-
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.
I Googled it. How cool is that. 
Antoine Lavoisier wrote the Law for the Conservation of Mass in the 1740s, but the law only applies to a closed system. Lavoisier did not know, we were in a galaxy, he did not know most other galaxies were moving away from us at an accelerating rate and he did not know about the background radiation. His law applies to the world we live in, but can we say the universe cannot have a beginning because Lavoisier in the 1740s did not take it into account? Does his law of 1744 preclude the existence of the Big Bang? I don't think we can make a statement like that.
The Big Bang sounds like an impossible event to me, but I have to go along with the claims of the theoretical physicists unless I can put into place a better explanation that takes into account all the observations the Big Bang theory explains. My alternative 'theory' would also have to have predictive capabilities. That is it would have to make a prediction about some phenomena that I can test that the older theory cannot explain. That's a tall order for someone like me.
If the best we can do is propose that a 270 year old law of physics that applies only in a closed system counters the Big Bang we are not doing very well.
Antoine Lavoisier wrote the Law for the Conservation of Mass in the 1740s, but the law only applies to a closed system. Lavoisier did not know, we were in a galaxy, he did not know most other galaxies were moving away from us at an accelerating rate and he did not know about the background radiation. His law applies to the world we live in, but can we say the universe cannot have a beginning because Lavoisier in the 1740s did not take it into account? Does his law of 1744 preclude the existence of the Big Bang? I don't think we can make a statement like that.
The Big Bang sounds like an impossible event to me, but I have to go along with the claims of the theoretical physicists unless I can put into place a better explanation that takes into account all the observations the Big Bang theory explains. My alternative 'theory' would also have to have predictive capabilities. That is it would have to make a prediction about some phenomena that I can test that the older theory cannot explain. That's a tall order for someone like me.
If the best we can do is propose that a 270 year old law of physics that applies only in a closed system counters the Big Bang we are not doing very well.
Frederick Temple (1821-1902).
When Temple spoke the words, “God does something much more wonderful than make the world. He makes the world make itself” he was not referring to weather systems. He may have had in mind the work of James Hutton and Charles Lyle, but probably also he was thinking of Charles Darwin. Present archbishops also have behind them the findings of modern astronomers and cosmologists who say they can even explain the past, present, and future formation of stars and planets. Biologists are working to explain the origin of life itself. Is it any wonder that a contemporary archbishop thought the words bore repeating?
In fairness to Temple he was speaking at a time when Uniformitarianism ruled supreme. Even after his time leading astronomers such as Fred Hoyle, presumed a Steady State model of the universe. Later observations were not to bare this out, but that doesn't preclude that the solar system, and hence the world, made itself. The heat death of the universe predicted by the current model may seem an unsatisfactory end to our universe, but it does not negate Temple's words.
The other point I would raise is that if the heat death of the universe that you speak of is indeed the fate of the universe, then it is the universe God created. Perhaps this is how it ends, and then He starts over with another Big Bang? Can you prove it's not so? On the other hand if the data is correct and the galaxies are accelerating away from us then there is an unexplained input of energy into the universe from somewhere, and perhaps another conclusion will in time be reached?
When Temple spoke the words, “God does something much more wonderful than make the world. He makes the world make itself” he was not referring to weather systems. He may have had in mind the work of James Hutton and Charles Lyle, but probably also he was thinking of Charles Darwin. Present archbishops also have behind them the findings of modern astronomers and cosmologists who say they can even explain the past, present, and future formation of stars and planets. Biologists are working to explain the origin of life itself. Is it any wonder that a contemporary archbishop thought the words bore repeating?
In fairness to Temple he was speaking at a time when Uniformitarianism ruled supreme. Even after his time leading astronomers such as Fred Hoyle, presumed a Steady State model of the universe. Later observations were not to bare this out, but that doesn't preclude that the solar system, and hence the world, made itself. The heat death of the universe predicted by the current model may seem an unsatisfactory end to our universe, but it does not negate Temple's words.
The other point I would raise is that if the heat death of the universe that you speak of is indeed the fate of the universe, then it is the universe God created. Perhaps this is how it ends, and then He starts over with another Big Bang? Can you prove it's not so? On the other hand if the data is correct and the galaxies are accelerating away from us then there is an unexplained input of energy into the universe from somewhere, and perhaps another conclusion will in time be reached?
Future fate: All things are possible with Almighty God. Before we ever figure out current cosmology, God creates a new one.
Revelation 21:21
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
In the new design, no sea will be included.
Revelation 21:21
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
In the new design, no sea will be included.
Billions of years old. It says that in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Doesn't say how long that part took. Scientists can trace back the history of the universe to just seconds after the Big Bang. They have no explanation as to how or why it happened because matter can't exist without space and time. The condensed matter that exploded would have had to exist OUTSIDE of space and time........like the place that God is supposed to exist.
breath taking never before seen new cameras from space that can see and work on infa red technology cameras that can bring earth to space with in one inch.
after watching this i began to realise only a genius could of created are earth.
[video=youtube;38peWm76l-U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38peWm76l-U[/video]
after watching this i began to realise only a genius could of created are earth.
[video=youtube;38peWm76l-U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38peWm76l-U[/video]
There is a difference, however. The atheist, or perhaps it would be better to say the secularist (for that would include the many Christians who agree with this outlook), relies on observations of the physical world and experimentation to solve the questions, whereas the theist openly admits, generally, that we have no direct access to the spiritual realm. OldHermit makes this case very strongly.
The theist typically relies on scripture written in antiquity to prove his case, but those of us in the modern era have no way of confirming the claims. The theist cannot, and does not, rely upon experimentation. He relies upon the authority of a holy text, a text about which there is often a great deal of disagreement. A quick glance at the competing conclusions reveals just how uncertain the many claims are, though not surprisingly each desperate group often claims it alone possess the guidance of the holy spirit. In science disagreements there are, but they are followed by examination of the physical evidence, experiments, and more discussions until everyone is in agreement about the observed data. It is not a matter of faith. To take one example, the fossil evidence either shows, or does not show, that Australopithecus was bipedal.
Conservative Christians make claims about the universe, but do they ever make predictions about what the universe will look like through ever more powerful telescopes if those predictions are true? No? This, as you know, is what science does. Predictions have been made of what the early universe must look like if the Big Bang theory is true. October 2018 is the planned launch date for the James Webb space telescope. The surface area of its mirror is six times larger than the Hubble. It will photograph vistas invisible to Hubble and far more distant. It will have instruments to see into clouds were stars and planets are said to be born, and it may photograph any Earth like planets that lie close enough for its mirror to observe; and importantly for our discussion, it will reveal whether or not the scientific predictions are true for the Big Bang.
Science is not reliant on faith. Its predictions are built upon observation. Faith claims, it seems to me, are what one turns to when solid evidence from data is unavailable. You never see those of faith making scientific predictions, unless I am mistaken. Am I mistaken?
The theist typically relies on scripture written in antiquity to prove his case, but those of us in the modern era have no way of confirming the claims. The theist cannot, and does not, rely upon experimentation. He relies upon the authority of a holy text, a text about which there is often a great deal of disagreement. A quick glance at the competing conclusions reveals just how uncertain the many claims are, though not surprisingly each desperate group often claims it alone possess the guidance of the holy spirit. In science disagreements there are, but they are followed by examination of the physical evidence, experiments, and more discussions until everyone is in agreement about the observed data. It is not a matter of faith. To take one example, the fossil evidence either shows, or does not show, that Australopithecus was bipedal.
Conservative Christians make claims about the universe, but do they ever make predictions about what the universe will look like through ever more powerful telescopes if those predictions are true? No? This, as you know, is what science does. Predictions have been made of what the early universe must look like if the Big Bang theory is true. October 2018 is the planned launch date for the James Webb space telescope. The surface area of its mirror is six times larger than the Hubble. It will photograph vistas invisible to Hubble and far more distant. It will have instruments to see into clouds were stars and planets are said to be born, and it may photograph any Earth like planets that lie close enough for its mirror to observe; and importantly for our discussion, it will reveal whether or not the scientific predictions are true for the Big Bang.
Science is not reliant on faith. Its predictions are built upon observation. Faith claims, it seems to me, are what one turns to when solid evidence from data is unavailable. You never see those of faith making scientific predictions, unless I am mistaken. Am I mistaken?
I think Christians don't make predictions of what the universe looks like because that's not what God has put us here to do. If one believes the Word of God and believes Jesus to be Lord and Savior, they realize that the size shape and appearance of galaxies and solar systems and all that are only of worldly interest. We had prophets predict the coming of the Christ, which I think the salvation that brings with it is just a wee bit more important and relevant to us than what space looks like.
Yes, the oceanic seas and inland seas are marvelous and enjoyable. If earth could even exist as an accident, I'm sure the chance is less than one in a "million billion gazillions" that it would have had an ocean. There might have been many failed planetary outcomes that excluded an ocean. Thankfully, Almighty God included that feature.
Many lives have been lost at sea but the seas have been an important part of human history and drama.
The Book of Revelation does make a couple of mention of a seas but they are a different type of sea. For those who love God, marvelous wonders await. See John 14:2 and 1 Corinthians 2:9 for a couple of related promises.
Many lives have been lost at sea but the seas have been an important part of human history and drama.
The Book of Revelation does make a couple of mention of a seas but they are a different type of sea. For those who love God, marvelous wonders await. See John 14:2 and 1 Corinthians 2:9 for a couple of related promises.
In post 1083 you wrote:
“We have a tendency to confine reality to only those things that can be observed, measured, and studied. Scripture shows us however, that reality extends beyond the simple fragile limitations of the physical dimension. Reality is a union of two parts. There is the temporal part of reality that is available to human empirical observation and the eternal, unobservable part of reality that exists beyond the realm of human accessibility. These two dimensions of reality are only separated from the standpoint of human limitations. While it is impossible for man to look into that part of reality, it is clear from scripture that the visible is always contingent upon the eternal. This veil of inaccessibility separates man from that world, not God from this world.”
Here you argued that the world is of two parts. That is dyadic reasoning (dyad meaning two in Greek). My thinking then is monadic (monad in Greek meaning one), for I accept the existence of only the material realm. So why do you claim in your response that my reasoning is dyadic? I don’t understand.
Secondly, saying my “eschatological base is exclusively materialistic” is, I think, meaningless. Eschatology pertains, as you know, to the study of the end times. Not so much the end of the world perhaps, but rather the end of humanity in the world. Many Christians, particularly conservative Christians are greatly tied into what they believe will be the immanent return of Christ. As an atheist I have no anticipation of such an event, which in my mind is not just unlikely, but impossible. Our discussion did not even encompass end times theology. So why do you raise this?
The original point you made, and I agree with it, is that “When one divorces God from reality as the causative agent it is impossible for the Bible to make sense....” This doesn’t mean I can’t understand scripture or theology, it only means I can’t agree with it. Hence, I made my analogy. “Would this be true of the Koran as well? Once one divorces Allah as the causative agent does it become impossible to believe Mohammed flew to Heaven on a winged horse?” You didn’t answer – you deflected.
“We have a tendency to confine reality to only those things that can be observed, measured, and studied. Scripture shows us however, that reality extends beyond the simple fragile limitations of the physical dimension. Reality is a union of two parts. There is the temporal part of reality that is available to human empirical observation and the eternal, unobservable part of reality that exists beyond the realm of human accessibility. These two dimensions of reality are only separated from the standpoint of human limitations. While it is impossible for man to look into that part of reality, it is clear from scripture that the visible is always contingent upon the eternal. This veil of inaccessibility separates man from that world, not God from this world.”
Here you argued that the world is of two parts. That is dyadic reasoning (dyad meaning two in Greek). My thinking then is monadic (monad in Greek meaning one), for I accept the existence of only the material realm. So why do you claim in your response that my reasoning is dyadic? I don’t understand.
Secondly, saying my “eschatological base is exclusively materialistic” is, I think, meaningless. Eschatology pertains, as you know, to the study of the end times. Not so much the end of the world perhaps, but rather the end of humanity in the world. Many Christians, particularly conservative Christians are greatly tied into what they believe will be the immanent return of Christ. As an atheist I have no anticipation of such an event, which in my mind is not just unlikely, but impossible. Our discussion did not even encompass end times theology. So why do you raise this?
The original point you made, and I agree with it, is that “When one divorces God from reality as the causative agent it is impossible for the Bible to make sense....” This doesn’t mean I can’t understand scripture or theology, it only means I can’t agree with it. Hence, I made my analogy. “Would this be true of the Koran as well? Once one divorces Allah as the causative agent does it become impossible to believe Mohammed flew to Heaven on a winged horse?” You didn’t answer – you deflected.
Last edited:
Evidence shows that Mars once possessed shallow seas. There is even speculation that Venus once possessed oceans, as of yet unconfirmed – but don't rule it out. The comets are covered in ices, some of it water, and it looks as though Europa, a moon of Jupiter, has a large ocean beneath its frozen surface. In other words it seems as though water planets may be very common in the universe.
