-
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.
A
I believe he may be mocking close-minded atheists, such as yourself, that are so prevalent amongst the new atheists of today. They make the false assertion that God does not exist and therefore not interacting with human beings (despite all evidence to the contrary) and then misrepresent science to "prove" it (despite being carefully refuted by their peers qualified to do so) all the while behaving as if propagating this false assertion is of the greatest possible importance for humanity despite their false assertion positing an ultimately meaningless existence... lol.
It is not Tyson's style to mock, so probably not. I've been trying, out of curiosity, to find the source of the video, but so far no luck.
Tyson is himself a self proclaimed agnostic. When asked whether or not he thinks there is a god, he says he has never seen any evidence in favour, but says he is willing to look at it if anyone has any to show him. He doesn't much care for the Christian/atheist debate either. He is strictly a man of science.
You can make all the bold claims you like AOK, but unless you are capable of defending them there is little point in making them. From my side of the fence most of your assertions in the above paragraph just look silly.
Tyson is himself a self proclaimed agnostic. When asked whether or not he thinks there is a god, he says he has never seen any evidence in favour, but says he is willing to look at it if anyone has any to show him. He doesn't much care for the Christian/atheist debate either. He is strictly a man of science.
You can make all the bold claims you like AOK, but unless you are capable of defending them there is little point in making them. From my side of the fence most of your assertions in the above paragraph just look silly.
God, Who is eternal is able to create by speaking into existence what is.
Yet you expect a rational person to believe that from [no thing] all the design and intelligence and beauty come into existence.
In your example you brought 'energy fields' into the equation. So now you are saying [no thing]+'energy fields= something. Well that is not what I am talking of because now you have the problem of 'how did the 'energy fields' get there in the first place'?
I am speaking of 'something' from 'no thing' is an impossibility.
Houston, we still have a problem.
Yet you expect a rational person to believe that from [no thing] all the design and intelligence and beauty come into existence.
In your example you brought 'energy fields' into the equation. So now you are saying [no thing]+'energy fields= something. Well that is not what I am talking of because now you have the problem of 'how did the 'energy fields' get there in the first place'?
I am speaking of 'something' from 'no thing' is an impossibility.
Houston, we still have a problem.
Last edited:
A
Yes I know. Hence my post #226 in reply to a gag featuring Tyson. And, of course, I do substantiate my assertions Cycel. I can't make you read and understand the evidence I share with you, however. You have to take on some of that responsibility for yourself. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. It would be a nice change.
P.S. Neil is actually worse than a mere mocker as he's stated that all reputable scholars who don't accept the atheistic views he aligns himself with are "science deniers" (even though most of them are scientists and researchers involved in progressing the scientific enterprise who simply find a much better fit for the evidence than atheism) that will make us "regress back to the cave" and therefore should be censured by all media in a totalitarian manner. Like most close-minded atheists who have got it wrong, he appeals to totalitarianism so that only those hypothesis he agrees with and asserts should have exclusive access to the mainstream media.
I kid you not. In every atheist, is a state atheist totalitarian struggling to get out. Unfortunately, sometimes they do. They certainly did in the 20th century. Sweeping democide and severe persecution was the result.
Embedded Display for rawstory
P.S. Neil is actually worse than a mere mocker as he's stated that all reputable scholars who don't accept the atheistic views he aligns himself with are "science deniers" (even though most of them are scientists and researchers involved in progressing the scientific enterprise who simply find a much better fit for the evidence than atheism) that will make us "regress back to the cave" and therefore should be censured by all media in a totalitarian manner. Like most close-minded atheists who have got it wrong, he appeals to totalitarianism so that only those hypothesis he agrees with and asserts should have exclusive access to the mainstream media.
I kid you not. In every atheist, is a state atheist totalitarian struggling to get out. Unfortunately, sometimes they do. They certainly did in the 20th century. Sweeping democide and severe persecution was the result.
Embedded Display for rawstory
It is not Tyson's style to mock, so probably not. I've been trying, out of curiosity, to find the source of the video, but so far no luck.
Tyson is himself a self proclaimed agnostic. When asked whether or not he thinks there is a god, he says he has never seen any evidence in favour, but says he is willing to look at it if anyone has any to show him. He doesn't much care for the Christian/atheist debate either. He is strictly a man of science.
You can make all the bold claims you like AOK, but unless you are capable of defending them there is little point in making them. From my side of the fence most of your assertions in the above paragraph just look silly.
Tyson is himself a self proclaimed agnostic. When asked whether or not he thinks there is a god, he says he has never seen any evidence in favour, but says he is willing to look at it if anyone has any to show him. He doesn't much care for the Christian/atheist debate either. He is strictly a man of science.
You can make all the bold claims you like AOK, but unless you are capable of defending them there is little point in making them. From my side of the fence most of your assertions in the above paragraph just look silly.
I have done a little research and this notion that energy fields jump in and out of existence in the empty space between the quarks, thus supplying protons with 90% of their mass, is now accepted by the physics community. It may seem counter intuitive to what we’d expect to occur, but the subatomic level has its own rules.
I agree with you though I am not sure what you’re referencing. Are you talking about the supernatural? If so I still agree. If ghosts exist they do so whether I think they are real or not. The same applies to God, but I don’t know that we want to blithely accept the existence of things that we have no evidence for. I am willing to accept the existence of ghosts, NDEs, or anything else, but I want to see legitimate evidence.
I agree with you though I am not sure what you’re referencing. Are you talking about the supernatural? If so I still agree. If ghosts exist they do so whether I think they are real or not. The same applies to God, but I don’t know that we want to blithely accept the existence of things that we have no evidence for. I am willing to accept the existence of ghosts, NDEs, or anything else, but I want to see legitimate evidence.
These particular fields, found in the space between the quarks, fluctuate rapidly in and out of existence. They are responsible for 90% of the mass of all matter. What produces them? What produces this energy? Till recently the space between the quarks was thought to be empty. No theist ever argued the point. Now that it is recognized that energy fields fill that space theists like to argue that the space is not empty. Well, it is not devoid of energy, is it, but what produces the energy fields in a space that is otherwise empty? That seems to be the point. The energy fields themselves apparently arise from nothing.
Without evidence, Abraham believed when God spoke. When God spoke, Abraham left his homeland and relocated hundreds of miles on foot to the land of Canaan. When God spoke, Abraham was willing to offer his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice. Abraham believed that God would raise the dead. Abraham believed in promises and prophecies that would not be fulfilled until after his earthly lifetime.
What or who?
Experience and testing shows us that something never arises from nothing. Logic tells us that energy fields would not arise from nothing. The worlds of the universe were framed by the Word of God and not from things which are apparent (which do appear).
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Hebrews 11:3|KJV)
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:3|ESV)
Experience and testing shows us that something never arises from nothing. Logic tells us that energy fields would not arise from nothing. The worlds of the universe were framed by the Word of God and not from things which are apparent (which do appear).
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Hebrews 11:3|KJV)
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:3|ESV)
Keep in mind we are talking subatomic quantum physics. The rules of the larger Newtonian world we inhabit do not apply. Physicists are trying to wrap their minds around concepts that in the larger world of our daily experience make no sense. We cannot reason from daily experience to the subatomic level. Clearly something is causing these very significant energy fluctuations to occur, but they are still arising in otherwise empty space. Why?
Krauss argued in the lecture that empty space is itself unstable and produces these fields. Do you have a better explanation? Keep in mind this is not something he is making up on the fly. He is describing the consensus.
This has no explanatory power. It doesn’t help us in understanding anything. Do you really believe Mars, Earth and the other planets just popped into existence fully formed?
I think Hebrews is simply saying God created the world from nothing. I don’t think the author of Hebrews understood that the universe was anything other than the earth below and heaven above; heaven being the abode of God. I don’t believe there is any biblical notion that there were other worlds out there. I don’t think they even knew that the stars were anything more than just lights in the sky, though I may be wrong. Democritus, living in Greece about 400 BC, proposed all matter was made of atoms and suggested the stars only appeared as points of light because of their great distance from us. If Wikipedia is accurate he also believed the earth and other worlds formed from the accretion of many smaller bodies. Sounds remarkably like the view held by contemporary scientists, but I’ve seen no evidence that the writers of the Bible understood any of this. I don’t know how I can accept any biblical cosmological claim as accurate. The author of Hebrews must be basing his understanding upon the Book of Genesis for I think Christians rejected all Greek learning of the sort taught by Democritus.
Krauss argued in the lecture that empty space is itself unstable and produces these fields. Do you have a better explanation? Keep in mind this is not something he is making up on the fly. He is describing the consensus.
This has no explanatory power. It doesn’t help us in understanding anything. Do you really believe Mars, Earth and the other planets just popped into existence fully formed?
I think Hebrews is simply saying God created the world from nothing. I don’t think the author of Hebrews understood that the universe was anything other than the earth below and heaven above; heaven being the abode of God. I don’t believe there is any biblical notion that there were other worlds out there. I don’t think they even knew that the stars were anything more than just lights in the sky, though I may be wrong. Democritus, living in Greece about 400 BC, proposed all matter was made of atoms and suggested the stars only appeared as points of light because of their great distance from us. If Wikipedia is accurate he also believed the earth and other worlds formed from the accretion of many smaller bodies. Sounds remarkably like the view held by contemporary scientists, but I’ve seen no evidence that the writers of the Bible understood any of this. I don’t know how I can accept any biblical cosmological claim as accurate. The author of Hebrews must be basing his understanding upon the Book of Genesis for I think Christians rejected all Greek learning of the sort taught by Democritus.