Why do people still believe in Jesus and Christianity?

[Into the Night]

I find you extremely boring.

No, you find his argument compelling. You have no counterargument for it.

 

[Into the Night]

You need to learn to write with more economy.

I specifically said that cosmology's explanations for the origin of the universe are largely in the realm of speculation. Speculation and faith are two separate and distinct words, which mean different things

Not quite true. The Theory of the Big Bang (the only theory that HAS an origin of the Universe, as far as I know) is a nonfalsifiable theory. It is not a theory of science. It is a religion.

God (in Christianity) describes a Universe without end or beginning. He describes Himself as without beginning and without end. He DOES describe a beginning of an Earth, and it's eventual 'end' (at least in the state that we know today).

I do not join teams of either bible thumping fundamentalists or trollish militant atheists. The belligerent militant atheists get just as mad at me as do the Christian jihadists.

Fine. Nothing wrong with that! There are fundamentalist in any religion, including Christianity and in the Church of No God (which tends to be a fundamentalist style religion).

My team is the truth and genuine knowlege, as best I can ascertain it. I have an extensive body of posts defending authentic Christianity. And I am among the first to stick up for genuine scholarship and inductive knowlege of the physical and biological sciences.

No problem with this!

The fact that you really want me to pick a team and stay in that lane is of no consequence to me.

Again, well argued. Your position does not compel others to your position. They are free to believe in what they wish.

 

[Into the Night]

shut up troll. about done with you

You do not have the power to command me. You are not the king. If you want to put me on your ignore list, feel free. I'll just continue to comment on your posts as usual.

 

[Into the Night]

He's stupid. I read his comments here.

YALSA

 

[Into the Night]

Actually the Big Bang idea is accepted science.

No. It is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. The Theory of the Big Bang is a religion. It is based on faith, and faith alone.

It's impossible to grok unless you have command of extremely complex mathematics, the Stephen Hawking kind. The mathematics describe the conditions at and following the Big Bang, and predicted that the remnants of the event are still echoing throughout the universe. So we invented instruments capable of detecting this background radiation and lo! The equations and their theory were verified.

No math required. The Theory of the Big Bang states that the Universe began as an infinitely small object that expanded and cooled into the Universe we see today. It is not falsifiable. No one can go back to see what actually happened (or if it happened at all!).

No theory is ever proven True.

 

[Into the Night]

you're officially a troll

Insult fallacy. You have no argument left. You are just resorting to calling people names and accusing them of being socks.

 

[Into the Night]

He said Newton never described the motion of planets. He's an idiot. A bloviator. A buffoon.

I'll say it again Newton never described the motion of the planets. Kepler did.

 

[Into the Night]

Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is not possible to prove a theory True. False authority fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

You keep running in circles with this.

Not at all. I have never contradicted this statement.

I am familiar with Karl Popper's philosophy of science and the criteria of falsifiability. and the physicists at Fermi Lab undoubtedly are too.

False authority fallacy. Reversal fallacy. You cannot use Fermi Lab as a proof that they are even paying attention to Popper's philosophy.

We know exactly what they mean concerning confirmation of quantuum foam.

It is not possible to prove any theory True. Your comment shows Fermi Lab is denying Popper's philosophy of falsifiability in science.

I am not going to nit pick it. . They are writing informally on a webpage.

You ARE nitpicking it. Right here. Right now. Semantics fallacy.

I personally think a better convention to use is whether a hypothesis is supported or refuted.

Then you deny science and logic. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalistm).

Because confirmation sounds like a yes, whereas supported sounds like a maybe.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. You are describing Fermi Lab as a religion.

But this is a ridiculous amount of nitpicking on an obscure message board concerning scientists who are writing colloquially and informally on a webpage

YOU are the one nitpicking. Semantics fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Church of no God... Like unitarianism?

No. The Church of No God believes there is no god or gods. They often claim they are 'atheists', when in fact they are theists. This religion tends to be a fundamentalist style religion. They often try to prove the circular argument their religion is based upon, committing the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Into the Night

since I told you that I am no longer going to waste my time reading your posts, my notifications have told me you have quoted me seven times......just to be clear, when I said I am no longer reading your posts I assumed you would understand what that meant......I have not read your posts and I am not going to answer your questions......

 

[Ralph]

You need to learn to write with more economy.

I specifically said that cosmology's explanations for the origin of the universe are largely in the realm of speculation. Speculation and faith are two separate and distinct words, which mean different things

I do not join teams of either bible thumping fundamentalists or trollish militant atheists. The belligerent militant atheists get just as mad at me as do the Christian jihadists.

My team is the truth and genuine knowlege, as best I can ascertain it. I have an extensive body of posts defending authentic Christianity. And I am among the first to stick up for genuine scholarship and inductive knowlege of the physical and biological sciences.

The fact that you really want me to pick a team and stay in that lane is of no consequence to me.

You speculate......then you state that you believe but that belief in speculation is not FAITH? Why is reason and logic such a disconnected thought pattern among those who reason in circles?


So in reality.......YOU DON'T accept cosmology as TRUTH? You are but seeking truth.....yet, you can't refute the scriptural account of CREATION, but you refuse to seek truth in relation to religion? You seek truth based upon stated speculation, conjecture, and unattianable evidences based upon THEORY?

There is scripture that describes individuals such as yourself. "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and the firmament is declaring the work of His hands" Ps. 19:1

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse." -- Rom. 1:20

And lastly.....for those who refuse to accept the power and authority of that which is not understandable via those who profess that the created is somehow superior to the creating force, "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." -- 1 Cor. 1:21

I present but the truth found in scripture. "For the Jews require a sign......and the Greeks/Gentiles seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, unto the Greeks/Gentiles foolishness. But unto them which are called (what calls one? acceptance of the truth found in THE WORD of GOD), both Jew and Greek/Gentile.....Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." -- 1 Cor. 1:22-24

By believing.....we are promised nothing extra in this plane of reality. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, the SABBATH (rest) of a Christian comes after this race called life is finished. As I said, what is lost by following the wisdom and advise found in the Word of God? Nothing.....as it will add years to your life and kindness to those you encounter.

Yet it is a FEARFUL thing to fall into the hands of the LIVING GOD (Heb. 10:31) Why? For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine and I will repay, says the Lord and again, "The Lord will judge His people."

Soo.........If I fail to defend what I know in my heart is correct.....I fear that I am lacking and will be judged, not for action but for inaction in not defending the faith that is in my heart because it is constructed upon the foundation of the very words that I defend, the actual words of wisdom found in Scripture. Will I be looked upon and find that I am told, "I KNOW YOU NOT..........."?

 

[Cypress]

Actually the Big Bang idea is accepted science. It's impossible to grok unless you have command of extremely complex mathematics, the Stephen Hawking kind. The mathematics describe the conditions at and following the Big Bang, and predicted that the remnants of the event are still echoing throughout the universe. So we invented instruments capable of detecting this background radiation and lo! The equations and their theory were verified.



I absolutely agree. Also too, it's part of (to me anyways) what makes life so magical, sometimes mysterious, always providing something new to learn. You might appreciate the spirituality of the ancestral people who lived here (and still do). Although in English, the being is usually referred to as the "Creator," in Anishinaabemowin (Ojibwe) the term is "Kichi-manidoo." Literally that is translated as "great spirit." But what it really means is "the great mystery" and is considered to be real and present, yet unknowable by us in the form we are in as humans. It's more akin to the last drawing in your graphic you posted earlier, panentheism I think it was called. God/universe within and part of each other. This "great mystery" is present in all things, human, animals, rock, tree, water, air, cloud.

Nice work.

I always like to point out to those who are intent on pitting science against religion in a contrived war for dominance, that it was a Catholic priest who first proposed a big bang expansionary model of the cosmos

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I have no problem with the Big Bang theory......I even know what the Big Bang sounded like......."Let there be" in Hebrew.......

 

[Cypress]

Not quite true. The Theory of the Big Bang (the only theory that HAS an origin of the Universe, as far as I know) is a nonfalsifiable theory. It is not a theory of science. It is a religion.

God (in Christianity) describes a Universe without end or beginning. He describes Himself as without beginning and without end. He DOES describe a beginning of an Earth, and it's eventual 'end' (at least in the state that we know today).

Fine. Nothing wrong with that! There are fundamentalist in any religion, including Christianity and in the Church of No God (which tends to be a fundamentalist style religion).

No problem with this!

Again, well argued. Your position does not compel others to your position. They are free to believe in what they wish.

The big bang theory makes predictions which can be tested to either refute or support the theory. Religion cannot do that. Observations of the cosmic microwave background, the observation and ratios of the nucleosynthesis of light elements, the red shift of galaxies and the expansion and curvature of space all support the big bang theory, provisionally.

You all are way too caught up in pitting science and religion against each other.

They are asking different questions.

Science is asking mechanistic questions.
Religion is asking teleological questions.

Einstein would probably think the mechanistic questions are the most important to ask. Plato thought the teleological questions are the truly important ones.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Nice work.

I always like to point out to those who are intent on pitting science against religion in a contrived war for dominance, that it was a Catholic priest who first proposed a big bang expansionary model of the cosmos

I've never understood the "war" between science and religion. But we can see what happens when religion wins -- the Dark Ages are a good example. So is what happened to the Arab world when fundie Islam dominated. We still use the term algebra and the Arabic names for the stars, but few of them are excelling in mathematics and science these days.

 

[Ralph]

The big bang theory makes predictions which can be tested to either refute or support the theory. Religion cannot do that. Observations of the cosmic microwave background, the observation and ratios of the nucleosynthesis of light elements, the red shift of galaxies and the expansion and curvature of space all support the big bang theory, provisionally.

You all are way too caught up in pitting science and religion against each other.

They are asking different questions.

Science is asking mechanistic questions.
Religion is asking teleological questions.

Einstein would probably think the mechanistic questions are the most important to ask. Plato thought the teleological questions are the truly important ones.

All based.....not upon objective facts that are reproducible or observed but THEORY. More circular reasoning.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I've never understood the "war" between science and religion. But we can see what happens when religion wins -- the Dark Ages are a good example. So is what happened to the Arab world when fundie Islam dominated. We still use the term algebra and the Arabic names for the stars, but few of them are excelling in mathematics and science these days.

Instances were rare prior to Anita Bryant and those Christian Coalition assholes. The only major things I remember about it are the Scopes trial and Blue Laws. That's when science started to be a bad thing and sent our national politics towards those Dark Ages.

The Christian Right and radical Islamics are much more alike than they are different.

 

[Cypress]

I've never understood the "war" between science and religion. But we can see what happens when religion wins -- the Dark Ages are a good example. So is what happened to the Arab world when fundie Islam dominated. We still use the term algebra and the Arabic names for the stars, but few of them are excelling in mathematics and science these days.

I agree that there has been periodic conflict between the church and natural philosophy, aka science.

But actually, if one looks at it in context, the Middle Ages were a flourishing of natural philosophy and scholarly inquiry - with Christianity and Islam playing leading roles in resurrecting Greek thought and rationality, supporting scholarly inquiry, establishing the first universities.

 

[Arks&sparka]

Science is not knowledge. It a set of falsifiable theories. It does not replace any religion.

Right science and knowledge are two different things. But I think you got my main point it's not religion and religion doesn't completely different thing than science does. Religion guides the morality. Science is just a process for which we find the answers to questions.

 

[votebiden]

I agree that there has been periodic conflict between the church and natural philosophy, aka science.

But actually, if one looks at it in context, the Middle Ages were a flourishing of natural philosophy and scholarly inquiry - with Christianity and Islam playing leading roles in resurrecting Greek thought and rationality, supporting scholarly inquiry, establishing the first universities.

The Catholic Church threatened to kill Galileo. A permanent stain on the Church.