-
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.
thatonegermex, you kind of soudn like me. I'm also and atheist and I'm new on here. I used to be Christian though. It's been hard for me to deal with all the people telling me I'm going to hell. I'm still searching for my own answers. But this seems like a fun place with good people. Maybe we can talk sometime. 
T
thatonegermex, you kind of soudn like me. I'm also and atheist and I'm new on here. I used to be Christian though. It's been hard for me to deal with all the people telling me I'm going to hell. I'm still searching for my own answers. But this seems like a fun place with good people. Maybe we can talk sometime.
Thanks!
And thatonegermex, you didn't show up on the YouEdify channel again! Grr! Lol.
It was, and we know it was because we've seen the evidence with our own eyes.
No, they don't say it happened out of nowhere, but that it happened at a region of high temperature and density.
No, it wasn't an explosion.
Nope, but it is completely obvious, when it's actually understood.
No, it doesn't, but there's no such law anyway.
It's not claimed that there was no cause.
It's not claimed that something came out of nothing, but again, there's no such law, and quantum mechanics even tells us about pairs of particles and antiparticles called virtual particles which pop into existence seemingly out of nowhere and then collide, annihilating each other. Not to mention the quantum foam, which consists of quantum fluctuations in the electromagnetic field that are present even in empty space.
Saying it's mere chance is a straw man, but you contradicted yourself, too: first you said it was mere chance, and then you said it was adaptation and chance. Of course in reality it's not mere chance at all, it's just natural selection: those organisms which, by chance, have an adaptation that helps them to survive will be more likely to do just that: survive (big surprise, right?), and thereby, pass on their genes (and thus said adaptation) to future generations.
That's a non-sequiter: it doesn't follow. Time has no meaning apart from change happening to things in the universe.
This is not an attempt at an argument, and a reply isn't even needed if you don't want to. But, it's obvious you were trying to make sweeping statements about science, and it's also obvious that you've never even studied science, so I had to set the record straight a bit.
No, they don't say it happened out of nowhere, but that it happened at a region of high temperature and density.
No, it wasn't an explosion.
Nope, but it is completely obvious, when it's actually understood.
No, it doesn't, but there's no such law anyway.
It's not claimed that there was no cause.
It's not claimed that something came out of nothing, but again, there's no such law, and quantum mechanics even tells us about pairs of particles and antiparticles called virtual particles which pop into existence seemingly out of nowhere and then collide, annihilating each other. Not to mention the quantum foam, which consists of quantum fluctuations in the electromagnetic field that are present even in empty space.
Saying it's mere chance is a straw man, but you contradicted yourself, too: first you said it was mere chance, and then you said it was adaptation and chance. Of course in reality it's not mere chance at all, it's just natural selection: those organisms which, by chance, have an adaptation that helps them to survive will be more likely to do just that: survive (big surprise, right?), and thereby, pass on their genes (and thus said adaptation) to future generations.
That's a non-sequiter: it doesn't follow. Time has no meaning apart from change happening to things in the universe.
This is not an attempt at an argument, and a reply isn't even needed if you don't want to. But, it's obvious you were trying to make sweeping statements about science, and it's also obvious that you've never even studied science, so I had to set the record straight a bit.
C
In fact some do use this language, as I already demonstrated. Again, to quote Hawking and Mlodinow: "...M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing." (The Grand Design, 8).
But then you say:
And as it has been pointed out time and time again, a quantum energy field is not "nothing" or "nowhere" and so these particles are not coming from "nothing" or "nowhere"! If there is something giving rise to an entity (like a fluctuation in an energy field) then it is not something coming from nothing.
In fact, this is the the idea that is behind Hawking and Mlodinow's language as is clear from the following quote: "Mutliverse Quantum fluctuations lead to the creation of tiny universes out of nothing" (137). But calling this "nothing" is simply Hawking and Mlodinow's philosophical naivety poking through. Or else it's rhetorical slight of hand.
But to say that there is evidence for this is laughable. In fact the entire M-theory is just wishful thinking at this point. Or as physicist Roger Penrose (yes, the guy whose name is attached to the Hawking-Penrose theorems) says "What is referred to as 'M-Theory' isn't even a theory. It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations... It certainly has no observational [evidence]."
In fact random mutation (or what you're referring to as chance adaptation) is a concept that stands independently of natural selection. As you said, natural selection says that more fit creatures produce more offspring than less fit creatures, but it doesn't require anything to be so about random mutations. And as you said, the concept of natural selection isn't even surprising. It's the random mutation idea and the Darwinist claim that the two concepts are jointly sufficient conditions to explain the biological structures we find in nature. But Darwinism doesn't collapse them into "just natural selection."
Time doesn't require the physical universe. The idea that time is relational is an Aristotelian concept and relations or changes don't require physical entities.
:s
But then you say:
And as it has been pointed out time and time again, a quantum energy field is not "nothing" or "nowhere" and so these particles are not coming from "nothing" or "nowhere"! If there is something giving rise to an entity (like a fluctuation in an energy field) then it is not something coming from nothing.
In fact, this is the the idea that is behind Hawking and Mlodinow's language as is clear from the following quote: "Mutliverse Quantum fluctuations lead to the creation of tiny universes out of nothing" (137). But calling this "nothing" is simply Hawking and Mlodinow's philosophical naivety poking through. Or else it's rhetorical slight of hand.
But to say that there is evidence for this is laughable. In fact the entire M-theory is just wishful thinking at this point. Or as physicist Roger Penrose (yes, the guy whose name is attached to the Hawking-Penrose theorems) says "What is referred to as 'M-Theory' isn't even a theory. It's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations... It certainly has no observational [evidence]."
In fact random mutation (or what you're referring to as chance adaptation) is a concept that stands independently of natural selection. As you said, natural selection says that more fit creatures produce more offspring than less fit creatures, but it doesn't require anything to be so about random mutations. And as you said, the concept of natural selection isn't even surprising. It's the random mutation idea and the Darwinist claim that the two concepts are jointly sufficient conditions to explain the biological structures we find in nature. But Darwinism doesn't collapse them into "just natural selection."
Time doesn't require the physical universe. The idea that time is relational is an Aristotelian concept and relations or changes don't require physical entities.
:s
T
Guys, seriously? Can you go argue about this somewhere else? This forum is dedicated to Thatonegermex, and trying to meet up and talk with her. If you guys can't put aside your pitiful little arguments for the sake of a nonbeliever, then I would have to ask you guys if you've read your Bible lately.
Trust_in_the_name, simply don't reply. Just let it go! If you truly believe you are the correct one, then why waste your time arguing here? There's nothing wrong with politely pointing out discrepancies in someone's logic (as you have done), but this should be done in the proper location (ie.Bible discussion forum), (as you have NOT done).
Thatonegermex, I apologize for their behavior. We are here to help you, not to argue.
Trust_in_the_name, simply don't reply. Just let it go! If you truly believe you are the correct one, then why waste your time arguing here? There's nothing wrong with politely pointing out discrepancies in someone's logic (as you have done), but this should be done in the proper location (ie.Bible discussion forum), (as you have NOT done).
Thatonegermex, I apologize for their behavior. We are here to help you, not to argue.
C
I'm not going to be very popular for this response, but then I'm not here to win a popularity contest.
Since when did this forum become dedicated to making meet up times? To try and dictate that this is what the thread is about is anachronistic and looks a bit silly. I don't see that you have the right to dictate that this thread is "about" meet up times anymore than I have the right to dictate that this thread is about arguments for God's existence.
And I noticed that 4 days ago you made the following post:
Is that post about meet up times? No? Well then can you take your pitiful little comments to the appropriate forum for the sake of a nonbeliever?
I'm not serious of course, just shinning a light on your odd line of reasoning here. How exactly would us not making the comments we have made be "for the sake of a nonbeliever"? And which Bible verse would tell us not to make the comments we made?
I could go on, as I think the rest of your comments are equally out of place here, but that about sums it up. It just looks a bit silly to get bent out of shape because of our comments.
Since when did this forum become dedicated to making meet up times? To try and dictate that this is what the thread is about is anachronistic and looks a bit silly. I don't see that you have the right to dictate that this thread is "about" meet up times anymore than I have the right to dictate that this thread is about arguments for God's existence.
And I noticed that 4 days ago you made the following post:
Is that post about meet up times? No? Well then can you take your pitiful little comments to the appropriate forum for the sake of a nonbeliever?
I'm not serious of course, just shinning a light on your odd line of reasoning here. How exactly would us not making the comments we have made be "for the sake of a nonbeliever"? And which Bible verse would tell us not to make the comments we made?
I could go on, as I think the rest of your comments are equally out of place here, but that about sums it up. It just looks a bit silly to get bent out of shape because of our comments.
Of course, we have to be careful about how we interpret these kinds of statements in a work of popular science where the ideas are, of necessity, highly over-simplified. Does the theory really say that universes are created out of nothing? Maybe. Only a small number of people in the world can claim to have any kind of serious grasp of M-theory, so who knows, but it could also be that the theory simply doesn't have anything to say about where these universes come from, so Hawking puts it in language his reader will be able to easily pick up on: they are created "out of nothing."
But even if he really is referring to a literal creation from nothing, there's no concensus on the subject, and many scientists take other views. M-theory is hypothetical, and ultimately our current models for describing such things are weak and highly tentative. Given that there is no physical evidence and therefore no substantiated theoretical understanding of the matter, and that even our hypothetical theoretical understanding is only in its most elementary stages, it certainly makes some sense to go with the established scientific framework, which says that if something is there, it came from somewhere (not nowhere).
Hawking and others may have reasons for the idea of creation from nothing, so I'll concede that my objection may have been too conclusive in taking the opposite view, which is the one I tend toward. Instead I'll simply note that there are no definite answers one way or the other.
Sure but I'm not talking about a space that contains an already-existing field. What I'm saying is that in an empty space where there is no field and no particles, fields and particles actually do pop into existence ouf of nowhere (or, at least, they appear to).
Not sure how this supports your point.
That's kind of what I was getting at above. It's hard to say, without actually understanding the theory, how literal he is actually being here and how much of it is just his interpretation of the theory (as opposed to a necessary result of the theory).
Also along the lines of what I was saying above. It's all very speculative right now.
Penrose is one of the biggest critics of M-theory. Hawking used to be one as well but he changed his tune when M-theory predicted results for the entropy of black holes that match up with other methods of calculating its value. Of course the problem here is that the other methods are also still speculative.
Sure, it's random mutation in combination with natural selection. They work together in the sense that random mutations are selected on the basis of their beneficence (not sure if that's the right word but what the hey I'm going with it; you get the idea).
Aristotle's ideas were based on philosophy, not science. Because science didn't exist at the time, Greek philosphers came up with all kinds of fantastic notions which had no basis in reality. The relational (or relative) notion of space and time as a scientific idea was championed by Ernst Mach and later taken up by Albert Einstein, and his theory of relativity, which is currently our best understanding of space and time, is a relational theory. The spacetime geometry of general relativity is not an actual entity but a network of evolving causal relationships.
Newton formulated his mechanics in the framework of an absolute spacetime, but the idea is now understood to be outdated. One of the biggest problems with string theory is that it is background-dependent, whereas the relational, background-independent nature of competing theories such as loop quantum gravity (which incorporates Penrose's spin networks) is considered to be one of its main strengths.
But even if he really is referring to a literal creation from nothing, there's no concensus on the subject, and many scientists take other views. M-theory is hypothetical, and ultimately our current models for describing such things are weak and highly tentative. Given that there is no physical evidence and therefore no substantiated theoretical understanding of the matter, and that even our hypothetical theoretical understanding is only in its most elementary stages, it certainly makes some sense to go with the established scientific framework, which says that if something is there, it came from somewhere (not nowhere).
Hawking and others may have reasons for the idea of creation from nothing, so I'll concede that my objection may have been too conclusive in taking the opposite view, which is the one I tend toward. Instead I'll simply note that there are no definite answers one way or the other.
Sure but I'm not talking about a space that contains an already-existing field. What I'm saying is that in an empty space where there is no field and no particles, fields and particles actually do pop into existence ouf of nowhere (or, at least, they appear to).
Not sure how this supports your point.
That's kind of what I was getting at above. It's hard to say, without actually understanding the theory, how literal he is actually being here and how much of it is just his interpretation of the theory (as opposed to a necessary result of the theory).
Also along the lines of what I was saying above. It's all very speculative right now.
Penrose is one of the biggest critics of M-theory. Hawking used to be one as well but he changed his tune when M-theory predicted results for the entropy of black holes that match up with other methods of calculating its value. Of course the problem here is that the other methods are also still speculative.
Sure, it's random mutation in combination with natural selection. They work together in the sense that random mutations are selected on the basis of their beneficence (not sure if that's the right word but what the hey I'm going with it; you get the idea).
Aristotle's ideas were based on philosophy, not science. Because science didn't exist at the time, Greek philosphers came up with all kinds of fantastic notions which had no basis in reality. The relational (or relative) notion of space and time as a scientific idea was championed by Ernst Mach and later taken up by Albert Einstein, and his theory of relativity, which is currently our best understanding of space and time, is a relational theory. The spacetime geometry of general relativity is not an actual entity but a network of evolving causal relationships.
Newton formulated his mechanics in the framework of an absolute spacetime, but the idea is now understood to be outdated. One of the biggest problems with string theory is that it is background-dependent, whereas the relational, background-independent nature of competing theories such as loop quantum gravity (which incorporates Penrose's spin networks) is considered to be one of its main strengths.
Last edited:
I wasn't the one who brought it up in this location. I just responded to it in the place where it already existed. And since you're on the subject of politeness, I might point out that it's rude for you to belittle our discussion and refer to it as pitiful.
The problem is that you think Credo_ut_Intelligam and I are arguing. We're not. We're having a discussion in which we sometimes have similar views and sometimes have dissimilar views. You say if I think I am correct, why waste my time arguing? The reason is that by discussing (not arguing), both sides (hopefully) will learn things. By talking it out we are able to learn about each other's views and the reasoning we've employed to arrive at them, and hopefully we can reach at least a partial agreement.
Of course, I can understand your concern. The unfortunate reality is that (due to pride) most people are incapable of discussing a disagreement without resorting to arguing, name-calling, and other sorts of unseemly behavior. The good news is that in this case, your concerns are unwarranted. I'm rather good about being aware of that sort of thing, and tend to "stick to the point," as it were, without making it personal. (That said, I'll admit that it may have been inappropriate on my part to call Adrianv125 out on his ignorance of science. Sorry.
So instead of looking at the discussion as a bad thing, think of it as an opportunity to learn. The idea that disagreements are of necessity some sort of negative is counterproductive.
The problem is that you think Credo_ut_Intelligam and I are arguing. We're not. We're having a discussion in which we sometimes have similar views and sometimes have dissimilar views. You say if I think I am correct, why waste my time arguing? The reason is that by discussing (not arguing), both sides (hopefully) will learn things. By talking it out we are able to learn about each other's views and the reasoning we've employed to arrive at them, and hopefully we can reach at least a partial agreement.
Of course, I can understand your concern. The unfortunate reality is that (due to pride) most people are incapable of discussing a disagreement without resorting to arguing, name-calling, and other sorts of unseemly behavior. The good news is that in this case, your concerns are unwarranted. I'm rather good about being aware of that sort of thing, and tend to "stick to the point," as it were, without making it personal. (That said, I'll admit that it may have been inappropriate on my part to call Adrianv125 out on his ignorance of science. Sorry.
So instead of looking at the discussion as a bad thing, think of it as an opportunity to learn. The idea that disagreements are of necessity some sort of negative is counterproductive.
To be honest, it's (sadly) almost becoming very difficult to discuss the concept of Christianity because of so very many branches and slightly different interpretations. i.e. some people believe that, no matter how much you believe or love the Lord God, you simply will not get to Heaven if you have not been baptized. Catholics and Protestants have different beliefs on sin. It gets very confusing and complicated. Catholics find it okay to pray to saints. Even though the Bible says only to pray to God. There are Soooo many moderate differences....I know what your trying to do though. I'm pretty sure your getting at the idea that once your a Christian, you are so happy and rejuvinated, that it's impossible to turn. So unless you werent a real Christian to begin with, you really wouldnt have a change of heart. If this is what you were getting at, my response is meaningless.
But I was going to say that I considered myself a strong Christian until about the age of 12 or 13. That's when I started having doubt. I saw a lot of hypocrisy in my school and church. I was mistreated and abused. I saw a lot of problems with the beliefs. I do really love and respect some of the beliefs though. Just not all of it. I started researching a lot of other religions and came to some conclusions. Then I dabbled with some witchcraft and I thought that was stupid. And finally a friend let me borrow some books on Satanism actually, and it scared me at first. But I started reading some of it and it made some sense. I can't let my parents or anyone know though or they might think I'm crazy. I'm afraid they would completely not understand and like send me away or something. It's just books. It has no magical powers or anything. That's silly. A lot of people think thats what it is though
M
hey little sister! Firstly welcome!! Just read all pages of this thread. I am truely sorry to hear of your story. Makes my heart weep for you
As you have clearly seen already, there are some good kids here, good old Beau... haha he doesnt know it but ive been secretly stalking him, watching his shenanigans for a while, he's a good one, lots of love, a champ
Hahaha but dont worry if people get all rowled up *rabble rabble rabble!!!* as Beau said, just because we're christians doesnt mean we dont get carried away from time to time. It's not any reflection on you sister. Youll find some on here like a good argue almost as much as anyone else.... hahaha we just say we love each other and mean it afterwards, but argue... or discuss i prefer to call it, we almost certainly will
Im sure youll get alot from coming here sister. Be blessed in CC company
God bless and much love - Daniel
Just read all pages of this thread. I am truely sorry to hear of your story. Makes my heart weep for you As you have clearly seen already, there are some good kids here, good old Beau... haha he doesnt know it but ive been secretly stalking him, watching his shenanigans for a while, he's a good one, lots of love, a champ
Hahaha but dont worry if people get all rowled up *rabble rabble rabble!!!* as Beau said, just because we're christians doesnt mean we dont get carried away from time to time. It's not any reflection on you sister. Youll find some on here like a good argue almost as much as anyone else.... hahaha we just say we love each other and mean it afterwards, but argue... or discuss i prefer to call it, we almost certainly will
Im sure youll get alot from coming here sister. Be blessed in CC company
God bless and much love - Daniel
T
hey little sister! Firstly welcome!! Just read all pages of this thread. I am truely sorry to hear of your story. Makes my heart weep for you
As you have clearly seen already, there are some good kids here, good old Beau... haha he doesnt know it but ive been secretly stalking him, watching his shenanigans for a while, he's a good one, lots of love, a champ
Hahaha but dont worry if people get all rowled up *rabble rabble rabble!!!* as Beau said, just because we're christians doesnt mean we dont get carried away from time to time. It's not any reflection on you sister. Youll find some on here like a good argue almost as much as anyone else.... hahaha we just say we love each other and mean it afterwards, but argue... or discuss i prefer to call it, we almost certainly will
Im sure youll get alot from coming here sister. Be blessed in CC company
God bless and much love - Daniel
Just read all pages of this thread. I am truely sorry to hear of your story. Makes my heart weep for you As you have clearly seen already, there are some good kids here, good old Beau... haha he doesnt know it but ive been secretly stalking him, watching his shenanigans for a while, he's a good one, lots of love, a champ
Hahaha but dont worry if people get all rowled up *rabble rabble rabble!!!* as Beau said, just because we're christians doesnt mean we dont get carried away from time to time. It's not any reflection on you sister. Youll find some on here like a good argue almost as much as anyone else.... hahaha we just say we love each other and mean it afterwards, but argue... or discuss i prefer to call it, we almost certainly will
Im sure youll get alot from coming here sister. Be blessed in CC company
God bless and much love - Daniel