EternalDragon
Counselor
How does science explain life beginning? ....with evidence, not conjecture.
If you don't like that because you seem to not be answering then...The fossil evidence is evidence that supports the bible.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Balls in your court. You stated scientific evidence supports the bible. Start wherever you like.
How does science explain life beginning? ....with evidence, not conjecture.
If you don't like that because you seem to not be answering then...The fossil evidence is evidence that supports the bible.
That is true. Because God is defined as the Honest. The argument can not violate the definition. "can not lie" is an interpretation of "honest".
How does science explain life beginning? ....with evidence, not conjecture.
If Jesus was born in 5 or 6 ad, how was he born during the reign of king herod? Herod died in 4 bc.
Besides, just the other day, you were claiming Jesus was born in the year 0. Which is kind of funny, since there was no year 0.
Space is expanding.Show us how SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supports the bible, or just go ahead and withdraw your claim.
Space is expanding.
Now show us how that doesn't satisfy your demand, or just go ahead and accept the answer.
I'll give you one ... to see where that goes.For clarification, which verses are you referring to?
I'll give you one ... to see where that goes.
Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Just curious. I don't agree with you, but its a dead end argument, that I'm not interested in getting into because of its subjective nature; having to do with terminology interpretation and all that.
Here's another one you can disagree with:
Isaiah 42:5a Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;
That one is even easier to disagree with, and is part of the reason why my interpretation of the first one differs from yours.
That one is even easier to disagree with, and is part of the reason why my interpretation of the first one differs from yours.
So, if God created the universe, and he can not lie, why does every bit of natural evidence we find in the universe contradict the biblical creation story?
I will give this a go.
I think the tri-omni-max ontology is juvenile and poorly thought out. I don't believe it describes the Christian God well at all. It is clearly contradictory as you point out (and contradictory in more ways than just this).
Perhaps a better way of describing God's ontology is Anselm's greatest possible being.
You mean you don't think God literally stretched out the skies like playdough?
Heretic! I will pray for your soul
Like I said many times before, Satan is the Father of lies. He is the one who created lies. God was always honest before he created angels and after. It is against His nature to lie.
Just like a horse can't fly!
Sorry, got distracted with other things...
The problem with anselm's argument is that just because something exists in your mind, doesn't mean it exists in reality. They are two different meanings of "exist," for one thing.
But you could use it for other things, like...imagine the richest possible leprechaun. Surely a leprechaun who exists in reality, would be richer than one who only exists in your mind. Therefore, if such a real leprechaun exists in your mind, it exists in reality. Don't think so.
But if your point is simply that god is only as powerful as we can justify with logic...how is that in keeping with the bible's claim?
I will grant you that there are problems with Anselm's ontological argument as proof of God. But I wasn't attempting to use it to prove God's existence, but to provide a definition of His nature/character.
I'm not sure how you think this definition is unbiblical? That said, I'm not an inerranist, and I think there is a very human aspect to the bible. We read about man's understanding of God and it changes over time as man's understanding deepens. It wouldn't really bother me if man, 6000 years ago, had a concept that was rough at the edges and needed refinement.
I'm not sure how helpful that was for you but I'm happy to keep going if you are finding the conversation useful.
I figured that's what you meant, that's why I added the last question.
If you are not an inerrantist, and I already assumed you weren't, how do you determine which parts are inspired, if any?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?