A Pondering of the Peculiar

[EternalDragon]

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Still waiting.

You stated scientific evidence supports the bible and you instead talk about scientific evidence of how life began?????????????????????????????

Show us how SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supports the bible, or just go ahead and withdraw your claim.

 

[46AND2]

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".

No...DOES not lie is an interpretation of honesty. CANNOT lie is an interpretation of a limitation.

Since omnipotence does not allow for limitations, a god who cannot lie is not omnipotent.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

How does science explain life beginning? ....with evidence, not conjecture.

The earliest evidence we have of life on Earth is from about 3.5 billion years ago and is microbial. Multicellular life does not appear for another 2.5 billion years. Thus the evidence is that life began at the microscopic level and remained so for somewhere around 3/4 of the history of life on Earth.

Your turn to prove your claim that the bible supports this, or that this supports the bible.

 

[anyathesword]

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.

Mistakes happen my friend, Im only human..

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[46AND2]

Space is expanding.

Now show us how that doesn't satisfy your demand, or just go ahead and accept the answer.

For clarification, which verses are you referring to?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[46AND2]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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;

 

[46AND2]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

That one is even easier to disagree with, and is part of the reason why my interpretation of the first one differs from yours.

We stand on opposite sides of the demarcation line.

 

[Sayre]

That one is even easier to disagree with, and is part of the reason why my interpretation of the first one differs from yours.

You mean you don't think God literally stretched out the skies like playdough?

Heretic! I will pray for your soul

 

[anyathesword]

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?

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!

 

[46AND2]

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.

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?

 

[46AND2]

You mean you don't think God literally stretched out the skies like playdough?

Heretic! I will pray for your soul

Haha. Actually, my objection is purely literary. Has nothing to do with whether I think he could do it or not.

 

[46AND2]

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!

And just as a horse is not a Pegasus, neither is a god who cannot lie, omnipotent.

 

[Sayre]

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.

 

[46AND2]

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?

 

[Sayre]

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?

Well, I think that God has revealed Himself to mankind, and the bible is man's record of those revelatory events. However, man can understand in error. Man can transmit these events through story or literary genres we don't understand or use anymore, and in a way that is steeped in the culture of the writer. It is an interesting book even if you only read it as a secular piece of literature helpful for informing us about society and culture in times past.

sorry I'm disjoint tonight ... my children are sick and I only get a minute here or there to piece ideas together and post.