The Hypocisy of the worlds Christmas...the true meaning

Explaining the origin of the universe is an enormous challenge for those seeking to deny their Creator: How could a universe come from nothing? The challenge is so great that some have argued that the universe simply did not even have a beginning, but has existed eternally. However, because most professing atheists have accepted the big bang model of the universe, they have accepted the premise that our universe did indeed have a beginning. Hence, they have a need to explain that beginning.

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss presented in a recent book his claim that the laws of physics could have created the universe from nothing.1 Likewise, other physicists offer similar arguments.( Now is that not incredibly FOOLISH!!! See the end ofthe article if in doubt - Prof Lennox demolished Ha wkins on this re the law of gravity))

They appeal to the well-known phenomena of “virtual particle” creation and annihilation. The spontaneous (but short-lived) appearance of subatomic particles from a vacuum is called a quantum fluctuation. These subatomic particles appear and then disappear over such short time intervals that they cannot be directly observed. However, the effects of these virtual particles can be detected; they are, for instance, responsible for a very subtle effect on the spectrum of the hydrogen atom called the “Lamb shift.” The short lifetimes of these virtual particles are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which says that a short-lived state cannot have a well-defined energy.

The HUP places a limit on the time that a quantum fluctuation can persist. The greater the energy of the fluctuation, the shorter the time that it may last. It is for this reason that virtual particles appear and then disappear after very short intervals.

Krauss and other evolutionary physicists argue that the universe itself is the result of such a quantum fluctuation. However, the HUP itself presents an apparent difficulty for this claim. One would intuitively expect the energy content of the entire universe to be enormous. Hence, even if one were to argue that the universe did “pop” into existence via a quantum fluctuation, the energy content of the universe would be so large that the corresponding time would be vanishingly small, and the newly born universe would then immediately vanish. It is, therefore, difficult to see how our enormous universe could have resulted from such a fluctuation.

Evolutionary physicists argue, however, that if the total energy content of the universe were exactly zero, then a universe resulting from such a fluctuation could persist indefinitely without violating the HUP. This is admittedly a clever argument. Have the “new atheists” found a genuinely convincing way to explain our universe’s existence apart from God? (READ ON OAKS READ ON!!)

Not really. The argument hinges on the claim that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero, and this claim is based squarely on Big Bang assumptions. Stephen Hawking writes:

The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe….The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.2 

Despite Hawking’s blithe assertion, no human being can possibly know the precise energy content of the entire universe. In order to verify the claim that the total energy content of the universe is exactly zero, one would have to account for all the forms of energy in the universe (gravitational potential energy, the relativistic energies of all particles, etc.), add them together, and then verify that the sum really is exactly zero. Despite Hawking’s intelligence and credentials, he is hardly omniscient.

So the claim of a “zero energy” universe is based, not on direct measurements, but upon an interpretation of the data through the filter of the Big Bang model. As hinted in the above quote, the claim comes from inflation theory, which states that the universe underwent a short, accelerated period of expansion shortly after the Big Bang. But “inflation” is an ad hoc idea that was attached to the original Big Bang model in order to solve a number of serious (and even fatal) difficulties.3 Hawking, Krauss, and others are making the claim of a zero energy universe because it is an expected consequence of inflation theory. However, for someone who does not have an a priori commitment to the Big Bang (and inflation theory), it is not at all clear that the universe’s total energy would be exactly zero. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely.

Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists. Because space itself is part of our universe, the spontaneous creation of a universe requires space itself to somehow pop into existence.

In his recent book, Krauss spends very little time addressing this key point. Most of the book consists of a defense of the Big Bang, anecdotal stories, and criticisms of creationists. It is only near the end of the book that he actually seriously addresses this key issue (how space itself could be created from nothing), but he spends very little time on it, despite the fact that the book is over 200 pages long.4 He argues that quantum gravity (a theory that merges quantum mechanics and general relativity) could allow space itself to pop into existence. One obvious problem with this claim is that a workable theory of quantum gravity does not yet exist.(bwahahahahaha this dodger is beinf=g seriously caught out!)

Moreover, the general claim that the laws of physics could have created our universe suffers from a number of serious logical difficulties. Our understanding of the laws of physics is based on observation. For instance, our knowledge of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy come from observations made from literally thousands of experiments. No one has ever observed a universe “popping” into existence. This means that any laws of physics that would allow (even in principle) a universe to pop into existence are completely outside our experience. The laws of physics, as we know them, simply are not applicable here. Rather, the spontaneous creation of a universe would require higher “meta” or “hyper” laws of physics that might or might not be anything like the laws of physics that we know.

But this raises another problem. Since such hypothetical meta or hyper laws of physics are completely outside our experience, why do atheistic physicists naively assume that rules like the HUP would even apply when describing the universe’s creation? They freely speculate about other (unobservable) universes in an alleged “multiverse” that can have laws of physics radically different from our own. Since the HUP is known to be valid only within or inside our universe, it is not at all clear why they would assume that the HUP would even apply when discussing our universe’s creation. Perhaps the HUP is indeed part of these hyper laws of physics, but one could just as easily argue that it is not. One can engage in all kinds of speculation here, but such speculation is not science.

Moreover, even if these supposed higher laws of physics actually existed, in order for them to create the universe, they must have an existence apart from the universe. But this presents a dilemma for the atheist who says that the cosmos is all that exists.(BOY DO THESE ATHEISTIC FOOLS GET THEM SELVES INTO A HOPELSS TANGLE!!!!

Before his death, Carl Sagan acknowledged in correspondence with ICR scientist Larry Vardiman that he recognized this problem for his worldview: His view of origins required the laws of physics to create the cosmos, but because he did not acknowledge his Creator, he could not explain the origin of the laws themselves.5 The existence of physical laws external to the cosmos itself was an obvious violation of his well-known axiom “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”6

Of course, the atheist could try to dodge this difficulty by resorting to the claim that the cosmos simply had no beginning and is eternal.

But even this avoidance leaves unresolved difficulties. For instance, some are claiming that the cosmos as a whole—the so-called “multiverse”—is eternal, but that it contains infinitely many individual universes (a consequence of modern inflation theory). (HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA THERE IS NO END TO THE SPECULATIONS OF THESE FOOLISH ATHEISTS!!!) According to this view, it is only our particular universe that began 13.7 billion years ago. The existence of other alleged (but unobservable) universes supposedly explains our seemingly improbable existence—because the multiverse contains infinitely many universes, the laws of physics and chemistry in at least some of these universes would have properties necessary for life. Thus, our existence is supposedly explained because we just happen to live in such a universe.

A glaring fallacy exposes this argument: While the laws of physics and chemistry in our universe do indeed allow life to exist, they do not allow life to evolve. The laws of physics and chemistry simply are notfavorable to the evolution of life.

For decades, creationists have pointed out the insurmountable difficulties with “chemical evolution” scenarios.7, 8, 9 These difficulties don’t vanish simply because someone claims that other (unobservable) universes exist. Even if the laws of physics and chemistry in every single one of these other supposed universes did allow for life to evolve, those laws from another universe could not explain the existence of life in this universe. This should have occurred to the atheists—but their argument demonstrates “vain imaginations” and “foolish, darkened hearts” (Romans 1:21-23).

AMEN AND AMEN. ANYONE HAVING READ THis ARTICLE TO THE END WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ATHEIESTs ARE INCREDIBLY FOOLISH. I would add obstinately dishonest as well.

Despite the impressive academic credentials of those promoting the “universe from nothing” idea, the scenario is utterly unreasonable, and no Bible-believing Christian should be intimidated by these “vain imaginations.”

Introduction

God condones slavery?

Skeptics claim that the God of the Bible approves of and encourages slavery. What they won't tell you is that selling a person into slavery was grounds for the death penalty, according to the Old Testament...

Rich Deem

The claim is often made that the Bible approves of slavery, implicating God as its supporter, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament. Since virtually everyone agrees that forced, involuntary servitude is morally wrong, how can Christians justify the Bible's apparent support of slavery?

What the Old Testament says about slavery

First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7

What the New Testament says about slavery

Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans,8 they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible.9 The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities.10 Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself.11 Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.12

As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened,13 but treated with justice and fairness.14 The text goes on to explain that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.13, 14

There is an interesting letter in the New Testament (Philemon15-21) that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery. Paul, the author of the letter, is writing from a Roman prison awaiting trial.15 He is writing to Philemon, who runs a local Christian church out of his house16 (since Christianity was highly persecuted at this point in time). Philemon, we find out, is the master of the slave Onesimus, who has escaped but has been converted to Christianity by Paul.18 In the letter, Paul indicates that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon.19 However, Paul says that he has confidence that Philemon will "do what is proper"17 although Paul wants him to do it by his "own free will".20 Even so, Paul indicates that Onesimus would be a great aid in helping him spread the gospel.19 Paul ends the letter by saying that he has "confidence in your obedience" and indicates that he knows Philemon "will do even more than what I say."21 Although Paul did not directly order Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, it would have been difficult to come away with any other conclusion from his letter.

God does not distinguish between slaves and freemen

Contrary to the claims of many skeptics, the New Testament proclaims that all people are equal in the eyes of God - even slaves:

• There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
• knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)
• And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
• a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)

Conclusion 

The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the New Testament writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the New Testament show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.

 Sharkbok

I have no interest in this debate, somewhere further up I've given a reason why, so I'm not going to make any further comment.

Your post titled "Apartheid and Religion" however is of interest to me.

I was aware of the  divisive role the Dutch Reformed Church played  and how it set about justifying Apartheid to the point where a Minister stated for "Non Whites" not to say "Our Father" because God was a white man, I was also aware of the uproar caused by the honorable Dr Beyers Naude a  true Afrikaner who recognized the immorality of his own church and spoke out against it and was then ostracized by both Church and Government for the courage of his convictions.

From a personal point of view and from the movement I was involved in,  Dr Naude became an enormous source of inspiration.

My question to you is, where did you source the history of your post?

Tx.

mozart

I am not sure if you have been reading the same thread as me and others on here

Of course people have been insulted and families mentioned.

Just a few quotes from above...

"I also agree that Atheism is the most stupid position to hold, but also being agnostic"

"Only a complete obstinate fool would conclude there is no god"

"Becs you should not rely on your erring mum"

"Isn't it time to stop being a fool"

"Sharkbok the truth is unless you receive the pardon offered By Jesus Christ and are born again you will definitely not enter the kingdom of God"

"Becs, all Atheists suffer from a form of insanity"

"Realising you are a fool is the first step in the process"

According to Beeno all atheists are fools and are insane at times, Becs should not listen to her mother, who Beeno has decided is wrong in her ways, and poor Sharkbok is doomed to eternal flames for the rest of his existence.

Never mind all the others.

I have no issue at all with this thread, that's why I decided to involve myself in it. 

What I do have an issue with is when posters ask their own relevant questions, then sarcastic insults come back, with no hint of open debate, just.... you are stupid if you don't believe in the same thing I do.

I for one accept any person's religion, and I make no judgements on it provided they don't try and shove another religion down my throat when at the same time they cannot answer some simple questions I have depending on the religion.

Look at ISIS for example, who now claim that the Koran / Quran says you are allowed to rape an underage girl, and keep slaves, which they have done to thosands of Yazidi woman

I see that as how they interpret what their prophet says, not what Islam could mean as a whole, so I would have questions for that religion as well.

Look at this below link, and it is factual, confirmed by the FBI, just look at the 27 questions and answers they sent out to all their members.

ISIS Pamphlet

The reason I am posting this is to illustrate that my enquiring minds likes to question everything, not just one particular religion or state of being.

How very awful about this latest news, R.I.P

A test of faith as some say

Shocking and Confusing

These events are very sad, we struggle to make sense of them. This one is particularly crushing, because a simple decision to delay the flight seemed justified.

But interpreting events, even scientifically, is up for debate. When I was at UCT, the Argus published an article showing a car struck from behind by another car with a consecutive number plate....the very next number. The Argus headline said a one in a million chance. I wrote a letter to the paper demonstrating the odds of those two cars crashing were much higher. Another reader then replied, showing the odds for any two consecutive cars crashing....which were much lower.. A huge debate followed involving many readers and eventually the editor said he would accept no more letters on the subject.

And of course we were both right, but answering different questions. Religion is so much more complex, so misunderstandings are rife. That makes it very hard to discuss in this format.

HasBeen and Chabal are committed Christians....they have no choice but to give voice to that, given what they believe. A little sensitivity might be called for, but given none of us knows the answer, I'm not going to ridicule the beliefs of others. We live in confusion and come to realize many of the things we held as self evident.....aren't.

Rubbish Beeno

The fact is, if someone wanted or needed to find their own God or Creator, they would at some point go and seek him / her out,  on their own.... without your constant hounding to do so.

This constant bashing from you merely instigates more antaganism towards christianity because as per usual, like many others, you bring it across in a very forthright, and with some points, insulting way, because somebody believes differently to you.

If that is God's plan for you, try adjusting your or his approach, because I don't see it as being very successful with people with other beliefs.... based on the responses on this board alone.

Who knows, in the greater scheme of things maybe you have been, but this constant bashing and promoting gets too much, and if you truly knew that your actions were turning some people more against what you really believe by saying and doing what you do, then you would stop in a heartbeat...... surely?