Man vs. God

[NicolasKL]

That's what I meant but if elements can't exist at those pressures and temperatures, how did they become elements in the first place?

Uh, after those temperatures and pressures diminished, then they became elements.

We now know that H becomes He and so on from fusion but if the pre-Bang particle soup suddenly expands, as far as I know, sub-atomic particle collisions don't create new elements, they just release energy and leave some kind of trail, which is how they proved quarks exist. They could only see the trail from the energy but none has actually been seen.

You're not just talking about collisions, you're talking about immense temperatures. Gluons and quarks existed first, then when it cooled down enough, protons and neutrons, then when it cooled down further, electrons, then when it cooled down further, helium and deuterium.

If subatomic particles take up their given space and none were created during the Big Bang, how is it possible for these same particles to take up so much space now?

I don't really understand the problem. The universe is mostly empty space, and atoms are mostly empty space. The universe is quite, quite, empty.

If elements are compressed enough, they're either destroyed or fused, right? What happens to subatomic particles?

They're "destroyed" in that they're broken up into subatomic particles and no longer exist as elements. They existed as elementary particles.

 

[NicolasKL]

You just gotta have faith in the scientists that say it happened.

J/K!

Listening to an expert in a scientific field and believing what they say is truth is far, far different than believing a 2000 year old book full of stories.

 

[NicolasKL]

I absolutely refuse to look up the word pederast but will now use it alot.
It's meaning to me will be transient and private.
Thank you.

You should look up the word "alot" while you're at it.

 

[Adam]

Listening to an expert in a scientific field and believing what they say is truth is far, far different than believing a 2000 year old book full of stories.

But not necessarily more rationale.

Scientific experts have been absolutely certain and just as absolutely wrong about things many times - and many people believed them until they were proven wrong, and then for a while afterwards sometimes.

One of my favorite quotes from MIB is: "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

I'm not arguing against science. I'm just saying that believing one thing without any personal proof isn't all that much (if any) different than believing any other thing without any personal proof.

 

[croseiv]

Listening to an expert in a scientific field and believing what they say is truth is far, far different than believing a 2000 year old book full of stories.

It's clear you have more faith in humans. I personally do not.

 

[NicolasKL]

It's clear you have more faith in humans. I personally do not.

If you're an adherent to any religion you have just as much faith in humans. But it's far more likely that the humans you have faith in are less deserving of it.

 

[Adam]

If you're an adherent to any religion you have just as much faith in humans.

I completely agree for most religions. I'm not sure that it can be said for all, as I think that personal discovery and meditation are more important in some.

But it's far more likely that the humans you have faith in are less deserving of it.

There's really no way to back that up, you know.

 

[NicolasKL]

But not necessarily more rationale.

Scientific experts have been absolutely certain and just as absolutely wrong about things many times - and many people believed them until they were proven wrong, and then for a while afterwards sometimes.

That's the thing. They can be wrong. Religion, for the most part, can't.

I'm not arguing against science. I'm just saying that believing one thing without any personal proof isn't all that much (if any) different than believing any other thing without any personal proof.

Believing that Neptune exists is far, far, FAR different than believing that, say, Jesus was the divine son of God. If you disagree then I don't think there's really much for us to talk about.

 

[NicolasKL]

There's really no way to back that up, you know.

Humans that exist today, studying science that can be verified by hundreds or thousands of other humans.

Versus humans that, say, existed 2000 years ago, writing down stories that have been passed along in oral tradition for a century.

Seems pretty clearcut which is more likely to be a more trustworthy source to me.

 

[croseiv]

If you're an adherent to any religion you have just as much faith in humans. But it's far more likely that the humans you have faith in are less deserving of it.

The agnostic is very difficult to point in the right direction. Their faith is irrational. Their faith is in nothingness. The point is, all humans have a need to have faith in something...but many have faith in the wrong thing.

 

[lsiberian]

I'm currently studying theology and am a protestant Christian. I also happen to love earth science. I'm not a 6-day creationist and if you'd like to discuss that I'd be more than happy to give my reasons. It's only fair for me to state my position.

This is an interesting thread for me as I see universalism pervading our culture. The idea that there is no absolute truth leads to anarchy almost any good philosophy professor could convince you of this better than me. There are certainly absolutes and science greatly demonstrates this with the law of Gravity. If you want to try to defy it. Good Luck.

From a faith perspective I view God's law(see Deuteronomy) as equal to the law of Gravity. The Good news(Gospel means good news) in my belief system is that Jesus emptied himself of his divinity(kenosis theory) to become a man and die so we could be freed from the penalty of God's law if we believe(holistically). It's pretty clear that the Christian belief system must be exclusive. Reasons Jesus wouldn't need to come if there was another way and Jesus states he's the only way.

On hell their are two primary views of hell in Christianity. There is the fiery place of punishment or the cessation of existence.

I've experienced and experience the presence of God on a daily basis so to me his existence is as sure as the Sun, Neptune or black holes. I understand many folks haven't experienced that so I wouldn't expect you to share my belief. Before I followed this system of beliefs I was a really messed up guy. I had dropped out of college from an addiction, and wasted years of my life being a deadbeat.

My greatest gift is oration so now I have a future and plan. I understand the system is difficult to believe this is acknowledged in the new testament actually. I'm not here to condemn anybody. I'm here to help others even if I can come across narcissistic. I've got no issues hearing other people's story or getting to know them. I also have no problem answering questions via PM. I don't have all the answers and the more I study the more I don't know. I seek to live my faith, by helping out the poor and being as kind as I can.

Thank you all for being my friends even if it's just online. I'm glad for the community that is AH and the diversity of it. FYI the media gives our extremists and wackos most of the attention so remember that when you see a church on the news. For every crazy there are probably 10-100 nice people.

But the point is belief, religion, or faith is an experience built on truths a person subscribes too. In our system it can be so strong that torture and death won't bring renunciation. This has been demonstrated throughout history. The system has been used to abuse people in the past, but I think if a person reads the new testament you will find those abuses go against the teachings of the book. This is why Scripture is my primary norm for theological belief.

 

[NicolasKL]

The agnostic is very difficult to point in the right direction. Their faith is irrational. Their faith is in nothingness. The point is, all humans have a need to have faith in something...but many have faith in the wrong thing.

All I can say is: LOL.

 

[Adam]

That's the thing. They can be wrong. Religion, for the most part, can't.

Oh, religion can be wrong. A lot of times it is wrong, IMO. If you read my other posts, you can read my thoughts on it.

If you disagree then I don't think there's really much for us to talk about.

Fair enough. I sense that you weren't catching my point, though. You seem to take it as religion versus science, whereas I stated it multiple times as belief in anything with which you have no personal experience.

 

[mtrycrafts]

. "FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof."

So, right there your Idaho and potato example goes out the window, there is evidence even if you have not been there.

 

[Adam]

So, right there your Idaho and potato example goes out the window, there is evidence even if you have not been there.

Nah, because I have evidence that the potatos came from Idaho.

 

[NicolasKL]

Fair enough. I sense that you weren't catching my point, though. You seem to take it as religion versus science, whereas I stated it multiple times as belief in anything with which you have no personal experience.

And I stated why you can't lump all those things into the same category. Which is something that I think is fairly obvious if approached rationally.

 

[NicolasKL]

I'm currently studying theology and am a protestant Christian.

Why did you choose Christianity?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Maybe, but what higher power does science represent?

Does it have to represent a higher power? If so, why? Why is there a need for a higher power? And how high is it? Anything above that higher power? Why not? There must be. If not, then why even a higher power?

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
Now when rapture comes, I think who has a better chance of getting in. The agnostic who was true to himself and tried to help others but had doubts in his faith or those who claim to have faith but commit a multitude of sins. The things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

Andromeda is on its way I doubt anyone will rise from the dead just become cosmic dust for another beginning someplace and time.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... It's simply an issue of believing in something for which you yourself have no personal experience.

....

So, in another word, you have to have personal experience before you accept or believe anything? And, therefore it doesn't exit for you?