[mikhael]

Hotsnoj: keep to the subject at hand. Your faith is not in question here, nor is anyone else's.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by mikhael
Hotsnoj: keep to the subject at hand. Your faith is not in question here, nor is anyone else's.

This deserves a .

If my faith isn't in question then what is the point of this discusion?

[Sandwich]

Wow, I actually love the painting analogy. Look at it this way. The way we see our universe, in all its chaos and order, is the was that one speck of paint on the canvas sees the rest of the painting. But once you step outside of the painting, once you are an outside observer, then you can see the beauty in the painting.

Originally posted by mikhael


It's a good analogy, Steak, but how could anything in the painting communicate (ie: send data) to anything outside the painting? The act of observing a painting only takes place from without: the observer looks at light bouncing off the painting from a source outside the painting to an eye outside the painting. The observer only sees the surface, not what actually goes on within.

Weak, Mikh. God has X-Ray eyes.

And HotSnoJ, we're debating the various merits (and demerits? ) of the 6 days equals 16 billion years theory. The existence of God is being represented by there being an absolute frame of reference or not.

[HotSnoJ]

Ok now it make a little more sense.

Ive read a book about this. The guy was pushing 1 billion instead. He pointed out that even six milli-seconds is still to long for God.

I now don't see this point. If God created it then He created it! So what's the difference if it's six days or six billion?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I now don't see this point. If God created it then He created it! So what's the difference if it's six days or six billion?

Because according to the Bible, there were the 6 days of creation, and then ~5600 years since those days until now. But according to science, the universe has existed for 16 billion years or so. So there's an apparent contradiction.

What the articles and books I was pointing out do is bring forth a theory on how the 6 days can be correlated with the 16 billion years, scientifically. The debate between Mikhael and I is concerning the scientific soundness of said theory.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Wow, I actually love the painting analogy. Look at it this way. The way we see our universe, in all its chaos and order, is the was that one speck of paint on the canvas sees the rest of the painting. But once you step outside of the painting, once you are an outside observer, then you can see the beauty in the painting.

Inspired by C. S. Lewis. (Explaining the difference between the Christian view and the pantheist view on what connection God has to creation - whether He's 'part' of it or quite separate.)

[Ace]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Ah, but you see they are more intertwined then you could possibly imagion! Religion/Worldview rules your ideals/values which rule what you do in politics.

Yes, ideals do drive the views of one person. But unlike most I try not to allow one faith or ideal to narrow my view of the world.

...and I can imagine quite a lot

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Ace


Yes, ideals do drive the views of one person. But unlike most I try not to allow one faith or ideal to narrow my view of the world.

...and I can imagine quite a lot

Originally said by Thomas Jefferson

if they said they believed anything, I think that they might be shown to be more full of difficulties and liable to infinitely greater objections than the system they oppose and they were credulous and unreasonable for believing it.

From what you just posted I can assume what you believe. You are a liberal and you are for liberal policies such as big government, abortion, high taxes on the rich, and so on. All of those are narrow views and they stem from your belief in either no God or God just doesn't care. All these things come from the narrow view about God.

[01010]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ


From what you just posted I can assume what you believe. You are a liberal and you are for liberal policies such as big government, abortion, high taxes on the rich, and so on. All of those are narrow views and they stem from your belief in either no God or God just doesn't care. All these things come from the narrow view about God.

Why is higher taxes on the rich a bad thing?

[mikhael]

Gentlemen, keep to the subject please and don't attack one another.

In case you have forgotten, the subject at hand is the scientific validity of the Six Days of Creation being the same as 13-21 billion years of time from big bang to the current epoch.

Sandwich, you mind if I post or ICQ conversation on this?

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by mikhael
In case you have forgotten, the subject at hand is the scientific validity of the Six Days of Creation being the same as 13-21 billion years of time from big bang to the current epoch.

I'm not sure if it's said in the article but in the orginal Hebrew that Gensis is written in, "day" would have been better translated beggining and end (the words were mainly used for sunrise and sunset). I can't remember what exaclty lead to this "discovery", and why some think that it means period of time instead of day (24 hours).

Again if God created it then he created! Isn't that the point? I personally don't care as along as we agree that he did. If the earth is 16 billion (one guy has said as little as 1 billion), or 10,000 what does it matter since we agree that God did creat it? I mean we most likey won't find out how old the earth really is until we die (or the Rapture happens) and go to Heavan. And then we might not ever be told!

[Sandwich]

Go right ahead, Mik.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Again if God created it then he created! Isn't that the point? I personally don't care as along as we agree that he did. If the earth is 16 billion (one guy has said as little as 1 billion), or 10,000 what does it matter since we agree that God did creat it? I mean we most likey won't find out how old the earth really is until we die (or the Rapture happens) and go to Heavan. And then we might not ever be told!

I said it before and I'll say it again, Hotsnoj: this isn't about your faith. I don't really care what you believe, nor do I care if it differs from what I believe or from what Sandwich believes. Your faith is not relevant to the discussion. If you really must keep bring things back to your faith, please, I ask you: stop reading the thread. Please. Its just irrelevant.

Now, I should point out that we are not talking about the age of the Earth. We're talking about the age of the Universe. The Earth is NOT 16 billion years old. It is about 4.5billion years old. The Universe is anywhere from 13 to 21 billion years (depending on which methodology you're using to guess at the age).

Sandwich, I'll try to post our conversation in a little while.

[01010]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ


Again if God created it then he created! Isn't that the point? I personally don't care as along as we agree that he did.

Sorry to stray from the subject once again but it is this attitude that frustrates me. There are a few openly christian people on this board and for the most part they respect the opinions of other people. What you are basically saying here is that other peoples opinions are not valid unless they are the same as your own and trying to word it to appear open minded. I think Mik is right when he says that there isn't much point in you discussing this subject because your faith appears to be blind and the whole point of the discussion is to relate the tale of Genesis to scientific methods.

I'll be the first to admit that I feel pretty much out of my depth with regards to the scientific principles being discussed (though I feel that it's more a case of the language used and my lack of time to really read what is being said), you seem to be arguing the science of the matter with your faith. That to me seems lopsided because science is logical where (to me at least) faith is more irrational.

[HotSnoJ]

OT-ness

You are confused about what I meant. It seems (or seemed) that mik is a christian and the argument here is about the age of the universe. Other then coming to a conclusion on how old it is, I see no point in this conversation if we are both christians (which I don't know).

If my faith is irrational then why do I and other people who know way more then I do about science believe it? If my faith was irrational I would have dropped it long ago.

I am reading an apologetics book entitled "Handbook of Christian Apologetics" by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. In it it says about reason (rational too I'd guess) and faith that you must have faith in reason. Think about it, you must have faith that reason is logical in the first place.

Everyone has faith, it can be faith in anything. But that doesn't mean that the object of faith is reliable. For instance I faith that the chair I'm sitting in won't collapse under me when I sit down. But that doesn't mean that it won't. Like wise I have faith and it is reasonable that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it doesn't mean it won't.

 I think Mik is right when he says that there isn't much point in you discussing this subject because your faith appears to be blind and the whole point of the discussion is to relate the tale of Genesis to scientific methods.

How have I been since I was told what exacly the discussion is about? (though note that I haven't really talked about it since then) Because I thought that mik was arguing against God even existing, he may be but I don't really know for sure.

From what I've read the topic is about how old the universe is and if God is in it or outside of it. Am I warm?

[Kamikaze]

Sorry, I'm going to stray somewhat off the main topic here.

Because of the un-observability of anything "out" of the universe it's largely pointless to argue a viewpoint that depends on something "out".

I might as well argue that dragons exist "out" of the universe just because some picture book told me. e.g. "Dragons exist because some picture book told me. Oh, did I mention the magical dragons influenced the book author? I should also add that the book prophesizes vague, but clearly true, futures of the world including wars ending with big firey weapons (nukes, no doubt). Coincidence? I think not!!"

I'd like it if the christians/jewish explain to me why your beliefs are any more credible than a theoretical belief like the one above.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
From what I've read the topic is about how old the universe is and if God is in it or outside of it. Am I warm?

No.

WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS:
--whether or not the theory presented by Sandwich is scientifically plausible.

WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS NOT:
--does god exist?
--Hotsnoj's religious views.
--Anyone else's religious views.

I really hope that clears it up. Please, take discussions about the existence of God, the validity of religion,  and the other related bickering to another thread.

[Kamikaze]

However, are we to just assume god started the whole chain and argue the possibility of the physics in the act? I think it's inevitable to argue god if any religion-related theory is presented.
For example, what's the point in arguing to Sandwich that within the physical world its not possible to have "relative" 6 days that are billions of years using science, without mentioning god (after all, the theory is supposed to support theistic views).

[mikhael]

I mention God freely in whilst arguing my side, Kami. I see no need to argue whether or not God exists. I simply don't care whether or not God exists, nor do I care what God's nature is. Those are seperate arguements--ones from which I try to abstain.

Let us accept that the universe began at some point in the past. God may come into play or may not depending on the specific point at hand. This is a thought experiment, not an examination of faith.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
I'd like it if the christians/jewish explain to me why your beliefs are any more credible than a theoretical belief like the one above.

Ok, trying to keep it simple here... There are a number of prophecies in the Bible that have come true in ways that would have seemed impossible before their actual fulfilment. Some of which are the return of the Jews to the land of Israel, the subsequent "blossoming" of said land, and now more currently, Jerusalem being a stumbling stone for all nations. These are just a few that come to mind. If you're interested in finding out what others have come to pass, I'm sure there are plenty of sites detailing (overdetailing, probably ) the subject.

And for the sake of the debate, "God" is quicker to type than "absolute reference frame".