God invented language

[AV1611VET]

Well then, nature had no need to "sustain" itself -- not by any meaningful definition of the word.

Once again:

1. God created this universe and handed it over to Adam and Eve.
2. Adam and Eve gave it to Satan.
3. At this point, God withdrew His sustenance, to let Satan run it.
4. Satan can't keep it going - (since it takes omnipotence).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Once again:

1. God created this universe and handed it over to Adam and Eve.
2. Adam and Eve gave it to Satan.
3. At this point, God withdrew His sustenance, to let Satan run it.
4. Satan can't keep it going - (since it takes omnipotence).

Once again:

1: Appalingly bad theology.
2: Not supported by the Bible.

 

[Allegory]

I invented language.

 

[Vene]

I know that there's a purple dragon living in a vacant lot outside Akron, OH.

You also know that there is a purple dragon in Ohio. And here I was thinking I'm the only one.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Isn't it Collosians that says that by Christ all things consist?

Ergo, God sustains creation regardless of what happened in the fall.

 

[FishFace]

Because evolution doesn't explain the spark of life, and it only postulates how species diverge into new species.

Indeed! I'm glad you know that - many people think that evolution as a theory seeks to explain the spark of life.

In actual fact, that is part of chemistry and biochemistry.

And most importantly: I know God exists and the Bible is true.

Definition of knowledge: Justified True Belief. What's your justification?

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't it Collosians that says that by Christ all things consist?

Yes --- this is true.

[bible]Colossians 1:16-17[/bible]

Ergo, God sustains creation regardless of what happened in the fall.

I have to admit, I'm impressed. I was wondering when someone was gonna mention Colossians.

However, there's this thing with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that has to be addressed, and I can't help to think that God keeps this universe from flying apart as Peter says; which is something Satan cannot do.

I don't believe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was in operation in Genesis 1.

 

[Patashu]

Yes --- this is true.

[bible]Colossians 1:16-17[/bible]



I have to admit, I'm impressed. I was wondering when someone was gonna mention Colossians.

However, there's this thing with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that has to be addressed, and I can't help to think that God keeps this universe from flying apart as Peter says; which is something Satan cannot do.

I don't believe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was in operation in Genesis 1.

So, you believe that energy could spontaneously flow from a colder to a hotter place? Temperature could become less even, not more? The amount of usable energy in a system could increase?

If the 2LoT did not hold prior to Genesis 1, what processes violated this and in what way?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the 2LoT did not hold prior to Genesis 1, what processes violated this and in what way?

You mean during Genesis 1?

God [directly] sustained the universe Himself, until it was turned over to Satan, who wants to take God's place.

It's almost as if God is saying to Satan, "You want to be like Me? Fine --- let's see you keep this universe from winding down."

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have to admit, I'm impressed. I was wondering when someone was gonna mention Colossians.

However, there's this thing with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that has to be addressed, and I can't help to think that God keeps this universe from flying apart as Peter says; which is something Satan cannot do.

I don't believe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was in operation in Genesis 1.

I have to admit, I'm impressed -- although not yet. Can you explain what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is?

 

[Nathan45]

Gen 2:19

19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm embarrassed that I misspelled Colosians. Oh well.

Does this mean, AV1611Vet, that you are withdrawing point #3

3. At this point, God withdrew His sustenance, to let Satan run it.

??

 

[Patashu]

You mean during Genesis 1?

God [directly] sustained the universe Himself, until it was turned over to Satan, who wants to take God's place.

It's almost as if God is saying to Satan, "You want to be like Me? Fine --- let's see you keep this universe from winding down."

Sorry, I meant during.

Now can you answer my questions?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm embarrassed that I misspelled Colosians. Oh well.

Does this mean, AV1611Vet, that you are withdrawing point #3

??

No.

 

[FishFace]

Once again:

1. God created this universe and handed it over to Adam and Eve.
2. Adam and Eve gave it to Satan.
3. At this point, God withdrew His sustenance, to let Satan run it.
4. Satan can't keep it going - (since it takes omnipotence).

I'll side with Nathan - this is extraordinarily bad theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll side with Nathan - this is extraordinarily bad theology.

Like you guys would know the difference?

q.v. Poe's Law.

 

[Contracelsus]

Like you guys would know the difference?

q.v. Poe's Law.

Why do they need to know the difference to speak against your theology? You don't feel the need to know science to speak against it. You've admitted your ignorance of science but dont' mind telling the scientists when they are wrong. I'm not saying they're right or wrong or you are right or wrong, but just asking where you get off leveling this sort of accusation and why it would matter?

You still seem to have trouble with the words of Jesus in Luke 6:31.

What authority do you have to critique others?

 

[AV1611VET]

What authority do you have to critique others?

Does that work the other way around?

If I can't use Theology to critique science, can I use science to critique Theology?

 

[Contracelsus]

Does that work the other way around?

If I can't use Theology to critique science, can I use science to critique Theology?

I doubt it. I would think you'd need to understand science first.

But then again, considering theology has nothing to do with science and is in fact just fun philosophy word play it turns out impossible to critique it using science.

Science deals with reality, theology is fun fantasy.

Kind of like 'magic fairy-ology' or 'biology of invisible pink unicorns'.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt it. I would think you'd need to understand science first.

But then again, considering theology has nothing to do with science and is in fact just fun philosophy word play it turns out impossible to critique it using science.

Science deals with reality, theology is fun fantasy.

Kind of like 'magic fairy-ology' or 'biology of invisible pink unicorns'.

In this case, I'll take Post 37 with a grain of salt.