Let's discuss something!

Village Atheist on the test, I see a little spark, . Do it again. Don't give up he is waiting. Here is a question, I went to a Atheist site to have a look see. I could not get past the Atheist Symbol so never read any more of it. Let me explain, The New Heavens will look just like the Atomic Symbol. Moreover we have two planet orbits, one are NE perihelion the other SW perihelion, also two stars binary, one is the center the other are the broken lines the symbol shows, but if the symbol was a moble model the two stars will circle each other. The axis of the planet in the north will be to the south and the south axis will be north. Note that all things in the solar system will see a new star being born from a old red one. Things on Earth will be dessolved. But I think they going to change the symbol.

Barrd #40:
The problem is i don't have any clean running home tap water. If you don't see that as problem/suffering (not my only one, just one minor example) then why don't you try going without tap water yourself.
There are 2 views on fluoridation, 1 the mainstream orthodox "experts" claim it is beneficial for teeth and that it has no harm to health/ability; and 2 many of us are sure that it is harmful to health/ability (and not so beneficial). The orthodox claim they are right/scientific/experts/etc and that the "antis" are misinformed/unscientific/obsessive/etc. I know from my own experience that it does negatively effect my health/ability. (Clean running home tap) water is an essential necessity of life. Aside from that water is essential (daily), we also need it for other things like rinsing/cooking/eating, washing, garden, etc.
Is it not easy to get much food that doesn't have sugar in these days (ingredients lists are in order of amounts). It is not easy to get unsprayed food (even "organics" i have found out can/do spray!)
Strange coincidence, i have the same allergy to tomatoes (seeds).
So you can start to see just one of my hell troubles: how to get clean water, how to get unsprayed (& no-added-sugar) food. People who have gluten allergy might understand alittle. I can't eat out any where unless know the ingredients (sugar, fluoirde) which effects my social life. (Do you know what it is like not to be able to stay and talk over cup of tea after church? How can i go on a "date" to a restaurant? Women blame me for "drive mad" cooking diet.)
And who is it doing it (fluoridation, spray, etc)? Policiticans yes but it is pushed in the name of "scientists/health-professionals/experts".


Vilage Atheist:
There is no point arguing with Village Atheist. 1 somethings he/she is smarter/knows more about than us; 2 somethings are impossible to prove; 3 the things we are smarter/right/win only make some difference not win/prove all.
There are some subjects/topics i can win/prove, but somethings Village Atheist so far discussed (not re my posts) i not sure without alot of time & effort.
We found Joseph and Moses in Egypt despite expert evolutionist scholars claiming no evidence of them there. But the thing is no matter that we do win some arguments/topics there are some things that just can't be proven.
The "qualified/expert doctor" is not right. I have tried and they are either evil, unwilling or unable.
Sorry my posts were not very good things to discuss because i can see they don't prove/disprove any much re atheism. Just was making point that science/evolution and atheists are not all gods/right/good.


My own point/belief is that the athesist/sceptic/pagan/etc World smugly think they are so smart and/or that they will become gods because they have all the brains, muscles, genetics/gm/ge, "science", technology, etc. Look they have mapped the human genome, and speak of being able to in future heal all diseases, etc. But they will never be as great as God. Look, God could send earthqaukes, meterors, storms, diseases, etc (though each of these they will find answers to to some extent (eg earthquake prediction)) and wipe everyone out. God is as large as the universe and as small as an ant/atom.
My point/belief is also that whoever is the most right should be able to help/heal world's/individual's problems, and not to be making world more a mess. And that there are fruits/evidences in every system/regime that they are not all so smart/good/right/gods by the victims/slaves/sideffects. But this doesn't prove anything to them because they don't believe in that or they believe in harsh nature.


Just fyi: bottled water is no answer/solution: why should i have to when others don't (&/or why don't they have to get their own fluoride instead), it costs money, i have no one to take the bottles away, the government made it law that they don't have to put on label whether is or isn't fluoridated, we don't know where the water has been, and its most often in pet(e) #1 which has endocrine disruptors, etc.
It is not(/-just) obsessing or placebo because i have proven multiple times that i am better/worse when aren't/are in taking fluoridated water (& food); i seen symptoms in others; many other people who have clean mental health records also testify; there are some studies, and some doctors/professionals agree; and no one has proven that it is just obsess and/or that isn't harmful.
The only answer to fluoridation is to stop putting it in our/my water, and to stop putting sugar in our food, and people to be orally cleanly, and remedy socio-economic inequalities. Not to use science as a easy answer.
Sugar is proven to increase tooth decay. So it is not just my "strong views". I have a friend who says she stopped eating any food with more than 10? percent sugar and brushes every day and she has had no holes for 10 years now.

I just came now to post this which i thought of since my last post. I see Village Atheist as replied (thanks) and i will reply soon after.


Reasons from me why i can't help believing God (of bible) is true and/or evidences from others that God is true (in answer to A-theists/Atheism).

history/archaeology:
I have found that history verifies/agrees with the bible, and i have seen the bible's history verified more and more (eg found Joseph and Moses in Egypt; chariots found in Red Sea; even the "walls fell flat" at Jericho; etc)

mythology:
mythology agrees with the bible about many things like seed of woman; 4 rivers of Eden, Flood, Tower of Babel, etc. CS Lewis said Tolkien said "all myth points to Christ". I have found that all myth also does seem to come from Sumerian (Babel) as bible implies (eg Sumerian Papsimnunbada = Indian Apam Napat = Roman Neptune; Sumerian Ziusudra = Indian Dyaus Pitar = Greek Zeus Pater.)
Epic of Gilgamesh has Joseph's famine in it.
People of course have two choices: either the pagan ones came from proto-biblical, or biblical stole from the/a pagan. From my studies the pagan from biblical has more evidence/sense than the biblical from pagan.

law(s)/teaching/truths/medical:
many teachings/truths of the bible i have found are true/reality eg power of mouth/words & consquences of words; cleanliness; golden rule; merry heart as medicine; vexation/rage kills early; law of attraction?; etc.

science/nature/universe:
numerical/mathematical evidence like pregancy/gestation periods all multiples of 7; 7 nitrogenous bases.
Bible has some advanced science and medical details/facts in it.
Bible says "heavens declare glory of the Lord" and people are "without excuse".

prophecy:
many bible prophecies that have been fulfilled since beginning to now.
It is also pointed-out that Jesus unpurposely fulfilled dozens/hundreds of bible messianic prohecies (eg seed of woman, born Bethlehem, slaughter of innocents, out of Egypt, 3 days & nights, etc).

religion:
over (say) half of humans of all world and history have believed in some god/religion, even Neanderthals are said to have evidence of religion in burial customs (evidence believe afterlife/afterworld).

signs:
God sent me signs (shooting stars) when i prayed half a dozen times over 6 months. No doubt they were as they coincided exactly.

miracles:
in bible; in christian history and in present day. An example is in movie 'Faith like Potatoes'.

changed lives.

creation/creativity/design:
History seems to show that high cultures were human-created not evolved, compare creationism.
There is a story about a man in communist USSR who one day was working with hand tools and suddenly thought someone must have created this hand/tools/etc.

evolution/geo time scale unproven/disproven:
There are missing links in evolution.
Evidence of humans/civilisation in all ages of geo time scale (see 'Forbidden Archaeology' by Cremo & Thompson, etc). Human bones found underneath dinosaur bones in South America. Neanderthals & Homo erectus post-cranial fully modern.

revelation/experience:
it was God only that seemingly revealed to / done for me somethings in the last 8 years (like about fluoridated water, mercury fillings, cleanliness, etc).

evil:
if not God, then there is at least no doubt that devil/evil/sin exists in the world, and in myself at least.
J Campbell said from Toynbee "[not archaism nor futurism but rebirth]" (or "[not patches but rebirth]").

codes / coincidences (in bible):
bible codes (skip codes, antetypes/analogies/macro-codes).
"66 books by 40/44 authors over 16 centuries", with exactly agreeing/harmonising themes/symbolism/etc (though some seeming contradictions).

coincidences (in life).

martyrs:
that some/many people died such awful deaths as martyrs has some evidence value.

prominence:
The two most famous &/or infamous/imfamous persons of western world history are Jesus and Hitler.
Some great people of history have been christians (I Newton, Jesus, C Dickens, CS Lewis, Bach, etc) and/or Jews (Jesus, Einstein, etc).
John Newton and Wilberforce.
To me i have seen evidence/s of Jews being chosen people even in sin (hollywood, Einstein, Freud, Trotsky, etc).
Why are the Jews/Jerusalem/Israel such an issue in modern times?
Compare any person of world with Jesus and who is greatest/goodest? (eg Jesus or Mohammed? Hitler or Jesus? Jesus or Darwin? Jesus or me?)


prayer:
there is no doubt that prayer/s has/have power. For myself, i/things always seem better when people un/known-to-me praying, and worse when stop/not.
Peoples answered prayers.

Witnesses:
there were many witnesses to Jesus life/miracles/death/resurrrection.

biblical evidences:
only daniel/joseph could tell the dreams & meanings.
The bible has multiple layers of meanings, and meanings for every type of person reading it.

Origins:
Where did pluralis majesticus "we/us/our" come from? It seems that the Trinity explains its origin.
Where did 7 days week come from?

peoples testimonies.

Sci Fi:
Sci Fi seems to me to be evidence/glimpse of the future new heavens and new earth when the saints will be enjoying and exploring God's creation for eternity.

Misc:
who do people cry/call out to (or curse) when serious danger?

Faith:
Somethings just can not be absolutely proven, there is an element of faith (not blind, not without evidences/reasons).

Some of my sources/refs (these are only for the general reasons not for high standard historical/etc evidences/proofs) :
God; Bible (incl Job; Romans 1; Timothy); me (studies/experience/observation/thinking); Chuck Missler ('66 40'); Walter Roughly bible study conversation; focus on the family; Grant Jeffrey ('Signature of God'); Cremo & Thompson ('Forbidden Archaeology'); CSF/ICR ('Answers in Genesis'); Kolosimo 'Timeless Earth'; Juius Evola; Don Richardson ('Eternity in their Hearts'); W Keller ('Bible as History'); Nebuchadnezzar (Borsippa inscription); Sinaiatic inscriptions; 'Faith like Potatoes'.

Note although i believe, i do not recently/presently have anymuch faith/love. I hate God because all the Hell i have been and am still suffering. I don't know why i even bothered doing this, i am/feel so angry/Hateful of God, i guess i only did it for my own self pride/lust/works/mammon. So not believing is not the only/major problem. "Even the demons believe and tremble".
Regardless, the world will soon be believing in the lie of gods (science/genetics/Aryans &/or Aliens).

<<Have you tried distilling your drinking water to remove the flouride? Most filters won't remove it but distilling will work. It shouldn't be too difficult to set up for home use. A quick Google search showed multiple "how-to" websites and places where you can buy pre-made equipment if you don't want to improvise or make your own.
Distilling your water may well be easier and cheaper than travelling a long distance to get bottled water.>>

I have considered all possible such options (distilling, filter, bottled water, rain water, submission, medication, suicide, etc etc) but each/all have problems (eg removes good nutrients too, costs money (esp if electricity too), etc). The only best solution is for them to stop putting it in the water, the 2nd best is for them to put in a artesian bore here like they have in the next city (we have same water underground here as there). At present a pastor is helping bring water from the next town, but i have to trust him, and i still have to ration, and he will be retiring soon and no one else i begged will help. I find it annoying that everyone comes up with every possible individualistic solution and don't come up with every posisble non-me solution; and that i have to remove the stuff they putting in. It is easier for people to add their own sugar or fluoride than for us to avoid the fluoride (and alluminium). And i am still effected by it effecting others too. I also forgot to say to Bardd that Revelation/Apocalypse also says about blood-water / wormwood-water as a problem/suffering too. On my blog which i mention below is a very rough post on fluoridation which gives alot of the problems with the various "solutions" always given.

<<No-one has been arguing with anyone.>>

"Arguing" was just a rough/imprecise word, perhaps discussing/debating is abit more accurate. I know you weren't arguing with me.

<<I've not heard about that - I've an interest in Biblical archaeology, but as far as I knew the oldest person for whom there is any archaeological record is David. Could you let me know who has made this find and what they found? (I won't argue about it, I promise!)
Are you talking about David Rohl's work?>>

That would be cool to talk about the Joseph and Moses in Egypt discoveries. If it is off topic then can start another thread if you wish. Though i may not be able to follow/reply in future days since i have long been needing/wanting to do other things.
Rohl is right about somethings but he is/was not right about some things.
Rohl was close enough with Moses. He puts Moses in the (12th-)13th dynasty. Moses was in the 2nd half of the 12th dynasty. There are alot of evidences for this placement. The most recent extra possible crowning addition is that we (I) some months ago may have found his glyphs in the pectoral of Sit-Hathor-Yunet (see picture on my blog (link in my cb profile i think)).
Rohl was wrong about Joseph who he places in (11th-)12th dynasty. Ron Wyatt was almost/more-or-less spot-on with his "Joseph ~ Imhotep" in 3rd dynasty. We independently found alot of evidences for Joseph in the 3rd-4th dynasty, and we may have found Joseph himself.
(Joseph/Zaphenath-Paneah ~ Sekhemhet/[Djoserty-Ankh?];
Potiphera may be "Ra-hotep"/[Hotep-ra]?;
Goshen ~ Giza/Gizeh/Er-ges-her "beside the high" (roughly modern Cairo) or else Sokhem (Latopolis where Josephus said exode started from;
Pharaoh ~ Surid;
famine ~ Djosers 7 yr famine & Unas famine scenes & Surid's fire?;
etc.)
I will say before you possibly do that critics will say that some of these are disputed / not-accepted by mainstream and need more high standard proof; and our thesis/discovery/theory is not yet accepted/verified by mainstream orthodox academic Egyptologists. But we are able to defend alot / give alot of evidences, and they are not able to defeat all the basic thesis/evidences (excepting their dirty untrue/unfair discrediting/etc tactics that they always use, though).
(I am an amateur historian and investigator of mysteries and have made quite a few discoveries and/or possible discoveries, and i am well-up with all the orthodox tricks and tactics and "standards". Some of my theories/theses/discoveries or details may be wrong, but some are definitely not wrong regardless of the orthodox claims. So i am able to give a certain amount of strong eviences, though can't totally prove it to the orthodox acadamics.)

I forgot 2 of my only main reasons in #45:

Fear of Hell.

Force: Some people can choose what they believe, some of us can't we have no choice, if God not true there is no hope in self/flesh/fame/mammon /world/science.

Its sad that my main reasons are negatives.

Village Atheist : Say's Sorry, you've lost me again with your astronomical (astrological?) descriptions. What relevance does a binary star with two eccentrically orbiting planets have to anything?

You will be desolved like all other biological things. You must be born again. Born of the Spirit for flesh and blood shall pass away but his Word will last forever.

I just noticed this thread, and it saddens me a bit.

Village Atheist, you seem like a very nice, polite person. But what bothers me is how as soon as you put out the call for discussion, most of the questions you were asked or issues that were raised had to do with science. That tells me that a lot of the Christians here associate science with atheism.

Is Christianity in the midst of ceding the sciences to atheism? In my admittedly short time studying both science and Christianity, I've seen countless times when Christians grouse about, decry, and defame science and the scientists who conduct it. I've seen science denialism become strongly associated with right-wing identity politics, which just also happen to be strongly associated with Christianity. I've even seen Christian groups persuade parents not to send their kids to college (unless it's a Bible college) out of fear over the kids being taught science. And of course we're all familiar with the anti-science attitudes and agendas of groups like Answers in Genesis and The Discovery Institute.

Just as it bothers me when atheists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers try and link science and atheism, it bothers me when I see Christians buy into this framework and even promote it. Play this out long enough and eventually Christianity and science will be completely divorced from each other, which given the importance of science in our society, can only end badly for Christianity.

This doesn't have to be.

Village Atheist said:

I totally agree. Some of my friends are Christians, and they're all scientists. There's no reason why faith and science can't coexist.

Click to expand...

Totally agree!

I wouldn't say that Christianity in general is in the midst of that. But I would suggest that some branches of evangelical protestantism did that decades ago. I still haven't decided whether or not the people who run the creationist organisations you mention believe their own lies. Are they deep in denial, or just plain hucksters? I think the answer is probably "some of each".

Click to expand...

That's a question that's been debated among science defenders for a long time. I guess the only people who truly know are the creationists themselves.

I'm familiar with both Myers and Dawkins. Myers is in a position where he's fighting against anti-intellectualism, so I cut him some slack when he goes too far, but Dawkins - for all that he's a great biologist - just embarrasses himself when he speaks outside of his specialist subject.

Click to expand...

Yup.

True, although I'm not all doom and gloom. For the most part I don't think it is that way. It's just that (as with any subject) the most obnoxious voices are the loudest so they're the ones that get heard. There's a huge and relatively quiet middle ground who have no problem with either religion or science.

Click to expand...

But it's those in the "middle" who are leaving Christianity, while right-wing Christianity remains steady. I don't like that trend.

Village Atheist said:

So - this part of the board is called "Inter-Faith Discussion", but it seems rather empty at the moment.

I don't share your faith, so let's discuss something!

What do you want to talk about?

Click to expand...

Of all known and established facts, what happened first?

Village Atheist said:

So - this part of the board is called "Inter-Faith Discussion", but it seems rather empty at the moment.

I don't share your faith, so let's discuss something!

What do you want to talk about?

Click to expand...

Have you ever wanted there to be a god? Or entertained the notion?

Questor said:

I presume that light/energy was or became...presuming of course that people are discounting any creator/designer being involved, which is what the OP is discussing...I think.

Click to expand...

Darn...I was hoping for an atheist! Good answer though..

Sorry...I can only speculate athiestically, being a Beleiver in YHVH, but being a SciFi kind of person, don't mind going there. In reality, Genesis follows the correct order of a creation, even a self-creation...which it would need to be, making our universe an organism.

Village Atheist said:

1) Standard "Big Bang" singularity model. Our four dimensional spacetime is curved, and that curvature gets more pronounced as we move back in time. At some point, the curvature gets infinite and we can go back no further. This point of infinite curvature is the singularity. It's kind of the "beginning" of the universe, but the reason I used quotes around that is because a beginning implies a kind of linear time where there is time before the thing begins and time after it has begun. But with curved spacetime that's not the case, because time is a dimension within the curved universe that measures the position of events within it, not something that can be applied to the universe itself. The best analogy is to think of the Earth. Wherever you're standing on the Earth you can travel north or south. Think of travelling north as going forward in time and travelling south as going backward in time. We can keep going south until we reach the South Pole but can then go no further. Whichever direction we go from there is north. By definition there is nothing south of the South Pole - but this isn't a paradox, it's just because of the curved nature of the Earth's surface. Asking what is south of the South Pole is meaningless. According to this theory, the universe is similar. You can keep going back in time until you get to the singularity, and wherever in the universe you started from you'll end up there. But from there, all directions in spacetime lead to it's future just like all directions from the South Pole lead north. So asking what happened before the beginning of the universe is like asking what is south of the South Pole. The question is meaningless. This is the most prominent scientific model for the beginning of the universe, and it fits the maths, but there are some observations that have been made that - while they don't actually contradict this model- the model doesn't explain.

Click to expand...

According to THEORY it is curved but no one knows for certain. It is quite possible that there could be more aspects than just curvature to it. After all, in maths any curved object can also have tangents and other perfectly straight lines going right through it.
In my opinion, to believe in only one aspect of something without considering other aspects is a foolish thing to do.
Your earth analogy is not good because it confines people to a small planet and is not considering the fact that we can go further south if we left the earth in a rocket and kept flying out into space in the direction of south from Earth. Imagine straight lines from the center of the Earth radiating out in any direction. Those straight lines are not confined by Earths boundaries but can go on forever into space and might never get back to where they started at Earths center due to very real possibility of space being infinite. The concept of space time being curved tends to confine space and time to a curved boundary and gives the impression of something round not something infinite without boundaries.

Village Atheist said:

2) M-Brane model. This more recent theory postulates that our four dimensional spacetime is a bubble that has budded off a larger multidimensional spacetime. If this is true, it means that our universe isn't the only one that exists - there are others too. Our universe therefore had a definite beginning. Whether the multidimensional spacetime that contains our universe also had a "beginning" (or whether such a thing is even a meaningful thing to ask given its nature) is a complete unknown. So far, the mathematics of M-Brane theory seems to work out, but we've not yet found any evidence to either prove it right or prove it wrong.

Click to expand...

Once again, the theory implies something round like a bubble. A bubble has a boundary. I find it amazing that so many scientific theories suggest boundaries to space and time where none have been proven to exist. The only boundaries to space and time seem to be those which mankind inflict on their own concepts.
The "universe" by definition is "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos." That definition implies that the universe is a combination of ALL that exists. If that definition is correct there can be no other universe. If there was, the definition of the word universe would need changing.
ALL that exists today came from all that existed yesterday and all that will exist tomorrow will come from all that exists today. Ultimately the balance must the same since matter simply changes form, nothing can be added and nothing can be taken out of the universe. All that exists simply is what it is regardless of what form it takes or changes into. Any changes that mankind notice are merely part of the processes of life.

Village Atheist said:

3) This one is an alternative to the standard model that relies on Loop Quantum Gravity - something I don't even pretend to understand. From what I've read about it, it's quite different to the standard model although the results are very similar (which they would have to be, of course - all models have to have results that are similar enough to match what we observe!) The key difference is that in this model there is no singularity at the start of the universe. Instead, the universe is cyclical with an infinite number of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches".

Click to expand...

Don't you find it amusing that humans observe cycles and circles on a spherical Earth and end up concluding that space and time is also round or cyclic? I sometimes imagine humans as rats in an exercise wheel. They run around chasing their own tales and getting nowhere fast. Yet they all like to present each other with awards for being smarter than the average bear.
Growth and shrinkage, expansion and contraction, life and death, is all part of life and part of nature. Life begets life and that process must logically be infinite due to the concept of infinite regress and the fact that you cannot get something from nothing. Therefore in my opinion, it is logical to believe that life has always existed as part of the universe which must have also always existed regardless of the changing forms of matter within it.

Village Atheist said:

So to relate these to your question, each of these has a different answer:

1) Time is a property within the universe, not of the universe. Therefore it's meaningless to describe the universe as having "begun" at some point in time.

2) The universe is part of something bigger. Our universe itself is one of many and it had a beginning, but we don't know enough about the "something bigger" to make definite pronouncements about that.

3) The universe is eternal and has no beginning. However, given its cyclic nature, we can treat the beginning of our current cycle as the "beginning" of the universe.

As for which of those three models is closest to the truth, I've no idea. I kind of lean towards preferring the M-Brane model, but that's only for aesthetic reasons. I don't claim to be a good enough cosmologist to argue the relative merits of the three.

Click to expand...

1.I agree that it is meaningless to describe the universe as having begun at any point in time.
2. I think it is also meaningless to say the universe is part of something bigger or claim that it is one of many. The reason it is meaningless to me is because of the definition of the word universe meaning "ALL EXISTING MATTER" It is impossible to have more than one group of "all existing matter". If you did, the first group of "matter" would obviously not have "All existing matter" in it due to some "matter" being in the second group.
3. I agree the universe is eternal and without a beginning. Mankind can create a beginning point in time any place and any time in his imagination and lifetime and it is obviously the nature of mankind to imagine much but just because we assign a starting point to "ALL MATTER" ( the universe) does not mean that imaginary point actually existed in reality. All matter simply changes form in its cyclic nature as it recycles itself through the natural processes of life, reproduction and death.