The Age of the Universe

[Michael]

I don't care.

If you actually don't care, why are you taking pot shots at EU/PC theory or any non standard *scientific* theory about the universe?

 

[Chriliman]

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?

Once you realize that God is not a physical entity, you will understand why there is no objective and verifiable evidence for Him. God already tried to show humans himself through objective verifiable things like pillars of smoke and fire and amazing miracles like splitting a mass of water, but guess what, humans still chose to not believe in Him. So what did God do? He sacrificed His son for all of us and relied on His love for us to shine through those that believe in the sacrifice. It's always been about love and truth and it will continue to be about love and truth.

Ephesians 4:15
"Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ"

If scientists are honestly seeking truth, this will be their conclusion.

 

[bhsmte]

Once you realize that God is not a physical entity, you will understand why there is no objective and verifiable evidence for Him. God already tried to show humans himself through objective verifiable things like pillars of smoke and fire and amazing miracles like splitting a mass of water, but guess what, humans still chose to not believe in Him. So what did God do? He sacrificed His son for all of us and relied on His love for us to shine through those that believe in the sacrifice. It's always been about love and truth and it will continue to be about love and truth.

Ephesians 4:15
"Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ"

If scientists are honestly seeking truth, this will be their conclusion.

I am quite certain, all of science is working diligently to find the truth, that suits your faith beliefs.

 

[HitchSlap]

The only reason they can't demonstrate it (yet) is because it is an *experience of consciousness*. They can demonstrate that *other human beings* also have such experiences of consciousness. How would you empirically measure 'love' or 'forgiveness'?

Same way you measure dark matter.

 

[HitchSlap]

The evidence of God's existence is love. God no longer needs to demonstrate His existence in a physical way like He did in the Old testament, because He has demonstrated His love for us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is God's love that is currently being demonstrated through those that believe in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, what more evidence do you need than that love from other people who claim to believe in Jesus? If you cannot accept love as evidence of something greater than yourself, then you are exactly the type of person that needs to experience that love. These are my beliefs as a Christian.

How do you know this?

 

[Davian]

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

Could I condense hundreds of hours of reading, online courses, and audiobooks into a bite-sized post that might cause you to question your religious presuppositions? Even if I were motivated, I do not think so.

If you want an education, go out and get one.

 

[Davian]

*If*? I showed you that religious belief *does* have *tangible empirical* benefits<snip>

Was that article intended to demonstrate the veracity of a particular religious belief? Or, the power of the placebo effect?

 

[Michael]

Once you realize that God is not a physical entity, you will understand why there is no objective and verifiable evidence for Him.

FYI, if you entertain the possibility that God may be a physical entity, one which encompasses the entire visible universe and beyond, then everything that we see, touch, taste, smell and experience may end up being "objective and verifiable evidence for Him'.

It really depends on how one *defines* God.

 

[HitchSlap]

It really depends on how one *defines* God.

It he actually existed, would this even be necessary?

 

[Michael]

Could I condense hundreds of hours of reading, online courses, and audiobooks into a bite-sized post that might cause you to question your religious presuppositions? Even if I were motivated, I do not think so.

If you want an education, go out and get one.

That is *so* bogus! I've studied astronomy and various cosmology theories for over 30 years of my adult life. I can condense the problem with determining an "age" of our universe for you in a single post.

It's all about the *actual cause* of photon redshift, and what each individual subjectively *assumes* that cause might be.

*If* you're like Hubble himself, you *assume* that the cause of photon redshift is due to *inelastic scattering/tired light* processes, in which case the universe may be eternal for all we know.

*If* and only if one subjectively *assumes* that the cause of photon redshift is caused by a *supernatural* phenomenon that does not and cannot occur on Earth, then and only then can you come up with a guestimate about age. Of course that *assumes* that photons somehow magically weave and dodge their way around every temperature and EM field gradient in the entire universe on it's travel path to Earth. Talk about faith in miracles!

Photon redshift can be empirically demonstrated to be caused by several different forms of inelastic scattering, as well as by moving objects.

The claim that photon redshift is caused by "space expansion" is ultimately an "act of pure faith" on the part of the believer in a process that *defies* empirical support in the lab, and the faith that you can *rule out* every other *known cause* in the universe!

 

[Michael]

It he actually existed, would this even be necessary?

Necessary? That would probably depend upon both the motives and capabilities of the organism. Maybe so. How would a germ inside of your body determine that it's living inside of a living host?

 

[HitchSlap]

That is *so* bogus! I've studied astronomy and various cosmology theories for over 30 years of my adult life. I can condense the problem with determining an "age" of our universe for you in a single post.

It's all about the *actual cause* of photon redshift, and what each individual subjectively *assumes* that cause might be.

*If* you're like Hubble himself, you *assume* that the cause of photon redshift is due to *inelastic scattering/tired light* processes, in which case the universe may be eternal for all we know.

*If* and only if one subjectively *assumes* that the cause of photon redshift is caused by a *supernatural* phenomenon that does not and cannot occur on Earth, then and only then can you come up with a guestimate about age. Of course that *assumes* that photons somehow magically weave and dodge they way around every temperature and EM field gradient in the entire universe on it's travel to Earth. Talk about faith in miracles!

Photon redshift can be empirically demonstrated to be caused by several different forms of inelastic scattering, as well as by moving objects.

The claim that photon redshift is caused by "space expansion" is ultimately an "act of pure faith" on the part of the believer in a process that *defies* empirical support in the lab, and the faith that you can *rule out* every other *known cause* in the universe!

You really should stop using these *

 

[HitchSlap]

Necessary? That would probably depend upon both the motives and capabilities of the organism. Maybe so. How would a germ inside of your body determine that it's living inside of a living host?

Huh?

 

[Michael]

Was that article intended to demonstrate the veracity of a particular religious belief? Or, the power of the placebo effect?

You tell me. What did it actually *say*?

 

[Michael]

You really should stop using these *

Really? Then I'll have to give up the idea of emphasizing specific words completely. How depressing (and boring).

 

[Davian]

That is *so* bogus! I've studied astronomy and various cosmology theories for over 30 years of my adult life. I can condense the problem with determining an "age" of our universe for you in a single post.<snip unrelated text>

Do it then. Change Doveaman's mind about the age of the universe. Pick whatever age you want that is different that what he currently believes. You have one post to do it in.

 

[HitchSlap]

Really? Then I'll have to give up the idea of emphasizing specific words completely. How depressing (and boring).

You could use bold or italics?

 

[Davian]

You tell me. What did it actually *say*?

Did you not read it? You really should read those articles that you link to.

 

[Michael]

Same way you measure dark matter.

Hmm. Doubtful. To my knowledge love and forgiveness do not create gravitation lensing.

 

[Michael]

You could use bold or italics?

Ok, but I'll probably over use them too, and you'll get tired of that behavior sooner or later as well. I'll try to a least wean myself a bit.