Here you go you dumbs$%&#@

[Maddhattter]

Belief?

'Accept' would have been a better word. My apologies for any confusion.

Still, accepting the big bang theory requires that you also accept the existence of a singularity in the same way that accepting Jesus as a divine being requires that you accept that a divine exist.

[The King]

The big bang theory would require the belief in a singularity. It's a core part of the theory, as it stands today. If you remove the singularity, you no longer have the big bang theory, you'd have a different (albeit similar) hypothesis.

Belief?

I saw that episode on Netflix not too long ago and I agree it bears no relevance to the topic that we've been discussing.

Also irrelevant to the topic that we've been discussing as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat."

[SS Junk]

Best I recall, every time I've been asked for evidence on a claim I've made, I've provided it.

Jajajajajajajajajaja

[Maddhattter]

I still think your logic is skewed by thinking that the number of believers is relevant to the authenticity of the Bible's content.

I agree. An argument from popularity(or bandwagon fallacy) is fallacious no matter which side is using it.

[Maddhattter]

Of course the big bang theory does not require the belief (emphasis: belief) that the sigularity came from "nowhere", or for that matter the belief that there is any singularity at all.

The big bang theory would require the belief in a singularity. It's a core part of the theory, as it stands today. If you remove the singularity, you no longer have the big bang theory, you'd have a different (albeit similar) hypothesis.

"It simplifies acceptance of the theory for those so inclined by now ignoring that tough question it raises and instead simply assuming that the universe "is" and always "has been". Magical almost."

I don't see how it simplifies anything. This singularity could simply be the result of a recurring process of compression/expansion. If that's the case, then the universe has always "been", just in a different form. So, it doesn't avoid those questions. It just doesn't attempt to answer those questions because they are outside of its purview.

I remember a Star Trek episode where Spocks brain was in a globe. That's about as relevant as someone saying "Well, you could just be a brain in a vat."

I saw that episode on Netflix not too long ago and I agree it bears no relevance to the topic that we've been discussing.

The expansion vs. the gravitational pull of the combined mass of the universe requires an input force!

No, it doesn't. The expansion would have literally had all the energy in existence already present and available withing it.

Entropy tells you that a force can't come from nothing.

No, it doesn't. Entropy tells us that active energy is expended when work is performed, returning it to a state of potential energy until it's used for work by another system. As far as we are aware energy does not "come" from anywhere. Energy is always conserved, that is, it is never created anew or destroyed - this is called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, when an object does work on another object, the energy can only be converted and/or transferred, but never lost or generated anew. In a sense, energy is like perfect money - transferred but always preserved, assuming no inflation or deflation.

There are no perpetual motion machines.

Correct, as of now. If we can discover a method of harnessing other types of energy it's possible we might discover how to make one someday.

Energy would indeed have to be created by some means in order to cause the expansion against the force of gravity (which we can measure so it too is real).

Sure, we can measure gravity and the energy required to escape it. However, per the first law of thermodynamics, energy is never created or destroyed, it only changes forms. It becomes another type of energy.

Entropy can be measured so it is also real.

I've never seen anyone attempt to argue that entropy isn't real. Entropy is a measure of the "disorder" of a system. What "disorder" refers to is really the number of different microscopic states a system can be in, given that the system has a particular fixed composition, volume, energy, pressure, and temperature. "Microscopic states", meaning the exact states of all the molecules making up the system.we can't see which particular microscopic state a system is in, people often like to say that entropy is quantitative measure of how uncertain or ignorant one is about the exact, detailed, microscopic state of a system. Or, another popular way of saying this is that entropy measures the microscopic disorder of a system.

As a simple example, suppose that you put a marble in a large box, and shook the box around, and you didn't look inside afterwards. Then the marble could be anywhere in the box. Because the box is large, there are many possible places inside the box that the marble could be, so the marble in the box has a high entropy. Now suppose you put the marble in a tiny box and shook up the box. Now, even though you shook the box, you pretty much know where the marble is, because the box is small. In this case we say that the marble in the box has low entropy.

The Big Bang is just a "theory" and it can easily be disproven by real tangible scientific measurements.

The big bang is a "theory" like gravity is a "theory", like germs are "theory", and pregnancy is a "theory". They all could be disproven by science. That's how science works. The catch is, evidence must be provided that demonstrates the untenable nature of that theory. As no evidence has made any such demonstration at this time, these "theories" are going to be relied upon for their model building applications, like it has been for many years.

[46Tbird]

This thread has really gotten too long to bother with a response, but...

If Christianity is true, then people wouldnt be saying they believe in it, then running away from it as documented in the decline of attendance as compared to 25, 50, or even 100 years ago.

Good to know that widespread belief in an event is what determines its factuality. lmao

[racrguy]

What was a local phenomenon?

Christanity spread through the known world a lot quicker and broader than you're thinking. Once again, the more you talk, the more I'm thinking that you're either trolling or there's not enough spaghetti in the bowl to make a full meal. I still think your logic is skewed by thinking that the number of believers is relevant to the authenticity of the Bible's content.

I will agree with the bolded part only. What Mongoose just did is make an argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. Something can be true, untrue or false regardless of how many people believe it. I will agree with Mongoose that declining church attendance can mean that more and more people are not "needing" the church, but that doesn't speak to their beliefs. People can believe something but not engage in supporting the social structure that is associated.

[Denny]

Sorry, hattt. I tried to wait up for you. I'll read up on whatever you wrote later. 30+ minutes for your first post is too long for my ADD.

[Denny]

Waiting for Maddhattter in 3, 2...

[Denny]

Booming numbers? You do realise that was a local phenomenon at best? I dont recall seeing any evidence of Christianity being widespread in the known places such as India, China, or even in the unknown Americas in that timeframe ( Unless you believe the book of Mormon ). That all came later, and often at the end of a gun or sword in those places

Christianity offered people at the time something that wasnt offerable to them... Hope. That was a time when Kings, Queens, Emporers, etc were considered dieties that were to be worshiped, and the common man`s sole purpose in life was to worship them ( in addition to the Gods ) and to live solely for the the ruler`s pleasure & purpose.

Life for most then offered no meaning or purpose for them. Chrisitianty came along and spread the message that YOU mattered. Thus why many common people flocked to it. However, that was limited only to those areas in which Christianity spread along the early trade routes. The early church also did LOTs of good work until it was decided that the only message that mattered was the one that profited the one in Rome.

Christianity did have a rise to it during the timeframe you speak of, but it was limited, and not as widely accepted by the population of the Roman Empire as a whole for sometime.

What was a local phenomenon?

Christanity spread through the known world a lot quicker and broader than you're thinking. Once again, the more you talk, the more I'm thinking that you're either trolling or there's not enough spaghetti in the bowl to make a full meal. I still think your logic is skewed by thinking that the number of believers is relevant to the authenticity of the Bible's content.

[Denny]

It was predicted you know...

What? A great apostosy? There is a falling away? Even though the Bible speaks of it, the lower attendance numbers must validate that it's all a big lie. Attendance numbers don't lie, gospels do!

[appelingogt]

While I`m sure we both agree that there are indeed people that practice that due to being unable to physically attend a service ( i.e. military, truck drivers, etc ) and do exactly what you are saying. The vast majority are not. This is a trend that is gaining steam, not slowing down. The leaders of all denominations are very worried about this.

Hebrews 10:25 is quite clear on the subject as to Christians and the fellowship of the meeting.

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Again, Christianity is in a decline due to the modern world finding it irrelevant to its needs.

It was predicted you know...

[Mongoose]

I think you're misunderstanding. Where 2 or more are gathered together. If there's 2? You're golden. The person is the church, not the building. If you spend your time studying, you're fine. A relationship with God is like any other relationship. Going out and telling others about it is peachy, but the real part is communicating.

While I`m sure we both agree that there are indeed people that practice that due to being unable to physically attend a service ( i.e. military, truck drivers, etc ) and do exactly what you are saying. The vast majority are not. This is a trend that is gaining steam, not slowing down. The leaders of all denominations are very worried about this.

Hebrews 10:25 is quite clear on the subject as to Christians and the fellowship of the meeting.

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Again, Christianity is in a decline due to the modern world finding it irrelevant to its needs.

[Forever_frost]

No, I am not a former run off. This is my first time on here.

If Christianity is true, then people wouldnt be saying they believe in it, then running away from it as documented in the decline of attendance as compared to 25, 50, or even 100 years ago. Disagree with that all you want, but that decline is a provable fact. I`m sorry, you cant tell me that a religion is correct ( or real ) when roughly 2/3 of the people claiming it fail to show for any service when the Bible gives specific instruction to not forsake the assembly. Then half of the remaining 1/3 that does show never tithes as instructed.

No offense taken, this is the internet and sometimes that causes misunderstandings. You`re free to think that, and I`m free to think what I choose of you. We`re both adults and can agree to disagree.

I think you're misunderstanding. Where 2 or more are gathered together. If there's 2? You're golden. The person is the church, not the building. If you spend your time studying, you're fine. A relationship with God is like any other relationship. Going out and telling others about it is peachy, but the real part is communicating.

[Mongoose]

So, a decline in the number of believers makes the message untrue, then explain the booming number of believers after Christ's death and resurrection. It must have been true back then (by your logic).

Booming numbers? You do realise that was a local phenomenon at best? I dont recall seeing any evidence of Christianity being widespread in the known places such as India, China, or even in the unknown Americas in that timeframe ( Unless you believe the book of Mormon ). That all came later, and often at the end of a gun or sword in those places

Christianity offered people at the time something that wasnt offerable to them... Hope. That was a time when Kings, Queens, Emporers, etc were considered dieties that were to be worshiped, and the common man`s sole purpose in life was to worship them ( in addition to the Gods ) and to live solely for the the ruler`s pleasure & purpose.

Life for most then offered no meaning or purpose for them. Chrisitianty came along and spread the message that YOU mattered. Thus why many common people flocked to it. However, that was limited only to those areas in which Christianity spread along the early trade routes. The early church also did LOTs of good work until it was decided that the only message that mattered was the one that profited the one in Rome.

Christianity did have a rise to it during the timeframe you speak of, but it was limited, and not as widely accepted by the population of the Roman Empire as a whole for sometime.