Time Dilation, the Hubble Shift and God's Eternal Universe

Which is because faith is different from evidence. There has thus far been no way to provide evidence that there is a God. God cannot simply be introduced into any given research paper based on faith. What specifically do you think that science should be for? Would you say that your paper defines a pantheistic concept of God more so than a monotheistic concept? Why or why not?And I am beginning to question why this topic is in Big Bang and Cosmology rather than Faith & Belief, but let's roll with it for now.

So if God is the initial observer, how did you come to have a ringside seat from which to write your theory?

It took me awhile to get back to you. First, here is how to format: (Courtesy of RAZD) I agree, and yes, I read your homepage. You have some unique views on spirituality, which I would be willing to discuss in another topic. None of us have a corner on "the truth" but I will say in advance that you thought a lot of this out. Much respect. For the peanut gallery, here is Captcass'es page: Homepage of Captain Cass Forrington and I will just say that normally we here at EvC do not promote other peoples pages...however I found yours interesting enough to discuss. Im not going to discuss your Cosmological Question here, though I do invite you to make a new topic in Faith & Belief in which I will discuss your lengthy discourse and conclusions regarding spirituality.Oh, and one more thing: This forum has two sides. The Science side and the faith & Belief side. On the science side, critical thinking and strict objective replicable evidence are required. On the faith & Belief side, where I usually hang out, philosophy can be discussed and although people try, they cannot frame Faith & Belief by the standards with which they frame scientific evidence. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

It figures you would start bitching. We can count on it like the sunrise.

I see your point, but keep in mind that I was posting as a member. The captain's site was public knowledge. As a moderator, I have to decide on a case by case basis what qualifies as spam and what qualifies as fodder for discussion. As the Captain is still around, he appears to not be a troll. You are always so quick to jump on someone for having an opinion! Granted we are in a science forum...I see that and it is why I suggested the Captain bring his material to the Faith & Belief side. Did it ever occur to you that the art of discussion involves listening to the other side? If you shoot people down before they have a chance to attempt to make a case, you've just killed the topic. And it just so happens that I found this person interesting. You seem interesting too, if only you were not so quick to snap at people for daring to assume they know about you.

Much respect. Theo is actually defending you and chiding me for posting your website. My apologies if I stepped out of line. I was curious as to who you were...and dont consider you as "just another one of *those* crazy Christians." I would like to discuss your faith and belief in another topic. I've had a few similar experiences which tested and/or confirmed my faith. Critics claim that *we* jump at any unevidenced event to bolster our faith due to lack of evidence but thats irrelevant to this science topic. I dont see you as a troll nor a spammer and thought you were interesting. (I'm curious by nature ) I can see where the critical thinking purists here insist upon standard scientific review of any theory...but I chided them for being so tough on your theory without considering that it meant a lot to you and was not simply some cultic jibber jabber. Science Forums love evidence, however, so I might ask you what personally convinced you that you were possibly on to something new or never discussed the way you framed it?

Are they *all* snake oil carnys, jar? I suspect that you dont agree with the conclusions of the apologists simply because you reason differently than much of Biblical Christianity. Asd for the Captain here, I feel that his apologetics is sketchy, but his credentials are otherwise fairly sound, if accurate.

I think that we need to split this into a Faith & Belief topic and leave this in the strict Science context and methodology. Much of what you bring up is philosophical. Can we perhaps quote your philosophical insights and incorporate them into a proposed new topic for Faith & Belief? I'll let you start it and I will review it for promotion in my administrative role. *switches hats*