No it doesnt. You clearly know nothing of current scientific theorys. I suggest you go read a Short History of Nearly Everything and then STFU.Stingray24 wrote:
B needs to be modified. Forgiveness is not based on just being sorry after one has been found guilty. Rather, it is based on belief in Jesus and acceptance of God’s free salvation. The question is what one will decide regarding salvation - that is what determines eternal destiny, not good works. There is no scale of goodness that allows us to be “good enough” if we don’t commit certain “bad” sins. If both the murderer and their victim have accepted salvation, yes, they’re in the same boat. Either one is perfect or they accept salvation, acknowledging their sin. There is no middle ground.UON wrote:
Seems to me that there are basic attitudes in play here, on how best to justify your existence if you ever meet the (IMO) non-existent maker:
A) Standing up for your actions and saying "if there are consequences, I will bear them".
B) Praying for forgiveness and saying "if there are consequences, I shouldn't have to face them because I'm sorry"
Seems to me that if a regular guy who covets his neighbour garden gnomes picks A and a murderer picks B, the murderer would get off scott free and the gnome fancier would be doomed for eternity. So organised religion actually punishes good people who stand up for what they believe, but rewards vicious murderers who find God in a cell on Death Row.
Here's a question for your local vicar: When the murderers get to heaven, are they in the same bit as their victims?There are plenty of logical reasons to believe that God exists. I’ll give you one. This is the most concise expression of my position that the design of the universe itself shouts the existence of a Creator. Emphasis mine:oug wrote:
Then again, believers act upon belief and therefore are placed beyond the realm of reason.
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php? … tegoryID=2
“Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). There is no physical reason why these quantities have the values they do. The inference to an intelligent Designer of the cosmos seems far more rational than the atheistic hypothesis of chance.”
The numbers above move the possibility of chance creating our universe into the realm of impossibility.
Poll
What is Religion?
| Total: 0 |
Actually he's really quite close to the mark on his physics.Vilham wrote:
No it doesnt. You clearly know nothing of current scientific theorys. I suggest you go read a Short History of Nearly Everything and then STFU.Stingray24 wrote:
B needs to be modified. Forgiveness is not based on just being sorry after one has been found guilty. Rather, it is based on belief in Jesus and acceptance of God’s free salvation. The question is what one will decide regarding salvation - that is what determines eternal destiny, not good works. There is no scale of goodness that allows us to be “good enough” if we don’t commit certain “bad” sins. If both the murderer and their victim have accepted salvation, yes, they’re in the same boat. Either one is perfect or they accept salvation, acknowledging their sin. There is no middle ground.UON wrote:
Seems to me that there are basic attitudes in play here, on how best to justify your existence if you ever meet the (IMO) non-existent maker:
A) Standing up for your actions and saying "if there are consequences, I will bear them".
B) Praying for forgiveness and saying "if there are consequences, I shouldn't have to face them because I'm sorry"
Seems to me that if a regular guy who covets his neighbour garden gnomes picks A and a murderer picks B, the murderer would get off scott free and the gnome fancier would be doomed for eternity. So organised religion actually punishes good people who stand up for what they believe, but rewards vicious murderers who find God in a cell on Death Row.
Here's a question for your local vicar: When the murderers get to heaven, are they in the same bit as their victims?There are plenty of logical reasons to believe that God exists. I’ll give you one. This is the most concise expression of my position that the design of the universe itself shouts the existence of a Creator. Emphasis mine:oug wrote:
Then again, believers act upon belief and therefore are placed beyond the realm of reason.
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php? … tegoryID=2
“Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). There is no physical reason why these quantities have the values they do. The inference to an intelligent Designer of the cosmos seems far more rational than the atheistic hypothesis of chance.”
The numbers above move the possibility of chance creating our universe into the realm of impossibility.
You'd be better off reading books written by scientists for scientific information. Not books by Bill Bryson, a travel writer. 'A Brief History of Time' is nice and easy to start off on and 'The Road to Reality' is amazingly detailled and well written.Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Chapter 27, The Big Bang and its Thermodynamic Legacy wrote:
Now, how does this compare with what we know of the volume N of the box N for entropy today, and with the volume B of the box B for the entropy of the Big Bang (assuming, for now, that we live in a 1080 baryon universe)? Taking the black-hole estimate, given above, for the entropy today, and the value of 108 for the entropy per baryon in the 2.7K radiation, we find
B:N:E = 1010[sup]88[/sup] : 1010[sup]101[/sup] : 1010[sup]123[/sup]
It follows that each of B and N is only
one part in 1010[sup]123[/sup]
of the total volume E. Moreover, the volume B is only
one part in 1010[sup]101[/sup]
of the phase-space volume N of the universe today.
As a way of appreciating the problem posed by this absurdly tiny phase volume of B, we can imagine a creator trying to use a pin to locate this tiny spot in the space PU, so as to start the universe off in a way that resembles what we know today. If the Creator were to miss this spot by just the tiniest amount and plunge the pin into the maximum entropy region E, then an uninhabitable universe [references figures showing possible different types of high entropy Big Bang scenarios], would be the result, in which there is no Second Law to define a statistical time-directionality.
*edit* D'oh, all that sup stuff hasn't worked very well, but hey, you get the idea.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-15 06:34:29)
Such a convincing response. Stephen Hawking is such a moron isn't he.Vilham wrote:
No it doesnt. You clearly know nothing of current scientific theorys. I suggest you go read a Short History of Nearly Everything and then STFU.
+1 Thanks for your reading recommendations and a civil/informative response, Bertster. It’s more than I can say for some people here.Bertster7 wrote:
You'd be better off reading books written by scientists for scientific information. Not books by Bill Bryson, a travel writer. 'A Brief History of Time' is nice and easy to start off on and 'The Road to Reality' is amazingly detailled and well written.
*edit* D'oh, all that sup stuff hasn't worked very well, but hey, you get the idea.
There is meaning in this, I assure you....
A couple of years back I told my mom that I have become extremely cynical of Christianity and Divinity and the works........
She replied "makes sense, you're around that age.....but when I was your age I didn't have the luxury of being an athiest"
A couple of years back I told my mom that I have become extremely cynical of Christianity and Divinity and the works........
She replied "makes sense, you're around that age.....but when I was your age I didn't have the luxury of being an athiest"