Stars are imaginary.

[AV1611VET]

Ah, so then you must agree that the Roman pantheon were real gods, too. They had a whole empire backing them.

Rome came first --- then the Pantheon.

And so here we are. Instead of believing that things which we can see are real and things which we can't see are imaginary, we have people believing that stars are imaginary and a god which has absolutely zero physical evidence whatsoever is real.

I came on this thread late, and I'm not following the logic behind the stars being imaginary.

 

[Chalnoth]

Rome came first --- then the Pantheon.

What does that matter?

I came on this thread late, and I'm not following the logic behind the stars being imaginary.

If god created the universe 6,000 years ago, as you believe, then the light from those stars could never have reached us. He would have had to create the light in transit from stars much further away, and from stars which are now dead. Thus, if you believe the universe to be only 6000 years old, you believe that stars are imaginary.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does that matter?

Cause-and-effect is different.

If god created the universe 6,000 years ago, as you believe, then the light from those stars could never have reached us. He would have had to create the light in transit from stars much further away, and from stars which are now dead. Thus, if you believe the universe to be only 6000 years old, you believe that stars are imaginary.

God created the universe in the palm of His hand (Isaiah 40:12), then stretched it to its current dimension (Isaiah 40:22).

• [bible]Isaiah 40:12[/bible]
• [bible]Isaiah 40:22[/bible]

I will admit though, that while Creation is my forte, the stars pose the hardest to explain.

 

[Chalnoth]

God created the universe in the palm of His hand (Isaiah 40:12), then stretched it to its current dimension (Isaiah 40:22).

Inconsistent with observation. Take this measurement, for instance:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html

The distance to supernova 1987A (so-named because it was the first supernova detected in 1987) is about 168,000 light years. This measurement is a simple geometric measurement that is independent of the speed of light (as long as the speed of light is constant). If the speed of light was higher in the past, we would believe the supernova occurred even further in the past than 168,000 years.

So here we have two separate situations: the first is that the only way to explain why we see objects which are far away is if the speed of light were higher in the past (it's impossible even at this stage, but let's go with it). But then we can see events occuring in the past which would have occurred even further in the past if the speed of light were higher.

And thus the only way to reconcile the observations with the belief that the universe is only 6,000 years old is to believe that 6,000 years ago, God created the light from this supernova in transit to Earth just so that it would appear to us as if a star had exploded 168,000 years ago, a star which never existed because the universe is believed to be only 6,000 years old.

So there we have it. In order to believe that your specific interpretation of a particular god exists, a god for which there is no physical evidence whatsoever, you are believing that things which we can see are imaginary, that events which we can observe never happened.

 

[dad]

The distance to supernova 1987A (so-named because it was the first supernova detected in 1987) is about 168,000 light years. This measurement is a simple geometric measurement that is independent of the speed of light (as long as the speed of light is constant). If the speed of light was higher in the past, we would believe the supernova occurred even further in the past than 168,000 years.

If the speed of our light was different, not if the universe was essentially different and the light that was here then.

So here we have two separate situations: the first is that the only way to explain why we see objects which are far away is if the speed of light were higher in the past (it's impossible even at this stage, but let's go with it).

The light that was here was not limited by present light speeds.

And thus the only way to reconcile the observations with the belief that the universe is only 6,000 years old is to believe that 6,000 years ago, God created the light from this supernova in transit to Earth just so that it would appear to us as if a star had exploded 168,000 years ago, a star which never existed because the universe is believed to be only 6,000 years old.

False. The changing state of the universe 4400 years ago could easily account for it.

 

[Chalnoth]

False. The changing state of the universe 4400 years ago could easily account for it.

No, you need to have an exceedingly special set of circumstances. You need to have a deceiver god.

You keep stating that things in the past were different. But you keep overlooking that it is your god that you believe made them different. It was your god that was in charge of this so-called split. There is no conceivable way that the universe could be so ordered and regular, while at the same time containing so much structure, by accident. Your god is a deceiver god, even though you are unwilling to admit it. Your god is a god who placed stars in the sky that aren't really there. Your god is a god that showed us events that happened in the past that never really happened.

You, dad, believe in a god which cannot be seen, touched, or felt, and believe that stars, which can be seen, are imaginary. I believe that that which can be seen, touched, and felt is not imaginary. Which is the more logical position?

 

[Morcova]

Not hardly --- show me an empire built around the claims of the FSM.

You have to be joking.

By your own words you have just claimed that pretty much every civilization on the planet that has ever had a religion had a real God.

Congrats.

 

[Morcova]

My Deity is backed by a whole empire --- who backs yours --- Del Monte?

Hahaha, might makes right and the christians go off again to war!

So much for the meek inheriting the earth right?

Oh and incidently, you don't have an empire backing your deity sorry.

If you want to worship a deity that does have an empire backing it Islam is there for you.

 

[dad]

No, you need to have an exceedingly special set of circumstances. You need to have a deceiver god.

It was very very very exceedingly exceptionally special. Suggesting God was some deceiver for having to seperate the spiritual from the PO universe for awhile is absurd, and false. For one thing, we lived way too long, and it was proven that in our sinful fallen state, we simply could not be allowed to continue to do so. Imagine Hitler still here, and young, and around for 900 more years and change to boot! Then amplify that by 6 billion or so we have now, and those who were here. We do more than plenty of damage in less than a century!

You keep stating that things in the past were different. But you keep overlooking that it is your god that you believe made them different. It was your god that was in charge of this so-called split. There is no conceivable way that the universe could be so ordered and regular, while at the same time containing so much structure, by accident.

Great, did I say it was an accident?

Your god is a deceiver god, even though you are unwilling to admit it. Your god is a god who placed stars in the sky that aren't really there. Your god is a god that showed us events that happened in the past that never really happened.

That is silly. The stars He really made, and what you think is the past events that never really happened are something else. It was never God that was the deceiver at all. It is the god of this world, who hates men, and would like us all to die, or at least go to hell. That is where this stuff comes from.

You, dad, believe in a god which cannot be seen, touched, or felt, and believe that stars, which can be seen, are imaginary.

No, did I say stars were imaginary? I simply note that the light that will be and that was is different.

I believe that that which can be seen, touched, and felt is not imaginary. Which is the more logical position?

Can you touch the stars then, and feel them? We barely get around the solar system. I also believe in all things physical, but not only those things.

 

[card]

Why don't you leave AV1611VET alone, can't you see he has enough troubles of his own.

 

[XTE]

Science is right in the middle of the supernatural and the subnatural.

IOW, it's in the middle between the metaphysical and the myth.

Here's how I rank it:

1. Supernatural: God, angels, miracles.
2. Natural: the universe.
3. Subnatural: tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Easter bunny.

I'm interested in this quote AV1.

When you say things like this to yourself, is it deep?

When you say them, do you feel it will impact us as much as it did you?

I often say things that make my hair stand on in, that just hits me between the eyes and I wonder:

Is this my mind fooling me?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm interested in this quote AV1.

When you say things like this to yourself, is it deep?

When you say them, do you feel it will impact us as much as it did you?

I often say things that make my hair stand on in, that just hits me between the eyes and I wonder:

Is this my mind fooling me?

Since scientists cannot build a Jacob's Ladder (a device to interface between the physical and metaphysical), they just assume the metaphysical doesn't exist as depicted in Scripture and move on.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oh and incidently, you don't have an empire backing your deity sorry.

If you want to worship a deity that does have an empire backing it Islam is there for you.

Wasn't this a mistake? I would have written "you don't have an empire backing your sorry deity."

I do think this is a good point, though. Christianity had an empire therefore Christianity is real! And every other religion that had an empire, of course.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Since scientists cannot build a Jacob's Ladder (a device to interface between the physical and metaphysical), they just assume the metaphysical doesn't exist as depicted in Scripture and move on.

If the spiritual could interfere with the physical, then it would leave observable traces. Since the spiritual by its very nature cannot interfere with the physical (else it would be physical), there is nothing for science to observe. It may very well exist, in some higher, unknowable set of dimensions, but this is inconsequential. If divine intervention did occur, it would leave evidence for us to infer or observe. Since none has ever been found, let alone presented, the Creationists hypothesis remains just that: a hypothesis, an unsupported theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the spiritual could interfere with the physical, then it would leave observable traces. Since the spiritual by its very nature cannot interfere with the physical (else it would be physical), there is nothing for science to observe. It may very well exist, in some higher, unknowable set of dimensions, but this is inconsequential. If divine intervention did occur, it would leave evidence for us to infer or observe. Since none has ever been found, let alone presented, the Creationists hypothesis remains just that: a hypothesis, an unsupported theory.

You're going in the wrong direction. It's trickle down, not up. The spiritual world can break into our plane of existence, then leave without a trace.

• [bible]Hebrews 13:2[/bible]

 

[Chalnoth]

You're going in the wrong direction. It's trickle down, not up. The spiritual world can break into our plane of existence, then leave without a trace.

If it comes and goes, and leaves no trace whatsoever of its passage, why even bother to pretend it came at all?

• [bible]Hebrews 13:2[/bible]

Heh, nice Bible verse. I hope you realize that this is a Greek belief, where the Greeks believed they should be kind to strangers lest the stranger be a god from their pantheon in disguise?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Heh, nice Bible verse. I hope you realize that this is a Greek belief, where the Greeks believed they should be kind to strangers lest the stranger be a god from their pantheon in disguise?

Hey, they had an empire, therefore Zeus exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it comes and goes, and leaves no trace whatsoever of its passage, why even bother to pretend it came at all?

They did leave traces though: vanquished armies, destroyed cities, etc. The point is, they can come here and manipulate the material world, but we cannot go there and manipulate the spiritual world.

• [bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]
• [bible]Matthew 18:20[/bible]

Heh, nice Bible verse. I hope you realize that this is a Greek belief, where the Greeks believed they should be kind to strangers lest the stranger be a god from their pantheon in disguise?

That's why God gave them His word, to correct that stuff.

• [bible]2 Timothy 3:16-17[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, they had an empire, therefore Zeus exists.

MrGoodBytes, please read posts 22 and 23.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

They did leave traces though: vanquished armies, destroyed cities, etc. The point is, they can come here and manipulate the material world, but we cannot go there and manipulate the spiritual world.

No doubt. Unfortunately, we can find no traces of a city destroyed by a supernatural force anywhere.

MrGoodBytes, please read posts 22 and 23.

Okay..Post 23:

Cause-and-effect is different...

I don't get it. God exists, therefore an empire exists? How does that change your claim that your deity is "backed up by a whole empire"?