Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[MoonLancer]

I said 'broadsided' though --- as in T-boned.

so?? in what way would this nun have god violate physics? are you saying that its impossible within the relm of physics and reality for someone not to be injured in such an acadent? I think i may have misunderstood what head on was. by head on i mean the atheists hit the nuns card with the front. while the nun was broadsided.

Exactly what part of physics is god interrupting or stopping or changing?

 

[Skaloop]

Given that God says it is appointed unto men once to die, why would you expect there to be?

You don't think God is a Respecter of persons, do you?

I expect there to be a difference if God shows favour to His followers and intervenes on their behalf in Earthly events. If He does care more for Christians than atheists, and he does intervene, then in some cases, Christians who would have died without His intervention will not die. Provided He does this enough (which, considering the number of Christians out there, wouldn't even need to be a high percentage of the time), it would be a noticeable trend.

Now, if you have a different idea of how God interacts with people, then my argument would not apply to your God. And considering what I know of your idea of God, I am currently hard pressed to come up with a similar sort of study that could be used for your version. I guess it depends on whether you think God answers "Yes" to some portion of Christian prayers to be cured of cancer.

Oh, and I don't think God is a respector of persons (whatever that means), because I don't think God exists to even be a respector (or not a respector) of anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

I expect there to be a difference if God shows favour to His followers and intervenes on their behalf in Earthly events. If He does care more for Christians than atheists, and he does intervene, then in some cases, Christians who would have died without His intervention will not die. Provided He does this enough (which, considering the number of Christians out there, wouldn't even need to be a high percentage of the time), it would be a noticeable trend.

Well, as they say, the safest place on earth is in the center of God's will; so the first task would be for these scientists to be able to ascertain who is in the center of God's will, and who isn't.

 

[Doveaman]

But we don't find such convincing situations. What we probably find is that there is little to no difference in the survival rates of Christians versus atheists in such situations.

For the unbeliever, death is the end of something old and worn out.

For the Christian, death is the beginning of something new and far better.

It doesn't matter if the Christian's survival rate is the same as the unbeliever, or even less, because God has something far better for us on the other side of this old, worn out physical life.

Good physical health and life are not as big an issue for the Christian as it for the unbeliever. Obviously we prefer good physical health and life too, but we are (or should be) prepared to let go of both.

This is so because we recognize that sickness strengthen our faith in God as we lean to continually trust Him no matter what our circumstances are, and death is our gateway to a new and far better life in which there is no more sickness and death.

That said, there are many Christians who endure their sickness with confidence, and even joy, and they look death in the face and say "Bring it on!".

 

[Skaloop]

That said, there are many Christians who endure their sickness with confidence, and even joy, and they look death in the face and say "Bring it on!".

Atheists, too.

Although, that would be an interesting point of study; comparing Christians to atheists regarding recovery from illness, since we know motivation to be a factor. See if Christians really are more welcoming of what lies beyond death, and hence succumb more readily compared to atheists who, according to you, would have more of a reason to fight death.

 

[Jnwaco]

But that might be chalked up to psychology. I'm guessing that your thoughts are there is no form of existence after physical death? I know atheists are varied on this view.

 

[Skaloop]

But that might be chalked up to psychology.

Yes, it would. Not exactly relevant to the earlier stuff about God's statistical influence, but still an interesting study could be made of it.

I'm guessing that your thoughts are there is no form of existence after physical death? I know atheists are varied on this view.

You are correct. Well, aside from the physical body, if I wanted to be pedantic.

 

[Doveaman]

Atheists, too.

Although, that would be an interesting point of study; comparing Christians to atheists regarding recovery from illness, since we know motivation to be a factor. See if Christians really are more welcoming of what lies beyond death, and hence succumb more readily compared to atheists who, according to you, would have more of a reason to fight death.

They both fight death, but the Christian is more prepared to lose.

 

[Skaloop]

They both fight death, but the Christian is more prepared to lose.

I don't necessarily see that as commendable.

Nor do I think that it's necessarily true. There are lots of Christians who, in their last moments, may have some doubts about whether they will actually get into heaven. Past sins they haven't atoned for, perhaps some lapses in faith, that sort of thing. In which case they are perhaps not so prepared to lose their battle.

 

[MoonLancer]

For the unbeliever, death is the end of something old and worn out.

For the Christian, death is the beginning of something new and far better.

It doesn't matter if the Christian's survival rate is the same as the unbeliever, or even less, because God has something far better for us on the other side of this old, worn out physical life.

Good physical health and life are not as big an issue for the Christian as it for the unbeliever. Obviously we prefer good physical health and life too, but we are (or should be) prepared to let go of both.

This is so because we recognize that sickness strengthen our faith in God as we lean to continually trust Him no matter what our circumstances are, and death is our gateway to a new and far better life in which there is no more sickness and death.

That said, there are many Christians who endure their sickness with confidence, and even joy, and they look death in the face and say "Bring it on!".

thanks for explaining why Christians freak me out.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Given that God says it is appointed unto men once to die, why would you expect there to be?

Appointed by whom? Who exactly is God taking orders from these days?

 

[pgp_protector]

Given that God says it is appointed unto men once to die, why would you expect there to be?

You don't think God is a Respecter of persons, do you?

How many times did Lazareth Die?

 

[Ellinas]

For the unbeliever, death is the end of something old and worn out.

For the Christian, death is the beginning of something new and far better.

It doesn't matter if the Christian's survival rate is the same as the unbeliever, or even less, because God has something far better for us on the other side of this old, worn out physical life.

Good physical health and life are not as big an issue for the Christian as it for the unbeliever. Obviously we prefer good physical health and life too, but we are (or should be) prepared to let go of both.

This is so because we recognize that sickness strengthen our faith in God as we lean to continually trust Him no matter what our circumstances are, and death is our gateway to a new and far better life in which there is no more sickness and death.

That said, there are many Christians who endure their sickness with confidence, and even joy, and they look death in the face and say "Bring it on!".

Sorry to burst your bubble but since energy cannot be destroyed and everything is made up of energy then it can only mean that we do not actually die. Since I read "The Elegant Universe" I am not afraid to "die". I suffered a brain stroke while driving on the national highway and I am not afraid any more. I know that there is no after life. I also know that the atoms that constitute my body will become a part of other things animate or inanimate.

 

[Jnwaco]

You know? How would you know, you haven't died.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not putting words in your mouth:

I'm saying that your objection to an eternal universe is unfounded

Now, how did you get from what I said, to "you think that there is an infinite past"?

Actually, it does lead to infinity, by definition.

Which is what I said. Thanks for agreeing with me. Now, if you accept that, then you can see why your claim ("You cannot get to infinity by the addition of steps.") is false: you can get to infinity by the addition of steps.

Unconvincing. So you have a series of 3d "still shots" and for an infinite past, you have an infinite number of prior still shots in an infinite universe.

If the universe is eternal, then yes, that is the structure of spacetime (though it might be inaccurate to call them 'still shots', since time may be continuous, not discrete).

Yes, but that ignores change. If we were constantly at the now, there would be no change.

Eh? Of course there's change: 'now' denotes when we are, whenever that may be, and it is as subject to change as anything (as someone once said, we're moving forward in time by one second per second). 'Here' denotes where we are, but that doesn't mean we're rooted in one place.

Then there is no infinite past.

Why not? Specifically, why does the fact that infinity is not a number mean that there is no infinite past?

Your solution is not a valid one, either.

Allegedly, which is what this discussion is centred on.

I'm sure that does occur. But, believing differently, understanding that if science is merely a way of knowing how God did it, and not the way to prove His existence, you're satisfied to merely stick to young earth creationist discussions?

I don't understand the question.

Actually, I think they have shown (though not observed) that pions could come into and out of existence, but only for very short amounts of time, and only by borrowing the energy from another subatomic particle. They won't be able to observe this, though, because it occurs in less than a planck unit of time (if I remember correctly).

Nothing occurs in less than plank-time. The phenomena you're thinking of involve virtual particles and the like; energy isn't borrowed from other particles.

 

[Doveaman]

thanks for explaining why Christians freak me out.

Why should they freak you out?

Is it because they have full confidence in a much better future despite how difficult their lives may be now?

I don't get it.

 

[BananaSlug]

Are you aware that unverified, hypothetical “dark matter” is required to explain those distortions. The observed mass is no where near enough to cause them.

This is not about dark matter. This is about gravitational lensing which was predicted in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The theory of relativity states that gravity would bend light, causing a lensing effect.

You keep jumping the gun by providing unverified hypotheses as explanations for observations. Without the unverified dark matter, you have no explanation for the above observation.

Again, this is not about dark matter, it is about the effect of gravitational lensing. How would plasma cosmology explain the effect we see?

Dark matter has not been verified, therefore it explains nothing, therefore "gravitational lensing", which require unverified dark matter, is not an explanation.

Gravitational lensing does not require dark matter. The effect was first observed during a solar ecclipse. Fail.

God did it with electricity.

Could you please provide the formula that explains how electricity is responsible for the lensing effect?

 

[Doveaman]

Sorry to burst your bubble but since energy cannot be destroyed and everything is made up of energy then it can only mean that we do not actually die.

If Ellinas became a rock, then Ellinas would be as good as dead.

Since I read "The Elegant Universe" I am not afraid to "die".

We will find out shortly who's book is correct.

I suffered a brain stroke while driving on the national highway and I am not afraid any more. I know that there is no after life.

Have you been there before. Did you bring back any evidence.

I als,o know that the atoms that constitute my body will become a part of other things animate or inanimate.

If Ellinas became ashes, then Ellinas would be as good as dead.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why should they freak you out?

Is it because they have full confidence in a much better future despite how difficult their lives may be now?

I don't get it.

A person who has no regard for their own present has none for other people's either.

 

[Jnwaco]

Now, how did you get from what I said, to "you think that there is an infinite past"?

It's rather obvious - perhaps that's not what you believe actually happened, but you said my objections were unfounded. I disagree. Hope that clarifies.

Which is what I said. Thanks for agreeing with me. Now, if you accept that, then you can see why your claim ("You cannot get to infinity by the addition of steps.") is false: you can get to infinity by the addition of steps.

Just because you can write something in symbol form doesn't mean you can do it in reality. A symbol proves nothing. It assumes that the work is done without actually doing the work.

If the universe is eternal, then yes, that is the structure of spacetime (though it might be inaccurate to call them 'still shots', since time may be continuous, not discrete).

Right, but at least something transverses time in a general direction. Even relativity only allows light to diverge from moving forward in time by so much.

Eh? Of course there's change: 'now' denotes when we are, whenever that may be, and it is as subject to change as anything (as someone once said, we're moving forward in time by one second per second). 'Here' denotes where we are, but that doesn't mean we're rooted in one place.

That still does not make an infinite past possible.

Nothing occurs in less than plank-time. The phenomena you're thinking of involve virtual particles and the like; energy isn't borrowed from other particles.

My mistake - it's borrowed from nowhere and given back very quickly. I still don't see how this makes an infinite past possible.