Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.I said 'broadsided' though --- as in T-boned.
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?
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.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.
For the unbeliever, death is the end of something old and worn out.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.
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!".
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.
They both fight death, but the Christian is more prepared to lose.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.
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!".
Given that God says it is appointed unto men once to die, why would you expect there to be?
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?
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.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!".
Now, how did you get from what I said, to "you think that there is an infinite past"?I'm not putting words in your mouth:
Wiccan_Child said:I'm saying that your objection to an eternal universe is unfounded
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.Actually, it does lead to infinity, by definition.
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).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.
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.Yes, but that ignores change. If we were constantly at the now, there would be no change.
Why not? Specifically, why does the fact that infinity is not a number mean that there is no infinite past?Then there is no infinite past.
Allegedly, which is what this discussion is centred on.Your solution is not a valid one, either.
I don't understand the question.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?
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.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).
Why should they freak you out?thanks for explaining why Christians freak me out.
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.
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.
Dark matter has not been verified, therefore it explains nothing, therefore "gravitational lensing", which require unverified dark matter, is not an explanation.
God did it with electricity.
If Ellinas became a rock, then Ellinas would be as good as dead.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.
We will find out shortly who's book is correct.Since I read "The Elegant Universe" I am not afraid to "die".
Have you been there before. Did you bring back any evidence.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.
If Ellinas became ashes, then Ellinas would be as good as dead.I als,o know that the atoms that constitute my body will become a part of other things animate or inanimate.
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.
Now, how did you get from what I said, to "you think that there is an infinite past"?
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.
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).
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?