Questions About Christianity

[Vanguard]

As my signature says, you have to look at a verse in the context that it was written, which means the chapter surrounding it. Don't cherry pick a verse or phrase and then apply it to a singular point or argument you are trying to make. Having said that...

NASB
Matthew chapter 16, 13-19: Now when Jesus came into the district of <SUP class=crossreference value='(P)'></SUP>Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that <SUP class=crossreference value='(Q)'></SUP>the Son of Man is?†<SUP class=versenum>14 </SUP>And they said, “Some say <SUP class=crossreference value='(R)'></SUP>John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.†<SUP class=versenum>15 </SUP>He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?†<SUP class=versenum>16 </SUP>Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, <SUP class=crossreference value='(U)'></SUP>the Son of <SUP class=crossreference value='(V)'></SUP>the living God.†<SUP class=versenum>17 </SUP>And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, <SUP class=crossreference value='(W)'></SUP>Simon Barjona, because <SUP class=crossreference value='(X)'></SUP>flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. <SUP class=versenum>18 </SUP>I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of <SUP class=crossreference value='(Z)'></SUP>Hades will not overpower it. <SUP class=versenum>19 </SUP>I will give you <SUP class=crossreference value='(AA)'></SUP>the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and <SUP class=crossreference value='(AB)'></SUP>whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.†<SUP class=versenum>20 </SUP><SUP class=crossreference value='(AC)'></SUP>Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

If you look at the entire scenario in context, Jesus was directing his statement to Peter, after Peter answered His question in v16.

Now there has been interpretation that there could be 2 scenarios.

1. Jesus points at Peter and says "...and upon this rock I will build my church..."
2. Jesus points at Himself and says "...and upon this rock I will build my church..."

Two entirely different meanings. We don't know for sure because it was not digitally recorded at the time. 2

Most scholars agree that Jesus is referring to Peter, who later goes on to become the "Bishop of Rome," whom the Catholics claim to be the first Pope. In essence, Peter was the "cornerstone" of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

As my signature says, you have to look at a verse in the context that it was written, which means the chapter surrounding it. Don't cherry pick a verse or phrase and then apply it to a singular point or argument you are trying to make. Having said that...

NASB
Matthew chapter 16, 13-19: Now when Jesus came into the district of <SUP class=crossreference value='(P)'></SUP>Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that <SUP class=crossreference value='(Q)'></SUP>the Son of Man is?” <SUP class=versenum>14 </SUP>And they said, “Some say <SUP class=crossreference value='(R)'></SUP>John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” <SUP class=versenum>15 </SUP>He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” <SUP class=versenum>16 </SUP>Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, <SUP class=crossreference value='(U)'></SUP>the Son of <SUP class=crossreference value='(V)'></SUP>the living God.” <SUP class=versenum>17 </SUP>And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, <SUP class=crossreference value='(W)'></SUP>Simon Barjona, because <SUP class=crossreference value='(X)'></SUP>flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. <SUP class=versenum>18 </SUP>I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of <SUP class=crossreference value='(Z)'></SUP>Hades will not overpower it. <SUP class=versenum>19 </SUP>I will give you <SUP class=crossreference value='(AA)'></SUP>the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and <SUP class=crossreference value='(AB)'></SUP>whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” <SUP class=versenum>20 </SUP><SUP class=crossreference value='(AC)'></SUP>Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

If you look at the entire scenario in context, Jesus was directing his statement to Peter, after Peter answered His question in v16.

Now there has been interpretation that there could be 2 scenarios.

1. Jesus points at Peter and says "...and upon this rock I will build my church..."
2. Jesus points at Himself and says "...and upon this rock I will build my church..."

Two entirely different meanings. We don't know for sure because it was not digitally recorded at the time. 2

Most scholars agree that Jesus is referring to Peter, who later goes on to become the "Bishop of Rome," whom the Catholics claim to be the first Pope. In essence, Peter was the "cornerstone" of the Roman Catholic Church.

Did you just contradict yourself?
You seem to have cherry picked a verse and applied it to a singular point you are trying to make.

 

[Kaileymarie]

Whoa, thanks everyone, that was a lot of info! I think now I'm going through a phase where my faith is weak, I think I'm asking a couple questions most people ask at certain points in their lives. Such as, when he lived over 2000 years ago, how can we know with certainty that Jesus is God? And, if he is, what does that mean for Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc? I know I'm not one of those religions, but I still wonder.

I feel you on this one. I just reconnected with an old friend who doesn't agree with religion or the bible, doesn't even know if she believes there is a god. We have had a couple of debates on the subject and she has asked me all of the questions you're asking.. I've asked myself these questions before and stumbled with my faith quite a bit.

I've watched "the case for christ" and "the case for faith" quite a few times. Also I've started researching their "facts" and "theories", and it's good to know the points they use to try to disprove Christianity and already know your answer. There were a lot of times with people I didn't have a rebuttal, and after going home and doing some research I wish I could go back and use my new knowledge!

Remember that just giving them a bunch of bible verses isn't going to do anything to change their mind if they already think the bible is false.

 

[farouk]

I feel you on this one. I just reconnected with an old friend who doesn't agree with religion or the bible, doesn't even know if she believes there is a god. We have had a couple of debates on the subject and she has asked me all of the questions you're asking.. I've asked myself these questions before and stumbled with my faith quite a bit.

I've watched "the case for christ" and "the case for faith" quite a few times. Also I've started researching their "facts" and "theories", and it's good to know the points they use to try to disprove Christianity and already know your answer. There were a lot of times with people I didn't have a rebuttal, and after going home and doing some research I wish I could go back and use my new knowledge!

Remember that just giving them a bunch of bible verses isn't going to do anything to change their mind if they already think the bible is false.

Kaileymarie: ...but neither would giving them the impression that their intellect and doubts are somehow greater than or more important than the revealed mind of God in His Word, be helpful to them.

Hebrews 11 says that 'he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him'.

So it's really good to talk to people about the Savior of sinners, who is 'the Word (who) became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth' (John 1.14).

It's interesting that Luther said he would not waste a word arguing with anyone who did not believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

But there is every reason to proclaim the Savior joyfully, in the way that Scripture reveals Him to be.

 

[from dust to life]

Again a very interesting post Odon.

I don't claim to be an expert so I won't even try to deal with most of the things you say, I will just observe that you do appear to have made up your mind not to accept any scientific 'proof' - and that is of course your privilege; many people do the same. I will ask just two main questions.

Thank you so much Aardverk, it is a pleasure to debate with you.

First, we must establish a standard for 'scientific proof', and not get it confused with Sci-fi fairytales. We can prove that a rock exists, and we can prove that it contains different elements, gold, iron coal etc. but if I say this rock came to earth upon a Klingon warship, ... well that wouldn't be necessarily scientific proof now would it?

Science
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Interpreting photo's of our universe that have been taken by different color lenses and calling it background-radiation and then identifying the color red as being light moving away from us, is NOT scientific proof that the universe is expanding. This is no different than saying to our kids that the dollar they found under their pillow was left by the Tooth-Fairy. So let's keep science within its definition, and fairytales within theirs. I love science, ... it proves ID, the existence of our God. Another words if anyone can make the world and the universe disappear, they can 'prove' God does not exist, but until I can see, feel, taste and smell this here earth, I will continue to believe in our Creator.

1. You effectively question the very existence of 'nothing'.

Sorry if you misunderstood me that's probably my fault, but I actually said the opposite, that 'nothing' does exist and I can prove it with a scientific experiment. It is the Big-bang Evolutionists that claim 'nothing' no longer exists because they now believe 'something' (like the speck of universe) has always existed, which would mean that there is really no such thing as nothing. We cannot have a pin-sized universe, or and infinitely big universe expanding in nothing, ... that would no longer be 'nothing', am I right?

If we took all of the matter and all of the energy out of the universe, what would we be left with? If we would not be left with 'nothing', what would be there? I would say, 'nothing'. What would you say?

Exactly. So where did this claimed pin-sized universe reside in if 'nothing' is as you described above?

It is similar to the dilemma, God created light and saw that it was good - but who created 'dark'? If God didn't create 'dark' then 'dark' always existed - so why can't 'nothing'?

(remember that I believe nothing exists, I can prove it does)

Darkness is not a dilemma look, ... God CREATES, right? If God created the universe, the earth and man, that means it wasn't there before, right? Otherwise we wouldn't read in Genesis that "God created the heavens and the earth", it would have simply been there.

Now if God creates, He must have created the 'things' He used to create this universe out of, right? So let's look at Gods image man, maybe we can find the answers?

Before we start to create something we gather all the materials for our project, right? Well God has to 'create' even the materials (atoms, matter so on) and this is what darkness is, a bunch of materials and "Work still in progress".

"Let there be light!" and God puts everything in order, then when He is finished He looks at it and says; "Hmm... it's good, ... it's all good!"

Dark is when there is still a lack of 'order' (chaos), like when Jesus came to earth there was darkness (sin), and He was the light, or brought back the perfect order; "Love one another as I have loved you" remember? So even when the sun is shining we can have darkness in the world, ... does that make sense now?

2. One of the things that was left on the moon was a reflector to enable us to double check the speed of light. Fire a pulse of light at the reflector and it takes a few seconds before it is reflected. From that delay, the 'speed of light' can easily be calculated. We can all do that experiment for ourselves (if we have suitable equipment) so there is absolutely no point anyone lying about it.

I'm sorry my friend but there are a lot of reasons BB Theorists and Evolutionists lie about things like this. One is that it supports their Evolution theories like the evolution of the universe, and the evolution of man just as Stephen Hawking announced that "There is no longer a need for God to have created the universe" (He was referring to the string-theory as the 'answer to everything')

Please check out how and when they established the Speed-of-light at 186,282mps? It was 200 some years ago by observing Jupiter's moon IO. This was way before they knew that Jupiter had some 60 plus moons and natural satellites orbiting it.
Even if they still claim that the 'timing-variance' in IO's orbit as Jupiter moves away from earth year to year is correct, I can prove that it is a either a lie, or a terrible miscalculation, even if light did have speed.

As a by-product, the experiment also proves that the reflector is indeed sitting there on the moon, still aligned as the astronauts left it - which rather removes that particular conspiracy theory.

There is no way to time such incredible thing as light, even if it did have a speed. The only true way to time it would be if the source and the target stood absolutely still, ... and we know our earth is rotating, right? Then there is the elements that supposedly slows light down to different speeds, deflect and absorb light, ... there are just too many variables to consider to be able to use some mirrors on the moon to reflect light back to even remotely same spot on earth. It's a lie.

Have you seen the experiment where light has been slowed down to 32 MPH, and even stopped in some frozen saline solution?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

This would mean that light has mass, right? Then imagine the mass of a light beam the size of a sun billions of years long?

If I put a flashlight in a can and closed the lid, did I stop the speed of light? If I keep putting paper bag after paper-bag over a lamp till the light is no longer visible, ... did I slow down, or even stop the light?

If a cars headlight coming towards us at 500mph is white, would it turn red if the car was going backwards (away from us) at 500mph?

So far all the BB Evolutionary experiments on the SPEED of light is a lie to keep the BB Theory (Actually if we went by the book it's not even a theory until we observe a mini-big-bang in a perfect vacuum) alive.

You also asked where all the matter was and speculated (in jest?) about another dimension. We are getting beyond my level of confidence here but we both seem to have some understanding of a singularity/black hole being matter incredibly compressed beyond anything we have ever experienced or that I, for one, can't visualize. If not even light can escape, we have no way of seeing it or measuring its dimensions but we can observe the gravitational pull of these invisible, dimensionless(?) objects.

All I know is that if we put all the mass (planets, our sun) in our solar system together, we would have a very visible and big rock in space. Now this Sci-Fi 'fabric of space' where all these 'black hole masses' are laying on, creating these funnels that the nearby planets are slowly rotating into is far from being fact, matter of fact it is not even good science. It is all created by sci-fi fairytales to keep God out of Creation.

We all know that matter can be converted into energy (nuclear fission for example) and that, theoretically, energy can be converted back into matter so the concept of a big-bang, from my limited knowledge, seems plausible.

Theoretical is not science;

adjective
concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application : a theoretical physicist | the training is task-related rather than theoretical.
• based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice : the theoretical value of their work.

Add to that the measurable 'fact' that the universe is expanding, into the 'nothingness', and I would feel rather uncomfortable dismissing a theory that certainly seems to have some, absolutely convincing, supporting evidence.

First, you CONNOT have an expanding universe in 'nothing'. Nothing is a perfect void, and soon as we place 'something' in it, it is no longer nothing. So again, the universe is NOT expanding, especially not in 'nothing', or into the nothing.

There is no 'measurable fact' that our universe is expanding only some pretty color pictures of the galaxies with different color lenses.

Also, putting marshmallows an inch apart in a microwave till they start melting does not 'prove' the speed of light either, but proves there is microwaves.

Also, an Astronaut in a Spaceship traveling at 186,282 mps (the claimed speed of light) for a year will be 1 year older just as if he was traveling at 5,000 MPH for a year. The reason they claim that 'time would stop' at the speed of light is because light has no speed, but is instant. So a light from the source to its destination is instant, which means no time has passed, ... not that time stops at 186,282mps.

Something, or someone, must have caused, or is still causing, the universe to expand. Given the unimaginable amount of energy required to move the incredible mass of the whole universe, it must have been a hell of a big bang The expansion alone proves little but it certainly is not something which should be dismissed lightly. I would be interested to do the math to work out the energy required to get the universe to move but I don't have enough paper to write all the numbers on ;)

The universe is not expanding, or retracting but is there containing all these galaxies just as God spread them out.

If Einstein's theory is correct, (E=MC^2) why did he square the speed of light if light was the fastest thing in the universe at the time? I believe he did that because he understood that light had no speed, but being pressured that it does, he simply squared it to fit more into his imagined equation.


Besides, according to that equation, a mass the size of a grain of salt would have the energy to run a 5,000 sq ft house with electricity for months. Now imagine squeezing an entire universe of Mass down to a grain of salt... this is when quantum physics steps way, way beyond science.

I like 'God did it' much better because it coincides with science. The only way anyone could deny the existence of God is by denying the world around them, including themselves, and the Theory of Evolution is working hard on that too. So far it got man believing he evolved out of a single-celled bacteria, and that now he is nothing but a hairless ape.

When trying to imagine the energy required to get things moving, just remember that planet Earth weighs only 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 tons and the solar system only weighs something like 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. If we stood back so that we could see the whole of the universe, our solar system would be so minute that we couldn't see it even with a telescope a million times better than any that we have at the moment. The weight/mass of the whole universe is mindbogglingly huge :shocked! When people talk about a big-bang, that is very much an understatement. In comparison with 'the big-bang', a nuclear explosion would be far, far less than the sound of dropping a grain of sand onto a soft carpet. Imagining it is way beyond our ability - as indeed is imagining the size of the universe.

I can imagine it and so can you, just remove the limitations the Big-bang Theorists placed on you're mind with their indoctrinations.

Now imagine a rock in your mind.
Now make that rock grow as big as the earth, then the sun, then as big as our entire galaxy. You got it?
I know it's heavy, but no matter how big you imagine it, you will be able to lift it, I promise. Now make that rock as big as you wish, ... even twice the size of our universe.

This is why God CAN't make a rock so big that He couldn't lift it, and neither can you. However big or heavy a rock (or anything) God makes, He can lift it, because all things are possible with God.

Only we have to remember that we are the created, NOT the Creator. This means that we have to depend on God for everything we create, while God is not dependent on anyone, nor is He limited by anything.

Trying to visualize and understand these things in every day, man size, 'common sense' terms is absolutely impossible.

Not if we have the Spiritual mind of God through Christ, then all things are possible.

Thanks again my friend

Odon

 

[Vanguard]

Did you just contradict yourself?
You seem to have cherry picked a verse and applied it to a singular point you are trying to make.

No, I did not contradict myself. I used the verse in the context that it was meant, within the surrounding verses, instead of standing out by itself. The two different scenarios are not mine, they are the subject of debate between scholars far more educated than any of us, and have been for decades. The conclusive statement was a repeat of what a majority agree on, but there are dissidents.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

No, I did not contradict myself. I used the verse in the context that it was meant, within the surrounding verses, instead of standing out by itself. The two different scenarios are not mine, they are the subject of debate between scholars far more educated than any of us, and have been for decades. The conclusive statement was a repeat of what a majority agree on, but there are dissidents.

okay

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hi, I have two questions:
1. God is omnipotent, therefor God is also all-knowing. He knows everything about the past, present, and future. Is this correct?

In the Old Testament from Genesis to the Psalms, God is defined as a the leader of the Jewish people with the capacity of all of what you said. depending on the section God shows aspects of all those setting, but it is made clear that God is very undefinable and always throws a curve ball. That is the problem with trying to define exactly what God is. He seems to fit into any situation depending on what the situation demands.

2. In heaven... it is always positive, full of joy, happiness, love, etc. There is no negative things like bad, evil, hate.

Thanks please answer and God bless.

Heaven also depends on context of the author of the time. Heaven has been proclaimed as such, but it also has been stated to be the true knowledge of God, a place of pure worship of God, or just a state of mind, or even undefinable itself.

 

[Milk-Drops]

For the most part, if you find yourself in an argument where someone is trying to disprove Christianity, its more then likely that its not them actually disproving Christianity, but them explaining why they don't believe or follow Christianity itself. If you really want to get to the root of what the person is arguing, don't refute right away but instead listen to them first and ask them questions of why they believe what they believe and where they do, and where did they get their information. If its something to do with the Gospels themselves or the other books, tell them what you understand the point of those passages are. If someone makes a point about atrocities of the Bible, you might want to ask them why they don't agree with them and then have a conversation from there and how you think society has benefited from such passages.

For the most part, I think we all need to think less in the form of arguments, and just have a discussion.

 

[Kaileymarie]

Kaileymarie: ...but neither would giving them the impression that their intellect and doubts are somehow greater than or more important than the revealed mind of God in His Word, be helpful to them.

Hebrews 11 says that 'he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him'.

So it's really good to talk to people about the Savior of sinners, who is 'the Word (who) became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth' (John 1.14).

It's interesting that Luther said he would not waste a word arguing with anyone who did not believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

But there is every reason to proclaim the Savior joyfully, in the way that Scripture reveals Him to be.

I understand what you're saying. The biggest problem I have is that people want scientific evidence before they are even willing to hear any verses. When I tell my friend Jesus said the only sin that will not be forgiven is the denial of the power of god through Christ, they just roll their eyes because to them if there is no proof the bible is real, what I just said is irrelevant and I just sound like a whack job. I'm not talking about watering down the message to convert people. I myself came to Christ through going to church with my boyfriend at 18 and just feeling the power of the holy spirit. I didn't need proof.

Some people, like my friend who was molested at the age of four, have a hard time accepting (not necessarily believing in) a god that could let this happen to her. I pray that god will show himself to her and I have faith that he will bring her to himself.

I do cite verses, but that isn't always going to work on it's own and I love my best friend dearly.. There's nothing I want more than for everyone I love to come to Christ. There are other tools we can use in addition to the word, like historical relevancy, archaeology, etc. and I think to push these aside because it's supposed to be about faith would kind of be a waste.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I understand what you're saying. The biggest problem I have is that people want scientific evidence before they are even willing to hear any verses. When I tell my friend Jesus said the only sin that will not be forgiven is the denial of the power of god through Christ, they just roll their eyes because to them if there is no proof the bible is real, what I just said is irrelevant and I just sound like a whack job. I'm not talking about watering down the message to convert people. I myself came to Christ through going to church with my boyfriend at 18 and just feeling the power of the holy spirit. I didn't need proof.

Some people, like my friend who was molested at the age of four, have a hard time accepting (not necessarily believing in) a god that could let this happen to her. I pray that god will show himself to her and I have faith that he will bring her to himself.

I do cite verses, but that isn't always going to work on it's own and I love my best friend dearly.. There's nothing I want more than for everyone I love to come to Christ. There are other tools we can use in addition to the word, like historical relevancy, archaeology, etc. and I think to push these aside because it's supposed to be about faith would kind of be a waste.

If you are talking to a very skeptical person, they are going to want compelling evidence to believe your claims. In those cases the best you can do is just be a "Christly" person to them and if they eventually see a reason or have a personal revelation, then they know you would be a good person to talk to. Lead by example. If someone doesn't accept a stance because of some personal dramas or pain ( molestation) then the best thing to do is allow them to heal from that first and let them figure that out, then they will be ready to talk about their religious views, currently the person probably has more problems with that than spiritual. I hope that helps.

 

[Kaileymarie]

If you are talking to a very skeptical person, they are going to want compelling evidence to believe your claims. In those cases the best you can do is just be a "Christly" person to them and if they eventually see a reason or have a personal revelation, then they know you would be a good person to talk to. Lead by example. If someone doesn't accept a stance because of some personal dramas or pain ( molestation) then the best thing to do is allow them to heal from that first and let them figure that out, then they will be ready to talk about their religious views, currently the person probably has more problems with that than spiritual. I hope that helps.

My friend agrees that religion can be really good for people and of course calls it a crutch and says SOME people may need it, and she is perfectly content in her beliefs. Being Christ-like is so important. I don't feel that she really thinks she is all that she can be, I think she's just trying to convince herself that she's "okay" or "not a bad person" (a by product of the molestation, thinking something must be wrong with her for something so bad to happen to her). The seed is planted and I have hope that it will grow.. While we are watching it grow and she wants to talk about religion, i want to be able to debate with her. Her friends love to debate the topic (I only see them every few months maybe, and I'm alone in my beliefs) and I would live to be able to defend my faith, although I do know it isn't necessary. I don't see her getting help for her issues on her own. wouldn't the lord be her best counselor? Wouldn't it really be best if she found his love and was healed through him? I'm sure no one can do it better!

Thank you for your insight!

 

[for_his_glory]

This is so EDITED that I'm not even going to go there with you as this has been discussed between you and many of us, but your Spiritual eyes and ears are shut tight against that of the Holy Spirit and I will have no fellowship with foolishness. Ephesians 5:1-12

just let it

I do apologize for calling your religion what I did, but I do not agree with what you posted as making our belief in Christ and the Bible to be some kind of falsehood as in you calling us heretics. You have every right to believe what you do as the same right we as Christians who use the Bible do so I will just back off this topic and may God bless you and yours.

 

[Aardverk]

Hello again Odon. I appreciate that you are trying to keep this linked to Christianity, or at least to religious faith but I fear we are primarily discussing a scientific subject and perhaps you should ask the questions in that section. I don’t go there as the ‘experts’ seem to know even less than I do.

Although we are drifting off-topic, I will respond to your main points.

Interpreting photo's of our universe that have been taken by different color lenses and calling it background-radiation and then identifying the color red as being light moving away from us, is NOT scientific proof that the universe is expanding……… The universe is not expanding, or retracting but is there containing all these galaxies just as God spread them out.

I'm not sure if you are serious about colored lenses but that is of course not the case. You seem to have made up your mind BUT can I just remind you that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was assumed by Einstein himself to be wrong because the theory required that the universe had to be expanding or contracting but he had no reason in 1915 to believe that it actually was expanding. It was 15 years later that Hubble demonstrated that the universe was expanding. Einstein’s delighted response was that his own dismissal of his own theory was the biggest mistake he ever made.

Many astronomers denied Hubble’s claims at the time but none do now – except maybe a few cranks. The prime method of measurement is of course Doppler shift into the red indicating a source of light moving away at great speed. The Sombrero Nebula has been measured as moving away from us at over two million miles per hour!

The initial idea of a big-bang grew from the extrapolation - if the universe is expanding, it must have started from one place. We then rapidly get into physics way beyond my limited knowledge.

Sorry if you misunderstood me that's probably my fault, but I actually said the opposite, that 'nothing' does exist and I can prove it with a scientific experiment.

I have still not understood your point here, and previously, about ‘nothing’ but it seems important to you. Are you saying that ‘nothing’ is actually something or that ‘nothing’ really is nothing – i.e. what would have existed before any creation? Are you saying that, excluding cosmic dust, the voids of space are ‘nothing’ i.e. what would have existed before any creation?

Please check out how and when they established the Speed-of-light at 186,282mps? It was 200 some years ago by observing Jupiter's moon IO. This was way before they knew that Jupiter had some 60 plus moons and natural satellites orbiting it.
Even if they still claim that the 'timing-variance' in IO's orbit as Jupiter moves away from earth year to year is correct, I can prove that it is a either a lie, or a terrible miscalculation, even if light did have speed.

I believe that I fully understand the Io observations which took place nearly 350 years ago. I did it about 20 years ago. It is very easy to observe Io’s orbit with a simple, relatively cheap backyard telescope. If you want to prove that they are lying to you, just buy a telescope and repeat the experiment yourself. Many thousands of us have done that and come up with the same results. If you do it and come up with a different result – tell the press.

If a cars headlight coming towards us at 500mph is white, would it turn red if the car was going backwards (away from us) at 500mph?

No, 500 mph is too slow. If the speed was 2,000,000 mph then you could observe Doppler shift.


Sorry Odon but unless you have something interesting to say about ‘nothing’, that really ought to be the end of our off-topic excursion.totopic

 

[from dust to life]

Hello again Odon. I appreciate that you are trying to keep this linked to Christianity, or at least to religious faith but I fear we are primarily discussing a scientific subject and perhaps you should ask the questions in that section. I don’t go there as the ‘experts’ seem to know even less than I do.

Again I thank you from the bottom of my heart Aardverk, I know my views are very different than what you and everyone are accustomed to, so I thank you and the moderators for not removing my posts to you here where it can never be seen again (as another post I made was).

I see you are not a Christian, am I right? couldn't that be considered a little odd that you respond to a post titled 'Question About Christianity'? (please don't take this wrong, I am grateful you did)

I would just like to make it clear that everything, that is EVERY POST that I respond to has to do with religion and Christianity, especially to this original post; 'Question about Christianity'.

Although we are drifting off-topic, I will respond to your main points.

I am not drifting off topic, unless this post has nothing to do with the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ which as far as I understand the main topic in Christianity?

Through my physical eyes and mind I understand and see God through science, but when science becomes perverted, the question, or 'doubt' of a Creator God and His ID (Intelligent Design) becomes stronger and stronger, and mans faith in Him becomes weaker and weaker, so pointing out grave errors and perverted interpretations of science can really help put Creation (universe and man) back into God in whom all things exist.

I'm not sure if you are serious about colored lenses but that is of course not the case. You seem to have made up your mind BUT can I just remind you that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was assumed by Einstein himself to be wrong because the theory required that the universe had to be expanding or contracting but he had no reason in 1915 to believe that it actually was expanding. It was 15 years later that Hubble demonstrated that the universe was expanding. Einstein’s delighted response was that his own dismissal of his own theory was the biggest mistake he ever made.

Doppler Effect:
the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source. It is commonly heard when a vehicle sounding a siren or horn approaches, passes, and recedes from an observer. The received frequency is higher (compared to the emitted frequency) during the approach, it is identical at the instant of passing by, and it is lower during the recession.

I will just ask if they ever took a guitar in space and played it while another Astronaut recorded the sound? So let's imagine a guitar playing in a perfect vacuum? Do you see what I mean? To simply compare light in the void of space to the Doppler Effect IMHO is very presumptuous to say the least.

Many astronomers denied Hubble’s claims at the time but none do now – except maybe a few cranks. The prime method of measurement is of course Doppler shift into the red indicating a source of light moving away at great speed. The Sombrero Nebula has been measured as moving away from us at over two million miles per hour!

Again, ... let's try to imagine how a firetruck siren passing by an Astronaut in space would sound like?

A guitar string vibrates the air, and those vibrations in the air moves and eventually hit our eardrums, but imagine if there was no air to vibrate? Would it make a sound? Of course not, so the Doppler Effect is irrelevant to light in space, or even in air. The Red-shift is a hoax.

The initial idea of a big-bang grew from the extrapolation - if the universe is expanding, it must have started from one place. We then rapidly get into physics way beyond my limited knowledge.

A lot of extrapolations can be built on lies, or false interpretations.

I have still not understood your point here, and previously, about ‘nothing’ but it seems important to you. Are you saying that ‘nothing’ is actually something or that ‘nothing’ really is nothing – i.e. what would have existed before any creation? Are you saying that, excluding cosmic dust, the voids of space are ‘nothing’ i.e. what would have existed before any creation?

In Physical Cosmology the vague interpretation of a Planck Epoch has been accepted almost as fact, and the very foundation of the Big-bang theory. But if light has no speed, the Background Radiation would be meaningless. If no Background radiation, well then there was no Big bang. This brings us back to the existence and the proper understanding of 'nothing'. If 'nothing' really IS a perfect void, then a tiny speck of a universe could have never appeared in 'nothing', ... am I correct?

So as you ask; 'what would have existed before any creation if nothing is really nothing?' And the answer to that is 'God'.
So the next obvious question would be; 'can we define God' that even 'nothing' can reside in?

Yes we can, both through science and philosophy (philosophy as in the search for the truth) through the Bible.

I believe that I fully understand the Io observations which took place nearly 350 years ago. I did it about 20 years ago. It is very easy to observe Io’s orbit with a simple, relatively cheap backyard telescope. If you want to prove that they are lying to you, just buy a telescope and repeat the experiment yourself. Many thousands of us have done that and come up with the same results. If you do it and come up with a different result – tell the press.

Yes, if I define 2+2=5, then everyone will get the same answer as long as they all follow my definition, isn't that right?

But I can prove through a simple experiment that this too (IO/Jupiter) is false, just as I can prove that 'nothing' is really nothing which would leave us with the only logical option that 'God did it'.

No, 500 mph is too slow. If the speed was 2,000,000 mph then you could observe Doppler shift.

The only thing we can observe in space is the source of the light, like a star, right? So a star in space emitting white light traveling away from us at 2,000,000 mph turns red, and if it is heading towards us it gets whiter?

If the universe is expanding, all the galaxies and stars are supposed to be moving away from us, some even faster than the assumed speed of light, so it should all be showing up red!

I can show you by considering the Lorentz Factor,

also by differentiating light at its source and the light passing by us as we observe it at 90 deg of its source,

also by questioning as to what happens to light front of the source (the direction the star is moving) and behind the source (trailing) when the source like a sun on the outer limits of our universe that is supposedly traveling up to ten times the speed of light?

If a ship reaches 186,282 mps (the speed of light), would it turn into a beam of light?

If it does turn into a beam of light, would a simple cardboard box stop that ship as the box stops all light?

The light having speed creates paradox after paradox, yet no scientist seem to want to talk about it, why?

You know why my friend? It is because of religion. Religion separates us, and atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, senseless philosophy, the Evolution and the Big-bang theory and even exercise can be a religion, but TRUTH will never be found in religion, never.

So to answer the Post topic, remember that you will never find God of the Bible IN any form of established religion, He will come into your heart and mind, ... that is how we get to know God. The more you know Him, the less doubt you will have where you will walk in faith 'being sure of what we hope for and certain of the things we cannot see'.

Sorry Odon but unless you have something interesting to say about ‘nothing’, that really ought to be the end of our off-topic excursion.totopic

Not one thing I said was off topic, it was all meant to answer the Question About Christianity, and identify the God of the Bible.

If the God of the Bible is questionable because of theories and other religious doctrines, then the Question About Christianity will remain unanswered.

Proving that nothing is really nothing destroys any ideas of Big bang and evolution theories and can reveal the only existence outside of our universe, the Creator. But because this subject has never been addressed by a true believer in God, it can be a long and tedious educational quest, and only those with a true desire to know the 'absolute truth' would be interested to learn about. But removing my posts because someone may not understand how world events, science, theories and doctrines can hinder the answer to the above Posters question shows a lack of willingness, and maybe even fear in learning the truth. There are many reasons for this, and one is:

John 3:20-21

So if the universe is really expanding in nothing, then nothing is not nothing anymore and definitions no longer apply, which would mean that there is no such thing as absolute truth where 2+2 could be anything, ... which in turn would mean that God is a myth, so why even Question About Christianity?

Thanks again

Odon

 

[Aardverk]

Again I thank you from the bottom of my heart Aardverk, I know my views are very different than what you and everyone are accustomed to, so I thank you and the moderators for not removing my posts to you here where it can never be seen again (as another post I made was).

Odon, You are an interesting mix of 'original thinker' and 'eccentric'. Some of my best friends are eccentric so please don't be insulted by that word. The problem is that they, and you, are difficult to contain onto any one point of interest. As soon as I ask what I think is a clear question, you zoom off into another unclear explanation or is it avoidance? I say this as, perhaps, an explanation of why some people get fed-up with your posts.

.......I see you are not a Christian, am I right? couldn't that be considered a little odd that you respond to a post titled 'Question About Christianity'?

I probably believe much the same as most Christians but not in the divinely inspired nature of The Bible. In an earlier era I would have been burnt as a heretic - so I no longer call myself a Christian.

To simply compare light in the void of space to the Doppler Effect IMHO is very presumptuous to say the least.

You are ignoring the fact that we see through space every day and have conducted numerous experiments with light passing through space. I fear that the 'presumption' is on your part. The nature of light passing through various solids, gases and a vacuum is pretty well understood.

.... the Doppler Effect is irrelevant to light in space, or even in air. The Red-shift is a hoax.

Saying it over and over has no effect. You need to try to demonstrate that it is a hoax using good scientific methods which can be examined and repeated. Until you have done that, reduce your confidence level!

A lot of extrapolations can be built on lies, or false interpretations.

They certainly can be, but extrapolation is also the source of the majority of scientific theories which then go on to be proved OR disproved. If you doubt some generally accepted area of science, then get on and disprove it with a proper, repeatable experiment. The more you criticize something without proving that you are right, the less convincing your argument becomes. You would rapidly be dismissed as a crank.

If 'nothing' really IS a perfect void, then a tiny speck of a universe could have never appeared in 'nothing', ... am I correct?

Imagine you magically were right next to that tiny speck just before the big-bang. You are looking straight at it, only 5ft in front of your eyes. You can't see it, because it is a black hole, but let's assume you knew it was there and magically you were not being sucked in. In front of you is all the matter in the universe. Now, what is there behind you? The answer has to be 'nothing', there is no other matter. If you turn around and magically fly away from that speck of matter, what is there to stop you? Nothing! There is nothing there so, nothing to stop you.

If you want to argue that 'nothing' doesn't exist, because God hasn't made it yet, you need to explain why you can't magically move away from that speck of matter and where that speck of matter is. The point I am trying to make, probably not very well, is that you can't switch back and forth between creationism and science to make your points if you will not allow others to do the same. Any creationist's 'scientific' answer is the opposite of science as you defined it earlier. The only room for God in science is to suggest that He made up all the rules of nature that we are now trying to understand. Just saying that science is wrong gets you nowhere. By all means point out, by repeatable experiment, where current scientific knowledge is wrong (it is almost bound to be wrong somewhere) but that does not discredit the vast majority of mankind's knowledge and not the elements that you have picked upon.

So as you ask; 'what would have existed before any creation if nothing is really nothing?' And the answer to that is 'God'.

Or 'nothing' of course. You can't leap to just one conclusion without proof if you wish to follow scientific method. If you wish to ignore scientific method, you can say absolutely anything you wish :yes

Yes we can, both through science and philosophy (philosophy as in the search for the truth) through the Bible.

If you wish to define 'philosophy' as a search for truth, and I think that is a reasonable definition, why would any open minded philosopher restrict himself just to one book when there are many thousands of sources of information which conflict with that one book? Sorry, but you simply cannot have respectable 'philosophy' based on The Bible, you can only have 'religion' and a bit of history.

But I can prove through a simple experiment that this too (IO/Jupiter) is false, ...

You have my attention. Go ahead with your proof.

If the universe is expanding, all the galaxies and stars are supposed to be moving away from us, some even faster than the assumed speed of light, so it should all be showing up red!

No, I'm afraid that is a complete misunderstanding.

All the millions of stars in our galaxy are moving in one group - called the milky way galaxy! Our galaxy may be expanding but not fast enough to show any Doppler shift. Other galaxies moving on a similar but divergent path to our galaxy will also only be moving away from us at a relatively slow speed. Galaxies that are moving along roughly the same path as ours may show some shift but the ones which will really show up red are those on the other side of the original singularity. For those, we have the combined velocity of our galaxy and those other galaxies moving in opposite directions.

Evolution and the Big-bang theory and even exercise can be a religion, but TRUTH will never be found in religion, never.

I choose to believe that some truth can be found in religion. ALL truth is a tall order and I don't expect that from religion.

So to answer the Post topic, remember that you will never find God of the Bible IN any form of established religion, He will come into your heart and mind, ... that is how we get to know God.

I suspect that you are right but I know nothing. Certainty is a very precarious thing.

Proving that nothing is really nothing destroys any ideas of Big bang and evolution theories ....

Can I suggest that you get on and prove it then.

 

[Nick]

I suggest that if people wish to discuss science in more detail they do so in the science forum. Thanks. :yes