Curiouser and curiouser...

Do Christians believe that time will end?

Scriptures... Scientific evidence please.


Platonia, anyone?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

What you have failed to do is back up your accusations in the previous post as I have cited that the madazines do not measure up to excellent accademic standards. In the history of our exchanges you have failed to cite anything to back up your assurtions.-\

I don't have to. Anyone who thinks that Discover and SA are at the same standards as academic journals really has no idea about academic science. This is a fact.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I believe the process of review by the editors of these magazines to be adequate to maximize credibility and caution to maintain the reputation of the magazine.

So you believe that the editorial board for Discover can do what no academic journal can do. The editorial board of academic journals does not review articles submitted for peer review for the exact reason that I am using to be critical of Discover. They assign experts to review them.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Your accusation that an article promoting the 'universe is all there is' does not make it because it is not sensational enough is foolishness. You simply have to scite journal sources that support this notion in contemporary cosmology, which you have failed to do

You have failed to cite primary articles for you belief that the Earth is round and that the Earth revolves around the sun. Should we abandon these beliefs as well?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Than you would have no trouble with these concepts being the prevalent view of contemporary cosmology supported by sound science.

I don't have trouble with these concepts but I am skeptical of them. And it is not because of their philosophical implications.

I also don't feel that you have enough knowledge or expertise to say that they are the prevalent view. You also don't have enough expertise to critically read the literature and decide for yourself. Instead you listen to what others say and form your opinions from this comentary . Much like you criticize me for allegedly doing.

Originally posted by element771

I don't have to. Anyone who thinks that Discover and SA are at the same standards as academic journals really has no idea about academic science. This is a fact.

False, this is not a fact it is your opinion.

So you believe that the editorial board for Discover can do what no academic journal can do.

False statement. I never said anything like this.

The editorial board of academic journals does not review articles submitted for peer review for the exact reason that I am using to be critical of Discover. They assign experts to review them.

The disagreement here is whether the review process of the magazines is enough to maximize the credibility of the content and the conclusions. I believe it is you do not.

You have failed to cite primary articles for you belief that the Earth is round and that the Earth revolves around the sun. Should we abandon these beliefs as well?

This is your problem of insecurity. Something you have to deal with.

I don't have trouble with these concepts but I am skeptical of them. And it is not because of their philosophical implications.

You would have to explain this better than this.

I also don't feel that you have enough knowledge or expertise to say that they are the prevalent view. You also don't have enough expertise to critically read the literature and decide for yourself. Instead you listen to what others say and form your opinions from this comentary . Much like you criticize me for allegedly doing.

If you do not believe this is not true you simply have cite sources to dispute it. You have cited nothing. You could cite a couple of cosmologists who support a finite model of the greater cosmos. I have cited many cosmologists in a number of threads over time that support an infinite eternal cosmos and one or more possible multi-verse models. The witness is in the sources, and not your or my opinions or expertise.


It is a foolish assertion on your part. By the way you claimed to listen to what others say.

An assertion on your part, nothing more

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Curiouser and curiouser...

Do Christians believe that time will end?

Scriptures... Scientific evidence please.


Platonia, anyone?

The will say what he thinks most Christians believe and what science “says”.

Christians: Most of those that the Shadowmaster knows believe that Jesus Christ will return and the world (perhaps universe) will be transformed into a “non-corruptible” form. No more of entropy increasing. Perhaps like the original Garden of Eden

Science: Prevailing thought appears to be that dark energy is forcing an expansion at ever increasing rate. Barring some new findings, this ensures the “heat death” of the universe.

As best the has read about these things. He is neither a theologian nor an astrophysicist.

The will say what he thinks most Christians believe and what science “says”.

Christians: Most of those that the Shadowmaster knows believe that Jesus Christ will return and the world (perhaps universe) will be transformed into a “non-corruptible” form. No more of entropy increasing. Perhaps like the original Garden of Eden

Hellboy used to hold a similar belief when he was HEAVENBOY, however, many years hors de combat, I wonder if love was good enough reason to let it all get so terribly out of hand?

Science: Prevailing thought appears to be that dark energy is forcing an expansion at ever increasing rate. Barring some new findings, this ensures the “heat death” of the universe.

As best the has read about these things. He is neither a theologian nor an astrophysicist.

Stasis; or in the case of multiple Universes - dynamic equilibrium.

Those are possibilities. It's too bad that we do not know enough to establish more facts.

As you know - all it takes is a few discoveries to turn theorists on their heads.

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Hellboy used to hold a similar belief when he was HEAVENBOY, however, many years hors de combat, I wonder if love was good enough reason to let it all get so terribly out of hand?

But you asked what Christians believe. Was the Shadowmaster correct?

Stasis; or in the case of multiple Universes - dynamic equilibrium.

Those are possibilities. It's too bad that we do not know enough to establish more facts.

As you know - all it takes is a few discoveries to turn theorists on their heads.

But you asked what science says. Was the Shadowmaster correct?

Perhaps we need to ask shuny

Originally posted by shadowmaster

But you asked what Christians believe. Was the Shadowmaster correct?

But you asked what science says. Was the Shadowmaster correct?

Perhaps we need to ask shuny

Hellboy thinks that ShadowMaster's answers fit within the definition of correctness - notwithstanding the variety of beliefs held in both theology and physics tend to prohibit pat assertions.

With regards to Shuny...

Hellboy thinks it best to stay away from dogfights.

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Hellboy thinks it best to stay away from dogfights.

Hellboy is smart

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Scientific evidence please.

The boredom of it. The boredom.

Originally posted by Anon

The boredom of it. The boredom.

Originally posted by shadowmaster

Wake up; it's only logical positivism.

logical positivism sucks

Originally posted by shadowmaster

The shadowmaster will say what he thinks most Christians believe and what science “says”.

This is questionable. The current trend of the 20th century is not good news.

Science: Prevailing thought appears to be that dark energy is forcing an expansion at ever increasing rate. Barring some new findings, this ensures the “heat death” of the universe.

.

Correct, this is one of the views based on our current knowledge concerning the fate of our universe, but not the only one. Prevailing views are in flux. This does not address the question of the nature of the greater cosmos beyond our universe. The prevailing view is the contemporary views of the origins of our universe as a singularity and ultimate fate of our universe does not provide an adequate explanation for the nature of the greater cosmos.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

This is questionable. The current trend of the 20th century is not good news.



Correct, this is one of the views based on our current knowledge concerning the fate of our universe, but not the only one. Prevailing views are in flux. This does not address the question of the nature of the greater cosmos beyond our universe. The prevailing view is the contemporary views of the origins of our universe as a singularity and ultimate fate of our universe does not provide an adequate explanation for the nature of the greater cosmos.

How about giving us the baha'i viewpoint?

Originally posted by shadowmaster

How about giving us the baha'i viewpoint?

The Baha'i viewpoit promotes the harmony of science and religion. Science itself is a form of progressive revelation concerning the nature of God's creation. The understanding and interpretation of scripture. even Baha'i scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence is left to science. The Baha'is do not consider it a theological controversy or problem concerning which concept of the greater cosmos is correct. This would also be true of evolution. Fallible humans will always be to certain extent limited in their ability to ultimately determine the nature of our existence.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The Baha'i viewpoit promotes the harmony of science and religion. Science itself is a form of progressive revelation concerning the nature of God's creation. The understanding and interpretation of scripture. even Baha'i scripture concerning the physical nature of our existence is left to science. The Baha'is do not consider it a theological controversy or problem concerning which concept of the greater cosmos is correct. This would also be true of evolution. Fallible humans will always be to certain extent limited in their ability to ultimately determine the nature of our existence.

A friend (a baha'i) told me that the Baha'i religion teaches that God has sent a series of prophets -- including Jesus. He specifically said that Bahá'u'lláh was the second coming of Jesus Christ. Is that true in your estimation?