Atheist mega-"churches"
- Thread starter JesusChica1991
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
That's why I reject it. It's a hypothesis, an explaination. It has not been demonstrated, it has not been proven, it cannot be accurately called an absolute fact. Therefore, there's no reason I have to accept it.
And you of all people should know by now to stop bringing up the whole "other Christians believe it" defense. I don't care if other Christians believe it, and it doesn't matter if other Christians believe it, that doesn't mean I have to believe it. You atheists of all people should understand the concept that something isn't necessarily true just because a bunch of people believe it's true. So stop trying to use that as some sort of fuel for your cause.
The bottom line is this, if you want me to believe something that you're calling scientific, then I want to see demonstratable, repeatable, scientific experiements that verify the hypothesis. I'm not going to believe it just becuase you call it a scientific hypothesis. If you can't provide what I ask for, then case closed. Don't expect me to believe it, don't expect me to buy into it. And if anyone still has a problem with that, too bad.
And you of all people should know by now to stop bringing up the whole "other Christians believe it" defense. I don't care if other Christians believe it, and it doesn't matter if other Christians believe it, that doesn't mean I have to believe it. You atheists of all people should understand the concept that something isn't necessarily true just because a bunch of people believe it's true. So stop trying to use that as some sort of fuel for your cause.
The bottom line is this, if you want me to believe something that you're calling scientific, then I want to see demonstratable, repeatable, scientific experiements that verify the hypothesis. I'm not going to believe it just becuase you call it a scientific hypothesis. If you can't provide what I ask for, then case closed. Don't expect me to believe it, don't expect me to buy into it. And if anyone still has a problem with that, too bad.
Every time you state something is an atheist belief, that is in fact a belief held by millions of theists as well, I will continue to correct you. If you don't want me to raise that point then don't make the claim that something is exclusively an atheist belief when it is not.
I am not raising this as a point of evidence. I am raising it as a factual error on your part, one that you repeatedly make. Scientific explanations are not atheist explanations because numerous theists hold these views along with atheists. If you make the appropriate distinction I won't have to raise the matter anymore.
I am not raising this as a point of evidence. I am raising it as a factual error on your part, one that you repeatedly make. Scientific explanations are not atheist explanations because numerous theists hold these views along with atheists. If you make the appropriate distinction I won't have to raise the matter anymore.
M
No, I did not say it was an atheist belief. I said it was in line with atheist belief, and it's in line with an atheistic world view.
No, I have answered your question. My objection is that you can't claim that your explaination is absolute scientific fact. My objection is that you have no repeatable, demonstratable experiements that prove the explaination to be valid. That is my objection.
No, I have answered your question. My objection is that you can't claim that your explaination is absolute scientific fact. My objection is that you have no repeatable, demonstratable experiements that prove the explaination to be valid. That is my objection.
To be fair, I side with Cycel on this one. Whether planets can come to be formed by 'natural' process is neither an atheistic of theistic argument, in exactly the same way that the water cycle of condensation and precipitation says nothing about the existence or non existence of a God.
And I should think that the difficulties in conducting repeatable experimental demonstrations of planet formation would be obvious. The same defence we theists use in defence of why it is that tests of God cannot be conducted (you cannot put God in a lab) is more or less the same defence once could make of why experiments of planet formation, at least at present, cannot be conducted (you cannot put planets in a lab)
And I should think that the difficulties in conducting repeatable experimental demonstrations of planet formation would be obvious. The same defence we theists use in defence of why it is that tests of God cannot be conducted (you cannot put God in a lab) is more or less the same defence once could make of why experiments of planet formation, at least at present, cannot be conducted (you cannot put planets in a lab)
But atheists are not alone in accepting it, so it must also be in line with Jewish and Christian beliefs? Perhaps also Hindu and Buddhist beliefs? Frankly, millions of theists accept the scientific view that stars and planets form naturally, this is not exclusively an atheist world view. If you simply said it is a scientific view and you reject it, I would not have to raise the point that theists accept it as well.
You didn't direct your answer to the question I asked. I asked, "Why do you think formation of planets and stars cannot happen naturally? I am looking for a solid explanation here, not some whimsical, 'It's not logical' comment."
You don't seem to have a problem with any specific part of either hypothesis, that I can tell. You seem to reject both only on principle alone. If some part of the hypotheses are causing you a problem I'd like to know so I can address the issues, but that seems not to be the case. You simply do not want to believe that stars and planets can form naturally. You don't have any specific reasons for thinking this can't happen. You are simply rejecting the entire concept out of hand.
You didn't direct your answer to the question I asked. I asked, "Why do you think formation of planets and stars cannot happen naturally? I am looking for a solid explanation here, not some whimsical, 'It's not logical' comment."
You don't seem to have a problem with any specific part of either hypothesis, that I can tell. You seem to reject both only on principle alone. If some part of the hypotheses are causing you a problem I'd like to know so I can address the issues, but that seems not to be the case. You simply do not want to believe that stars and planets can form naturally. You don't have any specific reasons for thinking this can't happen. You are simply rejecting the entire concept out of hand.
well one your steam comment is kinda off theirs friction in the flow of water that causes those and no friction in space second just look at Venus and Uranus because they rotate in a opposite direction than the other planets and yes they all revolve in the same direction but not rotate. going bigger than that just look at the systems heck look at the systems in that roddy posted
@rowdyroddy and ya God made all that for men
@rowdyroddy and ya God made all that for men
i'll admit i think i quoted the wrong law i look for the right one to site but
it's just not logical in a void with no friction everything forming together would travel, revolve, and rotate in the same direction everything would be vertical moving in unison It isn't though doesn't that seem a little weird
it's just not logical in a void with no friction everything forming together would travel, revolve, and rotate in the same direction everything would be vertical moving in unison It isn't though doesn't that seem a little weird
M
Well, I didn't call it a scientific view becuase it doesn't have sufficient scientific evidence to back it up. Therefore, I don't view it as scientific at this point.
Ok, fair enough. Why don't I think formation of planets and stars happen naturally? Well, I simply have not seen suffiecient scientific evidence.
Anyone can come up with a hypothesis, that doesn't make it true. Why are you so shocked that I don't accept this when you have repeatedly admitted that it's just a hypothesis? I want something more concrete than some scientists saying "this is our hypothesis, therefore it's true." I can come up with a hypothesis about how my house formed naturally without a builder, but just because I can convolute a nice sounding story doesn't make it true.
Ok, fair enough. Why don't I think formation of planets and stars happen naturally? Well, I simply have not seen suffiecient scientific evidence.
Anyone can come up with a hypothesis, that doesn't make it true. Why are you so shocked that I don't accept this when you have repeatedly admitted that it's just a hypothesis? I want something more concrete than some scientists saying "this is our hypothesis, therefore it's true." I can come up with a hypothesis about how my house formed naturally without a builder, but just because I can convolute a nice sounding story doesn't make it true.
What you are saying is, "For one, your stream comment is off the mark. There is friction in the flow of water that causes those eddies, but in space there is no friction."
More specifically eddies are formed in flowing water when obstacles are encountered, and here the analogy holds. As an example, I will ask you what happens to a gas cloud that encounters the sun? Some molecules and other particles will become trapped by the sun's gravity and will be drawn from the cloud. Those parts of the cloud that pass by the sun on one side, and which are moving too fast to be caught, will have their course altered. Molecules and particles passing by the sun from the opposite side will have their course altered in the opposite direction. The cloud, which is bound by its own gravity and moving as a whole, will be split, or have a hole punched in the middle of it, and parts of it may well be sent rotating off in different directions.
As for the notion that there is no friction in space, this is wrong. There is friction in a cloud, no matter how diffuse the cloud is. Larger objects, like asteroids or spacecraft, will have their course impeded or altered as they encounter the molecules and particles in their path. You may have heard of this referred to as drag, and NASA flight specialists take this into consideration when they place satellites in orbit. The space around earth is not empty. There is a diffuse soup of particles and molecules surrounding the earth which, for example, create drag on the International Space Station requiring that its orbit be periodically boosted.
Venus is rotating in the opposite direction of the other planes, but Uranus is not. You got that fact wrong. Uranus is tipped on its side.
Perhaps you might like to explain why you think the direction of Venus’s spin creates a problem for the nebular hypothesis? Would you call your own understanding of the solar system’s origin the Genesis hypothesis? Perhaps you could explain what it says of the direction of Venus’ rotation? Also, how does the Genesis hypothesis account for Uranus being tipped on its side? I will mention that the nebula hypothesis explains both. Waiting for your explanation.
More specifically eddies are formed in flowing water when obstacles are encountered, and here the analogy holds. As an example, I will ask you what happens to a gas cloud that encounters the sun? Some molecules and other particles will become trapped by the sun's gravity and will be drawn from the cloud. Those parts of the cloud that pass by the sun on one side, and which are moving too fast to be caught, will have their course altered. Molecules and particles passing by the sun from the opposite side will have their course altered in the opposite direction. The cloud, which is bound by its own gravity and moving as a whole, will be split, or have a hole punched in the middle of it, and parts of it may well be sent rotating off in different directions.
As for the notion that there is no friction in space, this is wrong. There is friction in a cloud, no matter how diffuse the cloud is. Larger objects, like asteroids or spacecraft, will have their course impeded or altered as they encounter the molecules and particles in their path. You may have heard of this referred to as drag, and NASA flight specialists take this into consideration when they place satellites in orbit. The space around earth is not empty. There is a diffuse soup of particles and molecules surrounding the earth which, for example, create drag on the International Space Station requiring that its orbit be periodically boosted.
Venus is rotating in the opposite direction of the other planes, but Uranus is not. You got that fact wrong. Uranus is tipped on its side.
Perhaps you might like to explain why you think the direction of Venus’s spin creates a problem for the nebular hypothesis? Would you call your own understanding of the solar system’s origin the Genesis hypothesis? Perhaps you could explain what it says of the direction of Venus’ rotation? Also, how does the Genesis hypothesis account for Uranus being tipped on its side? I will mention that the nebula hypothesis explains both. Waiting for your explanation.
Indeed, look at all those galaxies! When you stated that God made them for us, how do you think he intended us to use them? Keep in mind those galaxies are not used for determining the dates of festivals, religious holidays, or for planting crops in the right season. They are invisible except through very sophisticated telescopes. Also, there are perhaps billions more out there that we don’t yet have the technology to see. In the next few years new instruments will come on-line that will permit us, even, to directly view earth sized planets in other star systems. I am anxiously awaiting their deployment. Recent extrapolations, based on the planets thus far discovered, suggest there may be as many as 40 billion earth sized planets in our galaxy alone. What use did God mean us to put those to? Multiply that number by the perhaps trillions of galaxies we have not yet discovered and ask yourself, where does it end? Or does it? Does Genesis give any answer? Is there any evidence that the author of Genesis understood any of this?
If you were a farmer living in ancient times, would you not think that the sun and moon had been created to give you light, that the five known planets and the 6000 or so stars you could see had been put there as time keeping devices for you. In the mind of the author of Genesis that is what they were created for, but he had none of our knowledge. When it comes down to it only scientific investigation can answer our deeper questions about the universe.
If you were a farmer living in ancient times, would you not think that the sun and moon had been created to give you light, that the five known planets and the 6000 or so stars you could see had been put there as time keeping devices for you. In the mind of the author of Genesis that is what they were created for, but he had none of our knowledge. When it comes down to it only scientific investigation can answer our deeper questions about the universe.
Or perhaps his purpose for them is simply not recorded in Genesis? Maybe a scientific investigation is the only approach that will supply the answer. The early scientists in every field carried out their investigations so that they might learn more about God's creation, and perhaps learn about God himself in the process.
Wanderer, I think, was referencing Genesis 1:14, as his explanation, which is why I responded to him as I did.
Myself, I can’t fathom why God would create all that empty real-estate. Did you see the stats? There are perhaps as many as 40 billion earth sized planets in our galaxy alone!
Wanderer, I think, was referencing Genesis 1:14, as his explanation, which is why I responded to him as I did.
Myself, I can’t fathom why God would create all that empty real-estate. Did you see the stats? There are perhaps as many as 40 billion earth sized planets in our galaxy alone!
I wouldn't say God made them 'for' us. To borrow from David
I don't know why God put them there. Perhaps God put them there because they look nice. It actually doesn't matter, in exactly the same way that it's irrelevant whether or not an ant knows why someone put it in this ant farm instead of another. All I know is that I look at the universe and think it's pretty flipping amazing. And that he chose to deal with humans at all is frequently pointed to in Scripture, as above, as simply a grace of God. The size of the universe would seem to me to support that.
I'd be very interested to see if science ever gets near an explanation of the 'why', given most science rejects naturalistic teleology. I think most of modern science would say final causation is a myth.
I don't know why God put them there. Perhaps God put them there because they look nice. It actually doesn't matter, in exactly the same way that it's irrelevant whether or not an ant knows why someone put it in this ant farm instead of another. All I know is that I look at the universe and think it's pretty flipping amazing. And that he chose to deal with humans at all is frequently pointed to in Scripture, as above, as simply a grace of God. The size of the universe would seem to me to support that.
I'd be very interested to see if science ever gets near an explanation of the 'why', given most science rejects naturalistic teleology. I think most of modern science would say final causation is a myth.
I don't know how much of the universe is still invisible to us, perhaps the greater part of it we will never see. What then is the purpose of making something because it looks nice if there is no one to see it?
Ants are not self-aware. They don't contemplate their existence and so these questions don't matter to them. They do matter to us.
I'm not following your meaning. The size of the universe would support what?
Final causation a myth? Once again I don't follow.
Ants are not self-aware. They don't contemplate their existence and so these questions don't matter to them. They do matter to us.
I'm not following your meaning. The size of the universe would support what?
Final causation a myth? Once again I don't follow.