WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Okay so tell me who Isaiah was talking about:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127217-Don-t-be-Jewish-be-Christian&p=5123775#post5123775
True science and true religion agree together.
- Thread starter iouae
- Start date
Okay so tell me who Isaiah was talking about:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127217-Don-t-be-Jewish-be-Christian&p=5123775#post5123775
Well, I'm not trying to suggest that he is an atheist but that he has tacitly accepted the premise of their worldview by attempting to mix their cosmology with Christianity.
For the last time, I will not debate evolution with you - period.
God does not exist outside of time. The idea itself is a contradiction. There's no way you read that post and if you did read it, you didn't understand it
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Don't care if you don't believe me, I'm not here to impress you but I did find it well written, easy to understand and most amusing. I agree with everything it said except the guy failed to see/mention that GF's/speed affect's human ageing too, believing clocks alone are affected is irrational.
way 2 go
Well-known member
iouae
Well-known member
Will you maybe tell me what's the coolest thing you have seen through your telescope?
The aging process is just another clock.
I don't understand people like you. How do you just gloss over the actual arguments, ignoring them in favor of some detail that doesn't even address the argument?
How for example is it that you would quote my post and its only the third sentence that you write any response too? How do either of the first two sentences pass by without triggering a response from someone on a theology forum? The claim the God does not exist outside of time seems like it should be rather Earth shaking to anyone who had just used it as an argument in favor of the atheistic theory of relativity and aren't you even a little curious about how existence outside of time is a contradiction?
I mean, are you even interested in discussing the Christian worldview or is it your purpose to defend the naturalistic cosmology of the unbelieving world?
Resting in Him,
Clete
For just straight looking with your eyes through the scope, the solar system objects are by far the coolest. The Moon, Saturn and Jupiter are very impressive. If you have a camera, the deep space objects are even better though because with camera you get the color and you can see some really amazing things. Deep space objects are still cool to look at directly through the scope but they just look grey with your eye. My old set up only really allowed me to get half way descent photos of the Moon but I'm hoping to be able to get better images of objects like the Andromeda galaxy and several other deep space objects with this new mount I purchased a few weeks ago. My camera is still not really up to snuff but you've gotta paint with the brushes you've got.
Why do you ask?
Do you understand why I don't want to debate evolution - how such a debate would be to ignore the real point of your own thread?
Clete
Humans are creatures of the present. Humans have no ability to know the past, they have no ability to know the future. That's why you can't tell what you yourself did today but a year ago.
Science is about a set of rules behind a repeating behavior. Science can be accurate because we have infinitive number of times for us to speculate and observe and predict how this behavior repeats itself in front of us and into the future. We don't fart our satellites randomly in the hope that randomness will bring it to the surface of the moon. Instead it is the law of physics which allows us to predict that we can land on the surface of the moon before we actually launch our rockets. And whenever the mission failed, we won't say that it's mistake of the theory. It's always the fault of human errors, miscalculations, equipment errors, unpredictable factors. The law of physics on the other hand will never be at fault in terms of making such a prediction (a projection into the future). In this case, the law of physics predicts without mistakes. That's what the nature of science is and why it is accurate.
Science however is not an accurate tool to examine a single event in the past or in the future. We don't have any suitable tool for us to do so. It's the lack of suitable means for us to examine into both the past and future, which drives us to employ science to do the job. It's not because science is the suitable it's rather because we don't have any suitable tool at all.
That being said, evolution is assumed to be a repeatable behavior thus we have a valid scientific premise or hypothesis. However evolution (if exists) is a process which takes millions of years to repeat itself. We don't have the time to speculate to observe and to predict infinitive number of times for us to come to a scientific conclusion. We (human scientists) thus gave up the scientific approach to get to a scientific conclusion. What we do is the same as how we employ science to try to examine the past. In this case, science is never a suitable tool, we don't have one at all which drives us to have to employ science to do the unsuitable job.
The Big Bang Theory is in a similar situation. Big Bang can be assumed to be a repeatable behavior, that is, the same Big Bang may occur repeatedly in a multiverse model. However, we don't have the time to speculate, observe, predict infinitive number of times to get to a scientific conclusion. Thus we have to employ science as the unsuitable tool to try to examine into to past.
An analogy is, we identify a qualified pilot by looking into predictably how he can launch and land a plane. We predict that he drives an airplane from the airport of Paris to the airport of New York, and when this prediction comes to pass repeatedly that we can be assured that he's a qualified pilot. This is a result of a repeatable end-to-end speculation, observation and prediction.
The other approach is that we see a human sitting in the cockpit of the plane, we observe his behavior inside the cockpit to come to the conclusion that he's a qualified pilot. This is the approach of evolution (or worse, we examine his fingerprints left inside the cockpit to conclude that he's a qualified pilot).
Science is about a set of rules behind a repeating behavior. Science can be accurate because we have infinitive number of times for us to speculate and observe and predict how this behavior repeats itself in front of us and into the future. We don't fart our satellites randomly in the hope that randomness will bring it to the surface of the moon. Instead it is the law of physics which allows us to predict that we can land on the surface of the moon before we actually launch our rockets. And whenever the mission failed, we won't say that it's mistake of the theory. It's always the fault of human errors, miscalculations, equipment errors, unpredictable factors. The law of physics on the other hand will never be at fault in terms of making such a prediction (a projection into the future). In this case, the law of physics predicts without mistakes. That's what the nature of science is and why it is accurate.
Science however is not an accurate tool to examine a single event in the past or in the future. We don't have any suitable tool for us to do so. It's the lack of suitable means for us to examine into both the past and future, which drives us to employ science to do the job. It's not because science is the suitable it's rather because we don't have any suitable tool at all.
That being said, evolution is assumed to be a repeatable behavior thus we have a valid scientific premise or hypothesis. However evolution (if exists) is a process which takes millions of years to repeat itself. We don't have the time to speculate to observe and to predict infinitive number of times for us to come to a scientific conclusion. We (human scientists) thus gave up the scientific approach to get to a scientific conclusion. What we do is the same as how we employ science to try to examine the past. In this case, science is never a suitable tool, we don't have one at all which drives us to have to employ science to do the unsuitable job.
The Big Bang Theory is in a similar situation. Big Bang can be assumed to be a repeatable behavior, that is, the same Big Bang may occur repeatedly in a multiverse model. However, we don't have the time to speculate, observe, predict infinitive number of times to get to a scientific conclusion. Thus we have to employ science as the unsuitable tool to try to examine into to past.
An analogy is, we identify a qualified pilot by looking into predictably how he can launch and land a plane. We predict that he drives an airplane from the airport of Paris to the airport of New York, and when this prediction comes to pass repeatedly that we can be assured that he's a qualified pilot. This is a result of a repeatable end-to-end speculation, observation and prediction.
The other approach is that we see a human sitting in the cockpit of the plane, we observe his behavior inside the cockpit to come to the conclusion that he's a qualified pilot. This is the approach of evolution (or worse, we examine his fingerprints left inside the cockpit to conclude that he's a qualified pilot).
Last edited:
iouae
Well-known member
I think it wonderful that you have these instruments to study the night sky.
Please post some photographs when you get it all set up.
Astronomy is fascinating.
iouae
Well-known member
I can see that you respect science, while acknowledging it has limits.
To pick on just one sentence you wrote.
A telescope IS a time machine. When we look at the moon, we see it as it was 1.3 seconds ago.
The sun we see as it was 8 minutes ago.
I love looking at Pleiades, but I am seeing Pleiades as they were 444 years ago.
Orion I see as it was 1360 years ago.
And with Hubble deep space telescope, I can see what the universe looked like 13 billion years ago.
And they are building a better telescope which will take us back to the moment when the very first stars started forming from hydrogen.
No. True science doesn't work this way.
The approach you mentioned here is under the assumption that humans understand what time is as a physics quantity while as a matter of scientific fact, no human does! Just as Einstein once put, time is not a stable physics unit, instead speed/velocity is!
We can't know what this means in terms of human conception. So before we do our speculation (which is inside the cockpit in my analogy) we have to assume that time is a stable physics unit which progresses evenly forward, under the consent that this assumption is not a scientific truth!
iouae
Well-known member
As I understand Einstein, he said that the speed of light (c) is constant for every observer.
Time speeds up, or slows down to accommodate the fact that the speed of light is constant.
If c is constant, which all reputable science has proved it is, then my post above on a telescope being an accurate time machine, is true. I have never heard an astronomer or cosmologist say otherwise.
I say that religious folks don't need to fight scientific fact that the universe is ancient.
Religious folks must instead look to themselves, and acknowledge that they are wrong in their interpretation of scripture. Scripture nowhere says how old the universe is. Bishop Usher and those counting the "begats" mistakenly thing that Genesis 1 is describing the original formation of earth. Its not. Its describing the replenishing of earth after a mass extinction.
To give but one "proof". Earth is full of igneous rock, or rock formed under fire.
Nowhere in Genesis or the last 6000 years has earth been subjected to large-scale fire, except in a few volcanoes, which produce igneous rock or lava.
Science explains that earth was originally a molten ball which slowly cooled down over 4.5 billion years. That's where so much igneous rock comes from.
Thank God we live in an age when "knowledge shall be increased" when we can know so much, including about the origin of the universe. With a big enough telescope, we will almost be able to see how, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
I did respond. If missed something please tell me what I missed. Also I wonder if you understood me correctly, because I said 'God does exist outside of time.'
God created everything, including time which is a physical property of the universe.
God did not create time. He does NOT exist outside of time. God only exists "in" time in the sense that everything else that exists does. Time is the duration and sequence of events - it is not a place - it is a concept. The concept of existence presupposes duration. Therefore, to say that anything exists outside of time is to contradict yourself.
Formally, it is known as a stolen concept fallacy. It happens when you affirm one concept while denying another concept upon which the affirmed concept is rationally predicated. The clearest example is when someone makes the claim that, "All private property is theft." The claim is contrary to private property but affirms the concept of theft which is predicated on the concept of private property. It, thereby, "steals" the concept of theft because you can't use the concept of theft while denying the validity of private property because concept of theft derives it's meaning from the concept of private property.
The claim that, "God exists outside of time." makes the same error. It steals the concept of existence because it denies that the concept of time applies to God while affirming that the concept of existence which presupposes time, does apply to God.
A thing that does not experience time has no duration - (definition of 'time').
A thing that has no duration does not exist - (definition of 'exist').
God does exist - (Presupposition of theistic worldview).
Therefore, God experiences duration.
Therefore, God experiences time.
Now, you asked what you hadn't responded too. All of the above.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
For example, it is a gross overstatement to say that science explains that the Earth was originally a molten ball which slowly cooled down over 4.5 billion years. This is a theory. A theory born out of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview, NOT from scientific data! You are confusing what you see on The Science Channel for actual science. There are so many holes in this particular theory, by the way, that it's laughable that anyone with any education even accepts it at all. But you present it as scientific fact when most scientists will even acknowledge that it is a mere theory even if they don't acknowledge the gaping holes in it.
If this is the sort of thing that you consider "true science" you're fooling yourself far worse that I had originally expected. You're not even attempting to maintain a Christian worldview at all. You effectively want to be an atheist who believes in God. Could there be anything more self-contradictory than that?
Clete
I only have two decent photos so far. They are both of the Moon and they were taken with my old set up. I posted one of them below (the other is too big of a file and it won't let me post it here). Assuming I can pull it off with the camera I've got, I'll post some more whenever I get some good ones.
View attachment 26019
iouae
Well-known member
Absolutely beautiful photograph, totally clear. Every month I look out for the full moon, and never get tired of seeing it rise soon after sunset.