"Not a true Christian"

[Landlord]

If anyone caught "Through the Wormhole" series...there was an interesting theory about the beginning of the universe. Or actually that the universe has always existed. If I remember this correctly, the thought is that we exist in one of multiple geometrical planes of universes and that the universe started when two of the planes crashed into each other. The theory also suggested that this has happened multiple times and will continue to happen...essentially re-starting the universe as we know it all over again. And probably in a complete different form.

 

This sounds like the "branes" of string theory. I need to re-read my Greene, but basically energy/matter whatever you want to call it just is, and at times these various branes interact, and the interaction can create these bubbles where portions of the laws of one brane and portions of the laws of another brane interact, mesh, and create a universe with its own unique set of laws.

 

It's similar to what happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Genes from both parents interact to create a new creature made up of the parts of the parents.

 

I agree very much with your statement of the difficulty of truly grasping the infinite. Did a thought experiment on it once and it really freaked me out.

 

That sounds maybe kind of like it...but it was more that these planes existed outside of each other and when they began to vibrate or sway back and forth some how, one would touch the other and create a spark/explosion/big bang/etc. I think they equated it to sheets on a clothes line blowing in the wind. But one of the sheets touches another and it sparks an energy "explosion", for lack of a better word". Hmm...I'll have to do some research tomorrow and try and find the name of it. I just remember watching it and thinking how interesting of a concept it was.

 

 

 

That's all well and good, but simply put there are still only two options - either existence is eternal or was created at some time - and from my perspective, either one of those gives credibility to the notion of a creator being real - either by showing that eternal existence is possible or demanding the answer to the question "What created this?"

[johnnyrodgers20]

Let me ask all of you one question. Matter can only come from other matter correct? So where did matter come from in the beginning? You can't have matter from nothing so something had to make matter who or what made matter? I mean at some point when you back far enough you would go all the way back to nothing so how did matter come to be, just curious?

 

Failure to provide a full and complete explanation of this (which is currently scientifically impossible, and may never be possible) does not mean that God exists.

 

 

It does prove you have to have faith that their is a God or their is science. Science isn't just facts many things in science requires faith. So you are just on the other side o fthe same coin.

[johnnyrodgers20]

 

How do you know matter already existed and has always existed? That is like you telling me that believing in a God is hard to conceive. How do you prove matter always existed? You don't believe a God can exist for all eternity but matter has just always been around.

 

Occam's razor. We know that matter exists and can prove it. We don't know if a supreme being exists, and can't prove it. Saying matter has always existed in some form or another is, logically, more believable.

 

I'm not saying that makes it undeniably true, I'm saying it takes less of a leap of logic to believe.

 

 

 

By Occam's razor, we've never witnessed any evidence for the eternal existence of anything. Saying matter had a starting point, a beginning, is, logically, more believable.

 

The whole matter/anti matter battle seems to play a big part of it:

http://www.pbs.org/w.../gleiser-1.html

 

I think matter is more seen as just a result of the Big Bang and the conditions thereafter. It was never an expected result...it just happened. I think the hardest concept for humans to grasp is "infinity". And not only that, but understanding time before time. Hawking suggested that recently...that time, energy and matter came into existence simultaneously. So asking what came before the Big Bang is insignificant, because there was no time.

If anyone caught "Through the Wormhole" series...there was an interesting theory about the beginning of the universe. Or actually that the universe has always existed. If I remember this correctly, the thought is that we exist in one of multiple geometrical planes of universes and that the universe started when two of the planes crashed into each other. The theory also suggested that this has happened multiple times and will continue to happen...essentially re-starting the universe as we know it all over again. And probably in a complete different form.

 

No it is very significant because I have never seen nothing and then matter just appears, have you. You have to have faith that it just came into being. I can't believe that there is nothing and then a big clump of matter and then bang!! Once you have matter then I can believe the big bang but how did the matter come to be. no one has yet explained that.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Christianity preaches that there is only one true judge. One true judge that all of mankind will face when their life ends. Is it not sinful to put yourself in the Lord's place by taking it upon yourself to judge others? Who is anyone to judge what a true Christian is? You may think your doing everything the Lord wants of you, but if you are going around pointing out those who you don't think are living up to these so called standards, you may be the one who faces a harsher reality when you are judged by the one and only Judge.

 

 

That is true a true Christian is one who professes love and trying to make someone understand that Jesus was/is the son of God, died for your sins and rose again, if you accept that you have eternal life. Judging someone is different than that. Preaching that and hoping someone will turn to Jesus is what Christians hope to do.

[johnnyrodgers20]

If anyone caught "Through the Wormhole" series...there was an interesting theory about the beginning of the universe. Or actually that the universe has always existed. If I remember this correctly, the thought is that we exist in one of multiple geometrical planes of universes and that the universe started when two of the planes crashed into each other. The theory also suggested that this has happened multiple times and will continue to happen...essentially re-starting the universe as we know it all over again. And probably in a complete different form.

 

This sounds like the "branes" of string theory. I need to re-read my Greene, but basically energy/matter whatever you want to call it just is, and at times these various branes interact, and the interaction can create these bubbles where portions of the laws of one brane and portions of the laws of another brane interact, mesh, and create a universe with its own unique set of laws.

 

It's similar to what happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Genes from both parents interact to create a new creature made up of the parts of the parents.

 

I agree very much with your statement of the difficulty of truly grasping the infinite. Did a thought experiment on it once and it really freaked me out.

Really!?!? Can you tell us about it?

[Sub-Husker]

The unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an act of resistance that belittles the Holy Spirit so grievously that he withdraws for ever with his convicting power so that we are never able to repent and be forgiven.

 

It's a good thing for the Holy Spirit that it does not post on internet message boards!

[Sub-Husker]

I've been hearing this phrase a lot, recently. Can someone tell me what it means to be a 'true Christian'? Also, how do you judge if someone is a 'true Christian' without knowing them very intimately?

 

Here are two very different definitions of what one might use to describe what a Christian should believe. I'm going to leave out behavior, because that is subjective and subject to judgement by people who still have a "plank in their eye".

 

1) From their Faith, a Christian believes in the creed (which is a version of the Nicene Creed) as professed by their denonination/congregation.

 

2) They have read the three Synoptic Gospels, and strive to live their lives per the teachings of Jesus.

 

Those two definitions are very different, but not mutually exclusive.

 

I follow one of those two and not the other... anyone care to guess which one?

 

Christianity preaches that there is only one true judge. One true judge that all of mankind will face when their life ends. Is it not sinful to put yourself in the Lord's place by taking it upon yourself to judge others? Who is anyone to judge what a true Christian is? You may think your doing everything the Lord wants of you, but if you are going around pointing out those who you don't think are living up to these so called standards, you may be the one who faces a harsher reality when you are judged by the one and only Judge.

 

In my first post in this discussion thread I said something similar.

 

We can define what a Christian believes, but we can't judge people to the criteria set out in those beliefs.

[knapplc]

Let me ask all of you one question. Matter can only come from other matter correct? So where did matter come from in the beginning? You can't have matter from nothing so something had to make matter who or what made matter? I mean at some point when you back far enough you would go all the way back to nothing so how did matter come to be, just curious?

 

Failure to provide a full and complete explanation of this (which is currently scientifically impossible, and may never be possible) does not mean that God exists.

 

 

It does prove you have to have faith that their is a God or their is science. Science isn't just facts many things in science requires faith. So you are just on the other side o fthe same coin.

 

It no more proves that you have to have faith in the existence of God (or a god) than the sun rising in the east proves that you have to have faith in God. There are some mechanical functions of the universe for which there are explanations, and for which there are theories but no explanations yet.

 

I agree with your use of the word faith when it comes to certain tenets of science. Without proof there must be faith, and faith in the theories of the Big Bang are still that - faith. Some will argue that they are less faith-based than theory-based, and there's merit to that argument, but in the end you have to accept certain things without evidence. That's faith, at least the way I define it.

 

Regardless, having zero proof of the mechanics of the origin of the universe =/= "The Judeo-Christian God is real." The exact same argument can be made for the existence of Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Ah Uuc Ticab, Quetzacoatl, etc.

[bennychico11]

No it is very significant because I have never seen nothing and then matter just appears, have you. You have to have faith that it just came into being. I can't believe that there is nothing and then a big clump of matter and then bang!! Once you have matter then I can believe the big bang but how did the matter come to be. no one has yet explained that.

 

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

 

Do a little (a lot) more reading on cosmology and quantum physics. There are many people who have suggested explanations of how matter came to be. In fact, because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, particle and antiparticle pairs wink in and out of existence all the time. Now, the space close to a black hole is filled with these pairs. And if one of them gets close to the event horizon, one gets sucked in while the other one can escape, carrying energy away and becoming real (see Hawking radiation for more info). Combine this with an exponentially expanding universe and you get quantum fluctuations also expanding at a rapid pace. And the energy from these fluctuations grow into structure and voids as the universe ages. Remember, all it takes is time. Lots and lots and lots of time.

But time before the big bang is moot. At a singularity all laws of physics would have been broken down...including space time. So the state of the universe after the big bang will not depend on anything that happened before. Since the events before are of no consequence, it's simply stated that time started simultaneously with everything else.

 

And stop asserting science is based on faith...because it is not. Faith is believing without evidence. Which is the exact opposite of how science works. There are some things science tries to explain but doesn't know for sure, and maybe never will. And it flat out says that "I don't know" is a perfectly fine answer. But positing that because science doesn't know, then obviously god is the answer, is an absurd conclusion to jump to. Because (like I've already stated earlier) then the same questions can be asked about your god. How did he come into existence? Where was his beginning? Who created him? And round and round we go.

If you can't accept theories based on the naturalistic particle/cosmological sciences...the same science you do acknowledge and use every single day in your life....how do you readily accept magic? Especially when there is absolutely no evidence of magic...ever!

[bennychico11]

I agree with your use of the word faith when it comes to certain tenets of science. Without proof there must be faith, and faith in the theories of the Big Bang are still that - faith. Some will argue that they are less faith-based than theory-based, and there's merit to that argument, but in the end you have to accept certain things without evidence. That's faith, at least the way I define it.

 

except that these theories use the unifying theory that the universe is governed by a set of rules. And if the universe follows these rules, then we can deduce how the universe works. "If it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior."

So it's not taken on faith. Someone comes up with a theory based on current knowledge of how things work with the universe. Other people view this theory and make suggestions or criticisms and the theory is adjusted...or a new one is created. Inching ever and ever closer to what is the real truth. But it's not like these scientists are just making up claims without evidence. I bet each and everyone could tell you the step by step evidence that led them to their final theory.

 

 

 

btw, I think that was the "brane" cosmology that I was talking about earlier. Thanks for that.

[knapplc]

I agree with your use of the word faith when it comes to certain tenets of science. Without proof there must be faith, and faith in the theories of the Big Bang are still that - faith. Some will argue that they are less faith-based than theory-based, and there's merit to that argument, but in the end you have to accept certain things without evidence. That's faith, at least the way I define it.

 

except that these theories use the unifying theory that the universe is governed by a set of rules. And if the universe follows these rules, then we can deduce how the universe works. "If it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior."

So it's not taken on faith. Someone comes up with a theory based on current knowledge of how things work with the universe. Other people view this theory and make suggestions or criticisms and the theory is adjusted...or a new one is created. Inching ever and ever closer to what is the real truth. But it's not like these scientists are just making up claims without evidence. I bet each and everyone could tell you the step by step evidence that led them to their final theory.

 

But it's still a theory. Yes, all evidence points to the fact, but the fact has not been proven yet.

 

I agree that using the word "faith" is problematic. I see similarities in the situations, that's all.

[bennychico11]

But it's still a theory. Yes, all evidence points to the fact, but the fact has not been proven yet.

 

I agree that using the word "faith" is problematic. I see similarities in the situations, that's all.

 

um, be careful with how you state that. I understand what you're trying to get at, but a lot of people misuse the layman's term of theory with the scientific one. Then we get people spouting off "But evolution is just a theory, not a fact!"

 

The formal usage of theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". But it is not to be confused with the informal theory indicating lack of uncertainty, tentativeness or a guess. Theories explain facts. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis that has been supported with repeated testing.

Hence the theory of gravity.

 

More here: http://notjustatheory.com/

[Husker_x]

But it's still a theory. Yes, all evidence points to the fact, but the fact has not been proven yet.

 

I agree that using the word "faith" is problematic. I see similarities in the situations, that's all.

 

um, be careful with how you state that. I understand what you're trying to get at, but a lot of people misuse the layman's term of theory with the scientific one. Then we get people spouting off "But evolution is just a theory, not a fact!"

 

The formal usage of theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". But it is not to be confused with the informal theory indicating lack of uncertainty, tentativeness or a guess. Theories explain facts. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis that has been supported with repeated testing.

Hence the theory of gravity.

 

More here: http://notjustatheory.com/

 

Or Germ Theory. Or Cell Theory. Important distinction.

 

Of course we still have String Theory--which last I read was more like String Hypothesis.

[knapplc]

 

Or Germ Theory. Or Cell Theory. Important distinction.

 

Of course we still have String Theory--which last I read was more like String Hypothesis.

 

Now you're just stringing me along.

 

 

 

 

Ba-dum BUM.

[NEWICOsker]

This Peugot meltdown is endorsed by NEWICOsker (who, by the way is not Red Phoenix).

 

I was traveling this week and not able to help the poor guy. Now everyone sees what happens to him without my enlightenment to guide him. My apologies.