 

Guess what?  He's a much-loved, trusted and respected elder in our local evangelical church now. 

 

Me?  Well, there's no possibility of legal redress or compensation.  I'll never get a cent back from him or that church. 

Why?  Because I freely and willingly handed him the reins of my finances, that's why.  There was no crime or misdemeanor on his part.

And do I think he knew exactly what he was doing?  Yes.

And do I think he's done this sort of thing before?  Most likely.

And do I think he's doing it now?  Same answer.

 

So, does this go some way to explaining why our tolerance of those who would deceive us (not just Christians!) is very low indeed?

Why some of us Lions are predisposed to be aggresive towards those who represent that which betrayed and hurt us?

Why we can't just assume that they are good, kind and well-meaning people who want to help us gain eternal life?

Why some of us are apt to use insulting language?

BC, I strongly recommend that you read the 'Testimonies of Former Christians' and the 'News and Current Events' sections to gain an insight into the lies, hurt and evil that have been perpetrated in the name of Jesus Christ.  Doing this should give you a better understanding of why we Ex-Christians do not suffer Christians gladly.

 

I also hope that you'll try to step into our (Ex-Christian) shoes and appreciate that we have our own reasons to be extremely suspicious of anyone joining this forum who isn't deconverting from or fully deconverted from Christianity. 

 

A good rule to follow, imho, is to only trust those who've earned your trust. I'm not saying that everyone else is out to get you. Nope. Just exercise a little more caution, that's all. Ok?

I go with the flow of the discussion at hand, and then over time you build up a history of how someone responds and how their personality is. Some people come across as decent , friendly and helpful early on (like yourself). If I say something that you don't agree with, from my experience of corresponding with you so far, I am sure you won't reply in a sarcastic or personally attacking way, even when you have to really lay the law down, like earlier. You were firm but still courteous. I really can't handle people who ooze hostility, sarcasm and who attack you personally. I ignore people like that.

 

 

Yes BC, you won't get any sarcasm or personal attacks from me.  You've demonstrated a commendable honesty and willingness to look at the facts.  I see no 'hidden' agenda in what you write and I try to match your courtesy with courtesy.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong Minded,

 

 

I don't know if you read BC's email and then joined here before
responding to her email or what happened, but if so why not just admit
that you came here due to BC's invitation?

 

No, my interest was based upon an internet search to find online comments concerning my theories, which I do roughly once a month. Usually nothing new comes up because my model is not exactly well known :) But this time this thread came up and after reading this thread and the theme of the forum, Ex-Christians, I thought it would be fun throwing out a little science and philosophy, that's about all :) 
 

I am a retired Engineer, but ongoing theorist and travel for conferences, and for travel purposes alone. Next week I am going to Costa Rica for a couple of weeks. I was there last year at this time. So I am online off and on. When a forum member, when at home I try to post at least once a week and usually more often.


 

 

If you'd like to help the situation as well then I have some questions
(one at a time) that I'd like to ask you about the implications of your
alternative theory so that we might consider them.

 

 

 

1) How old is the universe in your view, infinitely old or do you think it ever had a fixed beginning?

 

According to the calculations of my model, the universe is a minimum of roughly 1.4 trillion years, with seemingly no possible maximum estimate, but definitely finite in all respects. In this model the universe had an exact beginning in time. In this model the word universe means everything that has existence. Any model which has a finite beginning like this one, there would have been no time before the beginning. Time accordingly would be defined as an interval of change and nothing more. So the beginning was the first change in reality, and there could be no such thing as a change (time) before the first change.

 

The religious argument concerning the "prime mover:"  For this change to take place there needed to be an internal mechanical force withing the beginning entity.

In the BB model this was internal energy, in my model it is mechanical stress. There could be no such question as where did it come from, or what caused that?

 

Any cause would apply to a time before, which would contradict a finite beginning. If there was a beginning cause then there would have needed to have been another beginning that had no cause otherwise we are talking about an infinite sequence/ cause-and-effect series and an infinite universe model. For infinite universe models there was also no cause since there was no beginning. In the "god-did-it" model the supposed creator had an infinite past and therefore would be called an infinite model concerning cosmology. So regardless of the model including religious, there could be no logical cause for the beginning entity. This is strictly logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info bornagainatheist,

 

There was no information intended for your eyes, Forrest.  The dialog was between BlackCat, Thought2Much and myself. 

 

This may be a little cynical sad.png  Although I am an atheist like yourself, I go to church sometimes, Christian, and like to sing the songs and talk to people, even listen to the sermons and benefit from the related philosophy. Most know that I am an "infidel" but invite me anyway and usually don't question me, but if so I make a joke of it and will not argue with them. 

That's nice.

My life does not solely involve my "own purposes." I am involved in two charities. In one I am on the Board of Directors and the treasurer: Better Vision for Children Foundation, presently USA and Mexico, and the other SRAI Foundation,  a foundation to help the rural poor of India. I myself am a WASP type Caucasian, not married, 69 years old, a vegetarian and womanizer yellow.gif   I also wrote another book that I hope to finish and publish next year called Living in Symbiosis, a how-to book on "happy living" (no religion).

Some questions, please.

 

You describe yourself as being an atheist from the age of 15? 

And you deconverted from being a Born-Again Christian 54 years ago... in 1959?

Could you please say which Christian denomination you were affiliated with?

Could you please tell us what you understood being 'Born Again' to mean?

Which version of the Bible did you read when you were a Born-Again Christian?

What was the reaction of your parents, when they learned that you had rejected Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord?

 

Thank you.

After reading the theme of this forum, I will now interject ideas of Religion vs. Science in future postings in this thread, to conform with the intent of this sub-forum/ category smile.png I do enjoy helping others, especially explaining ideas which might improve their life outlook and resultant happiness.

 

regards,  Forrest

Perhaps you'd be good enough to give us your ideas on the theological outworkings of Molinism in the light of Pantheory? 

I'm sure we'd be very interested to hear what you've got to say about this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA-   I will check out the 'Testimonies of former Christians' and the other thread you mentioned, more often.  Good advice.  Thank you. :)

 

I'm appalled to read of your experiences at the hands of 'christians'  BAA  :(   and I understand why you help those who are coming out of Christianity and who have also been hurt.  I hope like you and many others I have corresponded with here, that I will help to build up the person, even if disagreeing with them about something.  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Pantheory wrote:

Any cause would apply to a time before, which would contradict a finite beginning. If there was a beginning cause then there would have needed to have been another beginning that had no cause otherwise we are talking about an infinite sequence/ cause-and-effect series and an infinite universe model. For infinite universe models there was also no cause since there was no beginning. In the "god-did-it" model the supposed creator had an infinite past and therefore would be called an infinite model concerning cosmology. So regardless of the model including religious, there could be no logical cause for the beginning entity. This is strictly logic.

 

If time is merely an observation of movement and motion (change?), and it turns out that there's much more cosmos extending beyond our visible range, well then there was never a time when time was not, so to speak - never a time when change, movement, and motion of some type, in some way, was not.

 

For instance, if there's a multiverse currently surrounding us then there was no beginning for time because there's beginning for an infinte expanse of existence full of space, motion, and material and with that "change."

 

Time would be more or less nothing more than our observation of the eternal motion of existence itself with energy transforming from one form to another . This seems kind of mystical, seeing the radiance of eternity in all of the forms and images of time as they say in the east.

 

I see this general outlook as holding true for all potential infinite space models where space is viewed as extending forever.

 

The only eternal God in this scenario is existence itself, the whole as one grand omnipresence with no beginning or end. Monotheism falls apart with it's distinction between God and nature, while atheism and panthiest varieties remain unshaken by the infinite space models.

 

According to the calculations of my model, the universe is a minimum of roughly 1.4 trillion years, with seemingly no possible maximum estimate, but definitely finite in all respects. In this model the universe had an exact beginning in time. In this model the word universe means everything that has existence. Any model which has a finite beginning like this one, there would have been no time before the beginning. Time accordingly would be defined as an interval of change and nothing more. So the beginning was the first change in reality, and there could be no such thing as a change (time) before the first change.

 

Then how does this relate to the multiverse and the infinite space issues that have arisen in the post BBT era?

 

Are you saying that you don't believe in an expanding universe but you do believe in a non-expanding universe that had a fixed starting point with pure non-existence before hand?

 

What do you mean by "change", especially a "first change in reality?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bornagainatheist,
 

 

Could you please say which Christian denomination you were
affiliated with?


Methodist.

 

 

Could you please tell us what you understood being 'Born
Again' to mean

My opinion of the words "born again" is someone who has taken up studying and following religion for the first time seriously.

 

 

Which version of the Bible did you read when you were a Born-Again Christian?


Don't think I was ever a "born again" Christian.

 

 

What was the reaction of your parents, when they learned
that you had rejected Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord?


I didn't tell them until I was older. My mom and grandmother blamed college studies for my falling out, but that had nothing to do with it. It was a Eureka moment when I was about 15.  There reaction was one of great disappointment, but my family was not dogmatic about religion so came to accept it. Everyone in my family still are Christian. One of my sons is now an atheist and the other agnostic.
 

 

Perhaps you'd be good enough to give us your ideas on the theological
outworkings of Molinism in the light of Pantheory?
 

 

I'm sure we'd be very interested to hear what you've got to say about this.


The Pan Theory is a strictly a science theory of materialism so that I have no writings relating to free will.  Possible implications of the theory would be the theory generally denies random effects which free will is one part. I think for instance that by talking with anyone my whole life or theirs, could change entire perspectives, insights, and/or future decisions. So I wish to be a positive influence, or being equally influenced to "better insights."

 

Present theories of Quantum Mechanics, for instance, invites mystic ideas that my model would entirely do away with. The universe, in this model is very simple, and easy for anyone to understand its fundamental characteristics and relationships. :)  If such a theory were the accepted mainsteam science for maybe a couple of hundred years, I would expect religion and superstition would be the practice of only a very few uneducated in the entire world.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong Minded,

 

 

If time is merely an observation of movement and motion (change?), and
it turns out that there's much more cosmos extending beyond our visible
range, well then there was never a time when time was not, so to speak -
never a time when change, movement, and motion of some type, in some
way, was not.

 

Yes :)

 

 

For instance, if there's a multiverse currently surrounding us then
there was no beginning for time because there's beginning for an infinte
expanse of existence full of space, motion, and material and with that
"change."

Yes, my definition of universe means everything, multiverses if they are real, and everything that exists. The spiritual world would be included if it were real. So if there were a beginning, as in my model and the BB model, then it would have been the beginning of everything.

 

 

Time would be more or less nothing more than our observation of the
eternal motion of existence itself with energy transforming from one
form to another . This seems kind of mystical, seeing the radiance of
eternity in all of the forms and images of time as they say in the east.


Time would be no more than a definition and an intelligent concept. It would have no separate existence in reality. It would simply be an interval of change. Something measured by a clock of some kind. A time frame would be a static picture of reality at a given moment, but would not be time itself since no change or motion would be involved.

 

 

I see this general outlook as holding true for all potential infinite space models where space is viewed as extending forever.

 

In this model space is also a simple concept. It is a definition like: space would accordingly be:  the distance between matter, or the volume which encompassed all of matter and field. This is also a finite model in all aspects so by definition and theory theory would be limited quantity of everything.

 

 

The only eternal God in this scenario is existence itself, the whole as
one grand omnipresence with no beginning or end. Monotheism falls apart
with it's distinction between God and nature, while atheism and
panthiest varieties remain unshaken by the infinite space models.

 

One could ascribe to this model and be a pantheist, but pantheism then would be more of a definition where god and reality would be equated. The whole, however,  could have more inspiration than its parts. :)


 

 

Are you saying that you don't believe in an expanding universe but you
do believe in a non-expanding universe that had a fixed starting point
with pure non-existence before hand?

 

 

In this model the observable universe is not expanding. It explains galactic redshifts by the slow diminution of matter, about 1/000 part every 6 million years. As to the whole universe it would be expanding at a decreasing rate, approaching a mathematical limit to the extent of its possible expansion. There would never been a state of non-existence. For all time (for all cause and effect incidents), time being finite, there never accordingly was a time when nothing existed. Something, accordingly, cannot come from nothing.

 

 

What do you mean by "change", especially a "first change in reality?"

 

Change in this model means relative motion. In this model the beginning entity had the potential mechanical energy within it to change. There would be no such thing as before that. The Big Bang model has a similar concept in that the consensus version of the model, it had potential energy in the form of pure energy. Before that also would be a meaningless question for any cosmological of religious model. It would be like asking what change came before the first change :)

 

For the same reason of definition, an infinite universe model could have had no cause. God, if he existed, could not have had a cause. A beginning entity of any kind or infinite model could have had no cause logically for any kind of model. And those are the only possibilities, either there was a beginning to reality or there wasn't :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has taken an interesting turn.

 

To confirm what BAA said, I did inded join this forum primarily to share my experience of leaving Christianity and learning from others' experiences (and I must say, it's been most encouraging to do so).  Science is of course one of my interests, as well as my job, so I certainly am happy to talk about astrophysics here and answer questions about alternative cosmologies (scientific and pseudoscientific).  At the same time I can see that most here, including myself, want to discuss the interplay between science and religion with an emphasis on science and Christianity.

 

So to bring this around to science and religion: I doubt anyone here can talk about pseudoscience without the topic of creationism at least crossing their mind.  We're all probably asking whether or not these alternative cosmologies are veiled creationism or whether they pose the same threat to science as evangelical Christianity does.  Whatever else these theories are, I will say that they aren't attempts by evangelicals to infuse science with their beliefs.  When I started my first year of grad school (I was an evangelical back then), my name and email address were put up on the department's web site.  I started receiving emails from random individuals with pseudoscientific theories on a fairly regular basis.  Funny thing is, some of these emails were addressed to only the most and least religious people in the department.  My guess is that since both the evangelicals and hard-line atheists had rather passionate views, we might be thought of as more favorably disposed to new ideas.  For awhile I read these theories and even responded to the writers, but the more I read the more I realized that their ideas were amateurish and unscientific.  So eventually I stopped.  What these theories were not, however, was evangelical-based.  No one ever talked about the Bible or suggested a young earth.  One person who contacted us was even Hindu (and since this was at the height of my Christian zealotry and rebellion against myself, I was particularly hard on that guy).

 

I will also say that unlike Christianity, these theories are not major threats to American science.  Creationism might be unscientific, but it's supported by millions of Americans and funded by probably even more dollars.  Most scientists aren't Christian, but most taxpayers aren't scientists.  Christians form a large number of the people paying taxes and tuition dollars for their kids.  And last I checked, around a third of Americans identified as evangelical.  A congressman (and medical doctor!) recently referred to evolution and cosmology as lies from the pit of hell.  The "legitimate rape" politician is the chair of the House science comittee.  These are the people funding science in America, and if we as scientists continue telling the truth about science we will be punished with diminishing research funds.  The people who believe in alternative cosmologies, on the other hand, are small in number and poorly regarded by both evangelicals and scientists alike.  They don't control the way anyone votes or how congressional appropriations are made.  It's a free country, so I have no problem with them expressing their views.  But few will get away with writing a PhD thesis on plasma cosmology, to say nothing of getting a tenure-track professorship and writing research grants on the topic, so the academic system is largely self-correcting here.

 

But take care not to waste too much time on this.  If you're sitting at home with nothing to do, I see no problem with reading up on plasma cosmology.  As for me, I've got a full time job doing real science, and an active social life.  Reading and refuting pseudoscience is not as easy as it seems.  To convince someone of accepted scientific theories, you've got to take them through the basics of physics and astronomy.  That's the kind of thing that usually takes a full two semester, with three hours a week of lecture plus lab.  As someone who's taught intro physics, I can say that it's quite literally a full time job.  Going back and forth over the Internet with endless emails and forum posts is not a good idea.

 

Anyway that's my take on all this, for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bhim,

 

Yes, I concur with your opinion concerning how things work in science and funding, and your view concerning alternative cosmologists as being "small in number and poorly regarded by both evangelicals and scientists alike." :(

 

Although I am not a proponent, since Eric Lerner wrote the book the Big Bang Never Happened (the subject of this thread) and is a proponent of Plasma Cosmology, I thought I'd give a brief summary of Plasma Cosmology that I had written before:

 

Plasma Cosmology is the second most well-known alternative cosmology after Hoyle/ Narlikar et. al. Steady State models. The beginnings of Plasma Cosmology
might go back to ideas, work, and hypothesis first proposed by Nicola Tesla in the early 1930’s. Tesla’s ideas related to electricity (electro-magnetism)
being involved in the formation and mechanics of galaxies that were then newly discovered entities outside our own galaxy.

 

In the 1960’s and early 1970’s Hannes Alfvén, a Nobel Laureate, and others formally proposed a new theory of cosmology which its founders called Alfvén-Klein (plasma)Cosmology. The underlying principle was that ionic clouds within galaxies (plasma) influence the galaxy’s formation and observed characteristics – as well as the universe as a whole. Since these plasma particles are primarily electrons and protons, they accordingly have charged electrical and magnetic influences on a galaxy’s appearance and motion characteristics. This work was generally ignored by mainstream cosmology because galaxies were then believed to gravitationally function according to Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s it was discovered that galaxy rotation curves were contrary to Newtonian gravity initiating the dark matter hypothesis. At the same time such a variation was predicted by Plasma Cosmology, that galaxies also had large electro-magnetic influences. This discovery helped reinvigorate Plasma Cosmology research and theory.

There is no present consensus math to this model, or theoretical consensus view of the exact mechanics of the model. There are still active theorists in this field such as Eric J. Lerner and others presently active in the plasma research field.

Some variations of Plasma Cosmology have been collectively called Electric Universe (EU) models. The few active Plasma Cosmology theorists today generally try to distance themselves from most EU ideas since many involve pseudo-science.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

There would never been a state of non-existence. For all time (for all cause and effect incidents), time being finite, there never accordingly was a time when nothing existed. Something, accordingly, cannot come from nothing.

 

It seemed at first that you were promoting such an idea, you know, the idea of something from nothing. It seemed that way because you proposed a 'beginning' for "change", or "the first change" as if there could be such a thing as the first change. If there was never a time when nothing existed, then it stems that there was never a time when change was not occurring somewhere, on some level, in some way. That's why your suggestion of "the first change" is very confusing to say the least. 

 

As far as the BBT goes, people within the mainstream are obviously trying to work this problem of origins out because if there were colliding branes then something existed before the BB.  And if that is correct then there was "change" in existence and taking place before the BB somewhere and in some way. No first change in sight.

 

Also, as concerns the possibility of a black hole in another universe sending matter through a worm hole and then expelling that material through a hypothetical white hole which would have been the BB event, there would have been in existence material, motion, and necessarily "change" in existence somewhere and in some way long before the BB event and which would have caused the event to even take place. These two ideas I've outlined above are coming from mainstream standard model theorists in the string theory camp and so on. These are aimed at addressing the hard question aimed at the BBT. 

 

So I have a hard time following the assertion that:

 

Yes, my definition of universe means everything, multiverses if they are real, and everything that exists. The spiritual world would be included if it were real. So if there were a beginning, as in my model and the BB model, then it would have been the beginning of everything.

 

This is not true of the BBT necessarily. It isn't exactly the beginning of everything as I've just touched on above. Of course something did not come from nothing as you seem to agree, so what then of assigning a fixed beginning to something like "change" or trying to pin down "the first change?"

 

Once again, concerning a multiverse or any infinite space concept with finite universal regions of observation therein (hubble volumes, whatever), "change" would have existed somewhere and in some way always with no possible beginning to point at and say, "aha, it all started right there."  

 

Why? 

 

Well because as you also seem to agree with, whenever a beginning is assigned the question of what was before that beginning posses a problem for that type of origin claim. It's posing a problem of logic for the older ways of looking at the BBT and therefore people are now proposing all sorts of much more logical ways of explaining how what would appear to be the beginning of the universe, isn't really the beginning per se.

 

So in the end we can assign any number of beginnings to anything we'd like each of which will always demand an explanation for what came before until we face an infinite regress of beginnings and we're right back to no real fixed beginning in the grand scheme of things and the whole venture of trying to pin down the question of origins basically fails. People seem to like speaking in terms of beginnings for peace of mind. But if you venture deeper all peace of mind is then lost, as I've just outlined. 

 

So to cut through the nonsense I think that's it's more appropriate to take the position that fixed origin and fixed beginning chasing is a pointless venture to say the least. And when I hear people talking about the beginning of anything, it's a red flag to be quite honest. I believe in making peace with an all encompassing existence that could never have possibly began and will likely never possibly end either. 

 

That's why your proposal for a beginning for "change" and the idea of "the first change" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

 

So how do you deal with people like me? Because I'd like to understand what in the world you're really trying to suggest about origins before attempting to move forward with the rest of Pan Theory.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

This thread has taken an interesting turn...

Why yes it has. I'm glad that you've taken interest my friend. 

 

I think it's quite nice having a Hindu astrophysicist looking in on things. Please feel free to critique PanTheory and myself too because I'll be posing questions that I'd love to run by a professional astrophysicist. Especially as concerns my last post to PanTheory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong Minded,

my quote:

 

Yes, my definition of universe means everything, multiverses if they are real, and everything that exists. The spiritual world would be included if it were real. So if there were a beginning, as in my model and the BB model, then it would have been the beginning of everything.

 

 


 


 

This is not true of the BBT necessarily. It isn't exactly the beginning of everything. Of course something did not have come from nothing as you seem to agree, so what then of assigning a fixed beginning to something like "change?"

 

 

 

The proposed beginning with the universe accordingly was extremely simple. Time accordingly could have no other meaning to it other than change or relative motion. The consensus version of the BB model also agrees in a finite beginning. Yes, some versions of the BB model could have had a different finite or infinite beginning.


 

Once again, concerning a multiverse or any infinite space concept with finite universal regions of observation therein (hubble volumes, whatever), change would have existed somewhere always with no possible beginning point. 

 

 

 

 

Of course you are not discussing this model. But I can speculate. You are generally discussing a multiverse model. For an infinite space model they are not simply talking about space. They also refer the Zero Point Field which is a vast energy supply as being part of space. Space in the absence of matter, energy, and field, could have no meaning to it or existence. Why? What would be the meaning of a universe with absolutely nothing in it?  It could have no meaning and theoretically it would be a misconception of logic.

 

 

Well because as you also seem to agree, whenever a beginning is assigned the question of what was before posses a problem. It's posing a problem of logic for the BBT

 

 

I think the logic is clear and simple. I think this concept is one of the only things the BB model has correct :)

 

 

......and therefore people are proposing all sorts of logical ways of explaining how what would appear to be the beginning, isn't really the beginning per se. So in the end we can assign any number of beginnings each of which will always demand an explanation for what came before until we face an infinite regress and we're right back to no real fixed beginning again. 

 

 

 

Yes, that it correct. Such logic must lead to an infinite universe model.

 

 

So to cut through the nonsense I think that's it's more appropriate to take the position that origin and beginning chasing is a pointless venture.

 

 

No, I think the logic of a beginning is simple to understand, whether right or wrong.


My own model requires a beginning, unlike the BB model. But I guess it could be modified into an infinite cyclical model, or a multiverse model, but it would make the model unnecessarily complicated, in my opinion. For the simplest model:

 

*The beginning entity was a simple particle that had the internal potential energy to change its configuration. That's all that is logically needed. The first change defined time. One of my analogies was like a wound-up rubber band that propels a model airplane.

 

*The second concept to understand is that regardless of what cosmological model, there could be no logical cause for a beginning entity. If there was a cause, then that was not the beginning, AND an infinite model has no cause either.


 

 

And when I hear people talking about the beginning of anything, it's a red flag to be quite honest.

That's why you're proposal for a beginning for "change" and the idea of a first change does make a lot of sense to me. 

I'd like to understand that before attempting to move forward. 

 

 

Yes, see if you can wrap your head around the 2 concepts directly above with the asterisks * :)

 

regards,  Forrest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Pantheory wrote:

 

*The beginning entity was a simple particle that had the internal potential energy to change its configuration. That's all that is logically needed. The first change defined time. One of my analogies was like a wound-up rubber band that propels a model airplane.

 

Is this a point particle change that you're proposing defined time? 

 

Because I'm actually a little skeptical of the point particle conception of matter. And here's a glimpse into why: 

 

Pantheory wrote:

 

*The second concept to understand is that regardless of what cosmological model, there could be no logical cause for a beginning entity. If there was a cause, then that was not the beginning, AND an infinite model has no cause either.

 

So are you saying that an uncaused point particle with no logical beginning used potential energy to change it's configuration, which, then defined time? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point particles in this model. Accordingly if it is not simple in concept, it accordingly does not exist. The beginning entity would accordingly have been the simplest type of matter particle, that still exists today and has always made up all matter. 

 

What I'm saying is that there was a beginning particle that started the universe with internal potential energy, but it could have had no possible cause, because a cause or any kind would be logically impossible for any cosmological model, whether finite, or infinite. Examples: if it was god-did-it then he would have had no cause or beginning. If the universe was infinite in time and matter it would have had no cause.

 

The logic is that a cause implies a time before which would imply another cause etc. so it is logically impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

bornagainatheist,

 

 

Could you please say which Christian denomination you were

affiliated with?

 

Methodist.

 

 

Could you please tell us what you understood being 'Born

Again' to mean

My opinion of the words "born again" is someone who has taken up studying and following religion for the first time seriously.

 

 

Which version of the Bible did you read when you were a Born-Again Christian?

 

Don't think I was ever a "born again" Christian.

 

 

What was the reaction of your parents, when they learned

that you had rejected Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord?

 

I didn't tell them until I was older. My mom and grandmother blamed college studies for my falling out, but that had nothing to do with it. It was a Eureka moment when I was about 15.  There reaction was one of great disappointment, but my family was not dogmatic about religion so came to accept it. Everyone in my family still are Christian. One of my sons is now an atheist and the other agnostic.

 

 

Perhaps you'd be good enough to give us your ideas on the theological

outworkings of Molinism in the light of Pantheory?

 

 

I'm sure we'd be very interested to hear what you've got to say about this.

 

The Pan Theory is a strictly a science theory of materialism so that I have no writings relating to free will.  Possible implications of the theory would be the theory generally denies random effects which free will is one part. I think for instance that by talking with anyone my whole life or theirs, could change entire perspectives, insights, and/or future decisions. So I wish to be a positive influence, or being equally influenced to "better insights."

 

Present theories of Quantum Mechanics, for instance, invites mystic ideas that my model would entirely do away with. The universe, in this model is very simple, and easy for anyone to understand its fundamental characteristics and relationships. smile.png  If such a theory were the accepted mainsteam science for maybe a couple of hundred years, I would expect religion and superstition would be the practice of only a very few uneducated in the entire world.

 

 

 Thank you for the reply, Pantheory.

 

You don't think you were ever a born-again Christian? 

 

If that's so, then it seems to me that you have little or nothing to offer anyone in Ex-christian.Net. 

After all, this entire forum exists for the purpose of encouraging and assisting those who are thinking about deconverting from that kind of Christianity, those who are in the process of deconverting from it or those who have done so and are 'free' of it.

 

Being a born-again Christian isn't something that you can just study, before going into seriously.  It's far, far more than that - as many people here can tell you.  If you haven't experienced it, had it swallow you up and had it completely transform your life, then I seriously doubt that you could ever understand just what it means.  You'd be something like a novice bereavement counsellor trying to fathom out the depths of a grieving parent's suffering, by reading about it in a text book. 

 

It can't be done!  PageofCupsNono.gif

.

.

.

Pantheory, here's my current thinking about you.

 

1.

In the light of the above, I don't think that you bring anything worthwhile to the table re: born-again Christianity. 

2.

You came to know about this forum (either by searching or by invitation) because of your scientific theories, not because of your interest or expertise in matters religious and theological. 

3.

You did not come here to receive help from us in deconverting nor to help others in that painful process.  As such, you seem to be something of a 'fish out of water'.

4.

Other members of this forum (whom I do trust) have serious doubts about your motives and trustworthiness.

 

Therefore, if other members wish to talk with you, that's up to them. 

For myself, I don't think we have much in common and much to talk about at all. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA-   I will check out the 'Testimonies of former Christians' and the other thread you mentioned, more often.  Good advice.  Thank you. smile.png

 

I'm appalled to read of your experiences at the hands of 'christians'  BAA  sad.png   and I understand why you help those who are coming out of Christianity and who have also been hurt.  I hope like you and many others I have corresponded with here, that I will help to build up the person, even if disagreeing with them about something.  smile.png

 

Yes BC.

 

It is appalling, isn't it?

But my experiences are quite mild compared to that suffered by others here.  As you'll find out, when you read their Testimonies.

 

The 'News and Current Events' section features many horrible, sickening tales of religious abuse and atrocities from around the world.  Sadly, the evil perpetrated by true believers isn't confined solely to Christianity.  Absolute belief corrupts absolutely, anywhere and everywhere.

 

On a personal note, I agree completely with you.  Helping and healing others (even those we disagree with) is a good way of helping and healing ourselves.  Everyone benefits.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.