I often find it is not worth to argue with atheists as they are living in some sort of fantasy land and deny reality. If you ask them to create something from nothing, they cannot do it or show you it happening anywhere.
I thought the text was quite interesting, although quite hard to digest. I prefer to try and keep things simple. Logically, there cannot be something created by nothing. We have never seen this happen in our world ever. There are also amazing signs of creation all around us to those who would see. It is clear the world is designed and has mechanical processes from the clock above us (the luminaries), to creating the immaculate details on flowers. This doesnt just happen "by accident" lol
Whilst I also dont subscribe to the big bang theory nonsense and the ever expanding universe. The world is also clearly infinite. There can never be an end to the world. Once you reach a barrier, there must then be something else on the other side and so like a russian Matryoshka doll, a new layer after new layer. As in your text, it mentioned the law of thermodynamics and the equalisation effect. All air systems must have a barrier and therefore, once you reach one barrier, then there must be another world or system on the other side ad Infinitum. Ironically, the law of thermodynamics and the equalisation effect is the main reason that "Space" as it is presented to us does not and cannot exist. Our atmosphere would equalise with the air pressure in space.. I had to chuckle when Elon sent the car into space and the tyres should have exploded with air equalisation..
Direct realism - (from Wikipedia)- In philosophy of perception and epistemology, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are.
I think we need to trust our common senses and our direct reality, as this is the purest form of truth there is.
That's a problem since many people seem to be atheists these days. At least, in my own circle of people that seems to be the case. ... But then, one cannot know for sure, since the art of debating must be learned and that is the biggest hurdle in communication. We jump too soon and we ask not enough questions towards each other. I sometimes take on the effort to argue with atheists. It's tedious, that's true. But if I can spare the time and have the nerv, I try to support them with sources.
It's so much easier to argue with people who own a dogma or principles, in comparison.
That is a really strong argument, I find, and that's also why I think the text is worth spreading.
Thank you, that is a very interesting aspect. So, did you find any explanations for the fact that our Earth has an atmosphere despite that it shouldn't? LOL I am hearing that for the first time.
What Mr. Musk does, I do not follow actively, I find that his celebrity status (for one a savior, for others the opposite) gets onto my nerves.
I very much see it the same. I know you are right but if you ask me, I have a hard time to say why. So I trust it.
Fair play that you are taking on the mantel there. From my understanding, listening to many of the atheists is that they belong to the philosophy of nihilism which is just absurd and a denial of reality OR that they are part of a cult, although they do not realise that they are in a cult.
Well, according to the Book of Enoch, there should be a Firmament, but of course, without full exploration of this realm, we do not know if there is one or not. BTW, If you want to see what the luminaries actually look like, there are now plenty of videos on youtube where people can zoom in using a P1000 camera.
I feel you there. What else could it be though? This? LOL
Yes, nihilism, like cynicism, is a consequence of rejecting truth or authority. It sometimes takes on such nasty features that I find it difficult to listen. A person who believes in nothing, who is disappointed by life and no longer wants to be fascinated, easily becomes the plaything of all the other forces because he no longer uses his own. However, I would say that no one is really completely nihilistic or cynical (exceptions prove the rule). There is always the chance to express and behave differently, chances abound if you see them.
I am not familiar with the book of Enoch, I have downloaded it and saved it somewhere but found it difficult to begin and read. "Firmament" is therefore nothing I know about much.
Thank you. I might make a search:)
Oh, you doubt the theory of evolution? That's a tough board. I'm neither particularly anti- nor pro on this, but probably lean towards the latter, but wouldn't start a fight over it. The creation story leaves a lot of room for what else man thinks.
Recently, however, I've been questioning more and more things that I always took for granted. There are good reasons why one should retain a healthy doubt that some things were turned upside down a long time ago.
I would agree, there are some you can still communicate with on some levels. Others though are completely dominated by their egos.
If you believe in creationism, then it is not compatible with evolution and the big bang theory or? You cannot have your cake and eat it so to say. No one has documented a fish giving birth to a monkey yet, but I'm all ears if you see it.
I would think it compatible. When I assume a creator, I know nothing about how exactly creation took place. The big bang can fit into creation as well as evolution. It doesn't necessarily contradict each other, is how I see it (except that I don't think of the big bang as an event that came out of nothing, so I agree with the conclusion in the text). However, I am not so keen on debating this aspect too much, because I find religion gets by with the given doctrines and offers orientation. Just to mention the ten commandments and the many practical and pragmatic elements of religion that come from them.
The feeling that arises from the questioning of conscience I can neither attribute to myself alone, nor to certain people, but rather to something undefined, which I consider to be God.
I think that is the difference, there is no assumption that there is a creator, we know for sure. And you are right the 10 commandments are very practical.
But to believe in the big bang theory and evolution is making assumptions and requires to believe or have faith. I prefer to stick with what can be proven in reality. Georges Lemaitre was a clever guy to originate the theory of the expansion of the Universe in 1927 and then the Big Bang theory in 1931! I wonder how he did it!
Language is a delicate matter. I would stick to say that I have faith in God and that I am Christian. Saying that I know for sure that there is a creator puts too much weight on the shoulders of those who maybe would like to become Christians or to convert to a religion but then get shied away because of the formulation of "knowing for sure" - In the given atmosphere of these days I think it may be a good idea to feel the responsibility to consider that the un-decided ones might want come over and I would like to invite them ;)
As another commentator here in the comment section put it (very well)
I have so much food due to this very lively and engaged comment section (to my delight, so I thank you and all others) that I need time to catch up on names and sources
Such a pleasure talking to you.