-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes I have wondered that Sirk. As far as I can see, he hasn't convinced anyone that God does not exist so it seems that he is banging his head against a brick wall. I guess if you have been blinded by satan as the scripture teaches, it is difficult to see brick walls, so all you can do is inflict pain on yourself and believe that you are doing something useful.
I wonder if he has come onto this site to see if what he believes is actually any good and provable as he is not really convinced about it himself. Perhaps underneath it all he wishes he could recover his faith in God because it is such hard work having to work out everything for yourself and then convince yourself that what you have worked out is reality.
I wonder if atheists die young because they have to put so much energy into denying the truth and replacing it with some fairy story about evolution and then convince themselves that it is the truth. Makes me tired just thinking about it.
I wonder if he has come onto this site to see if what he believes is actually any good and provable as he is not really convinced about it himself. Perhaps underneath it all he wishes he could recover his faith in God because it is such hard work having to work out everything for yourself and then convince yourself that what you have worked out is reality.
I wonder if atheists die young because they have to put so much energy into denying the truth and replacing it with some fairy story about evolution and then convince themselves that it is the truth. Makes me tired just thinking about it.
Last edited:
S
I don't agree with how long the universe has been here, but check out this 4-5 minute video.
--> God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational? - YouTube
--> God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational? - YouTube
I am curious. Peter Kreeft says in this video that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. He credits God with the Big Bang. I don't think you agree with him. I would argue the case against the argument from the first cause that Kreeft is defending, but you don't agree with him anyway.
Kreeft argues that a universe cannot come from nothing, but I guess he's not up on modern astrophysics. Lawrence Krauss argues in his book, A Universe from Nothing, that the universe can indeed arise from nothing; but you must understand first what Krauss means by nothing.
Read the book or watch the lecture: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube
Kreeft argues that a universe cannot come from nothing, but I guess he's not up on modern astrophysics. Lawrence Krauss argues in his book, A Universe from Nothing, that the universe can indeed arise from nothing; but you must understand first what Krauss means by nothing.
Read the book or watch the lecture: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube
Actually, we use crackers for communion. I would prefer an unleavened bread; But, I really don't think it is as important as where our minds are during communion (before and after for that matter).
I do think of it as an insult. I do think mustaphadrink should try to use "gentle words".
Yeah, yeah, I know. Don't bother. <not you Cycel
I do think of it as an insult. I do think mustaphadrink should try to use "gentle words".
Yeah, yeah, I know. Don't bother. <not you Cycel
Near the end of cited video with Dr. Larry Krauss, there was a mention that scientists were worried for a moment. Based on context, it appeared they were worried that scientific evidence and reasoning might point toward God. Many scientists and others don't want that outcome.
In order to apply the scientific method consistently, there is the need to follow the evidence WHEREVER IT GOES for AS LONG AS IT TAKES to find the Truth.
I read recently somewhere that a committee of scientists or atheists had voted on whether their organization would allow evidence and arguments that included God as a possible cause during investigations. In the vote, I'm sure that at least a few would not allow it. They don't want a God to rule over them or even to consider the possibility. If God made us, then He gets some ownership rights in the deal. Bible-based sexual standards are more supported if God owns our bodies. Many don't want that conclusion or those standards.
First cause arguments are logical. First cause arguments are difficult to refute but Dr. Krauss was trying.
In the video, Larry Krauss argues that nothing doesn't weigh nothing. The video demonstrated a good amount of knowledge and intelligence. If I recall correctly, Dr. Krauss asserted that there was now understood to be more mass in the space between quarks than in the quarks themselves. Virtual, transitory particles were asserted. Name dropping of Higgs Boson was done a few times. There were some terminology issues.
Net energy of zero still had potential to be something different than net zero. That potential had a cause.
In order to apply the scientific method consistently, there is the need to follow the evidence WHEREVER IT GOES for AS LONG AS IT TAKES to find the Truth.
I read recently somewhere that a committee of scientists or atheists had voted on whether their organization would allow evidence and arguments that included God as a possible cause during investigations. In the vote, I'm sure that at least a few would not allow it. They don't want a God to rule over them or even to consider the possibility. If God made us, then He gets some ownership rights in the deal. Bible-based sexual standards are more supported if God owns our bodies. Many don't want that conclusion or those standards.
First cause arguments are logical. First cause arguments are difficult to refute but Dr. Krauss was trying.
In the video, Larry Krauss argues that nothing doesn't weigh nothing. The video demonstrated a good amount of knowledge and intelligence. If I recall correctly, Dr. Krauss asserted that there was now understood to be more mass in the space between quarks than in the quarks themselves. Virtual, transitory particles were asserted. Name dropping of Higgs Boson was done a few times. There were some terminology issues.
Net energy of zero still had potential to be something different than net zero. That potential had a cause.
Generally, I would think most atheists would agree with you. I agree with you. Richard Dawkins would agree with you. Science does not disprove God. It does not say anything about God. As the theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg once said, science does not make it impossible to believe in God, it only makes it possible not to believe.
Krauss made a number of digs at religion, but I'm not sure which one you mean. He's not likely to think anything will point to God.
Absolutely.
What organization is this? The claim sounds a bit bizarre. I wouldn't be surprised if there is not much substance to this story.
Given that there have been a wide range of sexual mores throughout history I find this claim to be really strange. For example, there is a story of an early English explorer among the Inuit who was murdered by an irate husband because the Englishman had refused the offer of his wife for the night. The Inuit man took it as a great insult that his wife had been refused. Another story comes from Japan during its Middle Ages. Marriages did not become official until the young bride had demonstrated her ability to become pregnant. There are as many different sexual mores as there are human cultures. You may note that from the time of King Solomon to the time of Paul, sexual mores recorded in the Bible were always in flux. It all depended on the cultural viewpoint of the writers. In my eyes this is quite plain.
I don't think first cause argument is logical.
If the universe needs a cause, then why not God?
If Krauss is correct then the universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation. I don't know if that is true, but once I have the raw matter before me then I have no problem understanding how stars and planets formed naturally. I don’t need a first cause beyond that provided by science, and should that explanation prove wrong, then maybe astrophysicists 300 years from now will have the definitive explanation. Who says we have to have all the answers now.
The difficulty with your argument is that it is circular. The universe exists because God exists, and God exists because the universe exists; that is unless someone gives a different explanation for the universe existing, and as we know another explanation now exists.
Absolutely.
What organization is this? The claim sounds a bit bizarre. I wouldn't be surprised if there is not much substance to this story.
Given that there have been a wide range of sexual mores throughout history I find this claim to be really strange. For example, there is a story of an early English explorer among the Inuit who was murdered by an irate husband because the Englishman had refused the offer of his wife for the night. The Inuit man took it as a great insult that his wife had been refused. Another story comes from Japan during its Middle Ages. Marriages did not become official until the young bride had demonstrated her ability to become pregnant. There are as many different sexual mores as there are human cultures. You may note that from the time of King Solomon to the time of Paul, sexual mores recorded in the Bible were always in flux. It all depended on the cultural viewpoint of the writers. In my eyes this is quite plain.
I don't think first cause argument is logical.
If the universe needs a cause, then why not God?
If Krauss is correct then the universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation. I don't know if that is true, but once I have the raw matter before me then I have no problem understanding how stars and planets formed naturally. I don’t need a first cause beyond that provided by science, and should that explanation prove wrong, then maybe astrophysicists 300 years from now will have the definitive explanation. Who says we have to have all the answers now.
The difficulty with your argument is that it is circular. The universe exists because God exists, and God exists because the universe exists; that is unless someone gives a different explanation for the universe existing, and as we know another explanation now exists.
Last edited: