The Age of the Universe

[Davian]

What you fail to realize is God has you here for purpose as well and that purpose is to get to the truth. Your constant denial causes us believers to really question our beliefs. Unfortunately for you, when a Christian really questions their beliefs, it only makes their faith stronger, simply because their faith is based in truth.

I am not here to champion science, or change anyone's beliefs. I just come here to see if there is anything to all of this religious stuff, or will religionists just resort to claiming that they and only they have the truth (which appears to mean "religious opinion"). So far, all I see are claims.

And I stay for the lulz.

 

[Michael]

That is the second-funniest thing I have read all day.

FYI, it's rather ironic that LHC, LUX, PandaX, and/or those electron roundness tests *could have* conflicted with my preconceived ideas prior to those experiments, but they didn't. On the other hand, those negative results *did* come into direct conflict with all the 'popular' mathematical models of dark matter, and yet the dark matter proponents buried their collective heads in the sand and they pretended it never happened.

 

[Davian]

Can you actually measure the improvements to your health, and the decrease in the number of sick days that you take as a result of this "feeling' you get, or is this a hypothetical deal with no *actual* measurable benefits?

Address the question: If I get benefits from this belief, does it not in some way establish its veracity?

 

[Chriliman]

I am not here to champion science, or change anyone's beliefs. I just come here to see if there is anything to all of this religious stuff, or will religionists just resort to claiming that they and only they have the truth (which appears to mean "religious opinion"). So far, all I see are claims.

And I stay for the lulz.

I respect that. Please stick around. Christian's claim to know the truth and that the truth can be known by anyone who believes in Jesus Christ. Simple.

 

[Doveaman]

Appear to be moving faster than light and moving faster than light are two different things.

How are you able to tell the difference?

We know how fast something is moving by the way it appears to be moving.

 

[Davian]

How are you able to tell the difference?

Through many many hours of study on the subject.

 

[Michael]

I am not here to champion science, or change anyone's beliefs. I just come here to see if there is anything to all of this religious stuff, or will religionists just resort to claiming that they and only they have the truth (which appears to mean "religious opinion"). So far, all I see are claims.

And I stay for the lulz.

In that case, it's more than a little ironic that you are in fact defending an age of the universe "truth" claim that requires *four* supernatural constructs, none of which show up in the lab.

 

[Michael]

Through many many hours of study on the subject.

So exactly *how* then did you decide that "space expansion" has anything to do with photon redshift again?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

 

[Davian]

FYI, it's rather ironic that ...

...you just cannot stop with that false dichotomy.

 

[Davian]

In that case, it's more than a little ironic that you are in fact defending an age of the universe "truth" claim that requires *four* supernatural constructs, none of which show up in the lab.

That is, in fact, not my position.

 

[Davian]

So exactly *how* then did you decide that "space expansion" has anything to do with photon redshift again?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

I did not realize that you were unfamiliar with the subject.

 

[Michael]

...you just cannot stop with that false dichotomy.

There's no false dichotomy. Pretty much *any and every* finite "age" that you might wish to put upon this universe will require *blind faith* in some supernatural agent. What passes for "science" requires *four* of them!

 

[Michael]

That is, in fact, not my position.

So what exactly *is* your position with respect to the age of the universe?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm only 29 and he's demonstrated his existence to me. But of course it doesn't really matter how he demonstrates his existence to me because its a personal experience and it would require you to "believe" me.

Why wouldn't there be objective and verifiable evidence for God? That is the type of evidence you expect for most claims, is it not? You wouldn't accept God speaking to people inside their heads as evidence in a murder trial, would you?

 

[Michael]

Address the question: If I get benefits from this belief, does it not in some way establish its veracity?

You dodged the key point. You never demonstrated a *tangible* benefit from your 'feeling', whereas there are *tangible* and measured benefits from religion.

 

[Davian]

So what exactly *is* your position with respect to the age of the universe?

I don't care.

 

[Davian]

You dodged the key point. You never demonstrated a *tangible* benefit from your 'feeling', whereas there are *tangible* and measured benefits from religion.

Address the question: If I get benefits from this belief, does it not in some way establish its veracity?

 

[Michael]

Why wouldn't there be objective and verifiable evidence for God?

Why isn't there objective and verifiable evidence that photon redshift is caused by "space expansion"?

That is the type of evidence you expect for most claims, is it not?

Not in your case with respect to determining an "age" of the universe.

 

[Doveaman]

Through many many hours of study on the subject.

That's a non-answer if you can't explain what you studied.

 

[Michael]

Address the question: If I get benefits from this belief, does it not in some way establish its veracity?

*If*? I showed you that religious belief *does* have *tangible empirical* benefits, and you're still stuck in hypothetical world?

No, because you cannot even logically explain how or why holding such a belief *could* A) make you feel better, or B) provide you with any health benefits.