Closed system doesn't apply to an infinite universe. Also please note that nuclear power sources convert matter into energy, so if you put a box around an aging star the amount of usable energy within that closed system would actually go up.cleft_for_me said:
Then god is not omnipotent. Although I thank you for those quotes, until now I had always been using the chariots of iron example, these are very helpful.theseed said:
His power isn't unlimited if he can't do certain things.
Yes everyone may know the truth. The point that jesus tried to get accrossed to people was not to look for it. That when you look for it you will never find it. Now I will explain why. When someone is seeking the truth about got are they looking for the truth or something so extrordinarily supernatural? Usually they are looking for something out of the ordinay boundaries of our pathetic physical existence. Don't look to hard or you will never find it and pay attention to that teachings that the kingdome of god is all around you at all times. knowing that look around you... You will begin to see absoloute truth about the existence of god. If you don't then I guess your just not ready.cleft_for_me said:
Faith is supposed to be not based from what you see, touch, taste, hear at all anyway. If you base your faith out of the bible then your faith is sorely misplaced. The bible is a set of stories to give us an idea of how we should live our lives with god... not to give us faith in god. I for one and don't get me wrong on this I do beleive in god very strongly and will always do gods will as he commands however I do not like the bible... There are too many gospels not there that were banned from the bible for conveinience to christian faith. They didn't want anything in there to make anyone question their faith but in the process have made many do it still. Too many gospels missing... too many stories untold so that the faith could be used whenever it was convenient. Blehcleft_for_me said:
Why is that? The resurrection occurred at an identifiable time and place: ancient Judea, on the third day after the crucifixion, did it not? (According to the Biblical accounts, anyway.)Philosoft said:
I realize that this issue is still under debate in some circles. However, even though I am not personally in a position to examine the original manuscripts or anything (and wouldn't know what I was looking at even if I did!), I am satisfied, from reading the translations that are available, that the writers were sincere and honest. I know there is a lot of speculation about some sort of "Q" document, but even if it should someday be found to actually exist, that doesn't mean the Gospel writers weren't drawing from personal experience. Who would take the trouble to copy and paraphrase a document already in circulation, unless they had something new to add or some additional perspective on it? It's kind of like when I cut and paste news articles here in this forum, interspersing personal comments, anecdotes, and emphases at various points. Does that make my rendition "false," or indicate that my experiences never took place, since the bulk of my post is actually taken from an article already published?
A lot of it is testimony, that's true. But testimony is often the most valuable tool we have for determining what actually occurred. That said, there is also evidence that the site of Jesus' tomb has been discovered. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published an article on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is believed to have been built on top of the site. Metacrock has also put together a page listing evidence from various sources.
You're probably right. I just ran across the most marvelous "crystallization" of the concept: "The Big Bang is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant, while a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point." (from UCLA's Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology) Isn't that awesome? It defies imagination. Once there was nothing -- then, whammo! The entire universe is filled with light and dancing particles all rushing to fill this new thing called "space".... Wow. Talk about spectacular! I wonder if we'll get to see the replay in heaven?
Why can't beauty and ugliness both offer evidence of design? The very fact that we consider things beautiful or ugly, good or evil (even if our standards often disagree) shows that we are "built" to make these kinds of subjective judgments. There is no reason why we should even look at things from a subjective point of view, from a purely naturalistic standpoint. Why do we experience awe at a glorious sunset, for example? We can't eat it or wear it -- it has absolutely no utilitarian value for us. This shows that there is a dimension to us over and above our purely physical, chemical nature.
That's beside the point. My point is that just because we haven't seen or proven something yet doesn't mean it can't exist. Almost everything that does exist was at one time unseen and unproven.
A lot of people are looking for things that can't be seen. In fact, they're searching for them quite desperately. Just take a glance at the personal ads online. Silly? Perhaps. But I think you'd find yourself in the minority if you feel that the things that matter most in life are those that can be seen.
And you believe scientists aren't "emotionally invested" in their premises? The best ones are actually quite passionate about their theories. Are you as willing to dismiss them on the same grounds? You believe in the Big Bang, for example, right? On what evidence? Have you ever personally witnessed the operation of quarks and antimatter? Or are you basing your belief on the reports of someone else's observation and speculation? Can it be objectively verified and proven? No, any respectable scientist will admit that it cannot. Why then do you persist in believing it?
What constitutes "validation" of your beliefs? How has your belief in macroevolution been "validated"? Have you any more solid proof for that theory than you have for the existence of ghosts and alien abductions?
Norseman said:
Norseman said:
I don't think there were terribly many witnesses.LuckyCharm said:
Okay, but the debate extends to authorship of the included Gospels. The most reliable scholarship today suggests no more than three authors. Also, the Gospel of Thomas is seeing a resurgence in scholastic popularity.
I think you watch too much Law & Order and not enough CSI. Eyewitness testimony has been repeatedly shown less reliable than circumstantial evidence.
We'll see if any of this pans out.
I suspect not.You're probably right. I just ran across the most marvelous "crystallization" of the concept: "The Big Bang is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant, while a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point." (from UCLA's Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology) Isn't that awesome? It defies imagination. Once there was nothing -- then, whammo! The entire universe is filled with light and dancing particles all rushing to fill this new thing called "space".... Wow. Talk about spectacular! I wonder if we'll get to see the replay in heaven?
Um, no. It shows there is some mental capacity not strictly explicable in terms of natural selection.
Yeah, well, not all unproven phenomena are created equal.
Well, I have William of Ockham to thank for helping me make such trivial decisions as you mention. It's of no existential importance right now that I know who or what you are with any kind of certainty. And, considering my prior experience with human females, nothing in your posts suggests I should suspect you're anything but who you claim to be.
Considering god-claims strike me as an order of magnitude more existentially important, the above characterization amounts to a strawman.
Science employs a pretty good means of counteracting personal zealousness - peer review.
For example, my beliefs that certain women have been attracted to me have been correct more often than not. I try to base those beliefs on observations and experience, rather than only what I want to be true.
Not completely. It's the best explanation by far for what we see in the fossil record.
Yes.
Philosoft:Philosoft said:
Philosoft said:
No, not to the actual event, that's true. But my point was that according to the only information available to us, it can be located at a specific place in a specific moment in time, not just a vague "once upon a time" sort of thing. Having said that, though, there were many reported witnesses to the risen Jesus.Philosoft said:
What grounds is there to conclude that?
Ha ha.... yeah, it's seeing a resurgence in popularity, but I don't know about "scholastic" popularity! Gnosticism has always attracted a certain temperament, notably those who like to feel they possess "secret" knowledge. Many "Gospels" were actually written about Jesus, but the Church fathers wisely determined that it was necessary to define which ones would have an official place within Christian teaching. I mean, consider this:
If it is, then I guess I'm SOL, because I wouldn't know how to go about making myself male even if I were so inclined!Sorry, but I don't even own a TV, and I don't know what CSI is.
Maybe so. But what "circumstantial evidence" would you expect to have at this time, for something that occurred two millennia ago? There is some surviving physical evidence, we think, but certainly not enough to constitute irrefutable proof for the skeptic! So we are forced to rely on the reports we do have, and decide for ourselves whether they are trustworthy.
And you're satisfied with that answer?? It's like you're saying, "We can't explain it, but your explanation can't be correct, because it involves the supernatural, and the supernatural doesn't exist."
Unfortunately, this is a common viewpoint, but not without dissension within the scientific community. I invite you to read Physics and the Reality of Supernature by Donavan Hall, a Ph. D. candidate in condensed matter physics at Louisiana State University. His area of expertise is the measurement of quantum oscillations in strongly correlated materials.
So you're comfortable accepting my claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up. And that's because of its existential unimportance? Okay, I'll buy that. But if the "God question" is so existentially important by comparison, wouldn't you be even more eager to delve into whatever evidence you can find, in whatever form it might present itself, rather than rejecting the possibility of the supernatural a priori?
Don't you "want" God not to be true? Are you sure your personal exploration isn't colored to some degree by your desire for God not to exist?
Really? Well, I could tell you about a ghost that haunted my childhood home in Chicago. I saw her before my mother ever mentioned her to me, and both of us saw her on a number of occasions. She used to do some really weird things, which I won't bore anybody with here, for now. The local newspaper even did a story on her.
I imagine this topic is better tackled in General Apologetics. It's of little philosophical import.LuckyCharm said:
Again, this is something that probably deserves its own topic.Ha ha.... yeah, it's seeing a resurgence in popularity, but I don't know about "scholastic" popularity! Gnosticism has always attracted a certain temperament, notably those who like to feel they possess "secret" knowledge. Many "Gospels" were actually written about Jesus, but the Church fathers wisely determined that it was necessary to define which ones would have an official place within Christian teaching. I mean, consider this:
"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
This certainly doesn't sound like the Jesus I know!
Crime Scene Investigation. One of the precious few actual series I watch.Sorry, but I don't even own a TV, and I don't know what CSI is.
Well, I am often told about the remarkable degree of physical corroboration between archaeology and the Bible. But in any case, your complaint illustrates the very problem with granting the benefit of the doubt to the Gospel authors - somehow, due to a lack of circumstantial evidence, we ought to give the Gospels themselves more evidential weight. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
*Shrug* As far as I can tell, calling some poorly-understood phenomenon "supernatural" amounts to throwing in the towel. I certainly don't see any reason to think one book or another has a monopoly on the truth.And you're satisfied with that answer?? It's like you're saying, "We can't explain it, but your explanation can't be correct, because it involves the supernatural, and the supernatural doesn't exist."
I don't know how you decided I have "no evidence." I can't deductively prove you exist, but a satisfactory inductive case can be made.
As soon as someone presents me with a workable, reliable means of determining which supernatural explanation is correct, I'll get right into the delving part.
Granted, there are some god-concepts I personally dislike, but as a general concept I have no issues with a transcendent creator. It's not very philosophically satisfying, but I endeavor not to let that cloud my judgment.
I don't really take seriously criticisms of "macroevolution." They rarely operate on an empirically equivalent level to evolution itself. Mostly, they're just sour-grapes-type bleating about the falsifcation of one's strongly-held interpretation of Genesis. Sorry to be so blunt, but I've been through this way too many times - my benefit-of-doubt reserves are used up.
Norseman said:
AnCiEnT1 said:
