5solas:

In truth, nothing happens without God's determination.

Well, it all depends. For example, we know that God has not 'determined' the perdition of anyone (2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4).

One reason why I suggested that we each take a look at what we might mean by 'destiny' is because it appears it is used to mean different things to any speaker in reference. As InesQor pointed out, while it may mean the 'overall circumstances or condition in life' of any person, to other thinkers it might leave open the question as to who ultimately determines such "overall circumstances"?

Some feel strongly that man determines the "overall circumstances"; others feel it must be God who determines it. However, what can we say for definite about the verse that says "time and chance happeneth to them all" (Eccl. 9:11)??

^^Thanks, InesQor.

I may not have a definite study 'structure' that may suit every experience, and I very much like your approach on 'A Study of Jesus' (rather than 'THE' study of Jesus). If the principle focus of the thread is to help those newly coming to faith in Christ, perhaps we might seek an approach or structure that takes their own perspective into consideration.

When I newly came to saving faith in Christ, the basic question for me about Jesus was: WHO He has revealed Himself to be, especially in the area of my daily walk and fellowship with other believers. This certainly may not be the same basic question or experience of others who have newly believed; but for me, I felt that my relationship with Him was (and to a large extent, is) going to be affected by how that question is answered in my life.

So, if I were to follow your pen in 'a study' of Jesus Christ (especially as proposed in your Day 1 on Isaiah 53), the basic question would be about Christ as our Redemption and Redeemer. This is just a suggestion, especially following the next line in yours on the 'Fall of Man' (Genesis 3). However, more to that theme is how that affects my daily experience as a Christian on the one hand, and what that experience would mean in my fellowship with other believers.

^^ That is only a suggestion. But do we need to wait to have anything close to "the" perfect study structure? No. Rather, we may begin the digest as proposed - and in doing so, bearing in mind that the believer perhaps is looking for effective outcomes: how the study impacts on our lives and fellowships with one another.

Perhaps a good place to start is to look at what each one of us all mean by that nebulous word 'destiny'.

Inbetween all the points of reference, there seems to be a silverline cutting neatly through it all.

Hello all. I'm surprised to be able to post again after the "**" went awry.

Anyways, this is a timely and interesting thread - more so because it does not argue to push any post(s) or discussion as THE 'truth'. Anyone who may, can benefit - if otherwise, no worries.

For one, viaro does not lay any claims to being a "teacher" by any stretch. But I'm willing to share on certain subjects. A lot of issues may arise (as already is evident), and I think it is a good thing in terms of helping us all as believers to think deeper. So, my thanks and appreciation to the OP/thread starter.

However, perhaps there should be a structure of sorts for the 'digest'. When one proposes a discussion as "a study", it leaves open the fact that there are a number of such studies one might betake on the subject. It is just like the synoptic Gospels which present the same theme (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) but each of the Gospels (^{Matthew Mark Luke and John}) seeing the central theme from a different perspective of a collective whole.

In all, I envisage that it is not only the 'new convert' that would have something helpful to take away from the digest - 'believers' as 'believers' would benefit as well. I may be mistaken, but perhaps owing to the fact that not many people find the "basics" quite stimulating, there has been a whole range of concerns in many places about what we hear from many pulpits. As already, toba has highlighted one such from Rod Parsley - how this ties back to the theme of the 30-day digest would also be interesting food for thought.

I hope to throw in my bit here and there as time allows. Cheers.

mazaje:

I want to know how you play your games. . .

I'm not playing any games. Just provide me with the one clear answer I have been asking you for this obviously dubios statement you made:

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

Mazaje, how long am I going to wait? If you can't show in your next reply, I take it that you're just out for mischief, and we can let it be at that.

mazaje:

Vairo you are complete waste of time. . .No wonder your fellow christians get mad at you as you said yourself for trying to find meaning outside what is being discussed. . . .Even your fellow christians as you said yourself get mad at you because they can not stand your equivocations and endless lies. . . . You are on record here to have lied that the bible does not say that the Noah's flood is a global flood . . . .Even your fellow christians could not stand that one too, lol. . .keep on chasing your long tail.

Haha. . . you're not desperate, no? You're looking for every wind to use as your excuse for your obvious duplicity that you can't sustain, so you have to go on a long search about whether other Christians are mad at viaro, yes? Dude, I don't argue by jingoism - I notice that is the firstaid of a desperate atheist, and that's what you're doing now. Just climb off your high horse and keep to what is being discussed in this thread.

mazaje:

The argument here is simple, you said that your version of God spoke the universe into existence and that the evidence is in the bible if I want to see, and i said that scienctific explanations for the origins of the universe  which at least has some evidence to support them can be used to compare to with what is written in the bible which you said is your evidence for your assetion of God creating the universe, We can compare how the bible says the universe came into existence and the detail explanation of creation that is written in the book to see how it agree with the observable evidence, you first tried to do that and when you saw that you had no foot to stand on there by forefully trying to change what was written you, then dedided to conclude that you don't know the details of how the universe was created.   .

Are you now again clutching at straws? When I reminded you several times about "origins science" and "creation", what did you say afterwards? Did you, mazaje, do turn round and say that you're not discussing "origins"? If you were a sensible chap, you would have left it there and not force yourself to lie into "science" by making very silly statements and confirming what a clueless chap you actually are! This is why I let you drive on rough until now you just argue endlessly and show nothing for what you asserted - not to mention your illiterate statements that makes one wonder if you read basic science at all!

mazaje:

Does the bible not offer a detailed account of how the universe(matter, space and time) was supposeldy created in the 6 days account of creation?

How many times have I tried to answer this question and hinted that we may not agree as to details? "I don't know if I ever claimed anywhere to know HOW the Universe was created in terms of the details" was what I said in post #23, and I've reminded you a couple of times that for me, the Bible does not give the details in step-by-step procedural layout. Yet, no "science" anywhere as drawn any coclusion about "God" - which is why I have been asking you to show me any such scientific research on God that should warrant your dubious assertion which you now tuck under the BB theory.

mazaje:
By universe I mean the universe not some universe with some mythical angels and heaven that remain in mythical books.

Choose any Universe and still show me your "science" for your dubious assertion. By all this excuses, you sound even far more desperate! Where is the "science" for this assertion you made ?? --

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

mazaje:

To say the singularity came from a creator (God) is an assumption. Science doesn't make assumptions it follows the scientific method.

What do you mean by "science doesn't make assumptions"? The more I read your wild statements foisted on "science", the more I feel you should go back to school!

Science makes "assumptions" - scientists know this. Without these 'assumptions', you can't even begin to make any mention of the "scientific method". At the elementary level, this is the connection -

Wikipedia: Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Dude, please cut to the chase and stop making unfounded assertions cooked up in your backyard! You sound more and more detarched from "science" - otherwise you would not be making the silly statements one reads from you these days.

mazaje:

viaro link=topic=451756.msg6113504#msg6113504 date=1275126770:

Does the BB theory assert that God did not create the Universe? Is that the conclusion of the BB?

Sure, Where in the time line of the big bang does it state that God created the universe?

You're a confirmed waste of space! The BB does not say anything about God - nothing in the excerpts made about the BB says a word about "God", and I think your insisting your assertion there has become far more serious than being desperately and deliberately dubious.

mazaje:

The BB does not say that God created the universe, You said that you are waiting for any sciences that says that, where in the BB does it say any God created the universe, Where in its time line does it say any God created the universe, Show any sciences that say God created the universe since you argue that no sciences says that God did not create the universe, so the sciences that says your version of God created the universe.

Lol, is it not rather silly that you made an obviously brainless assertion that you can't show anything for? I have always and consistently maintained that no science anywhere has come up with any research on "God" - that is not what "science" is about. Yet, no science has said anywhere that God did not create the Universe - scientists are trying to grapple with the question of what caused the existence of the Universe after coming to the conclusion that the Universe is not eternal or uncaused. Science has not said anywhere that God created or did not create the Universe - and for you to have dodged behind your excuse to make science say what it did not say is quite dishonest - which is why up until now you have not found any research paper asserting your duplicity!

mazaje:

This is false, What is at the heart of this discussion is if what we see around from scientific observations agree with how your vesion of God says he created the universe.

What is at the heart of this discussion is CREATION - I have mentioned that same thing to you several times until you begged that you were not discussing "origins". To turn round and confuse yourself is hardly surprising, but you must insist on a "origins science" that you're clueless about, and that was why I asked you to do the simple sane thing of showing me any line where your science mentions anything about "God". Where is that paper? Why do you like to be so shamelessly gutless like this?

Again, sir. . . if you are feigning ignorance at the same time as you're making vacant noise, this is the part I would like to bring again to your attention:

The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place?

http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasics/a/Origin-Of-The-Universe.htm

So, try another game up your sleeves - provide an paper that says the same thing that you asserted here:

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

I don't know how many times I have to ask that simple request: but surprise me and provide any "science" that says that same thing - it's either you can't find and then come back with another excuse.

@petres_007,

I understand just a bit what you guys are trying to say. However, I tend to see things from another perspective - I think the problem is far more serious than any arguments for or against tithes. Fraud takes many forms, and clever people will look for other ways to dupe unsuspecting believers than all talk about tithes. This should help us see that many of the arguments are not dealing with the real issues - and I think that is where we need to focus on.

petres_007:

If I may ask, what is your stand about our preachers today using the OT to enforce tithing on Christians? Apologies if you've talked about this in some other thread. A link will do.

Well, I'm a bit lazy to search for relevant links presently (hope to post you some when I can).

However, the operative word there is "enforce" - I have no problem with anyone who would quote the OT to encourage giving or seek a spiritual truth for Christians; but to "enforce" whatever they teach upon others is leaving grace behind and tending to legalism.

When we go through the NT, we find a whole range of verses taken from the OT and applied to Christian living. Some of these just "seem" to have no direct link to any mention of any type of 'giving'. For instance, what has the mention of "ox" in Deut. 25:4 got anything to do with "giving"? Yet the apostle quoted that OT verse twice in the NT (1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18) in connection with giving and receiving! But after all is said and done, we find that the apostle did not "enforce" anything upon the Christian (e.g., see 1 Cor. 9:15).

So it is: there should be no problem at all with quoting from any passages of the OT to teach about 'giving' in the NT. What the Bible does not urge upon us is to force anything upon anybody - whether it be tithes, freewill offerings, donations, contributions, etc., nothing should be enforced on the believer.

Jenwitemi:

Come on, viaro! All human creations start out as concepts made of thoughts that sprang out of moments of inspiration. You know that. As a matter of fact, these moments of inspiration could be termed as the big bang, the eureka flash, the flash of inspiration that a lot of creative humans have daily that gives birth to concepts from whence physical creations are made manifest and could very well be the big bang that scientists talk about.

There's nobody I ever came across who makes the kind of run-away physics you're doing here. If you can show me any scientist who makes such an inference as to suppose that inspiration compares to such things as the big bang, please show me.

Jenwitemi:
And since we are capable of this creative abilities, we can also create out of nothing with our minds, just like God did.

Please give me a solid example of your own creatio ex nihilo - just one example will do.

Jenwitemi:
To be a creator, you have to be a naturally creative being, and to be that, you will have to have regular moments of inspirations, the big bangs.

^^ that does not even come close to creatio ex nihilo.

^^ I don't think we should be deeply surprised or shocked out of our socks with such things. This trend is only another dimension of an older problem - [you can fill in the gap here].

But seriously, along the same lines of concerns are reports of "pastors" who are transgengered. A few of them:

Methodists Vote to Keep Transgender Pastor

In a potentially landmark decision, the United Methodist Church has ruled that a transgender pastor who applied for a name change can remain in the ministry. The decision in case of the Rev. Drew Phoenix was released on Tuesday by the church's Judicial Council.
________

http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2007/10/methodists_vote_to_keep_transg.html
>with a vid on that page^^^<


A news vid here: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nQKaZGBt_A

[quote][/quote]

^^ hehe, I stand to be corrected on this one, but Dawkins does not represent the atheism of many atheists. I understand that quite a lot of other atheists themselves are not impressed by the likes of Dawkins and his band of 'new atheists'.

Joagbaje:

@ chukwudi,
if you are really searching for criminality in God's name, it's the vatican. Ask you pope how they built the Vatican. And the abuses on innocent children by priests and cardinals. Are you sure you want the truth? It's in your backyard!

Please, let's not use this thread as a platform for a repeat 'broadcast' of that blight in Christendom. It is not only the Vatican that has shameful things to contend with - even in our own (yes, "our own" non-Vatican and non-Catholic expressions of Christianity, we have experienced very sad episodes that we would only be too ashamed to mention.

If tithing is the subject to be discussed, let's focus on that. For one, the point Justin Martyr would have made is that nobody was forced to give whatever they gave -

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount.

People should not be forced or manipulated to "give" - even where we are encouraging giving. One pastor has said: 'If it is not by grace, then everything that follows is a disgrace'. Nothing should be forced - not even "freewill giving".

KunleOshob:

@Viaro
Well the writeup addressed how funds were raised in the early church and how the funds were disbursed, tithing was conspiciously and glaringly absent. That aside the type of giving explained there is contrary to the nature of tithing preached today. The onus is actually on criminals trying to impose tithing on christians to prove that tithing is part of the apostalic traditions handed down by the apostles to the church.

If tithing was not specifically mentioned, we are only appealing to a logical fallacy to argue against what the article does not argue for or against. Indeed, many other things that are not mentioned among early Christians have now found their way into Christianity today and we all seem to be comfortable with them. However, it is not only tithing that is being used today as a form of fraud in many religious groups - all sorts are being used as well. The real problem is not tithing or anti-tithing, but something else: greed.

@wirinet,

I see your point though; but I do not agree with the basis of your conclusions. People feel a need to seek some commonality in whatever they believe - whether they are theists or atheists, it matters very little whatever the number of such maybe. Either way, there are some in both atheism and theism who do not care about 'evangelizing/converting/proselytizing'; but we cannot say at the basic level, this need is mainly a matter more about Christianity or Islam. One may only draw that conclusion on the idea that atheists by contrast are smaller in numerical strength; but we know that there are many efforts today by atheists to push their own beliefs to the fore.

Perhaps, it may be said without much risk that it is particularly agnostics (not atheists or theists) who may not be perturbed about seeking 'converts' or pushing their 'beliefs'.

^^ What is the logic behind quoting what does not say a dot for or against tithing and using it to criminalize others?  I would see the point if Martyr said anything against it - but since he does not, what logic is there in using that quote against tithing?

chukwudi44:

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

And what does this "prove" about tithing or anti-tithing?

For one, Justin Martyr does not say a word in that quote about or against tithing. If a Christian decides to set apart what amounts to a tenth of his/her income to help the poor and for Church outreaches, there is nothing in the NT or in Justin Martyr's quote above that negates that.

Second, there are very many things which Christianity has come to adopt today that we do not read a word about in the Bible. If we want to keep complaining about what the early Christians practised, reason would have us actually focus on those other things that later crept into Christianity and as well eschew them from Christianity altogether.

Third, there are some theologians regarded much respected for their works today who actually argued in favour of the principle (not literalism) of tithing among Christians - Thomas Aquinas is one of them, and I wonder how many people will now turn against him just because he saw tithing as a healthy practice which yet should not be forced upn Christians?

We should be careful what we read into the excerpts we make - there are many logical fallacies which appear in the arguments of people who touch this and other subject. AT the end of the day, let's learn to seperate what from chaff and promote love and faith (yes, and TRUTH).

mazaje:

Here it is. . . .Lets the the BB model with is the standard model. . .

Does the BB theory assert that God did not create the Universe? Is that the conclusion of the BB?

The thing is that you made a blatant assertion, viz:

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

. . . and what you have posted about the BB theory does not in any line assert such a thing anywhere. The BB theory does not even draw the conclusion that you tried to make it argue.

I'm waiting for your "science" that asserts that God did not create the Universe - the BB theory does not say any such things. Do you want to try another excuse again pretentiously termed your "science"?

Even if you want to hide behind the Big Bang, perhaps the question at the heart of this discussion eludes you - and here it is, enlarged and highlighted below:

The Big Bang

Once it was understood that the Universe had a beginning, scientists began to ask “how did it come into existence, and what existed before it?”

Most scientists now believe that the answer to the first part of the question is that the Universe sprang into existence from a singularity -- a term physicists use to describe regions of space that defy the laws of physics. We know very little about singularities, but we believe that others probably exist in the cores of black holes.

The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place?

http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasics/a/Origin-Of-The-Universe.htm

Your excuse of the Big Bang is a late arrival, dude. As is highlighted above, the core question of "what caused the singularity to be created in the first place" is what is at the heart of this discussion. If you know any "Origins Science" that has made your blatant assertion concluding that God did not create the Universe, please show - or just shut up about what you don't know. The BB theory does not draw any conclusions about "God" or "ORIGINS SCIENCE" or even about "creation" - so pick another joke up your sleeves.

wirinet:

Because it give you a sense of security in numbers, and it helps reinforce your beliefs. It is ego soothing to be able to convince other to abandon their beliefs and follow yours. Then there is the sense of arrogance at being more knowledgeable and special than others.

All the above ^^ are found both among theists and atheists.

wirinet:

Please show me an atheist post soliciting for converts to atheism.

Try these:

huxley2:

Looks like this is going well thus far. Half way thru the year, looks like we have had 3 or 4 new rationalists members to make the case for reason and rationalism.

huxley:

Hello NairaLanders,


At the start of this year, I implored you all to make the year of Atheist Activism or Rationality Activism. Now, the year is nearly over, I wonder how we did. Did you spread rationality in your community? Did you have some good debates with your friends and family?

Would be interesting to hear how the year went for you on the atheism/rationality front? So, please, tell your stories now!

What do the quotes above suggest?

mazaje:

How can the discussion lead anywhere when you are only chasing after your long tail, biting it and crying at the same time?

I have come to the conclusion you're a waste of time in discussion - my only regret is that I learnt it late. If ever anyone would tell me you of all people have a clue about the "science" you have been noising up and down the street, I would know better now that such is another one of your "rhetorics".

But whenever you can, please show me your "science" for this assertion -

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem.

It is either you're a mischievous fellow who is absolutely clueless about "science", or you just like to make noise with that word and show nothing. Please show me where "Origins Science" has asserted what you did above there - I want the "science", not your jokes.

Jenwitemi:

Could it be said that imagining things, or conceptualizing ideas as well as physical things, and bringing them into manifestations(which humans do everyday, anyway) is a form of creation from nothing? If the answer is yes, then we humans can also create "exnihilo", no?

No. . . unless you have something to show how it could be so in reality.

Romeo4real:

I am surprised you have just come to this conclusion.

Hehe, I'm actually sorry for my loss!
I thought he could be taken on seriously. . . it must be the eleventh wonder that it took me this long to realize the discussion was leading nowhere.

ednut1:

Toba and vairo. The proof she quoted ws 4rm genesis and i talked bt genesis. B4 u post thrash wear your specs. Fking clowns

Haha! Did she talk about the different races from Adam or about the Trinity from Genesis? I guess your goggles are wider than a windscreen!

toba:

To make this discuss interesting, mazaje consider the bolded and take up the bolded from viaro's qoute cheers

I don't think mazaje is interested in discussing in an interesting manner. If it is not jumping here and there and making false statements and dragging "science" into it, then he's turning round and saying it was all part of his "rhetorics". If you laugh it off, then again he turns round and cries that he is VERY serious!

It is interesting to see how some of these loud mouthed atheists just assert things under "science" and end up showing that they do not have a clue what "science" they are talking about. I was waiting for mazaje to surprise me all along for the "science" - any type of "science" - that says what he said such a "science" has said! WHY has that taken so very long?

When I hinted that most atheists argue and assert that the Universe has been in existence for all eternity, mazaje was worried and quibbled and danced all around between the implications of that hint. It is obvious that not all atheists everywhere at every time hold/held the view that the Universe was eternal or that it created itself; but in very fact, many atheist have held that view and celebrated it under the excuse of a "science" that only they can talk about but has never shown itself to stand anywhere! With a little help, perhaps, mazaje knows this already, but decided to dance around when challenged on that event, a few examples to the point:

(1) Here's one of such assertions that is just asserted out of wind with no science anywhere to show for it:

'Bill' from hygrography blog:


Eternal Universe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The universe exists because it can. The only alternative to its existence is non-existence which we know is not true. The natural laws that we have proven dictate that the universe exists just as it does. It has no choice in the matter. With infinite possibilities, only those things of sound principle can exist. The universe that we observe around us is of just such sound principle. There was never a time that the universe did not exist, and there will never be a time that it ceases to exist. It simply is because it must be.

. . . . . .

see it here

I am not saying that the above is precisely mazaje's claim or statement; but I am drawning on these things to make him take a position because they often pass to our notice that such is the ideology behind the atheist's assertion that the Universe has always existed. When such people are challenged, then begin to quibble and then turn round and forver mention "science" this and "science" that, and yet will never at any place show such a "science" that has researched 'God' to have concluded that the Universe was not created by God. Anyone who wishes might just go to that blog and read the whole page - for all the arguments of this materialist ideology, there is NO SCIENCE anywhere to show the basis of their assertion of a self-created or eternal Universe.

However, even in recent times, some have tried to cheat along the lines in their attempts to rise to the challenge of providing the said "science" that says God did not create the Universe. An example is one Terrence A. Lynch who posits "The Infinite and Eternal Nature of the Universe as a Sinusoidal Flux in the Space-Time Continuum". In his piece, he argues:

Terrence Lynch: The existence of God as the creator of the universe is negated by the fact that the space-time continuum is infinite. Having no beginning nor end, the universe continues into infinity, our present having arisen from an infinite past which leads into an infinite future. Thus there never was a creation and it is therefore false for God to be envisioned as creator of the universe.

Just so we don't risk misunderstanding what Terrence meant by an eternal universe, he goes on to explain that -

Terrence Lynch: Herein is proposed the theory of an infinite or eternal universe (infinite in terms of time and duration of existence; hence, the eternal universe). The basic principles which prescribe an eternal universe are set forth and the models which support and enable such an eternal universe are explained.

Anyone who reads such a proposition might at first sight assume that Terrence was on to something brilliant. But the so-called "science" he propounds is a cheat all the way - because he takes far too much leaps and gaps in his proposed theory and explains nothing about the nature of existence and causes. For those who just want to cut to the chase, perhaps we need to ask Terrence how he arrived at any calculations of "inifinity" where he just jumps into huge conclusions with nothing in his models to show the workable calculations for his proposition.

However, for those who have tried to consider the same question of ORIGINS in science (I'm not talking about cheap shots from brazen atheistic loud mouths who show nothing), I am still waiting to see where any such sciences have established this run-away lie of an eternal Universe. Leaving "creation" for a while, what would theoretic physicists conclusde from their years of research? I give you an example of Stephen Hawkings:

(Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking speaks at an international gathering of scientists on the origins of the universe at Beijing's Great Hall of the People in China Monday, June 19, 2006. Hawking is in Beijing to attend the 'Strings 2006' conference on the riddle of string theory which, if solved, could help unlock the mysteries of black holes and the creation of the universe. Photo: AP)

Is the universe eternal, or did it have a beginning? World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking gave his answer to a large audience in Beijing on Monday.

He gave a 45-minute multimedia presentation at the Great Hall of People on the occasion of the International Conference on String Theory 2006, that traced the development of theories on cosmic origins, beginning with African creation myths.

He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable.

The 64-year-old scientist and author of the global best-seller "A Brief History of Time" uses a wheelchair and communicates with the help of a computer because he suffers from a neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

One of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation, Hawking has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe, proposing that space and time have no beginning and no end.

The image Hawking drew of this process was that of bubbles appearing and bursting, corresponding to mini universes that expand and collapse. Only those which grew to a certain size would be safe from collapse and would continue to expand at an ever increasing rate.

The theorem which he and Prof. Roger Penrose developed in 1970 said that general relativity predicated that the universe and time itself would begin with the big bang and that time would come to an end in black holes.

"One can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world," said Hawking.

Likening the beginning of the universe to the South Pole, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time, Hawking explained that the universe would start as a point at the South Pole.

"As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question because there is nothing south of the South Pole," Hawking said.

In this view, the beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science: the creation of the universe would be down to spontaneous quantum creation.

"Cosmology is a very exciting and active subject. We are getting close to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?" Hawking said.

http://english.cri.cn/2946/2006/06/19/421@104361.htm

I'm not a scientist nor a cosmologist. But when I read atheists arguing for an eternal Universe that had no beginning in its existence, I become very interested indeed to see what theorems they have propounded to draw such conclusions. Atheists may argue that the Universe was not created; but SCIENCE does not come to that conclusion at all anywhere.

The above is by no means all there is to the subject - but where someone is saying that "origins science says" thus and thus, it would help greatly if such people lay aside their own atheism and show us where any research in ORIGINS SCIENCE has ever SAID what they want to force into "science". To keep making such assertions and showing nothing is quite mischievous - and we can leave it at that.

@mazaje,

Please stop going round in circles. I have tried to be as amicable as can be and asked you to show me any science for your assertion that -

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem Which part of the BB says that God created the universe, pls bring it on lets see.

Please let's cut to the chase: show me anything from ORIGINS SCIENCE that says what you asserted above. That is all I'm intersted in at this point. If you can, let's talk. If you cannot, we can leave it at that. Asserting things on behalf of "science" and yet showing nothing anywhere as such is what I notice you champion these days. If not, please show me.

ogajim:

. . . it won't matter who you fellowshiped with on that great day, (Fellowship is an IMPORTANT requirement of our Christian faith)

Em, I think the Bible shows in many places that it actually matters who you fellowship with, no? (eg., 2 Thes. 3:6 and 2 Tim. 3:5).

mazaje:

Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem Which part of the BB says that God created the universe, pls bring it on lets see.

Okay, please show me any origins science research paper that has said anything about 'GOD'.

That has been at the heart of your argument, so please don't come back like a hypocrite claiming you "don't know". It were better you just shut up and stop pretending you know anything about 'ORIGINS SCIENCE'. If you've any statement in a research paper that has concluded in "origins science" that God did not create the Universe, please show me.


(it is almost confirming to me that you don't know anything about what is meant by "origins science" - that does not mean anyone should blame you for it; but it is quite naive and indeed brainless for you mazaje to make statements that you can't provide anything for. I'm asking for research from the field of "Origins Science" asserting that God did not create the Universe).

mazaje:

Is this a joke or what? What verse in Isaiah points to creation?

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

How is the complete joke written above my nightmare? . . .How do the stars not give off their light?. . . .Since when does the moon cause her light to shine? The moon is a rock that does not produce its light, The moon light we see is simply a reflection of the sunlight on the moons surface, so how is this mythical narrative my night mare, a narrative that talks about the stars giving not giving off their light or the moon not causing its light to shine. . .Which part of this verse talks about or points to creation?. . .The in text subject heading from the NKJV I have here talks about the coming destruction of Babylon. . .How does the coming destruction of Babylon point to creation? . . . My man you are a complete joke.

Please stop breaking your neck on Isaiah 13:10. This is what I said when I quoted that verse for you in post #26:

[list][li]For one, Isaiah 13:10 indeed mentions "the constellations" of the heavens besides having mentioned the stars, but this 'constellations' is not specifically mentioned in Genesis.[/li][/list]

[list][li]I will mention Isaiah 13:10 once again - "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof" - this should help you understand that the Bible recognizes what you're on about the "other stars" being "solar systems like ours".[/li][/list]

If you can't understand the meaning of "mention" and "recognize" then you're beyond being helped indeed! The "stars of heaven" are part of God's creation, "the constellations" are also part of God's creation - this is what the Bible recognizes if you're perturbed about "OTHER STARS" being solar systems like ours! That it appears in Isaiah 13:10 in a passage talking about judgement on sinners (cf. verse 9 - 'he shall destroy the sinners') does not mean therefore that the stars and the constellations are not part of His creation!

In other passages dealing with judgement on sin and sinners, similar language is used about the sun, the moon, the stars and the bright lights of heaven being darkened (Ezekiel 32:7-, so what? That the sun and moon shall be darkened does not mean that they were not part of God's creation. In the same way, when Isaiah 13:10 says that the stars and the contellations shall not give their lights, it does not mean therefore that we could not point out that they are part of God's creation as well - and the mentioning of the "constellations" in that verse should have helped you see that the Bible recognizes the "other stars" like our solar system which you were noising earlier! Your petty excuses are beginning to bore me!

Bottomline: you were on about "other stars" being solar systems like ours, no? I cited those references to show you that the mentioning of the stars and the constellations shows that the Bible recognizes those "other stars" you were on about! When again you check the Ezekiel 32:7-8 just cited above, you find indeed that these "others" you were on about are also recognized in the Bible - the sun, the moon, the stars, and the 'All the bright lights of heaven' (or as in NIV - 'all the shining lights in the heavens') - the Bible also recognizes that there are planets as part of God's creation (2 Kings 23:5). So how is my pointing out these things to you churn you on the inside to allege that I was lying through your teeth?

mazaje:
Which generation is that? The bibles I have here in front of me do not mention any generation.

Gen 2: 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.(NKJV)

Gen 2: 4 This is the account [/b]of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens
where is the generation written here, ( NIV). . .
Gen 2: 4 This is the [b]account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.(NASB)
Gen 2:4 This is the[b] account[/b] of the creation of the heavens and the earth. When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth (NLT).
Gen2:4These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;

Which generations are you talking about since it does NOT appear in any of these versions?. . .Does that not tell you that the version you are using got it wrongly since many other versions do not mention the word generations at all but account or history?. . . .I have posted 5 other versions that say your version is wrong, no?. . . . .Even if we are to go by the version you posted, How does it help you assertion that the universe was not created in 6 days?

Please come off your high horse. Why are you being such a desperate hypocrite?
You and I are familiar with the King James Version (KJV), and I guess you quite might've quoted from the KJV as well, no? Even at that, all you needed to have done was take a look into the KJV and see indeed that Genesis 2:4 states precisely: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens".

Other translations may use the words history/account; but we know that is merely for convenience not to face up to the fact that "generations" does not refer to a 24hr reckoning of time - at the very least, the word "generations" would perhaps be more akin to the Hebrew (תּלדה  /  תּולדה - tôledâh).

You told me in post #30 that you have the E[/b]nglish [b]S[/b]tandard [b]V[/b]ersion ([b]ESV) - and this is what it says:
[list][li]These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens[/li][/list]
. . . why did you skip that one?

Other versions/translations in English that use "generations" include (but not limited to) -

[list][li]'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.' - [ASV - American Standard Version][/li][/list]

[list][li]'These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.' - [JPS - Jewish Publication Society Bible][/li][/list]

[list][li]'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens.' - [LITV - Literal Trans. of the Holy Bible][/li][/list]

[list][li]'These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.' - [RV - Revised Version][/li][/list]

Now, that's six other translations using the same word "generations" in that Genesis 2:4 verse - either you just skipped them for your convenience and therefore inferred that I was quoting only one "wrong" translation, or you just presumed I wouldn't notice the difference. After blowing hot and cold, I don't know what you've managed to discuss on that word and what I pointed out.

mazaje:
The bible says you are a pathetic lair.

The Bible does not say so - I only notice you're trying to force your own atheism into the Bible to help you prevaricate on the subject of Creation and Origins.

mazaje:

Gen 1: 16Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
Gen 1: 17God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1: 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1: 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Does this not appear in your bible?. . . . . . .Keep on trying to run faster than your shadow and lets see how successful you will be at it.

I have referred to and discussed them earlier. However, I also pointed out several times that before verse 14 to 16, Genesis 1:3 mentioned LIGHT. What did you say on that? Oh, I didn't forget - you excused it on your own story-telling about your pallying with YECs who yada-yada on that verse! I salute with three cheers!

mazaje:
You just said that the bible did not say that the stars were created on the fourth day of creation .

That's true - I noted that the Bible does not conclude that the earth was created before the stars, and to show you why I said so, I went to other verses to point out that the Universe was much earlier than the earth, no?

mazaje:
I have shown you the verse where it says that after creating the stars, The bible God them in the firmament to give light to the earth.

Ahem, mazaje. . . you argued repeatedly that the stars were set in the firmament SOLELY to give light upon the earth; and I pointed out to you that you were skipping verse 14 which shows other purposes besides giving light on earth - I hope you haven't forgotten?

mazaje:

OK if were are to go by that passage that says that a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of the bibleGod then 6 days will be like 6000 days and that will mean that the universe was created in 6000 years, no?.

That would be giving it the traditional interpretation of the YECs - and you of all people know that I'm not a YEC. I have tried to show you why that would be problematic even for the YECs, and also noted that the Bible does not give us the precise age of the Universe. The only difference is that even though in cosmology the Bible indicates that time is relative and not static, it does not tell us that we ought therefore to conclude that the entire creation is only 6,000 years old.

For this reason, I pointed out some other passages and asked questions around other creations of God in the Universe which we did not read in the Genesis account - these are clearly explicated in other verses of the Bible, and that was what I wanted folks to grapple with. The idea of a literal 24hr reckoning of 6 days in Genesis does not square with what other Bible verses are saying, it does not square with what is meant by "generations" (תּלדה/תּולדה - tôledâh) in Genesis 2:4; and certainly does not square with the chronology of created beings which are part of God's creation in other verses of the Bible.

I believe there is a coherence in all these; however, many people just stand at Genesis 1 and never seek to compare with other verses on what is being said about God's creation. When I mention the "contellations" and "planets" which are recognized in other verses outside Genesis (that is, other books of the Bible, not outside the Bible), you can't even imagine my surprise at Christians who get upset with me for finding those things outside Genesis 1!! I tried to ask them what could possibly be the problem with recognizing that the Bible acknowledges the existence of PLANETS?!? I should spare you their reactions.

In all these things, the best you can do is disagree with me in the way I comapre other verses with the Genesis 1 account - not that I'm trying to fault them; but rather because I see a coherence in them that brings out the fact that the Universe was indeed CREATED! And yes, not created by a "thing", but by God the Creator of all things.

To this end, if you have any science or ORIGINS research to show that the Universe was not created, that would be useful to consider for your argument. The basic point is not whether you are agreeing with me half-way through - but as a Christian theist, I believe in CREATION; and I suppose that at the heart of your atheism, we find a materialist notion that asserts the Universe was not created! This is the basic point - and often is the case that many atheists will say that their reason for a "not-created" Universe is "science" - and if that's what you are on about, I want to see that "science". Your excuses that you were not arguing "origins" or "origins science" or "creation" is all bull and makes your posts meaningless. If you do want to discuss origins or creation (which I suppose is what this thread is about), then I'm willing to engage you.

Now mazaje,

mazaje:

When I say I am not discussing about origins I meant to say, I was not discussing about origin sciences, that I have been clear about but just observable scientific evidence we can use to compare to the genesis creation account.

That is absolutely bunk! You've been trying to argue "science" into the ORIGINS of the Universe - and that was why I obliged you a discussion to see where you derived your "sciences" from to argue your assertions about the Universe not having been created! Any "science" would do - whether cosmology, origins science, astronomy, or theoretical physics (including quantum theory) - ANY SCIENCE would do, as long as it would have shown any substance for your assertion that God did NOT CREATE the Universe!

I even obliged you to pick any ORIGINS SCIENCE of your choice (Google if you please) and let me know which one of them has ever researched "God" and what their conclusions could have been as to assert that God did NOT CREATE the Universe. Rather, you quibbled and quibbled and never even attempted showing any difference between what you are arguing and ORIGINS SCIENCE or ORIGINS or CREATION!

This is what you said earlier:

[list]

mazaje:

You keep talking about evidence as if you have ever provided any . . . .Your evidence to show that the universe did not create itself is WHAT?

[/list]

. . . and in post #19 I argued to the contrary that:

[list]

viaro: The Universe DID NOT create itself - no science I am aware of would argue for a self-created Universe. I cannot provide any so-called "evidence" that shows or points to a Universe that created itself. Therefore, if your argument is to the contrary view that the Universe created itself, you have all the freedom in the cosmos to show me your evidence for that!

[/list]

Your argument that you're not discussing "origins" or "origins science" etc., is pure bull! It would mean all that you've been sweating to do here is a cheap run under which you can hide, because you know that you have absolutely NOTHING to show from any science that the Universe created itself; nor any science to show ORIGINS research discussing and concluding anything about "God"; nor any science where all origins research terminate at a conclusion that the Universe was NOT CREATED.

Where is your evidence for a Universe that self-created itself? NONE. Where is your evidence for ORIGINS SCIENCE? None. You're not discussing "origins". . . and how is that different from the origins and creation and origins science we have been talking about? If you are neither here nor there, what is the use trying to make any sense from what you're arguing?

mazaje:

You have made the point yourself, you asked a question about origin science and I simply stated that I was not talking about origins, by origins I meant origin science, I was careful to talk about scientific observable evidence and how it compares to the genesis creation account.

And does the so-called "scientific" evidence conclude that the Universe was not created? Even where I have tried to be amicable on that point as in post #29 and allow for some deference (*not 'difference'), the basic point from your argument was what? If you're saying that God did not create the Universe, I wanted scientific evidence that discusses 'God' and showing that the Universe was not created. That is because as an atheist who hides behind "science", you're committed to pure materialism/naturalism - and that is why I wanted you to use that same "science" from whereever you may and show me that the Universe was not created.

We may differ in details - but so far, none of what you argue has given anyone reason to conclude that the Universe was not created. I went that far to point you in the direction of current researches in that field, for which I have often mentioned "origins science". If perhaps you have any other "science" that points to origins and therefore show that the Universe was not created, I was also ready to oblige you a discussion. Where is your 'science' for origins or the creation of the Universe?

mazaje:

Nice try, but the more you keep lying through your teeth, the more ridiculous your equivocations look. One which day of creation did it say that the stars were also created? The passage did not "only" state that the he also made the stars, it says after the two great lights were created(sun and the moon), the stars were created also, and it also says there were created on the 4th day of creation, It states very clearly that the plants were created in the earth on the 3rd day of creation before the stars, sun and the moon were created on the 4th day, Keep lying because that is the only thing you seem to know how to do very well

Please tell me: why did Genesis 1:3 mention LIGHT before the latter verses 14-16 that mention other lights? I have not read a single line from you dealing with verse 3, even though I have mentioned it a couple of times. Do you care to do so now?

mazaje:

I like the YEC for one thing, they state it as it was written, what they do is that they try to say that it is the science that is wrong, since the bible to them is the word of their God, they believe its words are the ultimate, If you visist the AIG or ICR website, they say that God was the source of the light that was shining on the earth before the sun was created, I have had this same arguments with sincere people like davidylan, noetic and olaadegbu, david and ola both say that since no body was there, they believed that God was the source of the light, and since God created, it is not impossible for him to create the earth before the sun. . . They read it as it is written and do not try to waste their time lying to themselves. . .You my friend are a joke.

Both you and those who are pandering to are a bigger joke. Where is it found "as it is written" that God was the source of the light that was shining on earth before the sun was created? What verse? You just accept their word and conclude that is precisely "as it is written" so that you can applud your cheap arguments. No wonder.

But I have a question for you and your cheats. Genesis 1:3 says "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." The bolded words ('let there be') is an act of creation - it was created light; so all the trash about they said this and that would just simply come down as an excuse. I've asked some of these YECs what they mean by "God is the source of the light in Genesis 1:3". . and some of them say that HE was that light! Can you imagine the idiocy of these guys? I remarked that if God was that light in verse 3, then was He creating Himself AFTER the creation of the heavens and the earth?!?

You mazaje, are one piece of a joke! You like them YECs not because theyr are showing you what is written - but because they are cheaper shots for you to take a swing at! I wonder why you never for once asked them to show you what verse 3 was saying and whether God was creating Himself in that verse before coming down to verses 14-16 to talk about other lights!

No, that explanation of the YECs on the preceding LIGHT in verse 3 is a joke beyond reason. Next opportunity you have, please ask them sensible questions rather than assume theyr are telling you stuff "as it is written".