mo.mentum said:
That's not the story of Noah im familiar with. His whole nation was warned, Noah was the warner. Yet they mocked him and rejected him, like so many poeople have rejected the prophets sent to them.
Ah, I thought you meant that
God warned the people directly. I didn't realize that the only "warning" these folks had was from the nut who was building the big boat.
There's a homless guy in my neighborhood who thinks he's Pope Alexander VI. Should I take him seriously, just in case God's speaking through him?
How do you explain the multiple chances He gave Pharoah to repent and witness the Signs?? Pharoah's own arrogance and pride was his undoing, same as Satan.
As I said (and as you ignored) God hardened Pharoah's heart, so that Pharaoh wouldn't do it:
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. -- Exodus 7:3
And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. -- Exodus 7:13
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses. -- Exodus 9:12
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: -- Exodus 10:1
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go. -- Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go. -- Exodus 10:27
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land. -- Exodus 11:10
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand -- Exodus 14:8
You should read more Exodus. It pretty much obliterates the notion of Free Will.
Ok maybe im asking you to have a paradigm shift here. But try not to think of God as some remote entity, far and unreachable. He is closer to us than our jugular veins. Maybe modern Western science has let go of trying to learn more about God. But where the scientific method arose, in 8th century Arabia, this was the precise purpose it was pioneered. The scientific method was applied to nature inorder to understand God's Power, Knowledge and Wisdom. The more science they uncovered, the more faith they had. God never asks for blind faith. Blind faith is for the gullible.
You ask for a paradigm shift and give no reason for me to have one. Just a lot of empty theology.
All organisms can somehow understand the DNA code within their cells. A complex yet simply organized double-helix molecule. It can contain billions of bits of information, yet fits inside the nuclei of an atom. Let's see mankind develop such technology. Yet "nature" was able to come by it by chance.... i see.... And you're calling ME superstitious?
Yes I am.
Think about it a bit more. What tells the bone to stop "healing" or growing? Why don't bones keep growing when your flesh stops growing during puberty? How come your ribs don't poke out of your sides? Your entire body is synched to grow together and to a certain limit. How come hair on our heads grows indefinetly, yet eye brows and such grow to a certain length and stop? How do they "know" when to stop?
I suppose you're going to say "because God told them to."
Yes, I know, and Jesus is what keeps the protons and neutrons together in the atom.
Oh i understand, that's what makes me marvel even more than if i didn't! I see science as a beautiful proof on its own. Others might not. Like you for example.
Some people do tend to see things...
You don't understand evolution very well i think. What you describe is called adaptation. You can develop an immunity to a disease because your white blood cells grow accustomed to the presence of the disease inducing organism. You don't turn into a new species, you don't have new organs growing out of you.
I don't understand evolution? What you call "adaptation" is the creationist term what what is commonly called microevolution. "Turning into a new species" is macroevolution. "Having new organs grow out of you" is a strawman description used by creationists to confuse the ignorant.
I see it still works.
How did milk producing breasts come about in mammals? How did "nature" end up building this biological mechanism which produces all the needed nutrients for a newborn?
The better question is: Why didn't
every animal get this biological mechanism?
Answer: because mammals are decended from a common ancestor who developed this trick.
Ya but my whole point is that universe is FINITE, so it didn't have all of time to try and produce us.
The Earth is generally estimated by science to be (ballpark figure) 4.5 billion years old. The universe is estimated to be around (another ballpark figure) 14 billion years old. That's plenty of time.
Most people can't even begin to wrap their brains around some of the numbers involved here. let me illustrate:
If you tried counting to one million, one number per second, not stopping for any reason (no food, no sleep, no bathroom, etc.) You'd reach a million after about 12 days.
Try counting to a billion. one number per second, non-stop. You'll be done in 33 years.
so to count up to the age of the Earth will take you (33*4.5)= 148.5 years. Just to
count to 14 billion would take (33*14)= 462 years.
Still think there's not enough time?
Ummm no. Simple statistics. Every turn you get to pick, the game is reset. You can pick for an eternity and never end up with the black one. Every time you pick, your chances don't improve, since the marble you pick is thrown back into the pile. Just like a slot machine. Just cuz someone just one, doesn't mean no one will win for the day. Simple Statistics.
If it's simple statistics, why are you getting it wrong? As long as the black marble is in the bag, there's
always a chance (albeit an Infinitesimal one) that it will be picked. and if you have all of eternity, then it's only a matter of time.
But since 1*10^300 is an abitrary figure, with no relevence whatsoever, the point is moot.
So far, any tiny variations in the laws that govern our universe would either result in the universe being a big soup of particles with no bigger particles, or one huge clump of indistinguishable matter.
and what makes you so certain that life couldn't exist in that soup/indistinguishable matter?
This is why i stated at some point that the universal constants in physics are set in a certain way that there is a balance between everything. The slightest variation in one will throw everything out of whack, not give another result.
And I've stated and explained how your position is mistaken. The slightest variation would throw everything out of whack, but is this the only way everything has to be?
You're arguing in favor of a strong anthropic principle: The universe must be designed because everything here is perfect for supporting human life.
This position reflects a very limited imagination. Douglas Adams gave a great example of its flaws with a very simple allegory:
Imagine a puddle of water waking up and looking at its suroundings. "Oh, what a perfectly-shaped hole I seem to be in. It must have been dug specifically for me to be in it."
Starting to see the limitation of your argument?
As I said, If things weren't the way they were they'd be something different.
