How Can Atheists Remain Atheists?

[SHW]

Are you for real.

“How has science been successful in solving the problem of greed which causes wars?”

Psychology anyone?

“How has science been successful in solving the problem of sickness and death?”

Errrr, have you ever heard of a thing called medicine, hospitals??

“How has science been successful in solving the problem of Tsunamis?
How has science been successful in solving the problem of earthquakes?”

Not only is science rapidly advancing in being able to predict these events but medicine, food, technology to find an locate survivors, earthquake resistant buildings etc all ALL the product of science.

I mean honestly what on earth are you talking about?

So, now we have no wars in this world?

So, now we have no sickness or death in this world?

So, now we have no floods or earthquakes in this world?

Science has solved/eradicated none of these. We still have every single one of them.

“Science” with its psychology, medicines, and early warning systems do not solve/eradicate all the problems in this world. Science may alleviate some suffering, but it does not remove the causes of suffering (sickness and death, floods and earthquakes, wars).
**
What is so confusing about this fact?**

 

[SHW]

Sure there is, evidence please .

aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

You will probably not understand it.

 

[larkin31]

So, now we have no wars in this world?

So, now we have no sickness or death in this world?

So, now we have no floods or earthquakes in this world?

Science has solved/eradicated none of these. We still have every single one of them.

“Science” with its psychology, medicines, and early warning systems do not solve/eradicate all the problems in this world. Science may alleviate some suffering, but it does not remove the causes of suffering (sickness and death, floods and earthquakes, wars).
**
What is so confusing about this fact?**

Nothing confusing at all. What is your point? Nothing, including God, has eradicated any of these. Moreover, in terms of disease, ONLY science has made any large term strides toward eradication. (Centuries of prayer did nothing).

God does not provide painkillers before surgery.
God does not provide antibiotics.
etc.

So what is the point of this questioning of science?

 

[larkin31]

aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

You will probably not understand it.

It is easily understandable. Here is the core of this argument (that the Torah includes BOTH young and old ages for the universe):

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look back in time. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small – billions of times smaller – the Torah says six days. They both may be correct.

What’s exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the “view of time” from the beginning, relative to the “view of time” today. It’s not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning when stable matter formed from the light (the energy, the electromagnetic radiation) of the creation) and time today is a million million, that is a trillion fold extension. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. It is a unit-less ratio. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see it every second? No. We’d see it every million million seconds. Because that’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe. In astronomy, the term is “red shift.” Red shift in observed astronomical data is standard.

The Torah doesn’t say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we’re sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah’s perspective is from the beginning looking forward.

Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3300 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I’m not speaking as a theologian; I’m making a scientific claim. I didn’t pull these numbers out of hat. That’s why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step.

Now we can go one step further. Let’s look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in “The Principles of Physical Cosmology,” a textbook that is used literally around the world.
(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That’s the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the “beginning of time perspective.” But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

The second day, from the Bible’s perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth 24 hour day – one billion years.
The fifth 24 hour day – one-half billion years.
The sixth 24 hour day – one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there’s more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I’ll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine

.

I do not share any “chills” from these fortuitous assumptions about the meaning of “days” and the relation of “time” to the “size” of the universe.

 

[AlbertBall]

aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

You will probably not understand it.

LOL, if that is the standard you set for your evidence it is little wonder you believe such nonsense. :rolleyes

I LOVE THIS BIT…

"But there’s more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I’ll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine. "

LOL there NOTHING like the same.

 

[SHW]

Nothing confusing at all. What is your point? Nothing, including God, has eradicated any of these. Moreover, in terms of disease, ONLY science has made any large term strides toward eradication. (Centuries of prayer did nothing).

God does not provide painkillers before surgery.
God does not provide antibiotics.
etc.

So what is the point of this questioning of science?

You have no proof that these advances in science were not the result of prayer to God.

 

[SHW]

It is easily understandable. Here is the core of this argument (that the Torah includes BOTH young and old ages for the universe):

I do not share any “chills” from these fortuitous assumptions about the meaning of “days” and the relation of “time” to the “size” of the universe.

Of course you don’t share any “chills.” You are of the “blind” of whom Paul spoke.

2 Corinthians 4:3-5
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake.

Some Atheists and all bad Christians also qualify for this explanation:

Ephesians 4:17-19
This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

 

[SHW]

LOL, if that is the standard you set for your evidence it is little wonder you believe such nonsense. :rolleyes

I LOVE THIS BIT…

"But there’s more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I’ll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine. "

LOL there NOTHING like the same.

So what? This is his opinion that the “Bible goes out on a limb” and since you have no evidence to refute his findings, your laughter is hollow.

You really have contributed nothing except “blind” rhetoric.

Science is the study of “what” already is (exists). It does not cause “what” exists.

God causes the “what” that “science” studies. Simple.

Atheism is foolishness and those who are Atheists will spend eternity in “darkness” while true Christians will spend eternity in Light. God is Light. 1 John 1:5

According to Scripture, Laplace was a fool. Psalm 14:1 You can be like him if you choose.

 

[AlbertBall]

So what? This is his opinion that the “Bible goes out on a limb” and since you have no evidence to refute his findings, your laughter is hollow.

You really have contributed nothing except “blind” rhetoric.

Science is the study of “what” already is (exists). It does not cause “what” exists.

God causes the “what” that “science” studies. Simple.

Atheism is foolishness and those who are Atheists will spend eternity in “darkness” while true Christians will spend eternity in Light. God is Light. 1 John 1:5

According to Scripture, Laplace was a fool. Psalm 14:1 You can be like him if you choose.

Well you are backing yor claims up with bible quotes i guess that
settles it.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

here’s some more quotes to ponder:

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

" Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof."

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation"

Until you open your heart to God, you cannot receive the grace of faith.

“Behold, a king will reign in righteousness…
The eyes of those who see will not be dim,
And the ears of those who hear will listen.” Isaiah 32:1-3

 

[crazzeto]

here’s some more quotes to ponder:

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

" Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof."

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation"

Until you open your heart to God, you cannot receive the grace of faith.

“Behold, a king will reign in righteousness…
The eyes of those who see will not be dim,
And the ears of those who hear will listen.” Isaiah 32:1-3

I see this one at play often with an agnostic friend of mine… There is literally no way to prove even that to human eyes, the sky is blue. They quite simply refuse to accept any explanation for anything, no matter how obvious… As long as to their mind there is some other possiblity, no matter how extreme.

 

[SHW]

Well you are backing yor claims up with bible quotes i guess that
settles it.

You back your own statements with “nothing” sensible or reasonable.

Science is insufficient and so is Atheism, so we will say “adieu.”

 

[larkin31]

You have no proof that these advances in science were not the result of prayer to God.

we are not going to talk “proof” are we? Not “proof” about the results of prayer, are we?

 

[larkin31]

Of course you don’t share any “chills.” You are of the “blind” of whom Paul spoke.

2 Corinthians 4:3-5
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake.

Some Atheists and all bad Christians also qualify for this explanation:

Ephesians 4:17-19
This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

So, you post an argument about converting days into millions of years, then halve the time required for each step because the universe is twice its size (specious), then add it up, then correlate with geological and paleontological record and we have, voila, – you don’t actually say (nor does the original writer, by the way).

And then you call me “blind” not to be impressed or have “chills run up my spine.” I will refrain from calling you the same, but I am sorely tempted to do so.

 

[AlbertBall]

You back your own statements with “nothing” sensible or reasonable.

Science is insufficient and so is Atheism, so we will say “adieu.”

Quote one statement i NEED to back up . Note i said quote, i do NOT want word put in my mouth .

 

[SHW]

So, you post an argument about converting days into millions of years, then halve the time required for each step because the universe is twice its size (specious), then add it up, then correlate with geological and paleontological record and we have, voila, – you don’t actually say (nor does the original writer, by the way).

And then you call me “blind” not to be impressed or have “chills run up my spine.” I will refrain from calling you the same, but I am sorely tempted to do so.

You may call me blind if you desire. It will not hurt my feelings.

I stated that this was his Jewish opinion. Unless, you have a better one that explains Jewish belief on the creation of the world and the ensoulment of Adam and how they fit together scientifically in an understandable manner, then his opinion will remain valid.

Scripture states that those who do not believe in God are blind. I was quoting Scripture and applying it to you since you do not believe in God. A + B = C.

It would be best to take your grievance to God. It is His Word. He can defend It. If Atheists believe that they can post on a Catholic forum and ridicule our beliefs, but not hear Scripture quoted, then they are mistaken. You (and other Atheists) will be much happier if you post on an Atheist forum. Psalm 145:5

 

[AlbertBall]

Unless, you have a better one that explains Jewish belief on the creation of the world and the ensoulment of Adam and how they fit together scientifically in an understandable manner, then his opinion will remain valid.

I got a better one, jewish beliefs about creation are totally incorrect and do not fit together scientifically.

 

[larkin31]

… If Atheists believe that they can post on a Catholic forum and ridicule our beliefs, but not hear Scripture quoted, then they are mistaken. You (and other Atheists) will be much happier if you post on an Atheist forum.

I DID NOT “ridicule” a belief what I said that I did not share the writer’s “chills” (HIS word, mine). It is not “ridicule” to disagree with an argument (call it “unpersuasive” or “specious”) to disagree with the exegesis that turns the 6-day work-week of God and one day of Sabbath (rest) into a poorly argued mathematical formula that stretches into billions of years, has different concepts of “time” and “day” and “year.” There are both Jews and Christians (not just “blind” agnostics like myself) who would disagree strongly with this reading. If it is actually a persuasive argument to you, then why don’t you explain what geological and paleontological evidence this all supposedly matches up with?

Will you call me “swine” next and say, simply, “Hey, that’s what the Good Word calls you”?

 

[SHW]

I DID NOT “ridicule” a belief what I said that I did not share the writer’s “chills” (HIS word, mine). It is not “ridicule” to disagree with an argument (call it “unpersuasive” or “specious”) to disagree with the exegesis that turns the 6-day work-week of God and one day of Sabbath (rest) into a poorly argued mathematical formula that stretches into billions of years, has different concepts of “time” and “day” and “year.” There are both Jews and Christians (not just “blind” agnostics like myself) who would disagree strongly with this reading. If it is actually a persuasive argument to you, then why don’t you explain what geological and paleontological evidence this all supposedly matches up with?

Will you call me “swine” next and say, simply, “Hey, that’s what the Good Word calls you”?

I have no desire to explain geological and paleontological evidence. It is not important to me to either prove it or to disprove it. But, I do understand what he is talking about as far as the timeclock in the Bible starting with the ensoulment of Adam. This is why it is the Jewish year 5770 right now. The creation of the world before Adam’s ensoulment is not included in the 5770 years.

Scripture helps us to explain to others why we believe the way we do. For example, we believe that adultery is a mortal sin. Many people do not share our view so we quote Scripture to explain why we believe adultery to be a mortal sin.

Many Atheists and/or Agnostics think and say that Christians have been brain-washed or worse. So what? Every person can choose to think whatever he desires. It does not offend me if people think or say that I am brain-washed or crazy. However, I will most likely respond to them with Scripture if they say this to me.

And, if they come to a Catholic or Protestant forum and then either ridicule and/or question our beliefs and we respond with a Scripture defense and this upsets them, then they would be much happier posting on an Atheist forum rather than a Catholic or Protestant forum.

Since I have already shared my views and it looks like everyone else (including you) has already shared his, it is time for me to unsubscribe from this thread and move on.

 

[larkin31]

I have no desire to explain geological and paleontological evidence. It is not important to me to either prove it or to disprove it. …

His entire point that the YEC AND evolutionary time estimates could BOTH be true hinged upon doing so.

bye