An Open Question

[Quantum Obscurity]

Britain is run by socialist/communist tyrants who rule the world behind the scenes,and America also. Under a false democratic,and republican media front. Who are nothing but paid off puppet's of the NWO. Which "OWN" you backwards. But i don't expect someone who is 17 years of age to have any clue of what i'm talking. And that's probably for the best. Because when one,if he is so blessed by the grace of GOD to have his eye's opened to the "REAL TRUTH". It can be as scary as hell! Unstable mind's,must remain dumbed down by "The prince of the power of the air"{the satanic Media}. So that they may remain content in the bliss of ignorance. Believing in the delusion of propaganda,and false historical coverup's received without question as truth,and the "TRUTH" looked upon as a "Conspiracy". Nevertheless...


Just saying...


Blessings...
SC

Are you actually serious or just really really stupid? This is the one time I will not withhold me being offensive, sorry. You couldn't be more wrong about britain.

 

[lesliedellow]

Uneducated people easily lead, and the war machine that was the roman empire pushing it along.

See what I mean about atheists coming up with any old rubbish? Who was doing the pushing? The Romans who were persecuting Christians intermittently?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

See what I mean about atheists coming up with any old rubbish? Who was doing the pushing? The Romans who were persecuting Christians intermittently?

In 313, the struggles of the Early Church were lessened by the legalisation of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 380, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

As I have already said, there is nothing to suggest that it will contract, but there is evidence that it won't. Or doesn't evidence count when it goes against what atheists want to believe?.

Did you not read my post saying I don't profess to know how the universe came into being? I offered possibilities, not truths.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

We know of at least two other messianic movements in first century Palestine which the Romans put an end to by executing their leaders. Doubtless they thought they would have similar success with number three, but they didn't. Something happened to turn a group of eleven dispirited men into a movement which had spread throughout the Roman Empire within 100 years. What was it?

And even then you didn't answer how other religions started without "supernatural" input.

 

[lesliedellow]

And even then you didn't answer how other religions started without "supernatural" input.

I am sure you can find that out for yourself if you wanted to. There is no supernatural input even claimed for Islam or Buddhism (unless you count the inspiration of Islamic scriptures).

 

[lesliedellow]

In 313, the struggles of the Early Church were lessened by the legalisation of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 380, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire

What have events in the fourth century got to do with how it got under way in the first century?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

What have events in the fourth century got to do with how it got under way in the first century?

What historical evidence is there that christianity was followed through the first century, not counting the bible, which the actual date it was written is unknown.

 

[lesliedellow]

Did you not read my post saying I don't profess to know how the universe came into being? I offered possibilities, not truths.

I thought it was Christians who were supposed to have problems with accepted scientific theories. It seems it is atheists instead.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I thought it was Christians who were supposed to have problems with accepted scientific theories. It seems it is atheists instead.

Being an atheist doesn't mean "I believe everything in science" I have some doubts about the big bang theory, who doesn't?

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I am sure you can find that out for yourself if you wanted to. There is no supernatural input even claimed for Islam or Buddhism (unless you count the inspiration of Islamic scriptures).

The holy books of other religions claim godly prophets, appearances and divine interventions. What makes these false, and christian ones true?

 

[lesliedellow]

What historical evidence is there that christianity was followed through the first century, not counting the bible, which the actual date it was written is unknown.

Actual date unknown? Find me a serious historian who doesn't locate the Pauline epistles in the forties and fifties, and the gospels between 70-100.

In addition to which there are first century texts, such as the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius.

Early in the second century, Pliny the Younger was writing to Trajan about how to deal with those damn Christians.

There is an extant fragment of John's Gospel dated ca125

I could go on.

 

[Non sequitur]

The holy books of other religions claim godly profits, appearances and divine interventions. What makes these false, and christian ones true?

Greetings.

Just wanted to wish you luck in this endeavours.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

We know of at least two other messianic movements in first century Palestine which the Romans put an end to by executing their leaders. Doubtless they thought they would have similar success with number three, but they didn't. Something happened to turn a group of eleven dispirited men into a movement which had spread throughout the Roman Empire within 100 years. What was it?

Even if my history isn't perfect, it doesn't mean the only viable option of how christianity arose was because it was right. People follow the religion of breathism, do you think they are right? People follow all sorts of wild and wacky religions. Scientology is widely accepted as one of the most rediculous and stupid religions in the whole world, but people still follow it, because they are easily lead, even in this educated day and age.

 

[Davian]

Why put something in it that the argument does not demand? If that is the case, then any syllogism can be made to be question begging. You replacing words with words to make the argument something that it isnt is something that you do to suit your view. So actually you are found to be in error when doing so. The Kalam argument stands or falls based on its own premises, not on what you or anyone else want to put into it![]

The Kalam argument falls as it has not been established that the universe had a beginning.

The big bang theory adresses the current instantiation of the cosmos, and does not establish the beginning of the universe.

At the big bang, all matter that comprises the universe including space and time was released in an enormous explosion. Before this explosion, all matter space and time existed as a singularity (says some scientists), but since this singularity is composed of matter, then it is necessarily not uncreated, but created. The idea of an eternal, material, uncreated singularity is self contradictory.

Could you provide a citation for where you got this sciency description of the big bang theory?

This is not even to mention the fact that immaterial entities such as minds cannot come from that which is material!

Please provide a citation for this "fact".

 

[Elioenai26]

The Kalam argument falls as it has not been established that the universe had a beginning.

The big bang theory adresses the current instantiation of the cosmos, and does not establish the beginning of the universe.

Could you provide a citation for where you got this sciency description of the big bang theory?

Please provide a citation for this "fact".

Citations are unnecessary for self-evident truths.

 

[Elioenai26]

The Kalam argument falls as it has not been established that the universe had a beginning.

Since your opinion is contrary to the majority of modern scientific scholarship, you sir will need to supply evidence and citation for it. It has been philosophically defended as well as scientifically defended that the universe began at a definite point in the distant past.

 

[Belk]

Once upon a time there were not even single cell organism's to be found. Now there are human beings to be found.

Very true. And the implications you wish me to draw from this are what? That life could not become more complex via natural processes?

No it does not. The weak anthropic principle makes only the observation that the universe would have to be of a kind which allowed us to exist in order to observe it.

Basically, yes that is what it says.

It most definitely does not explain how things come to be fine tuned - not only for life, be it noted, but even for chemistry to be possible at all.

A) That is exactly what it states. It posits that those things necessary for life to arise must happen or life will not arise to observe these things. Without chemistry we would not have life after all.

B) If the universe is "Fine tuned for life" why is it that your earlier argument seems to imply that it is some surprise that complex life has formed? If the universe is fine tuned (which I do not necessarily agree with) would not life be an expected outcome?

Of the infinite number of universes which it is possible for theoretical physicists can design on the back of envelopes, the only ones which allow the formation of chemical elements heavier than helium, all of them have to be very very close to this one.

Yes. And of those theoretical universes how many could support life? How many different types of life are possible? Could those theoretical universes even exist or are the constants we see the only possibility?

We know of at least two other messianic movements in first century Palestine which the Romans put an end to by executing their leaders. Doubtless they thought they would have similar success with number three, but they didn't. Something happened to turn a group of eleven dispirited men into a movement which had spread throughout the Roman Empire within 100 years. What was it?

Likely the same sorts of things that happened with Joseph Smith, or Muhammad, or the Buddha. It is not like there is a dearth of religions that have started around polarizing figures. That you believe the resurrection to be true is understandable given your religion but there have been many religions that have started under oppression. In fact, they seem to do better when repressed then when they are not. Undoubtedly owing to our perverse human nature.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Since your opinion is contrary to the majority of modern scientific scholarship, you sir will need to supply evidence and citation for it. It has been philosophically defended as well as scientifically defended that the universe began at a definite point in the distant past.

Definition of universe: All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Either God is part of the universe, and therefore was created with the universe, or the universe has always existed. It has not been established that the matter of the universe had a beggining, just that (if correct) the Big Bang caused the current state of the expanding, life sustaining universe.

Or God is immaterial and brings us back the the matter/immatter problem.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

PS: I'm learning so much from this thread