Human beings will never reach another solar system. Even at the speed of light it would take thousands of years. Even if there were aliens which there is not they could never reach our solar system anyhow.
Aliens are only good for crazy people and makes for good movies.
And all this talk of bending space to get to the other side is just silly nonsense.
So every time you see someone talking about aliens, realize they are quacks and turn the channel.
QuoteEven at the speed of light it would take thousands of years.
You should maybe learn to think before you open your mouth...
The closest star is Alpha Centauri which sits only 4.5 lightyears from earth... which means that by the definition of "lightyear" is only 4.5 years travel away if you travel at the speed of light.
A basic estimation (//http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980123d.html) by an astrologist shows that there are expected to be around 14,600 stars within even a
hundred light years, so you can imagine how many hundreds of thousands of stars must be in an area 1000 times bigger.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteEven at the speed of light it would take thousands of years.
The closest star is Alpha Centauri which sits only 4.5 lightyears from earth... which means that by the definition of "lightyear" is only 4.5 years travel away if you travel at the speed of light.
A basic estimation (//http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980123d.html) by an astrologist shows that there are expected to be around 14,600 stars within even a hundred light years, so you can imagine how many hundreds of thousands of stars must be in an area 1000 times bigger.
I was thinking in terms of just a slightly lower speed than the speed of light would render my conclusion that it would take 1000s of years.
Hugh Ross determined there are 800 variables to take into account and when multiplied together there are not enough planets to make it even close. So this is the only planet with life on it. The entire design is for earth and Mars as the New Earth and has that great high mountain Olympus in Revelation John viewed the New City from (which is 1379 x 1379 miles in Rev. 21), for the Bible says earth will be burnt up one day without the sea. That agrees with the fact the sun will continue to expand and make earth unlivable.
QuoteI was thinking in terms of just a slightly lower speed than the speed of light would render my conclusion that it would take 1000s of years.
The speed of light is linear, in order for it to take a thousand years to get to Alpha Centauri you'd need to be travelling at 1000/4.5 = 0.0045x the speed of light, which is quite far off from "slightly lower".
Also, there are also plenty of scientists who claim different formulas for the determination of life.
The fact that this one is a creationist which makes him entirely untrustworthy is only the icing of the cake of all the reasons why you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI was thinking in terms of just a slightly lower speed than the speed of light would render my conclusion that it would take 1000s of years.
The speed of light is linear, in order for it to take a thousand years to get to Alpha Centauri you'd need to be travelling at 1000/4.5 = 0.0045x the speed of light, which is quite far off from "slightly lower".
Also, there are also plenty of scientists who claim different formulas for the determination of life.
The fact that this one is a creationist which makes him entirely untrustworthy is only the icing of the cake of all the reasons why you don't know what you're talking about.
In relation to any conceivable speed we travel today that is still leaps and bounds faster. I believe him. It seems reasonable.
We already have designs for making the trip in about 100 years in Solar Sails.
article (//http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/space/10solar.html?_r=0)
We can probably get a craft on its way in about 50 years, if I were to make a guess.
Also, your uneducated opinion isn't exactly good reason to believe people. Anything can be made to sound reasonable to someone who doesn't really understand the subject but really wants to believe it.
Quote from: "Plu"We already have designs for making the trip in about 100 years in Solar Sails.article (//http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/space/10solar.html?_r=0)
We can probably get a craft on its way in about 50 years, if I were to make a guess.
Also, your uneducated opinion isn't exactly good reason to believe people. Anything can be made to sound reasonable to someone who doesn't really understand the subject but really wants to believe it.
I don't believe it is possible as you couldn't go fast enough and slow down fast enough, as the article said...
"...Think centuries or millennia, not decades," said Dr. Dyson.
I agree with all 800 variables needed for life, so it is just a simple multiplication from there to determine there is not even a fraction of enough planets in the universe to make life possible on another planet.
It's all about earth and Mars then which agrees with the Bible.
Scripture does say though one day the New City will be 1379 x 1379 x 1379 miles with walls 216 feet thick in Rev. 21, would not need to rely on the sun and could travel to these various places. I'm ok with that.
QuoteI agree with all 800 variables needed for life, so it is just a simple multiplication from there to determine there is not even a fraction of enough planets in the universe to make life possible on another planet.
Can you list all of them? I'd like to see what you're believing to be "a simple multiplication".
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI agree with all 800 variables needed for life, so it is just a simple multiplication from there to determine there is not even a fraction of enough planets in the universe to make life possible on another planet.
Can you list all of them? I'd like to see what you're believing to be "a simple multiplication".
It's in Hugh Ross' The Creator and The Cosmos, but I don't have time to be going through each and every item. Nor is that my main concern right now. My main concern is the proof for God.
Earth will reach population capacity in the best few centuries, only science and mass trade has kept us from starving, now we are running out of fresh water
Mars is uninhabitable on its own, even with water it has no atmosphere for human life to
Survive in. Ever see total recall?
Without terraforming that's out of the question. Finally light speed is theoretically possible if one can eliminate mass from the equation
Mass is what slows you down, because the faster you go, the larger you actually get, and the more energy it takes to increase velocity. In this way, it is impossible to get to light speed, because we simply don't have the energy to power such a needed increase.
This is why things like the Mass Relays from mass effect (theoretically possible) wormholes (theoretically possible) and warp drives (theoretically possible) would be the only viable route, because it eliminates the mass from the equation and causes a lot less energy in the long run
Note I said theoretically possible
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"Without terraforming that's out of the question. Finally light speed is theoretically possible if one can eliminate mass from the equation
I don't believe it is possible, nor any of your other suggested ways, plus a ship would blow up with even very small rocks flying through space smashing into the ship.
It's as if God is saying He designed the universe over a great length of time to get the full periodic table and to enjoy the majesty from afar not to travel needlessly.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI agree with all 800 variables needed for life, so it is just a simple multiplication from there to determine there is not even a fraction of enough planets in the universe to make life possible on another planet.
Can you list all of them? I'd like to see what you're believing to be "a simple multiplication".
It's in Hugh Ross' The Creator and The Cosmos, but I don't have time to be going through each and every item. Nor is that my main concern right now. My main concern is the proof for God.
Your proof for god does not live up to scientific standards, so you should be concerned about it.
And you don't have to go through each and every item. It should be easy to list a few of the more obscure ones, and we can judge whether or not the rest of the list can be considered worth going over.
Quote from: "Plu"Your proof for god does not live up to scientific standards, so you should be concerned about it.
And you don't have to go through each and every item. It should be easy to list a few of the more obscure ones, and we can judge whether or not the rest of the list can be considered worth going over.
The proof does abide in scientific standards. What were you thinking?
My interest right now, like I said, is the proof for God not going through a list of variables that disallow for life on a planet, but only to make note Hugh Ross goes through 800 variables, and if he is right, you don't have a hope in hell of finding life on another planet ever.
Quoteand if he is right
Obviously. And if you're right, I'm going to hell. But you're not, and neither is he, so that's alright.
QuoteThe proof does abide in scientific standards. What were you thinking?
Name two scientific standards your proof abides with. Hell, name two scientific standards any proof should abide by. I'd be surprised if you can even sum up the scientific method in 5 lines.
Quote from: "Plu"Name two scientific standards your proof abides with. Hell, name two scientific standards any proof should abide by. I'd be surprised if you can even sum up the scientific method in 5 lines.
You said it doesn't abide in some scientific law or standard. What is it?
You said it did. I'm talking about the scientific method. Obviously. Can you sum it up for me? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why your proof doesn't even approach it if you have no clue what it is anyway.
Quote from: "Plu"You said it did. I'm talking about the scientific method. Obviously. Can you sum it up for me? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why your proof doesn't even approach it if you have no clue what it is anyway.
If I am not following the scientific method then show me. Otherwise, accept the problem that arises with your proposition of infinite regress which therefore proves God and who God is by the resurrection proof.
QuoteIf I am not following the scientific method then show me.
Ok.
QuoteOtherwise, accept the problem that arises with your proposition of infinite regress which therefore proves God and who God is.
Here you go wrong. The fact that infinite regress is a problem does not prove any god.
Quote from: "Plu"Here you go wrong. The fact that infinite regress is a problem does not prove any god.
Yes, impossibility of infinite regress does prove God exists, and by God, I mean the uncreated Creator, because nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Human beings will never reach Heaven. Even at the speed of light it would take thousands of years. Even if there were gods which there is not they could never reach our solar system anyhow.
Gods are only good for crazy people and makes for good movies.
And all this talk of a soul to get to the other side is just silly nonsense.
So every time you see someone talking about gods, realize they are quacks and turn the channel.
Frank
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Plu"Here you go wrong. The fact that infinite regress is a problem does not prove any god.
Yes, impossibility of infinite regress does prove God exists, and by God, I mean the uncreated Creator, because nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
It only shows that we haven't proven infinite regress (it doesn't even really disprove it. Just shows a problem with it.) and it certainly doesn't show a creator. At best, it shows an uncaused cause. And even that isn't certain. That's why actual scientists do actual science, with the side effect of getting actual results, something that religion has never (and will never) accomplish.
Well, except stealing money from the poor I guess. They're quite good at getting results there ;)
Quote from: "FrankDK"Human beings will never reach Heaven. Even at the speed of light it would take thousands of years. Even if there were gods which there is not they could never reach our solar system anyhow.
You're going the wrong direction. As Jesus was able to depart from this realm to the next instantly, so will all those who are raptured. Since Jesus proved His resurrection and rapture, this is what He has in store for us even the unsaved. Then He returns with His overcomers to reign on earth for 1000 years.
QuoteThen He returns with His overcomers to reign on earth for 1000 years.
Which is quite a short period. I've seen empires of men last longer. But it probably sounded like forever to the people who wrote the bible.
Quote from: "Plu"It only shows that we haven't proven infinite regress (it doesn't even really disprove it. Just shows a problem with it.) and it certainly doesn't show a creator. At best, it shows an uncaused cause. And even that isn't certain. That's why actual scientists do actual science, with the side effect of getting actual results, something that religion has never (and will never) accomplish.
We proved that infinite regress is impossible, because if it were true, you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This is whom we call God or what you call the uncaused Cause.
Science proves that if there is no naturalistic explanation because all naturalistic options have been exhausted, then resurrection is what happened.
QuoteScience proves that if there is no naturalistic explanation because all naturalistic options have been exhausted, then resurrection is what happened.
I think this forum might be a bit over your head. You should probably start with some more highschool level physics...
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteScience proves that if there is no naturalistic explanation because all naturalistic options have been exhausted, then resurrection is what happened.
I think this forum might be a bit over your head. You should probably start with some more highschool level physics...
This is high school physics so you should be able to understand it.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Yes, impossibility of infinite regress does prove God exists, and by God, I mean the uncreated Creator, because nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
I already told you it was the Smurfs. You keep going back to this God thingy. You're starting to piss me off.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Yes, impossibility of infinite regress does prove God exists, and by God, I mean the uncreated Creator, because nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
I already told you it was the Smurfs. You keep going back to this God thingy. You're starting to piss me off.
I'd be pissed off too if I remained an atheist in light of this evidence.
QuoteThis is high school physics so you should be able to understand it.
No, this is homeschool physics...
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteThis is high school physics so you should be able to understand it.
No, this is homeschool physics...
Either way, easy to understand.
QuoteLuke 6:37
"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
James 4:12
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
Romans 2:1-3
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God
You came on our forum most arrogantly and immediately began to judge us. You said we hate god. We do not hate what we do not believe in. The only hypocrite here is you.
Yeah exactly. The only difference is homeschool physics like yours are wrong.
I'll let you in a bit of advice that could shatter your world. Anything that is simple to understand is probably wrong. Or, if you're lucky, merely incomplete. Nothing is ever simple. If you accept this, you'll be part of a handful of people who actually realise what kind of world they're living in.
But you'll probably continue to lead a simple life made possible by the few people who do realise, as unfortunately you don't need to understand the complexity of the world to use the spoils of understanding it. (As simply shown by the fact that you can use a computer without knowing the first bit about the reality that makes it possible.)
Quote from: "stromboli"QuoteLuke 6:37
"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
James 4:12
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
Romans 2:1-3
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God
You came on our forum most arrogantly and immediately began to judge us. You said we hate god. We do not hate what we do not believe in. The only hypocrite here is you.
Shutting your mind down to what is clearly proven is hate.
Quote from: "Plu"Yeah exactly. The only difference is homeschool physics like yours are wrong.
I'll let you in a bit of advice that could shatter your world. Anything that is simple to understand is probably wrong. Or, if you're lucky, merely incomplete. Nothing is ever simple. If you accept this, you'll be part of a handful of people who actually realise what kind of world they're living in.
But you'll probably continue to lead a simple life made possible by the few people who do realise, as unfortunately you don't need to understand the complexity of the world to use the spoils of understanding it. (As simply shown by the fact that you can use a computer without knowing the first bit about the reality that makes it possible.)
That's just a bunch of vague talk. The fact remains, infinite regress is impossible. So nature needs a cause outside of itself.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "stromboli"QuoteLuke 6:37
"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
James 4:12
There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
Romans 2:1-3
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God
You came on our forum most arrogantly and immediately began to judge us. You said we hate god. We do not hate what we do not believe in. The only hypocrite here is you.
Shutting your mind down to what is clearly proven is hate.
The only person to whom it is clearly proven is you, and you are still the perpetrator of these accusations, which makes you the condemned. Read your own scriptures. You started this, we didn't.
Quote from: "stromboli"The only person to whom it is clearly proven is you, and you are still the perpetrator of these accusations, which makes you the condemned. Read your own scriptures. You started this, we didn't.
But you didn't show anything wrong with the proof.
If there was this infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "stromboli"The only person to whom it is clearly proven is you, and you are still the perpetrator of these accusations, which makes you the condemned. Read your own scriptures. You started this, we didn't.
But you didn't show anything wrong with the proof.
If there was this infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.
you are forgetting that there is evidence of multiple-possibly infinite- universes. You mentioned Quantum physics. Quantum physics allows for that. Infinite regress in infinite universes is therefore also a possibility, and that does not preclude the existence of a god.
And you are still a hypocrite and an arrogant asshole by coming on to our forum to condemn us. we did nothing to you, so this is an unprovoked attack against us, which makes you a sinner by your own standards.
Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "stromboli"The only person to whom it is clearly proven is you, and you are still the perpetrator of these accusations, which makes you the condemned. Read your own scriptures. You started this, we didn't.
But you didn't show anything wrong with the proof.
If there was this infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.
you are forgetting that there is evidence of multiple-possibly infinite- universes. You mentioned Quantum physics. Quantum physics allows for that. Infinite regress in infinite universes is therefore also a possibility, and that does not preclude the existence of a god.
It doesn't matter how many universes there are, there is still cause and effect so that infinite regress is impossible, because you would have already happened, having had an eternity to do so.
You cannot say there are only A or B and if A is not true therefore B.
This is an argument from ignorance, just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean "therefore God".
And why should we assume there are only two options?
QuoteThat's just a bunch of vague talk.
If you consider basic science vague talk, you'll have a lot of problems in life.
No wait.
Science just works, so I guess you'll be fine. You can just use everything around you without ever understanding it. Lucky you.
Whats the matter, didn't daddy give you your Barbie doll? All you've done on here is reproach, condemn and chastise. How many times do you need to be reminded that your actions by your own standards are arrogant and sinful? You can talk infinite regress and any other BS you want but ultimately can't prove. You condemn yourself by your own actions, you sinful little girl.
Quote from: "wolf39us"You cannot say there are only A or B and if A is not true therefore B.
This is an argument from ignorance, just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean "therefore God".
And why should we assume there are only two options?
I am not saying that.
I am saying if infinite regress were true, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"But you didn't show anything wrong with the proof
Shifting Burden of Proof
Negative Proof Falacy
Take your pic
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteThat's just a bunch of vague talk.
If you consider basic science vague talk, you'll have a lot of problems in life.
No wait.
Science just works, so I guess you'll be fine. You can just use everything around you without ever understanding it. Lucky you.
I was referring to your vague talk, not science.
Quote from: "wolf39us"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"But you didn't show anything wrong with the proof
Shifting Burden of Proof
Negative Proof Falacy
Take your pic
The proof was given. You didn't find anything wrong with the proof so the proof remains unchallenged.
Quote from: "stromboli"Whats the matter, didn't daddy give you your Barbie doll? All you've done on here is reproach, condemn and chastise. How many times do you need to be reminded that your actions by your own standards are arrogant and sinful? You can talk infinite regress and any other BS you want but ultimately can't prove. You condemn yourself by your own actions, you sinful little girl.
It is proven. If you want to claim an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would be wrong because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
Oh please. This your holiday, you should be celebrating it. The fact you came here all full of fire to condemn, to accuse, to demean and denounce says you didn't get what you wanted for your presents and need to have a hissy fit at somebody you can find a reason to dislike.
We didn't invite you here or find you and attack you. Everything you post here is judgmental and condemning, sinful and condemning of you, not us. Read your own damn scriptures.
Quote from: "stromboli"Oh please. This your holiday, you should be celebrating it. The fact you came here all full of fire to condemn, to accuse, to demean and denounce says you didn't get what you wanted for your presents and need to have a hissy fit at somebody you can find a reason to dislike.
We didn't invite you here or find you and attack you. Everything you post here is judgmental and condemning, sinful and condemning of you, not us. Read your own damn scriptures.
I rest on the fact that infinite regress and something from nothing are impossible without any challengers.
If something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from?
Quote from: "wolf39us"If something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from?
Since nature can't come from nothing, it comes from something outside itself, outside time and space, being uncreated.
It is illogical to ask what caused that which is uncreated.
But you just said that something cannot come from nothing, and then said but God can.
God is somehow not applicable to your rule of "something cannot come from nothing". But everything else is?
Quote from: "wolf39us"But you just said that something cannot come from nothing, and then said but God can.
God is somehow not applicable to your rule of "something cannot come from nothing". But everything else is?
Where did I say God comes from nothing?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I believe him. It seems reasonable.
You believe a lot of shit that probably isn't justifiable, Grace. This is one one of those things. We could reach Alpha Centauri in 40 to 50 years at about 0.1 C using technology currently available. Now there probably isn't an advanced civilization waiting for us there, but to proclaim that Earth is the only planet capable of supporting life is ignorant.
Astronomers estimate 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe. (//http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/152573-astronomers-estimate-100-billion-habitable-earth-like-planets-in-the-milky-way-50-sextillion-in-the-universe)
That's 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I believe him. It seems reasonable.
You believe a lot of shit that probably isn't justifiable, Grace. This is one one of those things. We could reach Alpha Centauri in 40 to 50 years at about 0.1 C using technology currently available. Now there probably isn't an advanced civilization waiting for us there, but to proclaim that Earth is the only planet capable of supporting life is ignorant.
Astronomers estimate 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe. (//http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/152573-astronomers-estimate-100-billion-habitable-earth-like-planets-in-the-milky-way-50-sextillion-in-the-universe)
That's 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Habitable is far different than life on them now.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "wolf39us"But you just said that something cannot come from nothing, and then said but God can.
God is somehow not applicable to your rule of "something cannot come from nothing". But everything else is?
Where did I say God comes from nothing?
Well surely if everything comes from something then God came from something.
Since nothing can come from nothing then God would come from something. So I ask again, if something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Habitable is far different than life on them now.
But it only takes 1 additional planet out of 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that supports any type of contiguous living system to make you wrong in this particular instance. I'll take those odds any time.
Quote from: "wolf39us"Well surely if everything comes from something then God came from something.
Since nothing can come from nothing then God would come from something. So I ask again, if something cannot come from nothing, then where did God come from?
Not everything comes from something. Everything in nature comes from something. So nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
How convenient. Everything comes from something, except God... He is uncaused.
And how to we go about proving this wild assumption?
QuoteEverything in nature comes from something.
Yet nature is everything there is by definition, which means your god cannot exist outside of it.
Quote from: "wolf39us"How convenient. Everything comes from something, except God... He is uncaused.
And how to we go about proving this wild assumption?
Start from the point of evidence what you observe.
You observe nature. In nature you see cause and effect. If there was an infinite regress of cause and effect, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space being uncreated.
Got any evidence for anything you have been saying on this forum other than it makes you feel good?
The problem with you Gracie is that you start with a conclusion and select the possible explanation that best fits your conclusion. You totally ignore the fact that many of these things are really unknowns, and other explanations that do not fit your conclusion are possible. Many of these alternatives fit the current observations better than your chosen reality.
The second half of your paragraph is what we would call an assumption.
You also start out with "If" which is a variable and means nothing until this state you describe includes evidence.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Got any evidence for anything you have been saying on this forum other than it makes you feel good?
The problem with you Gracie is that you start with a conclusion and select the possible explanation that best fits your conclusion. You totally ignore the fact that many of these things are really unknowns, and other explanations that do not fit your conclusion are possible. Many of these alternatives fit the current observations better than your chosen reality.
You haven't countered the proof...
If there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Got any evidence for anything you have been saying on this forum other than it makes you feel good?
The problem with you Gracie is that you start with a conclusion and select the possible explanation that best fits your conclusion. You totally ignore the fact that many of these things are really unknowns, and other explanations that do not fit your conclusion are possible. Many of these alternatives fit the current observations better than your chosen reality.
You haven't countered the proof...
If there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
You make an assumption and then say "it's true unless you prove me wrong". This is a logical fallacy!
Quote from: "wolf39us"You make an assumption and then say "it's true unless you prove me wrong". This is a logical fallacy!
I made no assumption nor did you show any. Glad to see you couldn't find fault with the proof...
If there was this atheist infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
You made the assumption God exists and picked a scenario to fit it
Quote from: "wolf39us"You made the assumption God exists and picked a scenario to fit it
Observe the evidence...
If there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "wolf39us"You made the assumption God exists and picked a scenario to fit it
Observe the evidence...
If there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Your argument begins with "if". that negates your entire argument.
Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "wolf39us"You made the assumption God exists and picked a scenario to fit it
Observe the evidence...
If there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Your argument begins with "if". that negates your entire argument.
Why's that?
Because proof doesn't start with "if"
Quote from: "wolf39us"Because proof doesn't start with "if"
Sure it does.
if is an assumption. Your entire argument is an assumption based on other assumptions.
Quote from: "stromboli"if is an assumption. Your entire argument is an assumption based on other assumptions.
It's not my assumption, it's the atheist's assumption shown to be false.
Are you assuming that Atheists make an assumption inherently because they are Atheists?
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteThis is high school physics so you should be able to understand it.
No, this is homeschool physics...
:rollin:
Quote from: "wolf39us"Are you assuming that Atheists make an assumption inherently because they are Atheists?
Whatever reason they assume this, the assumption is false.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "wolf39us"How convenient. Everything comes from something, except God... He is uncaused.
And how to we go about proving this wild assumption?
Start from the point of evidence what you observe.
You observe nature. In nature you see cause and effect. If there was an infinite regress of cause and effect, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space being uncreated.
Your argument seems to be stuck at this point.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "wolf39us"How convenient. Everything comes from something, except God... He is uncaused.
And how to we go about proving this wild assumption?
Start from the point of evidence what you observe.
You observe nature. In nature you see cause and effect. If there was an infinite regress of cause and effect, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space being uncreated.
Your argument seems to be stuck at this point.
Why would a perfect proof be stuck?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The fact remains, infinite regress is impossible.
This is a bald faced assertion. Prove it, then you get to call it a "fact."
QuoteWhy would a perfect proof be stuck?
It wouldn't. Since yours is, there's only one reasonable conclusion left to be made.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The fact remains, infinite regress is impossible.
This is a bald faced assertion. Prove it, then you get to call it a "fact."
It's a proven fact...
If infinite regress were true, you would have already happened having an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
This post of his seems to happening time and time again, contradicting his proof.
Quote from: "Plu"This post of his seems to happening time and time again, contradicting his proof.
Contradicting how?
The joke.
Your head.
Quote from: "Plu"The joke.
Your head.
I don't understand?
I'm detecting a theme.
Quote from: "Plu"I'm detecting a theme.
Do tell.
I could, but then you'd say:
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I don't understand?
Anyway. Gotta go, stuff to do :P
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The fact remains, infinite regress is impossible.
This is a bald faced assertion. Prove it, then you get to call it a "fact."
It's a proven fact...
If infinite regress were true, you would have already happened having an eternity to do so,
Non sequitor.
Guys, mind if I hog the chew toy for awhile? I haven't had this much fun in months. :lol:
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Shutting your mind down to what is clearly proven is hate.
Since nothing you claim is clearly proven, I guess we're safe.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"That's just a bunch of vague talk. The fact remains, infinite regress is impossible. So nature needs a cause outside of itself.
Nothing any of us have said requires infinite regress to work. And before you say, "Yes it does," please go look up how space-time works.
QuoteEven if there were aliens which there is not
Quoteeven if there is a god, which there is not
interesting how one would demand proof while the other not....hmmmm
Given the vastness of the universe, I wouldn't be shocked if there were other civilizations out there asking the same questions we do. Actually running across them in this enormous galaxy is another matter entirely.
Having said that, the very fact that our latest troll tries to put god 'outside' nature just proves how little he understands.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Human beings will never reach another solar system. Even at the speed of light it would take thousands of years. Even if there were aliens which there is not they could never reach our solar system anyhow.
Aliens are only good for crazy people and makes for good movies.
And all this talk of bending space to get to the other side is just silly nonsense.
So every time you see someone talking about aliens, realize they are quacks and turn the channel.
Blah blah blah....the earth is flat and if you sail to the end you will fall off. Yeah, we've heard it all before. There is no reason to try and explore or conduct scientific experiments, because there is this crazy homeless old man directing everything. What a bunch of horseshit. I guess since Einstien has been right about just about everything, that bending space isn't possible.
Forgive me if I believe one of the world's greatest minds over yours.
http://biblocality.com/forums/showthrea ... l-There-Is (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?5391-For-Humans-this-Solar-System-is-All-There-Is)
copy&paste from another forum. Do you even have any original thought?
Quote from: "Sal1981"http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?5391-For-Humans-this-Solar-System-is-All-There-Is
copy&paste from another forum. Do you even have any original thought?
From a website that announces:
QuoteOnly spiritual believers return with Christ (Jude 14,15) to reign "over the nations" (Rev. 2.26,27) 1000 years. "Carnal, babes in Christ" (1 Cor. 3.1) though saved do not receive this reward.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Human beings will never reach another solar system. Even at the speed of light it would take thousands of years. Even if there were aliens which there is not they could never reach our solar system anyhow.
Aliens are only good for crazy people and makes for good movies.
And all this talk of bending space to get to the other side is just silly nonsense.
So every time you see someone talking about aliens, realize they are quacks and turn the channel.
According to Eve we were created by alien (gods).
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "FrankDK"Human beings will never reach Heaven. Even at the speed of light it would take thousands of years. Even if there were gods which there is not they could never reach our solar system anyhow.
You're going the wrong direction. As Jesus was able to depart from this realm to the next instantly, so will all those who are raptured. Since Jesus proved His resurrection and rapture, this is what He has in store for us even the unsaved. Then He returns with His overcomers to reign on earth for 1000 years.
Dude you are crazy ! You need your head checked. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rollin:
Quote from: "leo"According to Eve we were created by alien (gods).
That's good to hear you believe in Adam and Eve.
But the Bible teaches one God the uncreated Creator, since if infinite regress were true of gods creating gods, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "leo"According to Eve we were created by alien (gods).
That's good to hear you believe in Adam and Eve.
leo meant the former Atheist Forums member Eve, you boob.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"But the Bible teaches one God the uncreated Creator, since if infinite regress were true of gods creating gods, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this line, it's still not correct.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this line, it's still not correct.
Why is it not correct?
If infinite regress were true you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Because you don't understand that an infinite sequence into the past has no beginning at all, so there's no point which you can definitively say that I or anyone else ought to "have already happened." There is an eternity prior to every point in a universe with an infinite past, so your argument, if it were true, would apply to that point as well, and I "would have happened already" even at that prior point. Every point I could happen would therefore be disqualified. But I obviously do exist, so something must be wrong.
The error here is believing that an eternal past would have a first point, such that you are talking about real durations of time between that first point and me already having happened in an infinitely distant past. Sorry, chum, but that is exactly what is denied in the hypothesis of a universe with an infinite past.
From my perspective I can only happen now, not in the past, and not in the future.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Hugh Ross determined there are 800 variables to take into account and when multiplied together there are not enough planets to make it even close. So this is the only planet with life on it. The entire design is for earth and Mars as the New Earth and has that great high mountain Olympus in Revelation John viewed the New City from (which is 1379 x 1379 miles in Rev. 21), for the Bible says earth will be burnt up one day without the sea. That agrees with the fact the sun will continue to expand and make earth unlivable.
You do realize that the Universe is really really really big? Do you know how many stars are in the Sloan Great Wall?
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"an infinite sequence into the past has no beginning at all, so there's no point which you can definitively say that I or anyone else ought to "have already happened."
You don't need to know exactly when in the past you would "have already happened" only that you would have happened having had an eternity to do so; therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
QuoteThere is an eternity prior to every point in a universe with an infinite past, so your argument, if it were true, would apply to that point as well, and I "would have happened already" even at that prior point. Every point I could happen would therefore be disqualified. But I obviously do exist, so something must be wrong.
Your "...would therefore be disqualified" does not follow from "Every point I could happen..." There is indeed something wrong, because obviously you do exist now when you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so if infinite regress was true.
QuoteThe error here is believing that an eternal past would have a first point, such that you are talking about real durations of time between that first point and me already having happened in an infinitely distant past. Sorry, chum, but that is exactly what is denied in the hypothesis of a universe with an infinite past.
From my perspective I can only happen now, not in the past, and not in the future.
I am not "believing that an eternal past would have a first point."
The problem remains. Infinite regress cannot be true, because if it were true, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Therefore do accept this despite your sensibilities that often lead one astray because they are indwelt by agenda of rejecting the love of God.
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Hugh Ross determined there are 800 variables to take into account and when multiplied together there are not enough planets to make it even close. So this is the only planet with life on it. The entire design is for earth and Mars as the New Earth and has that great high mountain Olympus in Revelation John viewed the New City from (which is 1379 x 1379 miles in Rev. 21), for the Bible says earth will be burnt up one day without the sea. That agrees with the fact the sun will continue to expand and make earth unlivable.
You do realize that the Universe is really really really big? Do you know how many stars are in the Sloan Great Wall?
Yes of course, Hugh Ross took that into account.
I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.
This just says that were it different, we wouldn't exist to remark about a lack of Jupiter in the first place. Ever heard about the anthropic principle?
Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.
This just says that were it different, we wouldn't exist to remark about a lack of Jupiter in the first place. Ever heard about the anthropic principle?
That's just one of 800 variables.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.
This just says that were it different, we wouldn't exist to remark about a lack of Jupiter in the first place. Ever heard about the anthropic principle?
That's just one of 800 variables.
Is one of those variables how much shit you have to assume to be necessary for life?
We only have one planet to go on and some general idea of what constitutes life. The building-blocks for carbon-based life is quite common actually. Even present on comets.
We only know of life from this planet, so of course estimates like Drake's Equation is an arbitrary assessment of the chance of life arising.
Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Is one of those variables how much shit you have to assume to be necessary for life?
We only have one planet to go on and some general idea of what constitutes life. The building-blocks for carbon-based life is quite common actually. Even present on comets.
We only know of life from this planet, so of course estimates like Drake's Equation is an arbitrary assessment of the chance of life arising.
I'm comfortable with Hugh Ross' finding of 800 variables required for life to exist and there is not even close to the number of planets in the universe to make that possible.
What's really interesting is the implication God has for us that He would create this entire universe over 13.7 billion years and it all centers on this planet and Mars.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I'm comfortable with Hugh Ross' finding of 800 variables required for life to exist and there is not even close to the number of planets in the universe to make that possible.
What you're comfortable with or not comfortable with makes no difference. Your personal preferences can't change the nature of reality, you just think they do because you think the universe is accountable to your conclusions in some way. It isn't.
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I'm comfortable with Hugh Ross' finding of 800 variables required for life to exist and there is not even close to the number of planets in the universe to make that possible.
What you're comfortable with or not comfortable with makes no difference. Your personal preferences can't change the nature of reality, you just think they do because you think the universe is accountable to your conclusions in some way. It isn't.
I didn't see any evidence from you to counter these 800 variables so I will stay with the evidence.
I should get his new book to see if he has found more variables.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"an infinite sequence into the past has no beginning at all, so there's no point which you can definitively say that I or anyone else ought to "have already happened."
You don't need to know exactly when in the past you would "have already happened" only that you would have happened having had an eternity to do so;
Wrong. The fact that there lies an eternity ahead of any time that you could choose would nullify the choice by your own postulate. You don't have to choose a specific time, because NONE would work for your purposes. And because NONE work for your purposes, your argument falls into shambles.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Non sequitor.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Your "...would therefore be disqualified" does not follow from "Every point I could happen..."
They do if we follow your postulate, so because we know that does not follow, your postulate is wrong. QED.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"There is indeed something wrong, because obviously you do exist now when you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so if infinite regress was true.
Your incompetence in handling infinity is not a point in your favor.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I am not "believing that an eternal past would have a first point."
Whether or not you postulate it explicitly, you
do need a first point to have your argument work. Eternity is not a duration. Only two definite points in time can have a duration between them. If you don't make this assumption, then you destroy the metric structure of durations that allows you to compare them and say that I had sufficient time to "already happen." It is a meaningless statement. It only
seems compelling to you because you don't have the background to know what a tangled web of concepts and the incongruities you are actually proposing. Infinity is clearly beyond your grasp, so you are in no actual position to say ANYTHING about what is or what is not possible with infinities, even infinite regresses.
There is no contradiction in infinite regresses, your statement to the contrary notwithstanding.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"an infinite sequence into the past has no beginning at all, so there's no point which you can definitively say that I or anyone else ought to "have already happened."
You don't need to know exactly when in the past you would "have already happened" only that you would have happened having had an eternity to do so;
Wrong. The fact that there lies an eternity ahead of any time that you could choose would nullify the choice by your own postulate. You don't have to choose a specific time, because NONE would work for your purposes. And because NONE work for your purposes, your argument falls into shambles.
The future ahead has no bearing on the ramifications of one's view of the past. When the atheist claims an infinite regress of cause and effects, he needs to think that through to its conclusion, for if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.
QuoteQuote from: "gracedwithlife"therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Non sequitor.
You weren't able to show it so it stands.
QuoteQuote from: "gracedwithlife"Your "...would therefore be disqualified" does not follow from "Every point I could happen..."
They do if we follow your postulate, so because we know that does not follow, your postulate is wrong. QED.
You didn't show it.
QuoteQuote from: "gracedwithlife"There is indeed something wrong, because obviously you do exist now when you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so if infinite regress was true.
Your incompetence in handling infinity is not a point in your favor.
Personal attacks show the weakness of your response.
QuoteQuote from: "gracedwithlife"I am not "believing that an eternal past would have a first point."
Whether or not you postulate it explicitly, you do need a first point to have your argument work. Eternity is not a duration. Only two definite points in time can have a duration between them. If you don't make this assumption, then you destroy the field structure of durations that allows you to compare them and say that I had sufficient time to "already happen." It is a meaningless statement. It only seems compelling to you because you don't have the background to know what a tangled web of concepts and the incongruities you are actually proposing. Infinity is clearly beyond your grasp, so you are in no actual position to say ANYTHING about what is or what is not possible with infinities, even infinite regresses.
I don't need a first point, because the atheist says its an infinite regress of cause and effects so there is no first point as there would always be another point before that. But infinite regress is impossible because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so. Scholars widely recognize that an infinite past is just in man's imagination as it is inherently flawed and renders contradictory conclusions, e.g. if there was a past eternity of cause and effects you also should never existed because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.
That's interesting, because we've found a planet with a diameter of 1,4 times Jupiter and that still hasn't turned into a star either.
//http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-largest-planet.html
That's ok. I am just reporting what the documentary said. 1.4x is not too terribly bigger.
Not to people who don't understand math, no. People who do understand math would realise that at 1.4x bigger diameter has a volume of almost 3 times more. The difference between a sphere with radius 1 and radius 1,4 is huge.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The problem remains. Infinite regress cannot be true, because if it were true, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Time for you to come forth with he truth. What do you smoke?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The problem remains. Infinite regress cannot be true, because if it were true, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Time for you to come forth with he truth. What do you smoke?
I am quite interested in how you shut your mind and conscience down to this matter...
...If infinite regress were true, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so; so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Wrong. The fact that there lies an eternity ahead of any time that you could choose would nullify the choice by your own postulate. You don't have to choose a specific time, because NONE would work for your purposes. And because NONE work for your purposes, your argument falls into shambles.
The future ahead has no bearing on the ramifications of one's view of the past.
I thought it was clear that I was talking about the eternal past when I said "there lies an eternity ahead of any time." I had temporarily slipped into the Chinese viewpoint, where its the past that lies ahead of you because it's the only part of time you'd be able to see.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"When the atheist claims an infinite regress of cause and effects, he needs to think that through to its conclusion,
I have, but unlike you I have the background to handle infinities.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"for if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.
Again, bullshit. Eternity is not a duration. You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner. It's an incoherent statement. In an eternity stretching both ways, things happen when they happen, and not a moment before. After all, in an eternity, there's an infinite number of things to do. That's going to take a while.
There's also the hidden assumption here that I can only happen once. Who says? You? And why? Because you think I have a soul that left all that time ago and is now wherever? I don't think I have a soul. I think I am pure material. Therefore, there is nothing keeping me from happening an infinite number of times. The catch is that there can never be a first of me, and I can never know my own index.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"QuoteQuote from: "gracedwithlife"therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
Non sequitor.
You weren't able to show it so it stands.
It does not follow that, even if the universe is not infinite into the past, that it has a cause, for causation requires a overarching temporal structure for the universe to exist within, and you have not shown that there is one. The only temporal structure that we know of is the time that is part of the universe, which does not apply outside the universe. Without that temporal structure, nothing can create the universe, even a god. Hence, non sequitor. You need additional assumptions you have not proven to make this work.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"QuoteThey do if we follow your postulate, so because we know that does not follow, your postulate is wrong. QED.
You didn't show it.
I
did show it. You're simply too dense to understand.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Personal attacks show the weakness of your response.
It's not an attack. It's an observation. You do not know how to handle infinity. If you did, you would not be blundering along with what amounts to pure rhetoric. You would know exactly what was wrong with your argument from my criticisms and address them, instead of simply trying to blunder along and insist that you are right. If you had any competence, you would know how to counter my criticism, instead of trying to repeat tired appologistics you read off the internet.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"QuoteWhether or not you postulate it explicitly, you do need a first point to have your argument work. Eternity is not a duration. Only two definite points in time can have a duration between them. If you don't make this assumption, then you destroy the field structure of durations that allows you to compare them and say that I had sufficient time to "already happen." It is a meaningless statement. It only seems compelling to you because you don't have the background to know what a tangled web of concepts and the incongruities you are actually proposing. Infinity is clearly beyond your grasp, so you are in no actual position to say ANYTHING about what is or what is not possible with infinities, even infinite regresses.
I don't need a first point, because the atheist says its an infinite regress of cause and effects so there is no first point as there would always be another point before that. But infinite regress is impossible because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
Look, chum, I understand your argument, but it's still wrong. By your own argument, nothing can happen, because all of it should have already happened in a distant eternal past. But that runs counter to the hypothesis that there is an infinite chain of cause and effect stretching from an eternal past to an eternal future — there's always something happening in such a universe.
It all boils down to the fact that the statement, "infinite regress is impossible because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so," is an
assumption on your part. Things get kinda screwy when you deal with infinity, but on the whole the screwiness is very tame as mathematics goes, and the kinks have been worked out. Not all of your assumptions are going to hold.
Infinity is screwy but self-consistent. There is
nothing preventing the universe from having an infinite past in principle; the matter must be decided by evidence. If I happen an infinite number of times, your assertion fails. If the universe simply takes a while to get around to me (owing to the literally infinite number of things to do in that eternity), your assumption fails. Either way, your assertion is wrong.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Scholars widely recognize that an infinite past is just in man's imagination as it is inherently flawed and renders contradictory conclusions, e.g. if there was a past eternity of cause and effects you also should never existed because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point.
Sorry, but the only "scholars" that matter in this case are the cosmologists, and they absolutely don't see an inherent problem with an infinite past because they know that such a past would be cyclical — much the same things would be happening again and again an infinite number of times in the past. They will decide the issue based on evidence they can gather, not on your philosophical convictions, because those convictions are based on background assumptions that may or may not be true.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Eternity is not a duration. You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner.
If you, along with many atheists, propose an infinite regress of cause and effects then by definition of an infinite number of past cause and effects, you would have had an infinity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
God provides this proof of Himself by observing nature that is simple enough for all to understand so that you are without excuse when He sends you to Hell for rejecting His only begotten Son.
QuoteThere's also the hidden assumption here that I can only happen once.
It is explicit fact, nothing hidden, that the you that you are now in this moment is the only moment that you are you now.
QuoteWithout that temporal structure, nothing can create the universe
Your theory is not supported by the evidence, for nature, both its space and time, can't always have existed, for if they had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Eternity is not a duration. You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner.
If you, along with many atheists, propose an infinite regress of cause and effects then by definition of an infinite number of past cause and effects, you would have had an infinity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.
Eternity is not a duration. You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner.
If you want to propose different, let's see some
math. Not rhetoric,
math. Define what it means for me to "have already happened," and prove it with mathematical rigor.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"QuoteThere's also the hidden assumption here that I can only happen once.
It is explicit fact, nothing hidden, that the you that you are now in this moment is the only moment that you are you now.
The current instance of me obviously is, but it does not preclude the possibility that I have happened before and don't remember it. Until you're able to get me to agree that I have happened once and only once, your proof fails. So let's see some math.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"QuoteWithout that temporal structure, nothing can create the universe
Your theory is not supported by the evidence, for nature, both its space and time, can't always have existed, for if they had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.
The only time that is proven to exist is the time of the universe, which does not apply to the theoretical exo-verse that the universe supposedly exists within. Without a temporal structure in that exo-verse, any discussion of the cause of the universe is empty rhetoric. First prove that temporal structure of the exo-verse,
then you get to talk about causes of the universe.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner.
You would, indeed, have happened already if you had an infinite regress of cause and effects to come into being before now.
QuoteThe current instance of me obviously is, but it does not preclude the possibility that I have happened before and don't remember it.
You that you are now could not have happened before because now is now not before.
QuoteThe only time that is proven to exist is the time of the universe, which does not apply to the theoretical exo-verse that the universe supposedly exists within.
They are all subject to the law of cause and effect so that you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so in your alleged past eternity.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner.
You would, indeed, have happened already if you had an infinite regress of cause and effects to come into being before now.
Prove it. You take this as a shared assumption. It is not. Prove it.
And an infinite past ? infinite regress.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"QuoteThe current instance of me obviously is, but it does not preclude the possibility that I have happened before and don't remember it.
You that you are now could not have happened before because now is now not before.
Let's see your maths. Prove that there have not been previous instances of me.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"QuoteThe only time that is proven to exist is the time of the universe, which does not apply to the theoretical exo-verse that the universe supposedly exists within.
They are all subject to the law of cause and effect so that you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so in your alleged past eternity.
Prove that the universe would be subject to the law of cause and effect. Keep in mind that the law of cause and effect is an
induction on observations taking place within the universe.
Do you know the difference between an induction and a deduction?
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner.
You would, indeed, have happened already if you had an infinite regress of cause and effects to come into being before now.
And happened again, an infinite amount of times. Now, the present moment, is just between infinities from before the present moment and what will become, if you believe your own argument.
Just because you believe in infinite regress, doesn't exclude the possibility for the same event to happen twice or more, the current universe's configuration notwithstanding.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Prove it.
The proof was already given....
If you want to suggest an infinite regress of cause and effects to reject God, then you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should already have happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated Whom we call God.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Prove it.
The proof was already given....
And I have already dismantled it.
Look, I know you
think that your proof is perfect, but it isn't. I have already outlined what is wrong with it, and there is so much wrong with it. You have done nothing to address those flaws, instead you have simply swept my criticism under the rug and pretended that they are not a problem, instead of addressing them. That annoys me.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I have already dismantled it.
Not at all. Everyone knows that if you want to introduce an infinite regress of cause and effects you are introducing a past eternity, therefore, by definition you had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Since that contradicts your existence now, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated Whom we call God.
Is this the same creator god that made a woman so filthy that he demanded they be set outside society when they have their period?
Is this the same creator god that can't beat another army because they had iron wheels on their chariots?
Is this the same creator god that says the sky is water and the moon is a light and the sun was created after the plants on earth?
Is this the same creator god that claims there is a dragon inside the earth capable of gathering a third of the stars in his tail and flinging them to earth?
Is this the same creator god who proclaims there shall be no other god but me and then creates another one?
meh, me thinks you give too much credit to your god, if there is a god that created the universe it sure as hell wasn't your piece of shit one.
Quote from: "aitm"Is this the same creator god that made a woman so filthy that he demanded they be set outside society when they have their period?
Is this the same creator god that can't beat another army because they had iron wheels on their chariots?
Is this the same creator god that says the sky is water and the moon is a light and the sun was created after the plants on earth?
Is this the same creator god that claims there is a dragon inside the earth capable of gathering a third of the stars in his tail and flinging them to earth?
Is this the same creator god who proclaims there shall be no other god but me and then creates another one?
meh, me thinks you give too much credit to your god, if there is a god that created the universe it sure as hell wasn't your piece of shit one.
God of the Bible is the one you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I have already dismantled it.
Not at all. Everyone knows that if you want to introduce an infinite regress of cause and effects you are introducing a past eternity,
An infinite change of cause and effect is not an infinite regress.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"therefore, by definition you had an eternity to come into being before now,
Again, simply asserted, but never proven. I know it seems like common sense to you, and it is, but common sense has historically been very bad dealing with infinity. Mathematical rigor is your only way to deal with it.
Rest dismissed.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"An infinite change of cause and effect is not an infinite regress.
By infinite regress I mean an infinite cause and effects into the past.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"An infinite change of cause and effect is not an infinite regress.
By infinite regress I mean an infinite cause and effects into the past.
Well, that's not what infinite regress means. You insist on using it because of the perceived prejudice that it invokes.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"An infinite change of cause and effect is not an infinite regress.
By infinite regress I mean an infinite cause and effects into the past.
Well, that's not what infinite regress means. You insist on using it because of the perceived prejudice that it invokes.
That is what infinite regress means: an eternity of the past of cause and effects what atheists try to introduce to replace God which fails of course since you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"That is what infinite regress means: an eternity of the past of cause and effects what atheists try to introduce to replace God which fails of course since you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
Infinite regress means that there is an infinite chain of
propositions. Events are not propositions.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"That is what infinite regress means: an eternity of the past of cause and effects what atheists try to introduce to replace God which fails of course since you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
Infinite regress means that there is an infinite chain of propositions. Events are not propositions.
Infinite regress is a past eternity of cause and effects.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"That is what infinite regress means: an eternity of the past of cause and effects what atheists try to introduce to replace God which fails of course since you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
Infinite regress means that there is an infinite chain of propositions. Events are not propositions.
Infinite regress is a past eternity of cause and effects.
Look up infinite regress on wikipedia. You will find a different definition. We characterize the eternal universe in a finite set of propositions that are a statement about the structure they form. By definition, the propositions terminate and do not form an infinite regress.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Look up infinite regress on wikipedia. You will find a different definition. We characterize the eternal universe in a finite set of propositions that are a statement about the structure they form. By definition, the propositions terminate and do not form an infinite regress.
Look it up yourself, they are cause and effects at the basest level.
Ergo, infinite regress of cause and effects are impossible because if there was, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Look up infinite regress on wikipedia. You will find a different definition. We characterize the eternal universe in a finite set of propositions that are a statement about the structure they form. By definition, the propositions terminate and do not form an infinite regress.
Look it up yourself, they are cause and effects at the basest level.
I'm looking at it right now. It doesn't say that.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Eternity is not a duration. You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner.
If you, along with many atheists, propose an infinite regress of cause and effects then by definition of an infinite number of past cause and effects, you would have had an infinity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
God provides this proof of Himself by observing nature that is simple enough for all to understand so that you are without excuse when He sends you to Hell for rejecting His only begotten Son.
QuoteThere's also the hidden assumption here that I can only happen once.
It is explicit fact, nothing hidden, that the you that you are now in this moment is the only moment that you are you now.
QuoteWithout that temporal structure, nothing can create the universe
Your theory is not supported by the evidence, for nature, both its space and time, can't always have existed, for if they had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.
It is a possibility that you have already happened, Grace. It is also possible that there are multiple copies of you right now in other parts of the multiverse. I don't find those possibilities very likely, but it is a possibility.
(//http://i.space.com/images/i/000/024/272/i02/shutterstock_16130800.jpg?1354898332)
What is not possible is the existence of Jewish zombie saviors purposely put here by the your first cause specifically to provide a path to eternal salvation for your sorry egoistical ass. That isn't possible because that is a fairy tale much of which was stolen from Bronze Age civilizations by the Iron Age ones that made up the rest of story.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "aitm"Is this the same creator god that made a woman so filthy that he demanded they be set outside society when they have their period?
Is this the same creator god that can't beat another army because they had iron wheels on their chariots?
Is this the same creator god that says the sky is water and the moon is a light and the sun was created after the plants on earth?
Is this the same creator god that claims there is a dragon inside the earth capable of gathering a third of the stars in his tail and flinging them to earth?
Is this the same creator god who proclaims there shall be no other god but me and then creates another one?
meh, me thinks you give too much credit to your god, if there is a god that created the universe it sure as hell wasn't your piece of shit one.
God of the Bible is the one you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.
interpretation: I know the babble is nonsense and has been completely proven wrong, therefore I will "make-up" crazy science to use to back up my shaky beliefs that my parents handed down to me.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "stromboli"Whats the matter, didn't daddy give you your Barbie doll? All you've done on here is reproach, condemn and chastise. How many times do you need to be reminded that your actions by your own standards are arrogant and sinful? You can talk infinite regress and any other BS you want but ultimately can't prove. You condemn yourself by your own actions, you sinful little girl.
It is proven. If you want to claim an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would be wrong because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.
You know, saying 'it is proven' a lot doesn't make your claim more believable. That infinite regress is impossible is your claim. That an eternal past implies that 'it's impossible to have gotten to the present' is your argument. You are light years from a proof. You say the present is impossible with an eternal past: that's what you have to prove, you can't just sneak it in.
Now, assuming you can do that, there are many alternatives to an infinite regress that don't invoke a personal being. The math and science works for a quantum fluctuation to start a universe, and quantum fluctuations are causeless, they exist essentially because absolute nothingness is probably impossible. Other possible 'first causes' are postulated that are also natural. Like a medical examiner with a body, you have to rule out natural causes before you get to speculate on the motives of the murderer.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I rest on the fact that infinite regress and something from nothing are impossible without any challengers.
You should take some courses on logic and get back to us. You don't get to declare your assertions facts that stand until someone disproves them. They remain assertions that don't have to be accepted unless proven true.
Now that second one is particularly shaky, given that virtual particles appear from nothing without a cause, meaning that the only thing we can truthfully say we've observed beginning to exist does so from nothing without a cause.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Start from the point of evidence what you observe.
You observe nature. In nature you see cause and effect. If there was an infinite regress of cause and effect, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space being uncreated.
Fallacy of composition. You assume that the universe must behave according to the laws that hold within it, like assuming that a wall made of unbreakable bricks must be unbreakable. The universe could have begun without a cause (causeless quantum fluctuation, for instance). Not enough evidence yet to make that a strong possibility, but it's not a possibility that can be hand waved away.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I made no assumption nor did you show any. Glad to see you couldn't find fault with the proof...
If there was this atheist infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.
It's not an atheist 'infinite regress'. There are plenty of theists who believe God has existed eternally, which raises the same question of him never getting around to the present. And putting God outside of time and space doesn't make him eternal or transcendant, it makes him nonexistent, not to mention the issue of when a timeless being would create a universe and where a spaceless being would put it.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.
Lots of star systems have gas giants. By your logic, ours are here to shelter us from asteroids. Why do you suppose other star systems have them?
> You're going the wrong direction.
Wrong in terms of the conclusion you want, but right in terms of reality.
> As Jesus was able to depart from this realm to the next instantly, so will all those who are raptured.
Any evidence for this? That you believe it isn't evidence. That others believe it isn't evidence. That you feel you couldn't go on if it weren't true isn't evidence.
> Since Jesus proved His resurrection and rapture, this is what He has in store for us even the unsaved. Then He returns with His overcomers to reign on earth for 1000 years.
What evidence is there that Jesus "proved" his resurrection? In fact, he almost certainly never lived. He is most likely a fictional character, an amalgam of several other characters, some also fictional, some real.
Do you have any evidence for your claims?
Frank
What evidence is there of rapture?
As Jesus was raptured so will we be as He told us so.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"What evidence is there of rapture?
As Jesus was raptured so will we be as He told us so.
I understand that's your CLAIM, but that's not evidence. Every religion makes claims; that doesn't make them true.
What evidence is there that Jesus rose from the dead? That you believe it isn't evidence. That others believe it isn't evidence. That you wish it were so isn't evidence.
Where's the evidence?
Frank
Quote from: "FrankDK"What evidence is there that Jesus rose from the dead? That you believe it isn't evidence. That others believe it isn't evidence. That you wish it were so isn't evidence
Do you mean to suggest that "Thus sayeth the Lord!" doesn't work with atheists? Geese, what do religionists have left?
Why is the resurrection of Jesus evidence?
The reason it is evidence and proven fact is because group hallucinations are impossible.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Why is the resurrection of Jesus evidence?
The reason it is evidence and proven fact is because group hallucinations are impossible.
Group hallucinations are impossible, but mass delusions and false memories are, and have been demonstrated. Also, it's easy to redact text after the fact.
Again, there is no primary sources for Jesus's existence.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Why is the resurrection of Jesus evidence?
The reason it is evidence and proven fact is because group hallucinations are impossible.
Group hallucinations are impossible, but mass delusions and false memories are, and have been demonstrated. Also, it's easy to redact text after the fact.
Again, there is no primary sources for Jesus's existence.
Delusion is believing something not true. But the Apostles were not just believing something, they also said they saw Jesus.
A false memory is also believing something not true. But again, the Apostles were not just believing something in a memory, but they also said they saw Jesus.
The Apostles never changed their story to their martyrdom as recorded in Scripture and earliest church fathers so there was nothing to redact.
There are no primary sources for anyone in antiquity so if you reject Christ, you have to deny the existence of every human being from antiquity, but I don't know any credible scholars or historians who use your approach. You're on the fringe on your own which is the condition of someone eternally separated from God, for he goes his own way not listening to the guidance of his Creator.
In short you can say that you are delusional.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"There are no primary sources for anyone in antiquity so if you reject Christ, you have to deny the existence of every human being from antiquity...
WFT????? This is the dumbest thing I've ever read here, and that's saying a lot.
You heard right. To deny it is dumb. The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"You heard right. To deny it is dumb. The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ.
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
You're such an idiot.
Ditto.
It's amazing how delusional you prefer to remain.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Ditto.
LOL... Ditto...
I'm not the one making such an asinine claim as this:
"The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ."
Are you willing to place a large bet on this based on your VAST ignorance of world history?
"The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ."
That's a fact. You're being asinine. Why don't you want to accept reality?
Whether you place the books of the NT days or weeks or years or even a decade or two after their events they are still closer to the events written about than for anyone in antiquity.
I suggest you do some homework.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife""The earliest sources we have for anyone closest to their events are the books of the NT for Christ."
That's a fact. You're being asinine. Why don't you want to accept reality?
The depth of your willful ignorance has gone beyond entertaining into disturbing. Perhaps you should call the storied museums of the world and tell them it's safe to destroy the contemporaneous and much older than NT accounts of regal reins, commerce, wars, etc. recorded on stone and clay tablets, columns, obelisks, tombs, walls, etc.
> Why is the resurrection of Jesus evidence?
No, you misunderstood me. I didn't ask why the resurrection of Jesus was evidence. I asked where is the evidence for Jesus' resurrection? You don't have any.
> The reason it is evidence and proven fact is because group hallucinations are impossible.
Actually, no, they are quite common, especially among the devoutly religious. Google "miracles at Lourdes" for a short list. Or consider UFO reports. Many people report having seen the same aliens at the same time. Aliens, or group hallucinations?
We have absolutely no first-hand testimony that Jesus arose. The earliest writings that mention Jesus are by Paul, who not only never saw Jesus, but who says Jesus wasn't an historical figure. The gospels were written many years later and contain so many historical, cultural, and geographical errors that it is clear that the writers were never even near the sites they write about.
The Bible says that when Jesus was crucified, people arose from their graves and "appeared unto many." If that had happened, we would have contemporaneous references to it. We have contemporaneous reference to John the Baptist and others of the time, but none to Jesus or any of the things attributed to him in the Bible.
Besides, all religions have nonsense stories like that. Many people witnessed Mohammed's ascent to Heaven. Does that mean it must be true? Many people saw the Buddha walk three steps when he was three days old. Does that mean it must be true?
No, it only means that the story was made up to make the religious figure look miraculous.
Where is the evidence that Jesus was resurrected?
Frank
aileron,
The documents you are referring to are copies of copies and usually hundreds of years later so that is certainly not contemporary, unlike for the NT we have earliest still surviving parchments within a generation of the life of Jesus.
Take for example Aristotle the earliest known copy we have is 1400 years later.
By your standard Aristotle never existed and none of his works ever came from him.
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The documents you are referring to are copies of copies and usually hundreds of years later so that is certainly not contemporary, unlike for the NT we have earliest still surviving parchments within a generation of the life of Jesus.
There are NO surviving parchments of the so-called original new testiment...so you're lying.
And the only documents from the middle east that survived from the 1st century are all Roman documents and some jewish chronicals. None of them even mention a Jesus Christ. Not one. Not even the censuses of the time.
Come on MODS ban this stupid lying troll!
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The documents you are referring to are copies of copies and usually hundreds of years later so that is certainly not contemporary, unlike for the NT we have earliest still surviving parchments within a generation of the life of Jesus.
There are NO surviving parchments of the so-called original new testiment...so you're lying.
And the only documents from the middle east that survived from the 1st century are all Roman documents and some jewish chronicals. None of them even mention a Jesus Christ. Not one. Not even the censuses of the time.
Come on MODS ban this stupid lying troll!
This is common knowledge. There are two NT papyri still surviving from the late first century and about 15 from the 2nd century. In fact, you can quote the entire NT except for 11 verses from the earliest church fathers in the 2nd century.
So there is really no comparison to other figure in antiquity. If you are going to throw out Jesus you have to throw out everyone. But I don't know any scholars or historians who would be as belligerent as you.
sayo-fucking-naro
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The documents you are referring to are copies of copies...
You're too painfully ignorant to even know the items to which I'm referring. Copies of copies?? Seriously, dude? Do you think it was routine to make copies of copies of columns and walls???? WTF?? Clay tablets? You think they needed to make a bunch of copies of them too?
Quote...unlike for the NT we have earliest still surviving parchments within a generation of the life of Jesus.
Bullshit. The oldest agreed upon dating for a papyrus (you don't even know what they used to write on, dude, parchment, lol) fragment (yes, FRAGMENT) is from the mid-second century.
> Whether you place the books of the NT days or weeks or years or even a decade or two after their events they are still closer to the events written about than for anyone in antiquity.
Not true. The gospels were written between 90 and 130 AD. They clearly contain errors. For example, we have first hand accounts of the cities and towns in Roman-occupied Palestine from tax records and the writings of the Jews. We know for a fact that Nazareth didn't exist until late in the first century of the Christian calendar, so Jesus couldn't have lived there. People writing in 90 to 130 AD didn't realize that Nazareth was a new town, and mistakenly incorporated it into their narratives.
The Bible tells us that John the Baptist was executed by the Jews after the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion. Yet, the passion story turns on the claim that the Romans had taken away the Jews' authority for capital punishment prior to that. Clearly, the gospel authors didn't know that the Jews still had capital punishment authority and mistakenly used it as a literary device.
We have first-hand narratives about Jesus ben Pantera, one of the sources of stories about Jesus. We know the Jews slew Jesus ben Pantera and hung his body from a tree, the standard method of execution for heretics. Even Acts 5:30 refers to this execution. ("The god of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hung from a tree." Directed at the Jews.) So most of the stories about Jesus found in the NT are based on Jesus ben Pantera, who lived before the traditional time for Jesus of Nazareth. Others are based on the life of John the Baptist, and yet others on earlier savior-gods like Horus.
I realize that you really, really, REALLY want to believe in this stuff. But that isn't evidence.
Where is the evidence that Jesus even lived, let alone was resurrected?
Frank
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "gracedwithlife"The documents you are referring to are copies of copies and usually hundreds of years later so that is certainly not contemporary, unlike for the NT we have earliest still surviving parchments within a generation of the life of Jesus.
There are NO surviving parchments of the so-called original new testiment...so you're lying.
And the only documents from the middle east that survived from the 1st century are all Roman documents and some jewish chronicals. None of them even mention a Jesus Christ. Not one. Not even the censuses of the time.
Come on MODS ban this stupid lying troll!
This is common knowledge. There are two NT papyri still surviving from the late first century and about 15 from the 2nd century. In fact, you can quote the entire NT except for 11 verses from the earliest church fathers in the 2nd century.
So there is really no comparison to other figure in antiquity. If you are going to throw out Jesus you have to throw out everyone. But I don't know any scholars or historians who would be as belligerent as you.
That is a flat out lie. Produce these papyri, because it isn't "common knowledge" at all.
Quote from: "FrankDK"The Bible tells us that John the Baptist was executed by the Jews after the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion.
Actually, the gospels claim that John the Baptist was executed before Jesus.
Quote from: "aileron"Quote from: "FrankDK"The Bible tells us that John the Baptist was executed by the Jews after the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion.
Actually, the gospels claim that John the Baptist was executed before Jesus.
Yes, you're right. The gospels differ on whether JtB was already in prison when Peter and Andrew were called, but not relative to Jesus' execution.
Thanks for the catch.
Frank
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.
While the troll is gone, if that's an example of the 800 variables then you know the 800 variables are bullshit.
Jupiter is about as large as a planet can get. Add more mass it simply becomes more dense. Take away mass it becomes less dense, until it actually starts getting smaller. Saturn is nearly Jupiter size with about 1/3 the mass.
Jupiter
Equatorial radius 71,492 ± 4 km
Mass 1.8986 × 10^27 kg
Saturn
Equatorial radius 60 268 ± 4 km
Mass 5.6846×10^26 kg
The smallest star, the brown dwarf, is actually quite a bit larger than Jupiter. The smallest ones are 13 Jupiter Masses. That means that Jupiter would need to be 13 times larger to be a star to qualify for the 800 variables. "So large that if it got any larger"? It would merely be a larger Jupiter. Even if you combined all four gas giants into one super-Jupiter it still wouldn't be a Brown Dwarf Star.
Quote from: "aitm"sayo-fucking-naro
Let me guess. Too stupid to live?
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "aitm"sayo-fucking-naro
Let me guess. Too stupid to live?
I miss Kimmie. :-(
Quote from: "gracedwithlife"Ditto.
It's amazing how delusional you prefer to remain.
I just had to post this:
[youtube:obrnezur]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdKr1jlDzW4[/youtube:obrnezur]
Jesus coming back? Aliens coming back? reminds me of the old Cargo Cult (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult)