Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

YWC do you think you're going to be the first religious fundamentalist who's scientific perspective wasn't laughed at by future generations?

Think back to all the science deniers and their religious theories in history, are any of them not viewed as ridiculous now?
 
Incorrect. Saying we don't know is admitting that for now we don't know if there is life out there. We are not saying that there is no life out there, for that would be claiming to possess knowledge that we couldn't possibly possess. That is a claim of belief, not knowledge.

You're being disingenuous by not saying for now there is no reason to believe life exists out there it's only an opinion not backed by data.

No I'm not, we can't just blindly assume there's no life out there with nothing backing such an assessment.

So you do have reason to believe there is life out there, what evidence do you have ?
 
We don't know is admitting for now there is no life out there correct ?

Do you have any reason to believe there is life out there other then God and the Angels ?

Incorrect. Saying we don't know is admitting that for now we don't know if there is life out there. We are not saying that there is no life out there, for that would be claiming to possess knowledge that we couldn't possibly possess. That is a claim of belief, not knowledge.

You're being disingenuous by not saying for now there is no reason to believe life exists out there it's only an opinion not backed by data.

This is not true. We have reason to believe that life could exist elsewhere in the universe because it was able to start on this planet, and there is nothing overly unique about our solar system. Given the vastness of space, the hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars on average, it is reasonable to believe that life could have started elsewhere. It is a belief and not a fact, but it is not unreasonable in the slightest.
 
Lol unwilling to click back a couple pages, why do people prefer ignorance?

I said how do you know life began only in one area? Where has any science ever said life began only in one part of the world?

If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? Pond scum coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect?

You are displaying an unprecedented level of ignorance regarding the theory of evolution and the history of the development of life on this planet. I'd advise you to purchase a middle school level Biology text book and an introductory book explaining logical fallacies, because your knowledge of each of these subjects is severely lacking and disqualifies you from even being able to effectively participate in a discussion, much less a debate. Either that or you are being intentionally ignorant and dishonest, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just horribly lacking in education.

What made life from pond scum stop doing the same thing over and over? Surely you can pin point some mechanism that stop the process from happening again and again.

Puyff and bang and life comes from pond scum surely there had to be something to stop it. Or we would see it still happening.
 
YWC do you think you're going to be the first religious fundamentalist who's scientific perspective wasn't laughed at by future generations?

Think back to all the science deniers and their religious theories in history, are any of them not viewed as ridiculous now?

What really matters is who gets to laugh last. :eusa_angel:
 
Incorrect. Saying we don't know is admitting that for now we don't know if there is life out there. We are not saying that there is no life out there, for that would be claiming to possess knowledge that we couldn't possibly possess. That is a claim of belief, not knowledge.

You're being disingenuous by not saying for now there is no reason to believe life exists out there it's only an opinion not backed by data.

This is not true. We have reason to believe that life could exist elsewhere in the universe because it was able to start on this planet, and there is nothing overly unique about our solar system. Given the vastness of space, the hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars on average, it is reasonable to believe that life could have started elsewhere. It is a belief and not a fact, but it is not unreasonable in the slightest.


Yeah only on this planet, and it screams creator.
 
Oh boy :lol:

We now know the universe is not infinite and it had a beginning. So before the universe there was nothing and nothing blew up ? What caused nothing to blow up ?

When did time and matter begin ? They say twenty billion years ago. You can't have matter without time. Time began with the big bang.

Where did matter come from if not the big bang ? Matter produces everything you see.

No, we don't know that the universe is not infinite and that it had a beginning. We know the universe was once in a super dense, hot state, and then began rapidly expanding in what we call the Big Bang. We don't know what came before that, or if it even makes sense to ask that question at all.

Who says that the Big Bang occurred 20 billion years ago? You really ought to read up on cosmology, because you are showing yourself to be extremely ignorant on the subject.

The Big Bang is an expansion of space and time. I'm confused as to why you think the Big Bang should have made it possible for life to thrive everywhere in the universe.

Are you serious ? you don't know they know the universe has a beginning,please don't waste my time.

Don't waste my time, go read up on modern cosmology and get back to me when you have a basic understanding of what we're talking about. Until then, leave this discussion to people who actually know what they're talking about.
 
How many fucking times do I have to repeat my god damn self? I am not nor hav I ever claimedto be a motherfucking christian.
Now can you fucking prove satan doesnot exist? Why does a mother kill her own child?

Wrong bad guy, it's not Satan, it's Lillith.

Try again.

of course a faggot biker would thing satan was a female figure

No, just trying to inform the backwards ass country idiot who knows nothing of subjects upon which they speak......

Lilith (Hebrew: לילית*; lilit, or lilith) is a character in Jewish mythology, found earliest in the Babylonian Talmud (completed between 500 and 700 AD/CE), who is generally thought to be related to a class of female demons Līlīṯu in Mesopotamian texts. However, Lowell K. Handy (1997) notes, "Very little information has been found relating to the Akkadian and Babylonian view of these demons. Two sources of information previously used to define Lilith are both suspect."[1] The two problematic sources are the Gilgamesh appendix and the Arslan Tash amulets, which are discussed below.[2]

In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam, fostering the common perception of being Adam's equal. This contrasts with Eve, who was created from one of Adam's ribs. The legend was greatly developed during the Middle Ages, in the tradition of Aggadic midrashim, the Zohar and Jewish mysticism.[3] In the 13th Century writings of Rabbi Isaac ben Jacob ha-Cohen, for example, Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she mated with archangel Samael.[4] The resulting Lilith legend is still commonly used as source material in modern Western culture, literature, occultism, fantasy, and horror.

Lilith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You're being disingenuous by not saying for now there is no reason to believe life exists out there it's only an opinion not backed by data.

This is not true. We have reason to believe that life could exist elsewhere in the universe because it was able to start on this planet, and there is nothing overly unique about our solar system. Given the vastness of space, the hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars on average, it is reasonable to believe that life could have started elsewhere. It is a belief and not a fact, but it is not unreasonable in the slightest.


Yeah only on this planet, and it screams creator.

Only to the hopelessly biased it does.
 
Wrong bad guy, it's not Satan, it's Lillith.

Try again.

of course a faggot biker would thing satan was a female figure

No, just trying to inform the backwards ass country idiot who knows nothing of subjects upon which they speak......

Lilith (Hebrew: לילית*; lilit, or lilith) is a character in Jewish mythology, found earliest in the Babylonian Talmud (completed between 500 and 700 AD/CE), who is generally thought to be related to a class of female demons Līlīṯu in Mesopotamian texts. However, Lowell K. Handy (1997) notes, "Very little information has been found relating to the Akkadian and Babylonian view of these demons. Two sources of information previously used to define Lilith are both suspect."[1] The two problematic sources are the Gilgamesh appendix and the Arslan Tash amulets, which are discussed below.[2]

In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam, fostering the common perception of being Adam's equal. This contrasts with Eve, who was created from one of Adam's ribs. The legend was greatly developed during the Middle Ages, in the tradition of Aggadic midrashim, the Zohar and Jewish mysticism.[3] In the 13th Century writings of Rabbi Isaac ben Jacob ha-Cohen, for example, Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she mated with archangel Samael.[4] The resulting Lilith legend is still commonly used as source material in modern Western culture, literature, occultism, fantasy, and horror.

Lilith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mythology 101:clap2:
 
You're being disingenuous by not saying for now there is no reason to believe life exists out there it's only an opinion not backed by data.

No I'm not, we can't just blindly assume there's no life out there with nothing backing such an assessment.

So you do have reason to believe there is life out there, what evidence do you have ?

I have no evidence that there is or isn't life somewhere besides earth.


Hence, the "I don't know."
 
This is not true. We have reason to believe that life could exist elsewhere in the universe because it was able to start on this planet, and there is nothing overly unique about our solar system. Given the vastness of space, the hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars on average, it is reasonable to believe that life could have started elsewhere. It is a belief and not a fact, but it is not unreasonable in the slightest.


Yeah only on this planet, and it screams creator.

Only to the hopelessly biased it does.

If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? Pond scum coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect?
 
of course a faggot biker would thing satan was a female figure

No, just trying to inform the backwards ass country idiot who knows nothing of subjects upon which they speak......

Lilith (Hebrew: לילית*; lilit, or lilith) is a character in Jewish mythology, found earliest in the Babylonian Talmud (completed between 500 and 700 AD/CE), who is generally thought to be related to a class of female demons Līlīṯu in Mesopotamian texts. However, Lowell K. Handy (1997) notes, "Very little information has been found relating to the Akkadian and Babylonian view of these demons. Two sources of information previously used to define Lilith are both suspect."[1] The two problematic sources are the Gilgamesh appendix and the Arslan Tash amulets, which are discussed below.[2]

In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam, fostering the common perception of being Adam's equal. This contrasts with Eve, who was created from one of Adam's ribs. The legend was greatly developed during the Middle Ages, in the tradition of Aggadic midrashim, the Zohar and Jewish mysticism.[3] In the 13th Century writings of Rabbi Isaac ben Jacob ha-Cohen, for example, Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she mated with archangel Samael.[4] The resulting Lilith legend is still commonly used as source material in modern Western culture, literature, occultism, fantasy, and horror.

Lilith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mythology 101:clap2:

Actually, if you were to read the link, you would see that she's also in the Bible.

Mythology 101 indeed.
 
Yeah only on this planet, and it screams creator.

Only to the hopelessly biased it does.

If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? Pond scum coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect?

Plz stop repeating your strawmen, the spam is messing up an already ugly thread.

No one has ever said pond scum became human life.
 
Yeah only on this planet, and it screams creator.

Only to the hopelessly biased it does.

If life began as science would lead us to believe why haven't we seen life created like that anymore? Pond scum coming up and creating human life. Why can't science recreate the same effect?

I didn't realize science has stated that human life came from pond scum. Is this a new theory or something? Can you point me to the scientific paper that makes this claim? Thanks.
 
I have no evidence that there is or isn't life somewhere besides earth.


Hence, the "I don't know."

I can't believe you lost your talking point cue card.

I've stated I don't know if there's life outside earth or not, I don't why you fundies need me to repeat it so many times.

I'll tell you why - it's because the phrase "I don't know" is not in their vocabulary, because they think they know everything. :lol:
 
Show me one scientist who has ever said that life started with the big bang. We have a disagreement with your overly simplistic premise, that the big bang started life.


Oh boy :lol:

We now know the universe is not infinite and it had a beginning. So before the universe there was nothing and nothing blew up ? What caused nothing to blow up ?

When did time and matter begin ? They say twenty billion years ago. You can't have matter without time. Time began with the big bang.

Where did matter come from if not the big bang ? Matter produces everything you see.

No, we don't know that the universe is not infinite and that it had a beginning. We know the universe was once in a super dense, hot state, and then began rapidly expanding in what we call the Big Bang. We don't know what came before that, or if it even makes sense to ask that question at all.

Who says that the Big Bang occurred 20 billion years ago? You really ought to read up on cosmology, because you are showing yourself to be extremely ignorant on the subject.

The Big Bang is an expansion of space and time. I'm confused as to why you think the Big Bang should have made it possible for life to thrive everywhere in the universe.


___________________________

New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

“The Discovery of the Century” - Stephen Hawking

I want to take you back to almost two years ago, April 23, 1992. On that day, a discovery was announced that, in the words of the British physicist Steven Hawking, “…is the discovery of the century, if not of all time.” This is remarkable because Steven Hawking has a reputation for understatement.

Michael Turner, from the University of Chicago, says the significance of this discovery cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology. As to how holy of a grail we’re talking about, George Smoot, who led the team of 30 American astrophysicists who made the discovery said, “What we have found is evidence of the birth of the Universe. It’s like looking at God.”

Frederick Burnham, a science historian, said in response to this discovery, “The idea that God created the Universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years.”

The reason I’m starting with these quotes is because anything that is being called ‘The greatest discovery of the century’ and anything that makes belief in God more credible that it’s ever been before, is something that every Christian should be apprised of and equipped to share with his friends at home, in the neighborhood and at work.

The Day They Found 90% of the Universe

Now, what exactly was it that these astronomers discovered? They found 90% of the universe. Any day that you find 90% of the universe is a red-letter day. What they essentially found was a new kind of matter. For a couple of years, physicists have suspected that the universe must have a different kind of matter.

Ordinary matter is the stuff that we’re used to. Electrons, protons, neutrons, everything we see here on planet Earth is made up of ordinary matter. Ordinary matter is a property that strongly interacts with radiation, so it’s rather easy for astronomers to detect the stuff.

But we found the problem, which was this: In 1990, the cosmic background explorer satellite proved that the universe is extremely entropic. In fact, the universe has a specific entropy measure of 1,000,000,000. Entropy measures the efficiency with which a system radiates heat and light, and the inefficiency in which it performs work.

The universe is by far the most entropic system in all existence. To give you a point of comparison, a burning candle has a specific entropy of two. A burning candle is something we realize is very efficient in making heat and light, and very inefficient in performing work. The universe is far more entropic than a candle, by many orders of magnitude.

But it led to a problem. If the universe has that high a degree of entropy and all matter strongly interacts with radiation, and the radiation left over from the creation event measures to be incredibly smooth, then the matter likewise should be that smoothly distributed. But it isn’t.

As you look at the galaxies and clusters of galaxies, rather than being smoothly distributed like the radiation form the creation event, it’s clumpy. Astronomers wanted to know why. We have proof that the universe was created in a hot, big, bang due to the incredible entropy, but how do we explain the galaxies?

The discovery of exotic matter explains the clustering of the galaxies. Exotic matter does not strongly interact with radiation, and because it doesn’t, it can clump independent of the radiation. Since it doesn’t really matter in gravity whether the matter is exotic or ordinary, the laws of physics still apply.

Two massive objects will attract one another under the law of gravity, and if one of those massive objects is made of ordinary matter and the other is made of exotic matter, they will still attract.

Once exotic matter clumps, it can draw ordinary matter to it, and hence we can have the universe we see today. The radiation from the creation event is still very smoothly distributed, but the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are clumped.

April 23, 1992 was the first detection an astronomer made of this type of matter. Since that time, there have been seven other independent detections of this exotic matter. If you’re interested, you can read all about it in my book, The Creator and the Cosmos , which was published a few months ago.

In this back issue, we describe the set of discoveries that established the existence of exotic matter which led to the conclusions from the scientific community that we now have conclusive proof that the universe was indeed created, and that’s why we say that we’re looking at the face of God.

On April 24, 1992, I was on the radio with three other physicists to discuss this discovery. A couple of the gentlemen were from George Smoot’s team, but the one that I was most curious about was Geoffrey Burbridge, who I had as a professor while I attended the University of Toronto, and who I knew to be an atheist.

Physicists Join “The First Church of Christ of the Big Bang”

I was wondering how Geoffery was going to respond to the news of this discovery. The first words out of his mouth were a complaint, and they were that as a result of this discovery, his peers in physics and astronomy were rushing off to join the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.

What encouraged me about Jeffrey’s statement was that even Jeffrey, as an atheist, recognized the equation, Big Bang = Jesus Christ. If you prove the Big Bang, you prove Jesus Christ. I want to briefly explain to you how that follows and I want to reveal something to you that leads to that.

Why Big Bang = Jesus Christ

It’s something that’s probably more beautiful than anything that you’ve ever seen living here in Illinois . Or for that matter California or where I grew up, British Colombia, which I think is the most beautiful place in the world.

I want to show you something that far transcends the beauty of even the scenery that we see on this planet Earth. [Shows Einstein's singularity equation.] But, then what could possibly transcend the beauty of equations of physics? For those of you who are starting to break out into a cold sweat, this will be gone in less than a minute and I’ll never show you another one again.

I thought that you might be curious of the equation that convinced Albert Einstein that God exists, that God created the universe. This equation falls under the theory of general relativity. For those of you who have a background in calculus, you’ll recognize this term here as an expression for acceleration.

What Einstein had done was to drive the equation for the acceleration of the entire universe. On the other side of the equation, you see four physical constants. I don’t really have to explain them to you, except to point out that they all have positive values.

Four well-known physical constants with positive values, yet there’s a minus sign in front. That immediately tells us that the entire universe experiences negative acceleration. The universe is decelerating. That was a tremendous challenge to the theology of his day because in the 200 years previous to Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, academic scientific society was operating on the premise that the universe was static.

Belief in a Static Universe Led to Darwinian Evolution

That was really what fostered the birth of Darwinian evolution, the idea that the universe is static, infinitely old and infinitely large. Static, in that it maintained the conditions essential for elements to assemble themselves into living systems, as Emanuel Kant reasoned, long before Charles Darwin came up with a theory.

Emanuel Kant longed to come up with a theory of biological evolution but he didn’t have the biological data to develop it. Nevertheless, he laid the philosophical foundation that if the universe is infinitely old and infinitely large and static, maintaining the ideal chemical situation for life chemistry to proceed, then one can posit that the dice of chance is thrown an infinite number of times and in an infinite variety of ways.

If you have infinite throws at the dice of chance, then any matter of complexity would be conceivable – even something as complicated as a German philosopher. But this equation challenged that very notion by saying that the universe is not static; it decelerates.

Einstein was well aware that the term for pressure (P) in the universe is rather tiny compared to the term for mass density (represented by the Greek letter Rho ). It’s divided by a huge number – the velocity of light squared. You’ve got this extremely small number divided by a huge number. This means that for all intents and purposes, we can ignore that “3P/C²” relative to the density. We can drop that term out, and then we have something much simpler to solve.


Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe
 

Forum List

Back
Top