WHY ISN'T THIS GENERATION GETTING MARRIED?

[Carry_Your_Name]

Gosh Carry.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Sounds weird.

Watch a Hallmark movie or read a romance novel.

 

[GodsGrace]

Watch a Hallmark movie or read a romance novel.

I don't do either!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't do either!

Unfortunately I do ... just old ones.

 

[GodsGrace]

Unfortunately I do ... just old ones.

Why watch them if you don't like them?
No Hallmark in Italy.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Why watch them if you don't like them?
No Hallmark in Italy.

I do like some of them. The “unfortunate” part was referring to Hallmark’s fall from grace, as they begin to abandon their principles and feature homosexual couples and obviously effeminate fags.

 

[jasonc]

Why watch them if you don't like them?
No Hallmark in Italy.

What do they have ? Surely red wine is like water .

 

[Uncle J]

When you look at the universe, where do you think it came from?

Since space itself came into existence at the moment of the BB, that's not a meaningful question. No space = no "where" for anything to come from.

The idea that there was a big bang for no reason, caused by nothing, and that nothing created the laws of physics and even energy itself, seems rather preposterous to me. I've always been more of a deist myself.

That's just "gods of the gaps" thinking, which has always struck me as rather lazy. Plus, it's risky for those who want or need to have justification for believing in gods. If no explanation for something is evidence for gods, then by the same reasoning if an explanation is developed it must therefore be evidence against gods.

 

[Uncle J]

I hate being very serious but....
WHY can you measure gravity?
Even though we don't really know WHAT it is.
You can measure it because of the Laws of Nature that God put into place.

If you believe that, that's fine. I just don't see any reason to.

How could we ever know what God really is?
If Christians are right, and I think they are, then that WHAT created everything.
When I really grok it, it puts fear into me...how powerful is this God?

There are only 3 forms in the entire universe.
A circle
A curve
A straight line

How does every single physical object come from just 3 forms?

And how does something come from nothing?

It's almost too much to even think about.

That's usually referred to as an "argument from incredulity", which is fallacious reasoning.

For those interested:

Not sure why you posted those vids in a reply to me, since you seem to have walked away from the science conversation you started with me earlier.

 

[Riven]

Since space itself came into existence at the moment of the BB, that's not a meaningful question. No space = no "where" for anything to come from.

I'll ask it another way: What caused the Big Bang?

That's just "gods of the gaps" thinking, which has always struck me as rather lazy.

I think the "gods of the gaps" argument is a rather crude way of dismissing God as a scientific theory for the origins of the universe. However, in the absence of any alternative theories that can't be dismissed just as easily, I think the God theory is the best scientific explanation we currently have for a complex universe popping into existence from absolutely nothing.

Plus, it's risky for those who want or need to have justification for believing in gods.

I agree. But it could also be true in the reverse as well. Those that truly desire for there not to be a God, may make decisions based on their own biases that could be detrimental to themselves and others. Incomplete information is our worst enemy because our brains are designed, for lack of a better term, to fill the gaps.

If no explanation for something is evidence for gods, then by the same reasoning if an explanation is developed it must therefore be evidence against gods.

Again, I agree. However, I think the universe itself is evidence for the existence of God. That being said, I'm completely open to a natural explanation for the origins of the universe. In fact, I would prefer that to the supernatural explanation for obvious reasons.

But so far, in the near 20 years I've spent studying the subject and listening to the greatest minds our civilization has produced, from Richard Dawkins, to Lawrence Kraus, to John Lennox, to name just a few, I have not been able to nail down a natural explanation for the creation of the universe that is as intellectually satisfying as God.

 

[GodsGrace]

If you believe that, that's fine. I just don't see any reason to.


That's usually referred to as an "argument from incredulity", which is fallacious reasoning.

I wasn't making an argument from incredulity.
I was expressing how awesome God is.

Not sure why you posted those vids in a reply to me, since you seem to have walked away from the science conversation you started with me earlier.

It's awesome stuff.
And YOU know even more.
Too much going on behind the scenes.
It's an interesting topic for me,,,but can't devote the time.

 

[GodsGrace]

Since space itself came into existence at the moment of the BB, that's not a meaningful question. No space = no "where" for anything to come from.

@Rivens question is not only relevant....
It's THE question that requires an answer.

Space and time came into being at the BB.
The best theory so far, the BB

So since something cannot come from nothing ,
What caused the BB?

And you must surely know about fine tuning.
It could have immediately imploded .

That's just "gods of the gaps" thinking, which has always struck me as rather lazy. Plus, it's risky for those who want or need to have justification for believing in gods. If no explanation for something is evidence for gods, then by the same reasoning if an explanation is developed it must therefore be evidence against gods.

No god of the gaps.
And lazy is when it's easier to claim there is no God instead of taking the possibility into consideration.

If there is no explanation for something ,,,then all possibilities should be pursued.

Science has no answer any yet insistence that a cell could have created itself.

A cell has to be fully functioning or it can't do it's job.

And how is all the information in DNA?
That's evolution too??

Too easy.

 

[Riven]

Doubt is a great tool used by the enemy.
Jesus could have been a person sent by God to illuminate man.
Krishna is another one, Buddha is another one.

According to Islam, Jesus was a prophet sent by God. But I've never been one to believe in the idea of prophets either.

I think it all depends on what you make of the resurrection.
Jesus is the only one that claimed to be God.

If the resurrection story is true, then he's God. Plain and simple. The trouble is that we have no way to know if it actually did happen. His claim of being God actually lends credibility to the whole story, I think. Because at that time, to make such a bold claim was considered blasphemy and that was a capital offence. Jesus had to know this and he did it anyway. So, that's quite odd behavior for a man that lived in that time.

The resurrection was so that mankind could believe He is God.
Also, that makes Him the firstborn ...the firstborn of all those
that will rise in the end and receive their glorified bodies.
Although we are taught that we go to be where we belong at death.

And there are those that believe that when we die, we go to neither heaven nor hell. Instead we remain dead until Christ's return. Even within Christianity, no one can decide on what's what.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

@Rivens question is not only relevant....
It's THE question that requires an answer.

Space and time came into being at the BB.
The best theory so far, the BB

So since something cannot come from nothing ,
What caused the BB?

And you must surely know about fine tuning.
It could have immediately imploded .

BB is not a theory, it's essentially nature worship, i.e. Gaia worship of the creation instead of the Creator. It essentially implies that the universe itself is a god with no beginning and no end, astronomical numbers like "billions" and "millions" of years is incomprehensible, it's perceived as long as eternity.

 

[JT4444]

BB is not a theory, it's essentially nature worship, i.e. Gaia worship of the creation instead of the Creator. It essentially implies that the universe itself is a god with no beginning and no end, astronomical numbers like "billions" and "millions" of years is incomprehensible, it's perceived as long as eternity.

I beg to differ, CYN. The Big Bang confirms that the universe has a beginning, as Genesis says. Before the BBT, many believed that the universe was eternal.

YECs reject the BBT because they take Genesis 1 as meaning that Creation came into being in six literal days. That's an ignorant view. The Creation story was thought to be allegorical before scripture became known to the world outside of Israel (and still is regarded that way by many non-fundamentalists).

There are two calendars within the six days of Creation. The first is from the perspective of God and lasted for 5-6 days (before Adam received his neshama). Using time dilation, that works out to about 15 billion years.

This is the ancient understanding of Genesis that we've lost.

 

[GodsGrace]

I beg to differ, CYN. The Big Bang confirms that the universe has a beginning, as Genesis says. Before the BBT, many believed that the universe was eternal.

YECs reject the BBT because they take Genesis 1 as meaning that Creation came into being in six literal days. That's an ignorant view. The Creation story was thought to be allegorical before scripture became known to the world outside of Israel (and still is regarded that way by many non-fundamentalists).

There are two calendars within the six days of Creation. The first is from the perspective of God and lasted for 5-6 days (before Adam received his neshama). Using time dilation, that works out to about 15 billion years.

This is the ancient understanding of Genesis that we've lost.

What is the neshama?

I agree with you by the way.

The days are to present an orderly creation, God dioesnt go by our time.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I beg to differ, CYN. The Big Bang confirms that the universe has a beginning, as Genesis says. Before the BBT, many believed that the universe was eternal.

YECs reject the BBT because they take Genesis 1 as meaning that Creation came into being in six literal days. That's an ignorant view. The Creation story was thought to be allegorical before scripture became known to the world outside of Israel (and still is regarded that way by many non-fundamentalists).

There are two calendars within the six days of Creation. The first is from the perspective of God and lasted for 5-6 days (before Adam received his neshama). Using time dilation, that works out to about 15 billion years.

This is the ancient understanding of Genesis that we've lost.

This is a modern heresy. Each of the first day has a morning and evening, and is divided into day and night, that’s the basis for the 12 hour day in Jesus’s time, how could this not be a literal day?

 

[jasonc]

I beg to differ, CYN. The Big Bang confirms that the universe has a beginning, as Genesis says. Before the BBT, many believed that the universe was eternal.

YECs reject the BBT because they take Genesis 1 as meaning that Creation came into being in six literal days. That's an ignorant view. The Creation story was thought to be allegorical before scripture became known to the world outside of Israel (and still is regarded that way by many non-fundamentalists).

There are two calendars within the six days of Creation. The first is from the perspective of God and lasted for 5-6 days (before Adam received his neshama). Using time dilation, that works out to about 15 billion years.

This is the ancient understanding of Genesis that we've lost.

The Jews say this because the oldest commentary rashi that is written doesn't ?

He oddly did think the flood was local whereas rabbis around the time then didn't .

My source is Orthodox not reformed or conservative. I choose that for a reason .Orthodox tends to be traditional with them . You won't find social liberals in Orthodox Judaism .

 

[Uncle J]

I'll ask it another way: What caused the Big Bang?

It's not something I've looked into recently, but the last I read the thinking was that there was no cause, as in some sort of quantum fluctuation. It's also my understanding that in the quantum realm, it's been demonstrated that things pop into and out of existence without cause.

I think the "gods of the gaps" argument is a rather crude way of dismissing God as a scientific theory for the origins of the universe. However, in the absence of any alternative theories that can't be dismissed just as easily, I think the God theory is the best scientific explanation we currently have for a complex universe popping into existence from absolutely nothing.

All scientific theories must be testable, and unless you've got some new insight, gods are most certainly not testable.

I agree. But it could also be true in the reverse as well. Those that truly desire for there not to be a God, may make decisions based on their own biases that could be detrimental to themselves and others. Incomplete information is our worst enemy because our brains are designed, for lack of a better term, to fill the gaps.

That's probably one of the main differences between science-oriented thinkers and people who tend to religious ways of thinking. Those of us who tend toward empirical thinking are not only okay with "I don't know", it tends to be exciting (it's an opportunity to learn), whereas the religious tend to be uncomfortable with "I don't know" because it's a sign of doubt and uncertainty. That's one big reason why the religious prefer to fill gaps with gods.

Again, I agree. However, I think the universe itself is evidence for the existence of God. That being said, I'm completely open to a natural explanation for the origins of the universe. In fact, I would prefer that to the supernatural explanation for obvious reasons.

Or you may live your life and die without ever knowing. The question is, are you okay with that? Or are you the type of person who has to have some sort of answer?

But so far, in the near 20 years I've spent studying the subject and listening to the greatest minds our civilization has produced, from Richard Dawkins, to Lawrence Kraus, to John Lennox, to name just a few, I have not been able to nail down a natural explanation for the creation of the universe that is as intellectually satisfying as God.

First of all, none of those people work in fields of science that have anything to do with the origin of the universe. So if you're really interested, you should maybe read Stephen Hawking's last book.

Second, I am curious....how is God an intellectually satisfying explanation? What is there to it other than "God made it"?

 

[Uncle J]

I wasn't making an argument from incredulity.
I was expressing how awesome God is.

It's awesome stuff.
And YOU know even more.
Too much going on behind the scenes.
It's an interesting topic for me,,,but can't devote the time.

Probably shouldn't have started the conversation then.

So since something cannot come from nothing ,

Actually, in the quantum realm it does.

What caused the BB?

I personally don't know.

And you must surely know about fine tuning.
It could have immediately imploded .

I know it's an apologetic that I've never found at all persuasive.

No god of the gaps.
And lazy is when it's easier to claim there is no God instead of taking the possibility into consideration.

If there is no explanation for something ,,,then all possibilities should be pursued.

Science has no answer any yet insistence that a cell could have created itself.

A cell has to be fully functioning or it can't do it's job.

And how is all the information in DNA?
That's evolution too??

Too easy.

Well, since you don't have the time to discuss any of that, I'll just let it go.

 

[Riven]

It's not something I've looked into recently, but the last I read the thinking was that there was no cause, as in some sort of quantum fluctuation. It's also my understanding that in the quantum realm, it's been demonstrated that things pop into and out of existence without cause.

I haven't heard of any demonstration of something popping into existence on its own. But if you have s source, I'd love to read about it.

All scientific theories must be testable, and unless you've got some new insight, gods are most certainly not testable.

That's true. But we're working on a very complex problem with incomplete information. God cannot be tested, but the universe can be, and I think the level of complexity that we see points to some kind of intelligence behind what we're able to test for.

That's probably one of the main differences between science-oriented thinkers and people who tend to religious ways of thinking. Those of us who tend toward empirical thinking are not only okay with "I don't know", it tends to be exciting (it's an opportunity to learn), whereas the religious tend to be uncomfortable with "I don't know" because it's a sign of doubt and uncertainty. That's one big reason why the religious prefer to fill gaps with gods.

I agree. But I think that the god of gaps argument is also used as a pejorative. Especially if someone is a scientist and believes that God is the best explaination for the origins of the universe.

Or you may live your life and die without ever knowing. The question is, are you okay with that? Or are you the type of person who has to have some sort of answer?

I'm comfortable with saying I don't know.

First of all, none of those people work in fields of science that have anything to do with the origin of the universe. So if you're really interested, you should maybe read Stephen Hawking's last book.

Yes, I know. I was trying to get across that I've listened to many different scientists in many different fields.

Second, I am curious....how is God an intellectually satisfying explanation? What is there to it other than "God made it"?

Because I think it's consistent with the evidence, and I think its more plausible than the alternative theories. You can boil it down to "God made it". But that doesn't make it the wrong answer. How did my car get here? "Dodge made it". Lol.