Cycel, I didn't "put you up" against anyone simply because
you're not qualified to go up against ANY of them. What I did is share some factual information with you on an interesting topic you commented on.
Of course I quote and paraphrase Christian qualified astrophysicists and physicists and share the links to and resources that I'm using.
You can tell because I name them by name and insert links to their articles. DUH!
Yes I do like the team over at RTB as not only is Ross fully qualified to discuss these topics but RTB has an extended network of hundreds of thousands of scientists, researchers, educators, and interested laypersons. I also like the publications from the likes of Edgar Andrews, etc... and a great many others which I share too.
I don't remember accessing dsgraves for this thread; however. I don't need to as I have all of RTB's published materials, access to reasons.org, a plethora of scholarly science resources, etc... Perhaps the author of that website copied from them resulting in the overlap and your confusion. But then you should have asked me rather than play citation marm on an informal forum and engage in ad hominem to excuse yourself from dealing with
the content to make a false assertion and divert the discussion away from the point of it.
And, if you've been reading what I post, then you know I deal with multiverse hypothesis. You appear to be under the illusion that multiverse hypothesis is leading away from Creator God rather than toward Him.
What Jeff says exactly (and I quote) is:
"I would argue that the “God or multiverse” choice is a false dichotomy. First, in past TNRTBs I have shown that the multiverse
does not help the naturalist eliminate God. In fact, in a strictly naturalist worldview, the multiverse
adversely affects the scientific enterprise. Second, I see no inherent problems with
God using a multiverse to create a place where Earth life, especially humanity, could grow and thrive."
Of course Cycel, it is uncertain whether the multiverse will ultimately prove true. Read:
Reasons To Believe : Multiverse
Furthermore, you're also wrong about there not being a Christian worldview. There certainly is too. In fact, there is only one correct Christian worldview and it is the right one that actually exists in perfect alignment with objective reality.
People and their consensus can align with or fail to align with it as they so choose to. Now would be a good time for you to revisit my post #206:
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/97622-paranormal-11.html#post1665386
What you're observing is people that profess to be Christians (some who are and some who are not) making assertions. These assertions, each individually, either align with THE Christian worldview's objective reality or they do not align with it to whatever extend they do or fail to. This isn't difficult to understand. The mere presence of disagreement does not invalidate truth. Any good philosopher can easily explain why though many atheists appear unable to grasp the concept... lol.
Now the earliest-known Christian writings on the meaning of the creation days date back to the second century. Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 100-165) and Irenaeus (c. A.D. 120-140 to 200-203) drew support from Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 to suggest that the "days" could be epochs. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) wrote, in The City of God, "As for these 'days,' it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think-let alone explain in words-what they mean."
In The Literal Meaning of Genesis he added, "But at least we know that it is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Augustine understood the evenings and mornings of the Genesis creation days in a figurative sense.
Eusebius noted that the Hebrew word for day, yom, could refer to an epoch time scale stating, "This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, in the day that God made the heaven and the earth, and all the things that are therein."
There has been divergence on the age of the world amongst Christians throughout the history of Christendom whose special revelation from God is primarily concerned with His plan and purpose for the redemption and salvation of His creation.
Obviously, as an educated intelligent person possessing a experiential personal relationship with Creator God, I have zero desire to follow you into the error you have willfully chosen for yourself. Unlike you, I am not deceived and know WHOM I speak of when I speak of God.
Aside from your first sentence, “Name me an atheist that asserted the universe had a beginning prior to the 20th century,” is there any part of this post that you didn't cut and paste? Certainly the rest of your first paragraph is copied from the following creationist website, <http://www.dsgraves.com/faithwrit/the-big-bang-and-the-bible/>, and parts of the remainder seem to have been lifted from a 2009 article by Dr. Hugh Ross and the writings of Dr. Jeff Zweerink (though I didn't take the time to check the source of every sentence in your post). It’s ironic you would remark I am “not that smart” but then proceed to put me up against Dr. Jeff Zweerink, from the UCLA Physics & Astronomy department. You do this because you acknowledge you don’t have the background to discus the subject yourself so you rely on words taken from others? We have had this discussion before, I think. Please put every word you borrow from others in quotations so I know who I am actually having the conversation with. It is a courtesy to the author of the ideas, and it dispels any erroneous pretense that the words are your own. By the way, did you know that Zweerink thinks that the multi-universe hypothesis is credible? Obviously he knows more about this than I do, but from what I’ve read it sounds very plausible. What do you think? There is no way this guy is a young earth creationist. Given you constantly cite him I am guessing you do recognize the universe is some 13.72 billion years old? Hugh Ross too recognizes the great age of the universe; conservative Christians have been very critical of his views in this regard. There is no single Christian world view. There is your world view and then the Christian world views of Pope Francis, the Archbishops of the Church of England, and so on. What you will find, if you look into it, is that my views don’t differ all that much from those of many liberal Christians. AoK, I am an atheist. If you want to follow me into the light of reason I will be very happy to help show you the way, but I have no quarrel with those who choose instead to worship a personal deity. I won’t try to stop you. I don’t argue with the likes of Francis Collins, a self professed evangelical Christian and leading American geneticist who states clearly that he can prove the case for evolution using genetics. Many liberal Christians have demonstrated that it is possible to embrace modern scientific findings and still believe in God. Why would I argue with that? My real interest is in correcting those who make false claims about science, history and atheists. I also am very interested in correcting any erroneous views that I hold and I am sure I have my fair share. The best way any of us have to test the strength of our position is to put them up against others who have different outlooks. Members of the scientific community do this all the time and they slowly work toward a consensus. Note that consensus is not compromise. Put to the test ideas either stand or they fall. It seems reasonable that in a fair exchange of ideas the truth settles out on top, and who among us would object to that?