OrdinaryClay Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Izzat so? zat so. No model predicts inflation eternal in the past, hence Guth's quote which you misunderstood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Izzat so? zat so. No model predicts inflation eternal in the past, hence Guth's quote which you misunderstood. Nope. I fully understand that Guth's work is not past-eternal. I just want you to tell everyone here the full implications of what this means... Specifically, why is it that you seem reluctant to talk about any of the theological implications of Guth's model of Eternal Inflation? You're a smart guy and you know what they are, so why won't you go there? Guth himself says... "Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Yes, please explain what Guth means when he says that our universe will never stop inflating, OC. BAA. . . . . p.s. While Guth's work isn't past-eternal, Linde's is past-eternal. In his model of a Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, our universe's Big Bang event is simply one many. It is just part of a purely natural process that has been going on forever. It is no longer a singular, special and supernatural event. Which explains why you won't touch it with a barge-pole. At a stroke, it kills Christianity stone dead. Genesis 1:1 is shown for what it is - a piece of wishful thinking. (not) sorry 'about that! . . . . . p.p.s. And it's just this kind of scenario that I was referring to when I wrote, ..."by the year 2020.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Izzat so? zat so. No model predicts inflation eternal in the past, hence Guth's quote which you misunderstood. . p.s. While Guth's work isn't past-eternal, Linde's is past-eternal. In his model of a Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, our universe's Big Bang event is simply one many. It is just part of a purely natural process that has been going on forever. It is no longer a singular, special and supernatural event. Which explains why you won't touch it with a barge-pole. At a stroke, it kills Christianity stone dead. Genesis 1:1 is shown for what it is - a piece of wishful thinking. (not) sorry 'about that! Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible. In this book Vilenkin covers it on page 175 http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0809095238 This means Creation had to of occurred, again, hence the quote by Guth which you still misunderstand. I don't think you understand what they mean by eternal inflation. Honestly spend some time understanding what they are describing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 WLC and his Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sham. The guy is a huckster, a snake oil salesman who happens to be talented at debating. It's Ontololgy dressed up in scientific words. Putting lipstick on a pig is a good comparison. Much like how Deepak Chopra sprinkles his talks with random scientific words, Craig does the same. Amen. You put words to my thoughts. --- Here's the KCA in my words, btw: Before "before" existed, a non-before-necessary being existed, because because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Izzat so? zat so. No model predicts inflation eternal in the past, hence Guth's quote which you misunderstood. . p.s. While Guth's work isn't past-eternal, Linde's is past-eternal. In his model of a Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, our universe's Big Bang event is simply one many. It is just part of a purely natural process that has been going on forever. It is no longer a singular, special and supernatural event. Which explains why you won't touch it with a barge-pole. At a stroke, it kills Christianity stone dead. Genesis 1:1 is shown for what it is - a piece of wishful thinking. (not) sorry 'about that! Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible. In this book Vilenkin covers it on page 175 http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0809095238 This means Creation had to of occurred, again, hence the quote by Guth which you still misunderstand. I don't think you understand what they mean by eternal inflation. Honestly spend some time understanding what they are describing. Even if I were to accept your spin on this OC, (which I don't) I notice that once again (or is that, as usual) you choose not to comment on the full implications of Guth's work. You continue to focus tightly only on those aspects of it that happen to back up your position. By doing this is you are spinning a half-truth. Your deliberate omission of relevant, game-changing information indicates subterfuge and dishonesty. I stand by my earlier accusation. Deny it if you will, but please don't feign ignorance of what these implications are. Doing that really will just confirm that you are lying to us. Now, please declare and explain what the full implications of what it means for Inflation to continue forever. I asked you to explain what they are in my last post. But, of course, you won't go there, will you? They are simply unacceptable to you, right? Here it is again. BAA wrote... "Nope. I fully understand that Guth's work is not past-eternal. I just want you to tell everyone here the full implications of what this means... Specifically, why is it that you seem reluctant to talk about any of the theological implications of Guth's model of Eternal Inflation? You're a smart guy and you know what they are, so why won't you go there? Guth himself says... "Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Yes, please explain what Guth means when he says that our universe will never stop inflating, OC. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now for some free personal advice. Please be advised that playing the I'm-smarter-than-you card simply makes you look arrogant. That won't help you win any souls for Christ, in this forum. On the other hand, if you're simply here to inflate your ego, please carry right on - that won't win you any souls either. Who are you serving, Jesus Christ or your own ego? Please be advised that I never give up. A wise person will usually heed good advice. There's no doubt in my mind that you are a highly intelligent person - but are you a wise one? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Even if I were to accept your spin on this OC, (which I don't) I notice that once again (or is that, as usual) you choose not to comment on the full implications of Guth's work. You continue to focus tightly only on those aspects of it that happen to back up your position. It's not my spin. I'm simply stating the science. Eternal inflation has no theological implications for the KCA, which is the subject context of my Guth quote. Why don't you explain the full theological implications of eternal inflation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Even if I were to accept your spin on this OC, (which I don't) I notice that once again (or is that, as usual) you choose not to comment on the full implications of Guth's work. You continue to focus tightly only on those aspects of it that happen to back up your position. It's not my spin. I'm simply stating the science. But not all of it. You're cherry-picking only those parts of Guth's work that support your position. Not all of it does and some of it even undermines you - which is why you consistently avoid talking about the entirety of his work. Eternal inflation has no theological implications for the KCA, which is the subject context of my Guth quote. Yes, exactly. By tightly confining yourself to only to the theological implications of eternal inflation re: the KCA, you are not telling us the whole story. Which suits your purposes very nicely. Why don't you explain the full theological implications of eternal inflation? Why don't I explain the full theological implications of eternal inflation? Well, you've actually answered you're own question, OC. Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible. In this book Vilenkin covers it on page 175 http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0809095238 This means Creation had to of occurred, again, hence the quote by Guth which you still misunderstand. I don't think you understand what they mean by eternal inflation. Honestly spend some time understanding what they are describing. Because you don't think I understand what these physicists mean by eternal inflation, that's why. Therefore, I'm deferring to the one who not only does understand eternal inflation, but who also consistently refuses to describe the full implications of that concept. That would be you. And, once again, your reply demonstrates that you will not even acknowledge that these implications exist. Nor will you explain, discuss, debate what they are. That's why you've batted this back to me...again. Therefore, for the fourth time... "Nope. I fully understand that Guth's work is not past-eternal. I just want you to tell everyone here the full implications of what this means... Specifically, why is it that you seem reluctant to talk about any of the theological implications of Guth's model of Eternal Inflation? You're a smart guy and you know what they are, so why won't you go there? Guth himself says... "Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Yes, please explain what Guth means when he says that our universe will never stop inflating, OC. BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 If God is not real a Christian is a fool Yes. Please post your testable, verifiable proof of God at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen652 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 a Christian is any person who has established a personal, and supernatural, relationship with their Creator through Jesus Christ. also please tell me exactly where in the bible it says anything at all about having a 'relationship' with God or Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I was always told a Christian not only had to believe in Jesus and his resurrection but also the Trinity. This is why some say Christadelphians, Unitarians, etc. are not Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoftIce Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 My own little definition is anyone that incorperates something related to Jesus into their belief system, whether it's something that he taught, the ressurection idea, or some other idea I'm forgetting to list. Even if they think he was just a man and not God, or even if it's just some kind of concept related to 'Jesus'. Of course, that's ultra loose and most Christians don't agree with it. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts