Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 3, 2012 at 7:27 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: You don't have to believe in original sin to be a christian FallentoReason. If you don't believe in it, that's okay. I have made mistakes and I'm sure that we all have, Jesus atonement paid for those mistakes for those that place their faith in him. Jesus and original sin do not stand or fall together.
So what is this "sin that entered the world through one man"?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
November 3, 2012 at 1:02 pm (This post was last modified: November 3, 2012 at 1:13 pm by Undeceived.)
(November 3, 2012 at 3:27 am)FallentoReason Wrote:
(November 3, 2012 at 2:26 am)Undeceived Wrote: The energy would have to be constant if our system is an isolated system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_o...modynamics ) The universe of the theoretical Big Bang has to be an isolated, closed system. The story of Creation says that the universe was not always closed--an outside source served as catalyst for all its energies, namely God. You need evidence that our system has always been closed, but that knowledge is unreachable. So I still don't know why God would use the Big Bang because there seems to be nothing more known about the Big Bang than about Creation. In the beginning there was a burst of energy from one place--what else do we know? Do you have any other arguments why a creator would use the Big Bang?
I see what you're saying. I couldn't ever tell you "why" a creator would use the Big Bang. All I can really tell you is if there was a Big Bang or not.
The Big Bang theory states that the singularity was very very hot. This was proposed prior to the Nobel-prize-winning discovery by radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965, who discovered Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation that is detectable everywhere you look into the universe. CMB radiation is thought to be the remnants of this intense heat from the singularity.
NASA gathered measurements of the CMB radiation with a space probe in 2006. Together with measurements from an observatory in Chile, they were able to draw a picture of the early universe (as the CMB radiation has been bouncing around space for the past 13.7 billion years).
If I'm not mistaken, these are the "seeds of matter" that would eventually become the galaxies we observe now.
Another piece of evidence is the fact that the universe is expanding. Needless to say, this suggests that it all expanded from one single point.
So basically, the Big Bang theory predicted something, and as far as I can tell, the observations fit the theory thus far. Predictive power is a very strong confirmation of something being possibly right.
Correlation (to an admittedly vague extent) is not causation. Basically, "the formation of stars, galaxies, etc., during the early years of the Universe’s formation, required that variations be present in the earliest distribution of the matter so that the matter ultimately would coalesce into those stars, galaxies, etc. And, as everyone acknowledged, the existence of these variations should have had some effect on the background radiation." (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...article=54 ) There are fluctuations, but we have no evidence the Big Bang caused them. The CMB could have just as easily been the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight, and not an ancient fireball. Also, the theory requires that 90-99% of matter be dark matter in order for the numbers to come out right. There is little observational evidence for dark matter--it is a theory contrived in response to the Big Bang's need. The main evidence is a signal of gamma-rays coming from the middle of our galaxy, which could just as easily come from far-off stars.
More: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/bb-top-30.asp
Evidence God created starlight-trails: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/scient...ars/756519
But I want to get back to our original topic. You say God would make a perfect world, and he would use a randomized Big Bang to do it. Putting aside the questions why, it seems to me all the evidence posited for the Big Bang thus far could just as easily have been manufactured by God through his infusion of energy into our universe. We should ask ourselves: would creation look any different than what we see? Well, creation would explain all the inconsistencies of the Big Bang linked above. And it might look billions of years old. This is because all rock dating is done to the molten creation of the rock--when it was last lava/magma. So any rock created without this initial stage is going to have whatever amount of Argon/Lead God saw fit to put in. If God had put any different levels of elements in rocks, the earth would not have been immediately habitable. Old-earth scientists date the earth and universe according to how long they think it would have taken to reach the habitable zones we have today. Well, it's logical that God would have done that from the outset. This includes the locations of the planets and stars and outer reaches of the universe. Everything is exactly as we need it, with dangerous imbalances working in union all around. God cannot possibly create a world that looks younger for the sake of non-deception if we make up our own criteria for what is 'old'. Do you see what I mean? To make it ‘look’ younger, He would have to make an inhabitable world. He makes a habitable world, and we immediately conclude it needed billions of years to get there naturally. Well, God is not going to go out of his way to make his supernatural look natural. Should he?
(November 3, 2012 at 3:27 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I see what you're saying. I couldn't ever tell you "why" a creator would use the Big Bang. All I can really tell you is if there was a Big Bang or not.
The Big Bang theory states that the singularity was very very hot. This was proposed prior to the Nobel-prize-winning discovery by radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965, who discovered Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation that is detectable everywhere you look into the universe. CMB radiation is thought to be the remnants of this intense heat from the singularity.
NASA gathered measurements of the CMB radiation with a space probe in 2006. Together with measurements from an observatory in Chile, they were able to draw a picture of the early universe (as the CMB radiation has been bouncing around space for the past 13.7 billion years).
If I'm not mistaken, these are the "seeds of matter" that would eventually become the galaxies we observe now.
Another piece of evidence is the fact that the universe is expanding. Needless to say, this suggests that it all expanded from one single point.
So basically, the Big Bang theory predicted something, and as far as I can tell, the observations fit the theory thus far. Predictive power is a very strong confirmation of something being possibly right.
Correlation (to an admittedly vague extent) is not causation. Basically, "the formation of stars, galaxies, etc., during the early years of the Universe’s formation, required that variations be present in the earliest distribution of the matter so that the matter ultimately would coalesce into those stars, galaxies, etc. And, as everyone acknowledged, the existence of these variations should have had some effect on the background radiation." (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconten...article=54 ) There are fluctuations, but we have no evidence the Big Bang caused them. The CMB could have just as easily been the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight, and not an ancient fireball. Also, the theory requires that 90-99% of matter be dark matter in order for the numbers to come out right. There is little observational evidence for dark matter--it is a theory contrived in response to the Big Bang's need. The main evidence is a signal of gamma-rays coming from the middle of our galaxy, which could just as easily come from far-off stars.
More: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/bb-top-30.asp
Evidence God created starlight-trails: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/scient...ars/756519
But I want to get back to our original topic. You say God would make a perfect world, and he would use a randomized Big Bang to do it. Putting aside the questions why, it seems to me all the evidence posited for the Big Bang thus far could just as easily have been manufactured by God through his infusion of energy into our universe. We should ask ourselves: would creation look any different than what we see? Well, creation would explain all the inconsistencies of the Big Bang linked above. And it might look billions of years old. This is because all rock dating is done to the molten creation of the rock--when it was last lava/magma. So any rock created without this initial stage is going to have whatever amount of Argon/Lead God saw fit to put in. If God had put any different levels of elements in rocks, the earth would not have been immediately habitable. Old-earth scientists date the earth and universe according to how long they think it would have taken to reach the habitable zones we have today. Well, it's logical that God would have done that from the outset. This includes the locations of the planets and stars and outer reaches of the universe. Everything is exactly as we need it, with dangerous imbalances working in union all around. God cannot possibly create a world that looks younger for the sake of non-deception if we make up our own criteria for what is 'old'. Do you see what I mean? To make it ‘look’ younger, He would have to make an inhabitable world. He makes a habitable world, and we immediately conclude it needed billions of years to get there naturally. Well, God is not going to go out of his way to make his supernatural look natural. Should he?
November 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm (This post was last modified: November 3, 2012 at 3:38 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
FallenToReason Wrote:The entire point to Christianity is that we mucked up in the garden and now Jesus has provided a way out. If there was no garden, then we never mucked up. The story doesn't add up.
You still haven't disproved that Jesus is God incarnate and that God created the universe. What Jesus is saving us from could mean anything if it's all allegory.
Quote:I refuse to believe this "mysterious ways" thing. He supposedly left behind his word that tells us about him. It's just a cop out, moving the goal posts and special pleading to explain how he really can still exist.
(November 3, 2012 at 3:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Then why is there still "sin?" Seems like a rather imperfect solution for your god to have masterminded.
Jesus atonement on the cross paid the debt/ransom of those that would come to faith in him. Because of his actions, sin no longer separates believers from God and they can now have a personal relationship with Him.
Sin continues to be something that we have to struggle with until either Jesus comes again or we leave this world (death).
Sin is our natural inclination to love things, people, actions, etc, in a way that shows we value those more than we value God.
(November 3, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Jesus atonement on the cross paid the debt/ransom of those that would come to faith in him. Because of his actions, sin no longer separates believers from God and they can now have a personal relationship with Him.
Sin continues to be something that we have to struggle with until either Jesus comes again or we leave this world (death).
Sin is our natural inclination to love things, people, actions, etc, in a way that shows we value those more than we value God.
(November 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: So, basically, human nature is sin.
Ephesians 2:1–3 (NLT) — 1 Once you were dead because of your disobedience and your many sins. 2 You used to live in sin, just like the rest of the world, obeying the devil—the commander of the powers in the unseen world. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God. 3 All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God’s anger, just like everyone else.
Other more literal translations use the phrasing
and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Then the good news....for those that place their faith in Jesus for salvation...
Ephesians 2:4–5 (NLT) — 4 But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, 5 that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God’s grace that you have been saved!)
![[Image: motivationalposter146.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i191.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz226%2Fpocaracas%2Fdemotivational%2Fmotivationalposter146.jpg)
