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.
So here you are saying the work conducted by the astronomers isn't scientific? How much weight do you think that carries? Megaman, everything scientists do is scientific. You can't pick and choose what to call it. It is science.
I know that you don't accept any of the conclusions astronomers come to, but can you say something more than just, 'The evidence is not sufficient'? This leaves me wondering whether you have any specific objections to particular aspects of the nebular hypothesis or whether you simply are just tossing it all out on principle without really looking at it. What parts of the hypothesis don't work in your mind, and why; or, have you simply not examined this in detail?
I know that you don't accept any of the conclusions astronomers come to, but can you say something more than just, 'The evidence is not sufficient'? This leaves me wondering whether you have any specific objections to particular aspects of the nebular hypothesis or whether you simply are just tossing it all out on principle without really looking at it. What parts of the hypothesis don't work in your mind, and why; or, have you simply not examined this in detail?
Oh, I absolutely agree with you Jim. I can remember thinking -- until quite recently, anyway -- that our next advance in telescopes may well allow us to see to the edge of the observable universe itself. Though now I am not so sure. One lecturer in astronomy I love listening to is Neil de Grass Tyson. If you don't know him he is an astrophysicist and director of the Hayden planetarium and he is absolutely charismatic.
There is a YouTube video of Dawkins and Tyson in discussion, but it is Tyson who completely dominates the chat. Dawkins, becomes, in a sense, the everyman. He the layman being instructed by the master. Dawkins comments "I am told, and so I suppose I must believe it..." (he is speaking of an aspect of the universe) when Tyson challenges him, "Richard, I will never require you to believe anything." Dawkins seems quite perplexed about the size of the universe and Tyson speaks brilliantly about it. I came away understanding that we are like ancient explorers at sea in our wooden vessel (representing the earth). The stars and galaxies appear the same in all directions and we have no idea how far away the edge is. Myself, I am quite certain there are other civilizations out there, but whether we will ever meet them, I have no idea, but the universe could then have been made for them as well.
If there is a God, and if he made the universe, then the very idea that he would have created billions, or trillions, of galaxies and left them all devoid of life seems just incomprehensible.
If you are interested in seeing the video I’m talking about it’s at you tube Neil de Grass tyson and Richard Dawkins - Bing Videos
There is a YouTube video of Dawkins and Tyson in discussion, but it is Tyson who completely dominates the chat. Dawkins, becomes, in a sense, the everyman. He the layman being instructed by the master. Dawkins comments "I am told, and so I suppose I must believe it..." (he is speaking of an aspect of the universe) when Tyson challenges him, "Richard, I will never require you to believe anything." Dawkins seems quite perplexed about the size of the universe and Tyson speaks brilliantly about it. I came away understanding that we are like ancient explorers at sea in our wooden vessel (representing the earth). The stars and galaxies appear the same in all directions and we have no idea how far away the edge is. Myself, I am quite certain there are other civilizations out there, but whether we will ever meet them, I have no idea, but the universe could then have been made for them as well.
If there is a God, and if he made the universe, then the very idea that he would have created billions, or trillions, of galaxies and left them all devoid of life seems just incomprehensible.
If you are interested in seeing the video I’m talking about it’s at you tube Neil de Grass tyson and Richard Dawkins - Bing Videos
God can see it. Besides, doesn't the fact that we have seen perhaps only a tiny fraction of what exists blow your mind a little? Whether or not there is a God, even.
Presumably our level of awareness is not on the same level as an omniscient God, yes? Hence the analogy. Indeed, this is preciesely the point of that Psalm of David, of Job, of the Torah, etc - God's thoughts are not our thoughts.
God's grace in dealing with mankind. The universe being large, complex, and largely not for our enjoyment would accentuate that God's relationship with mankind has absolutely nothing to do with our own intrinsic merit, but simply because God decided that's what he would do.
Most scientists would reject that there are final causes in nature. That is, 'why' is irrelevant in terms of intention or final purpose. 'why' only makes sense at a functional level - why do humans exist, because a set of biological processes over billions of years arrived at us. That sort of thing.
So the question ' why is there such a big universe' is irrelevant to science, unless the answer is something along the lines of "at cosmic expansion, x energy existed, and thus resulted in y amounts of matter, which formed z number of galaxies'. But it can't, and does not want to, answer questions in terms of final causes, i.e. "So that we would be amazed at the complexity of life/theuniverse."
Presumably our level of awareness is not on the same level as an omniscient God, yes? Hence the analogy. Indeed, this is preciesely the point of that Psalm of David, of Job, of the Torah, etc - God's thoughts are not our thoughts.
God's grace in dealing with mankind. The universe being large, complex, and largely not for our enjoyment would accentuate that God's relationship with mankind has absolutely nothing to do with our own intrinsic merit, but simply because God decided that's what he would do.
Most scientists would reject that there are final causes in nature. That is, 'why' is irrelevant in terms of intention or final purpose. 'why' only makes sense at a functional level - why do humans exist, because a set of biological processes over billions of years arrived at us. That sort of thing.
So the question ' why is there such a big universe' is irrelevant to science, unless the answer is something along the lines of "at cosmic expansion, x energy existed, and thus resulted in y amounts of matter, which formed z number of galaxies'. But it can't, and does not want to, answer questions in terms of final causes, i.e. "So that we would be amazed at the complexity of life/theuniverse."