So you are one of those xtians wh thinks the bible is a pile of shit?

Interesting.

---

So you are one of those xtians wh thinks the bible is a pile of shit?

Interesting.

No, I don't think the Bible is a pile of shit, and I also am not 'one of those Christians.' I am a Watson, my beliefs also happen tocoincide very firmly with that of Christianity. So I call myself Christian.

The Bible isn't a pile o fshit, it's a series of demonstrations, and examples, meant to explain how God works. I could very easily write my own little stories that would fit snugly into it, and mine would probably be a bit better informed, seeing as we live in a day and age where science has taught us great amounts about how the world works.

I knew you'd come clean if I picked at you long enough.

So what you are is a xtian who has the decency to be embarrassed by the bible's more barbaric parts. You cherry-pick what you want and stick your head in the sand about the rest.

Fine. I said earlier that it isn't my job to soothe your delusions. Don't expect me to share them, though.

*smacks forehead against desk repeatedly.*

Nevermind. You don't know how to hold a discussion wherein new ideas are presented. I'm done with trying to present them at all to you.

(February 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(February 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm)Tsidkenu Wrote: You propose a eternal cosmos, in what ever form. its not possible.

Although Einstein's static universe is no longer a regarded as a viable model in the cosmological sense, then again matter cannot be created or destroyed. When you read up on the law of conservation of mass and energy it stands to reason that the universe has always existed in some form or other.

if that would be the case, our cosmos would already be in a state of heath death. never heard about the second law of thermodynamics ?

(February 28, 2010 at 5:40 pm)Tsidkenu Wrote:

(February 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(February 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm)Tsidkenu Wrote: You propose a eternal cosmos, in what ever form. its not possible.

Although Einstein's static universe is no longer a regarded as a viable model in the cosmological sense, then again matter cannot be created or destroyed. When you read up on the law of conservation of mass and energy it stands to reason that the universe has always existed in some form or other.

if that would be the case, our cosmos would already be in a state of heath death. never heard about the second law of thermodynamics ?

The current state of the universe operates under the second law of thermodynamics, sure. However, that doesn't mean a previous state of the universe was also operating under the same laws. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe has always existed in a certain form; before the Big Bang, it was a singularity, and afterwards it expanded to what it is today. The law of thermodynamics only works in an expanded universe, not a singularity, so no problems in terms of violations of physics.

(February 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The current state of the universe operates under the second law of thermodynamics, sure. However, that doesn't mean a previous state of the universe was also operating under the same laws. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe has always existed in a certain form;

No, it has not.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...g-t203.htm

The problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress. Some people simply proclaim that God created the universe, but children always want to know who created God, and that line of questioning gets uncomfortably difficult.
One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. just copied from earlier versions. Quite apart from all this, there is very good evidence that the universe did come into existence in a big bang, about fifteen billion years ago. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat.
So we are faced with the problem of what happened beforehand to trigger the big bang. Journalists love to taunt scientists with this question when they complain about the money being spent on science. Actually, the answer (in my opinion) was spotted a long time ago, by one Augustine of Hippo, a Christian saint who lived in the fifth century. In those days before science, cosmology was a branch of theology, and the taunt came not from journalists, but from pagans: "What was God doing before he made the universe?" they asked. "Busy creating Hell for the likes of you!" was the standard reply.
But Augustine was more subtle. The world, he claimed, was made "not in time, but simultaneously with time." In other words, the origin of the universe-what we now call the big bang-was not simply the sudden appearance of matter in an eternally preexisting void, but the coming into being of time itself. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no "before," no endless ocean of time for a god, or a physical process, to wear itself out in infinite preparation.
Remarkably, modern science has arrived at more or less the same conclusion as Augustine, based on what we now know about the nature of space, time, and gravitation. It was Albert Einstein who taught us that time and space are not merely an immutable arena in which the great cosmic drama is acted out, but are part of the cast-part of the physical universe. As physical entities, time and space can change- suffer distortions-as a result of gravitational processes. Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary, or "singularity," at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued. Thus, physics predicts that time was indeed bounded in the past as Augustine claimed. It did not stretch back for all eternity.

Quote:So we are faced with the problem of what happened beforehand to trigger the big bang.

If you think this is a valid question, then you have no idea about physics or the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory posits that time did not exist, and that the Big Bang was the expansion of space and time.

If this is true, then the universe was "always" existing (in a timeless state). This doesn't mean it existed for an infinitely long period, because time did not exist for there to be any periods What it means is that there was a start to time, and thereby a start to cause / effect through the start of time. It doesn't show that there is a God, it shows that the universe could indeed have existed "forever" in some state, given the meaning of the word "forever" when in the context of time as something that had a beginning.

Quote:Nevermind. You don't know how to hold a discussion wherein new ideas are presented.

You have no ideas. You re-cycle shit and pretend that you thought of it.

Every xtian sect was started by some asshole who thought that he understood what the bible was about.

They are all wrong.

I do not re-cycle anything, nor do I 'pretend I thought of it,' Min. There is nothing which can be thought that has not already bee nthought before. The difference is, I came to the conclusions on my own, without having seen the 'shit' prior to it.

You, on the other hand...