5 Discoveries Christians Should Fear.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

from wiki:

 

 

The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be INFINITE. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years, based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed.

 

 

Yeah dude, the VISIBLE part of the Universe is a whopping 46 billion light years in radius!  so 50 years of radio signals, is about ONE BILLIONTH of the radius to reach the visible ends...

 

Enough to make anyone's head spin!

 

 

So?

 

Why should that be a problem for the intelligent life out there that "evolved" billions of years before us?

 

Are have they?

 

We don't know...do we?

 

No one said there is "the intelligent life out there that "evolved" billions of years before us". We implied the signals will take billions of years (maybe more) to reach far wide in the universe.

There might be a life somewhere out there that has been in existence since billions of years ago or there can be life somewhere billions of years from now.

 

 

 

I know. I agree with you.

 

I'm just saying we do not have any proof yet.

 

This one is good at backpedaling.

 

 

Where do I backpedal?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

from wiki:

 

 

The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be INFINITE. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years, based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed.

 

 

Yeah dude, the VISIBLE part of the Universe is a whopping 46 billion light years in radius!  so 50 years of radio signals, is about ONE BILLIONTH of the radius to reach the visible ends...

 

Enough to make anyone's head spin!

 

 

So?

 

Why should that be a problem for the intelligent life out there that "evolved" billions of years before us?

 

Are have they?

 

We don't know...do we?

 

No one said there is "the intelligent life out there that "evolved" billions of years before us". We implied the signals will take billions of years (maybe more) to reach far wide in the universe.

There might be a life somewhere out there that has been in existence since billions of years ago or there can be life somewhere billions of years from now.

 

 

 

I know. I agree with you.

 

I'm just saying we do not have any proof yet.

 

This one is good at backpedaling.

 

 

Where do I backpedal?

 

 

ONE AT A TIME, Ironhorse!

 

Practice what you preach and deal with outstanding questions before you ask new ones!

[ShackledNoMore]

Genesis will be falsified.

 

None of this would faze True Believers^TM.  None of the other things we've learned since the Bronze Age that have already falsified Genesis has fazed them.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

 

from wiki:

 

 

The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be INFINITE. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years, based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed.

 

 

Yeah dude, the VISIBLE part of the Universe is a whopping 46 billion light years in radius!  so 50 years of radio signals, is about ONE BILLIONTH of the radius to reach the visible ends...

 

Enough to make anyone's head spin!

 

 

So?

 

Why should that be a problem for the intelligent life out there that "evolved" billions of years before us?

 

Are have they?

 

We don't know...do we?

 

No one said there is "the intelligent life out there that "evolved" billions of years before us". We implied the signals will take billions of years (maybe more) to reach far wide in the universe.

There might be a life somewhere out there that has been in existence since billions of years ago or there can be life somewhere billions of years from now.

 

 

 

I know. I agree with you.

 

I'm just saying we do not have any proof yet.

 

This one is good at backpedaling.

 

 

Where do I backpedal?

 

If I explained why you backpedaled, even in minute detail, I doubt you would understand.  I choose not to waste my time with a fool's errand.

 

Remeber, the lurkers are watching.

[Blood]

1.  The discovery of past or present life on another planet in our solar system.

This would prove that life is not a supernatural creation, but arises wherever the right conditions prevail.  Genesis will be falsified.

 

2.  The discovery of intelligent life on the planet of another star.

This would prove that humans were not the supernatural creations of a god, but simply one of many types of life in the universe.  Again, Genesis will be falsified.

 

3.  The confirmation that we do indeed inhabit any kind (level) of multiverse.

Level 1 is finite in time, but infinite in space.  

Level 2 is infinite in time and space.

Level 3 is like 2, but with an infinity of parallel universes coexisting with each other.

Level 4 is the combination of levels 1 thru 3, in every possible combination.

Any kind of physical infinity immediately and totally destroys Christianity.  In an infinite universe, any event that has a non-zero possibility of occurring will occur an infinite number of times.  In an infinite universe, Christ is crucified not just once, but an infinite number of times, rendering his sacrifice... meaningless.

 

4. The confirmation of quantum gravity.

This would kill off any possibility of an initial singularity and so kill off William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

5. The discovery of a genetic method of 'switching off' religious belief.

If Christians don't fear this, they should opt to have the treatment - because it can't hurt them, can it?  

If they do fear it, then that's a tacit admission on their part that their faith is a purely biological and material thing and that they don't possess immortal, immaterial souls.

 

 

People were saying 300 years ago that heliocentrism would destroy Christianity. 

 

Nothing science discovers threatens Christianity, based as it is human gullibility, which is eternal. 

[sdelsolray]

People were saying 300 years ago that heliocentrism would destroy Christianity. 

 

Nothing science discovers threatens Christianity, based as it is human gullibility, which is eternal. 

 

I understand your point, but it is a bit overstated.

 

Many scientific discoveries have caused many believers in religions to adjust their thinking, views and beliefs relating to their religion.  Nothing expressed from the human genome is eternal, including gullibility.

 

A trio of human discoveries, (i) that the Earth was not the center of the universe, (ii) that humans were not the center of creation and (iii) that human consciousness is merely an emergent property of certain combinations of matter and energy, taken together, will certainly threaten traditional theology, once that reality is absorbed.

[duderonomy]

BAA,

 

Maybe you should invite Ironhorse to a formal debate in the Arena section of the forums. It would be fun.

[gall]

1.  The discovery of past or present life on another planet in our solar system.

This would prove that life is not a supernatural creation, but arises wherever the right conditions prevail.  Genesis will be falsified.

 

2.  The discovery of intelligent life on the planet of another star.

This would prove that humans were not the supernatural creations of a god, but simply one of many types of life in the universe.  Again, Genesis will be falsified.

 

3.  The confirmation that we do indeed inhabit any kind (level) of multiverse.

Level 1 is finite in time, but infinite in space.  

Level 2 is infinite in time and space.

Level 3 is like 2, but with an infinity of parallel universes coexisting with each other.

Level 4 is the combination of levels 1 thru 3, in every possible combination.

Any kind of physical infinity immediately and totally destroys Christianity.  In an infinite universe, any event that has a non-zero possibility of occurring will occur an infinite number of times.  In an infinite universe, Christ is crucified not just once, but an infinite number of times, rendering his sacrifice... meaningless.

 

4. The confirmation of quantum gravity.

This would kill off any possibility of an initial singularity and so kill off William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

5. The discovery of a genetic method of 'switching off' religious belief.

If Christians don't fear this, they should opt to have the treatment - because it can't hurt them, can it?  

If they do fear it, then that's a tacit admission on their part that their faith is a purely biological and material thing and that they don't possess immortal, immaterial souls.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

p.s.

Please feel free to add # 6 or more!

 

if they find proof of dark matter or dark energy past what they already have that would pretty much debunk any chance of any god. I am sure christians would find a way to argue that I am an idiot and since I really don't understand either of them I may be but I doubt any god that is all powerful would need either of these things to help govern the universe over his magical charm and charisma.

[♦ ficino ♦]

BAA,

 

Maybe you should invite Ironhorse to a formal debate in the Arena section of the forums. It would be fun.

Sigh. I think the amount of work on each side would be greatly disparate.  It's pretty hard to imagine IH participating in a formal debate;  you can't just post stuff from Google in that format.  You have to assess and develop arguments.

[bornagainathiest]

 

BAA,

 

Maybe you should invite Ironhorse to a formal debate in the Arena section of the forums. It would be fun.

Sigh. I think the amount of work on each side would be greatly disparate.  It's pretty hard to imagine IH participating in a formal debate;  you can't just post stuff from Google in that format.  You have to assess and develop arguments.

 

 

Dude,

 

Please watch this and compare Ironhorse's s.o.p. with the way Pastor George tries (and fails) to make his case.

 

I suspect that IH is just as passionate and devout as George - and just as clueless when it comes to important things like evidence and rational argument.  How many times has IH answered, "I believe..." when confronted by facts and evidence that contradict his claims?  Or when his arguments have been clearly shown to be flawed, incomplete or plain wrong?  So what would be the point of a formal debate with him?

 

.

.

.

Ok, I've demolished his argument in the, "No Shit Sherlock" thread and I'll continue to press him for his agreement that he's been refuted.  But I don't think I'll be proactive about this and take the fight to him.  No.  I'll simply dismantle whatever he presents, as and when he does so.

.

.

.

Oh, and btw.

IH's continued refusal to yield on those five (5) points I'm chasing him for are another reason not to go into a formal debate with him.  It doesn't matter why he won't accept the facts (stupidity or stubborns or whatever), the fact that he won't tells me that he'll just behave the same way in a debate.  So again, why bother?

 

One positive result that's come out of this episode is that the lurkers and members can see Ironhorse's stonewalling and take note of it.  

 

Anyway, I'm with Ficino on this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Ravenstar]

IH is not capable of a formal debate. I don't mean this in a mean way… he just doesn't have a grasp of the basics of logical argument, nor how to define his position, much less defend it.

[duderonomy]

I defer to your expertise in this, Ficino, BAA and Ravenstar.  It was just a thought.

 

IH, if someone were to offer to formally debate you, would you do it?

Saying no wouldn't be a negative reflection on you, but it seems that you do have the time, and the mandate from the Bible to always be ready to give a reason for your belief. To be instant, in season and out, to be all thing s to all men that you might convert some, etc. etc. etc.

So would you debate and if not, why not?

[ironhorse]

I defer to your expertise in this, Ficino, BAA and Ravenstar.  It was just a thought.

 

IH, if someone were to offer to formally debate you, would you do it?

Saying no wouldn't be a negative reflection on you, but it seems that you do have the time, and the mandate from the Bible to always be ready to give a reason for your belief. To be instant, in season and out, to be all thing s to all men that you might convert some, etc. etc. etc.

So would you debate and if not, why not?

 

 

I thought that's what we have been doing here.

[duderonomy]

 

I defer to your expertise in this, Ficino, BAA and Ravenstar.  It was just a thought.

 

IH, if someone were to offer to formally debate you, would you do it?

Saying no wouldn't be a negative reflection on you, but it seems that you do have the time, and the mandate from the Bible to always be ready to give a reason for your belief. To be instant, in season and out, to be all thing s to all men that you might convert some, etc. etc. etc.

So would you debate and if not, why not?

 

 

I thought that's what we have been doing here.

 

No Ironhorse.  In a formal debate there isn't a place for subterfuge and one liners on either side.

There wouldn't be people like me jumping in to change the subject. Their are limits to the length of the responses, and there are time constraints. People actually have a chance to read what you say in depth, and you have a platform for presenting your side of an argument without feeling like the Lone Ranger.

It could actually be to your benefit, and that's why I asked if you would do it.

I won't keep pressing for an answer, as I believe you do know the difference between a formal debate and a subject discussion in the Lion's Den.  I don't want to derail a good thread over it.

[sdelsolray]

 

I defer to your expertise in this, Ficino, BAA and Ravenstar.  It was just a thought.

 

IH, if someone were to offer to formally debate you, would you do it?

Saying no wouldn't be a negative reflection on you, but it seems that you do have the time, and the mandate from the Bible to always be ready to give a reason for your belief. To be instant, in season and out, to be all thing s to all men that you might convert some, etc. etc. etc.

So would you debate and if not, why not?

 

 

I thought that's what we have been doing here.

 

IH thinks he is debating, formally no less.

 

That's funny, and unfortunately pathetic.

[ShackledNoMore]

 

I defer to your expertise in this, Ficino, BAA and Ravenstar.  It was just a thought.

 

IH, if someone were to offer to formally debate you, would you do it?

Saying no wouldn't be a negative reflection on you, but it seems that you do have the time, and the mandate from the Bible to always be ready to give a reason for your belief. To be instant, in season and out, to be all thing s to all men that you might convert some, etc. etc. etc.

So would you debate and if not, why not?

 

 

I thought that's what we have been doing here.

 

 

Check out this post to get a feel for what is meant by "formal debate" on this site.  It involves rules, follows a format, should be substantive, deal with facts, and really has more erudite standards than the rest of the site.  I won't presume to say whether you might be a candidate for a debate in the arena, but your typical posts in other sub-forums would not really be arena material.