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.
Except that's not a circle, which is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center).
God pulled a fast one on you guys, didn't He?
If the Bible is correct then we all have knowledge of Gods in us. When we look at the physical world we see Gods invisible qualities so its something beyond what we can know by our senses. I don't think there is a test for that.A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?
Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.
Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.
Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.
Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.
For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?
I don't think GOD can actually be found by science. Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.
So GOD is an immaterial spirit, meaning HE is not confined to what can be seen and measured, HE is beyond all of it. Therefore science is unable to either prove or disprove HIS existence. And it probably never will prove HIS existence anyway.
If the Bible is correct then we all have knowledge of Gods in us.
Paul wrote 52% of the New Testament.Don't you mean Paul, rather than the bible?
Paul wrote 52% of the New Testament.
Is that classroom cliché now?
Ham saw his father naked?
I can't make sense of that - are you equivocating 'see'? We can see the physical world; by definition, we can't see invisible qualities, and seeing is one of our senses; so if we see it, it's not something beyond our senses...... When we look at the physical world we see Gods invisible qualities so its something beyond what we can know by our senses.
If the physical world is not independent of these invisible qualities, they must have some influence or effect on it (otherwise it would be independent of them, yes?), so we should be able to explain those effects in terms of invisible qualities (forces?) just as we do in existing similar cases (gravity, electromagnetism, etc).If there is something beyond what we see and can test then I believe that the scientific naturalism will always fall short of explaining reality because the physical world is not independent from these invisble qualities and any physical explaination won't be sufficent alone.
Agreed!I am looking forward to the images from the Webb telescope which can peer back to around 400,000 years after the Big Bang. I think there are interesting discoveries ahead that will bring up more questions then answers.
Science just means evidence based.A Christian scientist a few years ago told me that GOD was beyond science so people had to approach HIM based upon faith, like, he is outside of space and time. GOD is an immaterial spirit, right?
Perhaps they are using science to find explanations for things and perhaps some of those things were previously explained by some people to be miracles of god. This is a case of the god of the shrinking gaps. If your god definition is based on explaining natural phenomena that science can't explain today then this is what you risk.Some people have used logic and science, including archaeology and math, to argue away the existence of GOD per say, but not all scientists are atheists. Some of them actually do believe in GOD.
This is an example of god of the gaps.Dad says that complexity of human DNA proves that there is an intelligent creator behind the existence of mankind. He points to that as evidence of GOD and of his faith.
I don't know how you would go about trying to convince someone that gods or your god in particular exists. Do you really want to use science to prove it?For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them? Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?
Don't use science as your proof or convincing argument then.I don't think GOD can actually be found by science.
Step outside of evidence and physical reality?Science deals strictly with the earthly realm, or with what can be seen visibly, so if one is going to find HIM they have to step outside of this world based upon faith.
I can't make sense of that - are you equivocating 'see'? We can see the physical world; by definition, we can't see invisible qualities, and seeing is one of our senses; so if we see it, it's not something beyond our senses...
If the physical world is not independent of these invisible qualities, they must have some influence or effect on it (otherwise it would be independent of them, yes?), so we should be able to explain those effects in terms of invisible qualities (forces?) just as we do in existing similar cases (gravity, electromagnetism, etc).
Agreed!
The problem is not so much in the faith beliefs, but in the attempt to 'have it both ways' by trying to logically argue for ontological equality with the physical, observable world - but without the same ontological requirements (physicality, observability).In no small way this all reduces down to: "We have zero evidence for this non-physical reality and that's why we should believe it is true."
I mean I totally get it, this is, by definition, the nature of faith. And no one should be begrudged their faith. In a real sense we all bring that to the table in one form or another.
I think people who may be prone to naturalism take a sort of "discipline" to disallow ourselves to slip too much into this way of thinking.
The problem is not so much in the faith beliefs, but in the attempt to 'have it both ways' by trying to logically argue for ontological equality with the physical, observable world - but without the same ontological requirements (physicality, observability).
That's not what I was getting at.My bad; Canaan. I was going "Curse of Ham" from memory.
Just so you know, Luke wrote that, not Paul.If "Paul" had any part in concocting the snake bite story, his credibility is zero.
His name isn't on that book like it is on his treatise.Apart from the tradition in the Church how do you know Luke wrote the book with his name on it?
That's not what I was getting at.
Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
Ham committed his act against his mother, not his father.
Leviticus 20:11a And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:
You cared enough to bring it up.That's not what I was caring about.
I wasn't correcting your reference to Ham.TLK Valentine said:Ah, I was right the first time -- serves me right for accepting correction from ya.
Rape, in my opinion.TLK Valentine said:You're claiming that Ham committed incest?
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?