The Age of the Universe

[Michael]

It is correct that (scientific) evidence are not a (scientific) proof of truth, but (scientific) evidence can be proof for refuting false claims.

As the "dark matter" debate demonstrates, even the concept of "evidence" is highly subjective, and it's typically based on a host of assumptions that are subjective by their very nature. In 2006 they based on their ""dark matter' claims on the concept that their baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were accurate. All the evidence since 2006 demonstrates that those galaxy mass estimates were never worth the paper they were printed on however.

Nor is it correct that (scientific) evidence are "interpreted".

Er, ya the evidence is *typically* interpreted in a highly subjective way. For instance the whole "dark energy" claim is based upon the *subjective assumption* that SN1A events are all "standard candles". Newer studies refute that claim. Now what?

Evidence are facts.

Often the "facts" are not actually 'facts' however, as those huge galaxy mass underestimates demonstrates. Evidence is often based upon *the model itself*, plus a *number* of assumptions about what we known and don't know.

Facts are observation that are not in dispute by the expertise in the area.

Except those so called "facts" related to their flawed baryonic mass estimates in 2006 turned out to not be 'facts" at all. They were *assumptions* that were later shown to be *false*. Ditto for the whole dark energy based on "standard candles'.

A red rose is a red rose is a red rose - it does not need to be interpreted being a red rose. Only way to make it otherwise is to be color blind (read: incorrect calibrated instrument) or blind (read: being in denial of the facts).

The only way to justify dark matter theory today is to be in staunch denial of all the baryonic mass estimate problems by the mainstream, and all the failures they've had at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness 'tests' of their claims. They failed *repeatedly and often*. So what's the fascination with magic matter today?

 

[In situ]

[it] demonstrates the fact that there is rarely 100 percent agreement on any idea.

Obvisoly I have to agree to this. But I also think it is a positive thing that their exists different ideas because it force you to think about why you believe as you do yourself and sometime you may find out that what you took for granted before isn't really that selfgiven, but most of the time it only "deepens" your own understadning on way you reason as you do. I dunno if that last part is a good or bad thing for your own knowledge, since that "fear" of confirmation bias always is there.

If we judged things your way, we could throw out evolutionary theory simply because *some* people believe in YEC.

I do not follow you now. How did you come to that conclusion from what I said?

Actually the request itself wasn't necessarily illogical, but rejecting the concept over some 'dissent' would be illogical.

I agree with that, but I do not think that was the point he tried to make and I tried to clarify how I saw it with my example.

 

[Michael]

That claim is asserted based on what I know.

What exactly do you 'know' about space expansion since it's *never* occurs in a lab, unlike inelastic scattering and Doppler shift (moving objects, not expanding space). We have *multiple* empirical options to explain photon redshift that do no require an "act of faith' on the part of the believer, so why do you "have faith" in a hypothetical process that *never* occurs in the lab?

We don't have to rewrite elementary physics books with such explanation,

Ya we did. 'Space' doesn't do any magical expansion tricks in Newton's universe, and "space expansion" isn't even *required* in GR. It's simply a "theoretical possibility' at best case, even in GR, and there is *guarantee* that space expansion happens simply because GR theory *allows* for that mathematical possibility.

however with your explanation we can just as well burn all text books in physics and start it all over with Galileo... If we did that would be rather strange consider how far physics has taken us so far.

Huh? EU/PC theory doesn't require us to burn any textbooks, and you could start with everything that Alfven taught us and published about plasma and simply embrace EU/PC theory. All you'd have to toss is any textbook that contains references to 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', neither of which holds up to any serious scrutiny anyway. Neither of those things are required in any other branch of physics anyway.

And you mean I am ignorant fool that does not know what I am talking about?

You really should resist trying to put (mean) words in my mouth. How could you personally know what you're talking about with respect to 'dark energy' or SUSY theory when the mainstream can't name a single source of 'dark energy', and all their "popular" predictions about SUSY theory to day have been falsified in the lab? Why would I blame you personally for the ignorance of the entire industry?

That may be true, but SUSY is still not part of the standard model and is irrelevant for this.

A "non standard" model of particle physics is a *requirement* in Lambda-CDM however, and that's the theory you're trying to use in order to claim you can pin an "age" on our universe.

High school - is that your level?

I have published papers on the topics of astronomy and solar physics.

Physics, I dunno about your country but in ours it is included (at least at the time I was in high school), but what does this has to do with your claim of an appeal to magic?

SUSY theory has failed every single lab test it's been put to thus far. The whole concept of an extension to the standard particle physics model is predicated upon the claims of astronomers, and those claims have all been shown to be flawed in numerous ways. When might I expect to see some fruits of this search for a mythical form of matter that falsifies the standard model?

I start to get tired of all this machine gun argumentation - how is this related to your claim of an appeal to magic in the standard model eludes me.

Because "space expansion" is a "magical" form of redshift that *never* occurs in the lab. "Inflation" is a *magical* form of energy that *never* shows up in a lab, just one *otherwise falsified* cosmology theory. "Dark energy' is a *magical* form of energy that is based upon a *now falsified* premise about SN1A events being "standard'. They aren't even standard in the first place! 'Dark matter' is a magical form of matter that has been shy around every lab and ever 'experiment' we've tried, and it too was based upon a *now falsified* premise with respect to galaxy mass estimate problems in 2006. Not a single one of the four *magical* parts of Lambda-CDM shows up in a lab, or has any effect on a single photon in a lab.

You keep talking about things that are not included in the standard model and things that are not established knowledge among physicists yet - hence should not not be taught in high school classes

They shouldn't be 'taught' at all anymore, certainly not after all the "'tests' it's failed since 2006.

What is your point with all this if this is not only a school of red herrings?

My point is that the universe could be *eternal* for all I know, and any random "age' we might try to assign to it fails the empirical test.

And because they selected one you don't like this is supposed to prove that physicist appeals to magic or what?

The fact they keep moving the goals posts on a regular basis is what makes it unfalsifiable, and a "magic". FYI, I embrace an ancient Earth, evolutionary theory, and I prefer a perfectly *empirical* explanation of our universe. I simply think that Lambda-CDM is a joke, and the laughing stock of real physics.

 

[Michael]

Obvisoly I have to agree to this. But I also think it is a positive thing that their exists different ideas because it force you to think about why you believe as you do yourself and sometime you may find out that what you took for granted before isn't really that selfgiven, but most of the time it only "deepens" your own understadning on way you reason as you do. I dunno if that last part is a good or bad thing for your own knowledge, since that "fear" of confirmation bias always is there.

Agreed. I'd say that mainstream cosmology suffers from a *huge* case of confirmation bias as this point, and they have a terrible habit of simply ignoring negative results.

I do not follow you now. How did you come to that conclusion from what I said?

I'm simply noting that it's rare to have any real agreement in all areas of any theory. Dark matter theory for instance spans a *range* of extensions to the standard particle physics model, and it's not even limited to SUSY theory. The fact that there is 'disagreement" within a theoretical framework isn't a valid reason to reject the idea.

 

[In situ]

As the "dark matter" debate demonstrates, even the concept of "evidence" is highly subjective, and it's typically based on a host of assumptions that are subjective by their very nature. In 2006 they based on their ""dark matter' claims on the concept that their baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were accurate. All the evidence since 2006 demonstrates that those galaxy mass estimates were never worth the paper they were printed on however.



Er, ya the evidence is *typically* interpreted in a highly subjective way. For instance the whole "dark energy" claim is based upon the *subjective assumption* that SN1A events are all "standard candles". Newer studies refute that claim. Now what?



Often the "facts" are not actually 'facts' however, as those huge galaxy mass underestimates demonstrates. Evidence is often based upon *the model itself*, plus a *number* of assumptions about what we known and don't know.



Except those so called "facts" related to their flawed baryonic mass estimates in 2006 turned out to not be 'facts" at all. They were *assumptions* that were later shown to be *false*. Ditto for the whole dark energy based on "standard candles'.



The only way to justify dark matter theory today is to be in staunch denial of all the baryonic mass estimate problems by the mainstream, and all the failures they've had at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness 'tests' of their claims. They failed *repeatedly and often*. So what's the fascination with magic matter today?

I am not sure what you trying to get with all these things Michael. The thing is, and I do not disagree with you about it, that which once was thought to be a fact can later be disregarded as a fact. This is obvious the case. But why? Simply because the "fact" has become in dispute, i.e there are more than one interpretation of the "fact". Maybe the instrument was not calibrated properly, maybe the observer was hallucinating, many things can cause an observation to be in dispute. Still a fact, per definition in science, cannot have more than one interpretation. If it has it is no longer a fact. In philosophy of science, this distinction is very important to make because it is deeply related to what we can claim that we know. This is part of why scientist is so paranoid with checking and double chinking their experiments, because once an observation is confirmed begin correctly done it becomes a fact - it become part of our knowledge.

I also granted you, there are things called "facts" that in strict meaning isn't fact. I agree with you on that, people are often talking loosely about "facts". Those "facts" that are really no facts but interpretation. Interpretation which we are very confident in that they probably are true - we can be very very sure they are correct but never say to 100%. But there comes a point in where not saying it is a fact becomes just silly - even though it is not a fact a in strict sense.

That does not mean it cannot change - such "facts" can always change, and this is where I think theists often misunderstand science and think science reject the possibility of a deity - it does not. Science is, based on what we know, not at the point where such possibility needs to be considered yet. That does not mean science reject the possibility. Scientist may do, but science as method cannot.

Having done that division. Redshift is a fact. Nobody can deny that. There are no alternative "interpretations" of this observation. It is what it is. However, if we start to consider what that fact means, then we are talking about an interpretation. One such interpretation is that the universe is expanding. I have given reason for why this interpretation, or model/theory as rather is said, is preferred among others. Do you have any facts, in the way I described what a fact is, you think we should consider in order to abandon this interpretation?

 

[Davian]

You mean to tell me that you've never read John 17?



What's Jesus talking about when he claims to be one "in" God?

I do not if those words were actually those of Jesus, or if he even existed.

Well, it's definitely not my problem

And it is definitely not mine.

 

[sparow]

What is a fact?

This is the same question as what is truth. Truth is to do with sincerity, honesty and accuracy; yet there is relativity; the truth was clear to Jesus but Pilate didn’t know what Jesus was talking about; so it is not a fact that we know what Pilate was asking about; he didn’t ask “what is the truth”.


A fact is when something is known for certainty that something indisputable has happened; but there is still relativity. What is a fact to you I may have no knowledge of and would have rely on logic and reason to agree or disagree.


Let us consider the big bang theory. From Wikipedia I found this:


“Nucleosynthesisis: the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons. The first nuclei were formed about three minutes after the Big Bang,

In addition to the fusion processes responsible for the growing abundances of elements in the universe,”


Is this paradigm a fact or an idea? As an idea I can see it describing two possibilities; both of which are irrational; the obvious idea I see in modern physics is the expanding universe. The expanding universe is an example of over unity power generation which in turn is negative entropy; which is not possible on our planet but according to the idea over unity power generation is the essence of the rest of the universe.

 

[Michael]

I am not sure what you trying to get with all these things Michael. The thing is, and I do not disagree with you about it, that which once was thought to be a fact can later be disregarded as a fact. This is obvious the case. But why? Simply because the "fact" has become in dispute, i.e there are more than one interpretation of the "fact". Maybe the instrument was not calibrated properly, maybe the observer was hallucinating, many things can cause an observation to be in dispute. Still a fact, per definition in science, cannot have more than one interpretation. If it has it is no longer a fact. In philosophy of science, this distinction is very important to make because it is deeply related to what we can claim that we know. This is part of why scientist is so paranoid with checking and double chinking their experiments, because once an observation is confirmed begin correctly done it becomes a fact - it become part of our knowledge.

I also granted you, there are things called "facts" that in strict meaning isn't fact. I agree with you on that, people are often talking loosely about "facts". Those "facts" that are really no facts but interpretation. Interpretation which we are very confident in that they probably are true - we can be very very sure they are correct but never say to 100%. But there comes a point in where not saying it is a fact becomes just silly - even though it is not a fact a in strict sense.

That does not mean it cannot change - such "facts" can always change, and this is where I think theists often misunderstand science and think science reject the possibility of a deity - it does not. Science is, based on what we know, not at the point where such possibility needs to be considered yet. That does not mean science reject the possibility. Scientist may do, but science as method cannot.

Having done that division. Redshift is a fact. Nobody can deny that. There are no alternative "interpretations" of this observation. It is what it is. However, if we start to consider what that fact means, then we are talking about an interpretation. One such interpretation is that the universe is expanding. I have given reason for why this interpretation, or model/theory as rather is said, is preferred among others. Do you have any facts, in the way I described what a fact is, you think we should consider in order to abandon this interpretation?

Well, redshift is indeed a "fact", but it's cause is not fact. The cause of photon redshift from spacetime is a "theory" which may or may not represent "fact".

In "fact", photon redshift is caused in the lab by several different types of inelastic scattering, as well as by Doppler shift. There are no empirical lab tested 'facts' however which link photon redshift to 'space expansion'. That "belief" is and remains an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer", in the unseen (in the lab). Note that Hubble himself preferred a *non expansion* interpretation of photon redshift.

Likewise, there's little or no doubt that previous mainstream baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were seriously and terminally flawed, and they therefore could not account for all the actual matter that was present and observed in earlier lensing studies. This "fact" about the flaws in their mass estimation techniques has been demonstrated *repeatedly* over the last 10 years. On the other hand, those "facts" do not seem to matter to the mainstream, who continue to base their claims about "exotic" forms of matter upon the "belief" that their baryonic mass estimates of galaxies are 'correct'. That's simply another example of an 'act of pure faith' on the part of the "believer", and a belief that actually is refuted by later revelations about their galaxy stellar mass errors since 2006. In short, it's not just faith, it's "bad faith' that flies in the face of known facts.

 

[Michael]

I do not if those words were actually those of Jesus, or if he even existed.

In other words, it's actually a "Christian" concept after all, so you simply run from the problem with your claims.

 

[zardak]

To all Atheists:

Matthew 19:4 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he who made them AT THE BEGINNING made them male and female"

Matthew 19:8 “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way FROM THE BEGINNING."

Thus, the first week from the beginning of the universe and creation was when Adam and Eve were made; maybe you atheists should just wake-up and take a good hard look at yourselves!

So whose word should i take? The word of Jesus, from whose mouth no lie was ever stated, or the word of modern proud scientists who love talking out of their rear-end and speculating and promulagting misnomers and lies due to their pure foolish ignorance??

1 John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the WRATH OF GOD ABIDETH ON HIM."

Your choice, God-rejectors. What more do you need to hear??? Repent, or you will perish! Salvation is for everyone, but if you walk in defiant pride and unbelief just because you can, and just because currently you are breathing God's free air, then surely you will end-up in hell.

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Do yourself a favour and type the following title into Youtube and watch it...

Man Dies Went To Hell What he Saw Testimony)

 

[Oafman]

To all Atheists:
...some passages from the gospel of Matthew....
Thus, the first week from the beginning of the universe and creation was when Adam and Eve were made; maybe you atheists should just wake-up and take a good hard look at yourselves!

It is optimistic in the extreme to expect an unconvincing creation myth, which has clearly been shown to be false by our observations of the world around us, to convince atheists to rethink their views.

So whose word should i take? The word of Jesus, from whose mouth no lie was ever stated, or the word of modern proud scientists who love talking out of their rear-end and speculating and promulagting misnomers and lies due to their pure foolish ignorance??

The gospel of Matthew is not 'the word of Jesus'. It is the words of a scholar writing about a century later. Your confidence that the stories handed down to this author over generations, and his subsequent rewriting and embellishment of them, would retain the words that Jesus spoke, or even an accurate copy of their meaning, seems hugely misplaced.

As for your blanket dismissal of the views of scientists, do you listen to your doctor when you're ill? Do you get on planes? Do you use the internet?

Your choice, God-rejectors. What more do you need to hear???

Just...one...little...shred...of...convincing...evidence. That's all I ask for. It's very little to ask really, but it isn't forthcoming.

Repent, or you will perish! Salvation is for everyone, but if you walk in defiant pride and unbelief just because you can, and just because currently you are breathing God's free air, then surely you will end-up in hell.

You could convince me that your God existed long before you could convince me that he has created a Hell for us. But you could not convince me of the former, so the latter is way beyond you.

Do yourself a favour and type the following title into Youtube and watch it...

Man Dies Went To Hell What he Saw Testimony)

Err, I would prefer not to. Such search terms would surely lead me to nonsense.

 

[[serious]]

Man Dies Went To Hell What he Saw Testimony)

Is the guy's name Dante? Cause I already read the book.

 

[Davian]

In other words, it's actually a "Christian" concept after all,

Christians may lay claims to many concepts...

so you simply run from the problem

What problem?

with your claims.

What claims?

 

[Michael]

Christians may lay claims to many concepts...

Ya, including the first one who claimed that were were all one *in* God.

What problem?
What claims?

You accused me of "switching gods" and worshiping something other than a 'Christian' concept of God. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not the case.

 

[zardak]

It is optimistic in the extreme to expect an unconvincing creation myth, which has clearly been shown to be false by our observations of the world around us, to convince atheists to rethink their views.

Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works"

I can confirm you are indeed a fool (as has said the scripture), and why can i confirm that? Because you said "creation is shown to be false by our observations around us"
and yet that is the very thing that declares God to be real, as says the scripture... Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

The gospel of Matthew is not 'the word of Jesus'. It is the words of a scholar writing about a century later. Your confidence that the stories handed down to this author over generations, and his subsequent rewriting and embellishment of them, would retain the words that Jesus spoke, or even an accurate copy of their meaning, seems hugely misplaced.

If this were true then no place could be found for witnesses in a court case, contrary to your reasoning. And nonetheless Jesus himself confirms the Gospel writings in his words to the apostles as follows... "John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU."

As for your blanket dismissal of the views of scientists, do you listen to your doctor when you're ill? Do you get on planes? Do you use the internet?

Most doctors have a basic understanding of anatomy and physiology, and a basic understanding of the things that make one sick, the very same things i had to learn to become a qualified naturopath. The difference is that Doctors are trained to prescribe manufactured drugs that only suppress the problem and cause undesirable numerous grievous side-affects, whereas a Naturopath like myself prescribes 'natural' God given remedies that have been shown many times to heal and without the side-affects. What's your point???

Just...one...little...shred...of...convincing...evidence. That's all I ask for. It's very little to ask really, but it isn't forthcoming.

Free will, language, building skills, technical expertise, imagination, emotions and the ability to procreate and do good or evil. As God said Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

A human being is a marvel of creation, surely you must recognize that?

You could convince me that your God existed long before you could convince me that he has created a Hell for us. But you could not convince me of the former, so the latter is way beyond you.

Hell was prepared not for us. Jesus speaking > Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL and HIS ANGELS"

Got did not make hell for humans; Adam and Eve brought hell on us when they disobeyed God, because God gave them the choice and said "Do not eat from that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day ye eat of it ye shall surely die".

Humans disobeyed, God didn't disobey. It's our fault, but now having the knowledge of good and evil, Jesus came to save us and bring God's grace to help us 'choose' to do good and not evil.

There are different degrees of punishment depending on your crimes and degree of your immoral life. Without Christ you stand no chance and 'will' be going there, but God sent Jesus to save you from that place, to avoid putting you there, understand?
But because God's wrath abides on everyone by default (because we have all broken God's perfect laws thousands of times) then Jesus came to save us, that's why he is called in the Bible "The propitiation for our sins (The appeasement of divine wrath by sacrifice) Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission of sin". Thus why Jesus said John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

And thus: John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

So if you reject him by YOUR OWN CHOOSING, then the following verse applies to you... 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction away from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"

God knows you better than you know yourself, don't be proud and defiant and intellectual, you will perish. We all need to accept that God is the supreme being and His ways have to be respected. Come to your senses. The way to do that is believe what Jesus did for you, but one thing you need... Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

I've told you now what you need to know. The Bible is the incarnate word of God, you can believe it because it is not the word of man. Your choice now, nothing more i can do for you. Don't take our Western freedom and prosperity for granted, be thankful and repent and give God His rightful place and glory. He does love us, but He abhors us when we do evil. Only in Christ can God's wrath be removed from you... 1 Thessalonians 1:10 "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come."

God's wrath is coming to this earth, it will happen, many Christians have been shown the vision of that day, and men have heart attacks and drop dead in that day purely from fear of what they see, but Jesus has done the required work, he satisfied the death sentence, so all you have to do now is believe in what he did for you and that God has raised him from the dead, then repent and live a life showing decency and honesty and integrity and good works not dead evil works. Born again by Gods Spirit. John 1:13 "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

If you say that Jesus is not the Messiah, or that there is no Messiah, then the scripture says you have the spirit of anti-Messiah, and you will perish.


Make the right decision, for the Lord's sake and your own sake. God is offering you salvation...

 

[bhsmte]

Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works"

I can confirm you are indeed a fool (as has said the scripture), and why can i confirm that? Because you said "creation is shown to be false by our observations around us"
and yet that is the very thing that declares God to be real, as says the scripture... Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."




If this were true then no place could be found for witnesses in a court case, contrary to your reasoning. And nonetheless Jesus himself confirms the Gospel writings in his words to the apostles as follows... "John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID UNTO YOU."



Most doctors have a basic understanding of anatomy and physiology, and a basic understanding of the things that make one sick, the very same things i had to learn to become a qualified naturopath. The difference is that Doctors are trained to prescribe manufactured drugs that only suppress the problem and cause undesirable numerous grievous side-affects, whereas a Naturopath like myself prescribes 'natural' God given remedies that have been shown many times to heal and without the side-affects. What's your point???




Free will, language, building skills, technical expertise, imagination, emotions and the ability to procreate and do good or evil. As God said Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

A human being is a marvel of creation, surely you must recognize that?





Hell was prepared not for us. Jesus speaking > Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL and HIS ANGELS"

Got did not make hell for humans; Adam and Eve brought hell on us when they disobeyed God, because God gave them the choice and said "Do not eat from that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day ye eat of it ye shall surely die".

Humans disobeyed, God didn't disobey. It's our fault, but now having the knowledge of good and evil, Jesus came to save us and bring God's grace to help us 'choose' to do good and not evil.

There are different degrees of punishment depending on your crimes and degree of your immoral life. Without Christ you stand no chance and 'will' be going there, but God sent Jesus to save you from that place, to avoid putting you there, understand?
But because God's wrath abides on everyone by default (because we have all broken God's perfect laws thousands of times) then Jesus came to save us, that's why he is called in the Bible "The propitiation for our sins (The appeasement of divine wrath by sacrifice) Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission of sin". Thus why Jesus said John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

And thus: John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

So if you reject him by YOUR OWN CHOOSING, then the following verse applies to you... 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction away from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power"

God knows you better than you know yourself, don't be proud and defiant and intellectual, you will perish. We all need to accept that God is the supreme being and His ways have to be respected. Come to your senses. The way to do that is believe what Jesus did for you, but one thing you need... Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

I've told you now what you need to know. The Bible is the incarnate word of God, you can believe it because it is not the word of man. Your choice now, nothing more i can do for you. Don't take our Western freedom and prosperity for granted, be thankful and repent and give God His rightful place and glory. He does love us, but He abhors us when we do evil. Only in Christ can God's wrath be removed from you... 1 Thessalonians 1:10 "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come."

God's wrath is coming to this earth, it will happen, many Christians have been shown the vision of that day, and men have heart attacks and drop dead in that day purely from fear of what they see, but Jesus has done the required work, he satisfied the death sentence, so all you have to do now is believe in what he did for you and that God has raised him from the dead, then repent and live a life showing decency and honesty and integrity and good works not dead evil works. Born again by Gods Spirit. John 1:13 "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

If you say that Jesus is not the Messiah, or that there is no Messiah, then the scripture says you have the spirit of anti-Messiah, and you will perish.


Make the right decision, for the Lord's sake and your own sake. God is offering you salvation...

In regards to your eye witnesses in court, you have a slight problem.

In court, eye witnesses are named and are present in the flesh to give there testimony first hand. They are also going to be cross examined, to test the validity of their testimony and this is where many eye witnesses are destroyed in a court of law.

So, if you have the specific names of the eye witnesses and can provide their direct testimony and any cross examination of the same, let us know.

 

[Michael]

In court, eye witnesses are named and are present in the flesh to give there testimony first hand.

Ya, right after they swear on a Bible.

 

[Davian]

Ya, including the first one who claimed that were were all one *in* God.

Claim away, for what it's worth.

You accused me of "switching gods" and worshiping something other than a 'Christian' concept of God. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's simply not the case.

Re-writing the bible to say, "there was no beginning, God is the heavens and Earth"? Have you been any more successful with that than your plasma ball universe?

 

[Davian]

Ya, right after they swear on a Bible.

No need for that in my country.

 

[bhsmte]

No need for that in my country.

Yep, bibles have been pretty much removed from the court room. They have even removed; I promise to tell the whole truth, so help me God. Now they just say; I promise (or swear) to tell the whole truth.