If you are a parent, you'll understand the value of letting a child learn a lesson for themselves without always intervening.
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.
Ummm... we'd be capable of growing into a relationship with him, for one. You know, that's supposedly what he wants?
If you are a parent, you'll understand the value of letting a child learn a lesson for themselves without always intervening.
Not if that lesson involved them being harmed or placed in danger. I would be a horrible parent if I allowed my hypothetical children to do whatever they please, regardless of whatever potential harm may befall them, their siblings or the rest of the family. Moreover, if I wanted a relationship with my children, I wouldn't make myself absent from their lives, offering only the promise of some future encounter after their deaths.
Denial of the obvious, right.And I thought you didn't believe in philosophys of denial.
I'd recommend Richard Carrier's book defending metaphysical naturalism as a starting point if you'd like to learn more: Sense and Goodness Without God.I suppose I should have ask you if you meant epistomological or meta-Physical naturalism? I have no problem with methodological-naturalism. Meta-physical naturalism can not logically defend itself. Naturalism is the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes.(Oxford Dictionaries) So if your thoughts are not the random firing of neurons an chemical reactions then what other natural explanation for your thoughts can you offer?
This is what you said before when I gave this explanation. As you said a God of the Gaps. I am not saying scientists or anyone should stop investigating things. I am saying that what they are seeing is something different that is making some come up with unusual hypothesis and theories.
So if your thoughts are not the random firing of neurons an chemical reactions then what other natural explanation for your thoughts can you offer?
Yes thats what Ive been saying. It has taken us to get to the point of quantum physics to see this. Have you noticed that sinse we have discovered the world of quantum physics that more scientists are talking about strange and weird theories like holograms, string theory and multi universes. Some are talking about other dimensions, spiritual dimensions, conciseness and Biocentrism. Thats because what they are seeing is causing them to come up with these type of explanations. But they are very close to verging on the supernatural and the qualities that have always been attributed to God.If these ideas actually had anything to do with the Christian god, scientists could have just read about it in the Bible and saved a bunch of time. But for some reason, theologians didn't know about this miraculous connection until after scientists discovered <insert random science topic here>. Wonder why that is...
Yes thats what Ive been saying. It has taken us to get to the point of quantum physics to see this. Have you noticed that sinse we have discovered the world of quantum physics that more scientists are talking about strange and weird theories like holograms, string theory and multi universes. Some are talking about other dimensions, spiritual dimensions, conciseness and Biocentrism. Thats because what they are seeing is causing them to come up with these type of explanations. But they are very close to verging on the supernatural and the qualities that have always been attributed to God.
Thats because I believe they have arrived at the point in quantum physics where existence comes into our reality. How much further can we go back with experiments such as with the large hadron collider. We are virtually looking at nothing now. So they are looking at part of how God has created things. One of the main things I hear about any description of the quantum world is that it is hard for scientists to comprehend. That is because they are seeing some of the qualities of God. But this all couldn't been seen until we got to this point. Before then people could wonder about certain things and many thought there was something going on beyond our reality but didn't know what it was. To me its the same for when I look at the universe of read about quantum physics. Its incredible and amazing and beyond our understanding. But I believe it is all not some naturalistic random thing that was created out of chaos. Its complex and its designed and it beyond anything that the greatest minds will ever understand.
But wasn't the bible written well before science has shone the light on these discoveries of the quantum world. We couldn't know about what was down at the point of nothingness until we got there with modern advances. But when we did its strange that what we are seeing has many of the hallmarks of what the bible describes God as. Its strange that now even scientists are talking along lines of something beyond our reality at work and producing these almost magical abilities. I am not cherry picking anything. This is what the bible says about Gods creative ability. All of the verses for His creation are similar and talk about creating something out of nothing and God being all powerful and everywhere and that he holds all things together.I think you missed the point KC was making. It seems that the Bible only reveals these ostensibly prescient insights to us after science has already illuminated them. It doesn't reveal these insights prior to scientific discovery nor does it direct scientists toward making these discoveries, though it apparently deserves some measure of credit for them anyway. What KC seems to be suggesting is that religious apologists are cherry-picking from scriptures on one hand and from science on the other, and then feigning surprise when the results of their cherry-picking align with the religious preconceptions that guided their cherry-picking.
But wasn't the bible written well before science has shone the light on these discoveries of the quantum world. We couldn't know about what was down at the point of nothingness until we got there with modern advances. But when we did its strange that what we are seeing has many of the hallmarks of what the bible describes God as. Its strange that now even scientists are talking along lines of something beyond our reality at work and producing these almost magical abilities. I am not cherry picking anything. This is what the bible says about Gods creative ability. All of the verses for His creation are similar and talk about creating something out of nothing and God being all powerful and everywhere and that he holds all things together.
The bible is not a science book and isn't trying to predict anything scientific. It just so happens that it wasn't going to be until science gets to a point of looking at how existence comes about that we begin to see God like qualities. Science has been progressing towards the point of existence for many years. Not just in quantum physics but in many fields like genetics as well. And to a point we are seeing some unusual things in genetics as well. But both fields need a lot more investigation. But I believe that from now on that we have reached this point that we will see a lot more of these types of discoveries. Of course science and atheists will continue to say that there is an explanation and logical naturalistic reason for all this. But I believe that they will just keep bring up more things that they cant explain and can never really comprehend. Because its looking at Gods creation.
Yes but we are talking about a special creation event here. We dont know what the earth represented back then. Was it also a special place which was like heaven like in the garden or paradise before it actually became the materialistic place we know today. God said let there be light on day one and who knows what this light was. But certainly there are many forms of Light. Gods light can also illuminate things and give life as well and the bible says this. The Hebrew for the light mentioned in verse 3 alludes to a source of or light only. The meaning given to the light in day 4 is translated as light bearers or permanent source of light. This indicates not only for light to illuminate but also as time keeping for when man arrived.The Bible also describes God as creating dry land and plants prior to creating the sun and stars. Yet we know that the stars precede the origin of land and plant-life.
In revelations it talks about a new heaven and a new earth so there is something special about the earth and it seems to be a place that will go on beyond the reality that we know of. So it may well have been around before the reality that we understand started as well. But all this is part of a supernatural event so you cant start putting natural constraints on it here and there. We all know from discoveries that the real world at work is this invisible one that is the quantum world. So the material world we see is something that can change and even be an illusion or something that is just a manifestation of the quantum world. The observer makes it a reality so there is something going on between the quantum level and our reality that we dont understand.
If you say I am cherry picking then you have mentioned one thing that I and any theologian that knows the bible will tell you has other meanings when studied with the original language and will dispute. But lets say that this is something I am not including like you say. This is only one thing and what I have been talking about is all over the bible in one way or another and all saying the same thing. So which should I gauge what describes Gods creative qualities. The qualities that are repeated in different places all over the bible or a small section that you have misinterpreted because you havnt understood what it actually represents. So I am not cherry picking because I am just quoting what the majority of the bible says. I am not going to try and find one off verses that may need some further meaning. That would be reverse cherry picking
I cant miss them they are all over the bible. Everyone has known this even non believers. How often have you heard throughout your life and in media or from others that God is everywhere. Or God knows everything or He is all powerful or omnipresent. I dont need to focus on these things because everyone else has anyway. It just so happens that science is now catching up to what God was all about anyway. And I am not the one describing the quantum world the way some do, its the scientists. But even so think about it for a minute. Even if I was matching some things what is wrong with that. This is exactly what evolution does. They look for the similarities in creatures to show transitions but overlook the many dis similar things. If your trying to show something is related you are going to look for the similarities of course. But look for the dis similar things about God and His qualities regarding creation. See how many you find that dont describe him like what I have said.This inconvenient inconsistency is not something you mention because you are focused only on whatever similarities you can draw between what the Bible claims and what science has found. You are cherry-picking, Steve. It's blatantly obvious. You select only those passages that could be construed as aligning with modern-day cosmology, while ignoring those passages that clearly do not.
But what science has discovered about quantum world and finely tuned universes for example doesn't have a answer that will fit what they know about our reality and relativity. That's why they come up with hologram and multi universe theories because there isn't a logical answer to find. They have to propose far fetched explanations because this is what the evidence is showing and pointing to.Yes, steve, that's how science progresses. We make discoveries that lead to more questions. We gain in knowledge, but also discover matters on which we are ignorant and on which further inquiry is needed. You've put forward yet another God of the gaps argument.
Some say that they will never find an answer because it is beyond our reality and that this is a place we can never go to to find out. So its always going to be indirect evidence and not something we can test by handling it or going there to try it out. So its not so much that there's a answer out there in the future that they are yet to find which will make everything fall into place. Its that there isn't one to find that will answer their questions.
Yes but we are talking about a special creation event here. We dont know what the earth represented back then. Was it also a special place which was like heaven like in the garden or paradise before it actually became the materialistic place we know today. God said let there be light on day one and who knows what this light was. But certainly there are many forms of Light. Gods light can also illuminate things and give life as well and the bible says this. The Hebrew for the light mentioned in verse 3 alludes to a source of or light only. The meaning given to the light in day 4 is translated as light bearers or permanent source of light. This indicates not only for light to illuminate but also as time keeping for when man arrived.
In revelations it talks about a new heaven and a new earth so there is something special about the earth and it seems to be a place that will go on beyond the reality that we know of. So it may well have been around before the reality that we understand started as well. But all this is part of a supernatural event so you cant start putting natural constraints on it here and there. We all know from discoveries that the real world at work is this invisible one that is the quantum world. So the material world we see is something that can change and even be an illusion or something that is just a manifestation of the quantum world. The observer makes it a reality so there is something going on between the quantum level and our reality that we dont understand.
If you say I am cherry picking then you have mentioned one thing that I and any theologian that knows the bible will tell you has other meanings when studied with the original language and will dispute. But lets say that this is something I am not including like you say. This is only one thing and what I have been talking about is all over the bible in one way or another and all saying the same thing. So which should I gauge what describes Gods creative qualities. The qualities that are repeated in different places all over the bible or a small section that you have misinterpreted because you havnt understood what it actually represents. So I am not cherry picking because I am just quoting what the majority of the bible says. I am not going to try and find one off verses that may need some further meaning. That would be reverse cherry picking
I cant miss them they are all over the bible. Everyone has known this even non believers. How often have you heard throughout your life and in media or from others that God is everywhere. Or God knows everything or He is all powerful or omnipresent. I dont need to focus on these things because everyone else has anyway. It just so happens that science is now catching up to what God was all about anyway. And I am not the one describing the quantum world the way some do, its the scientists. But even so think about it for a minute. Even if I was matching some things what is wrong with that.
This is exactly what evolution does. They look for the similarities in creatures to show transitions but overlook the many dis similar things. If your trying to show something is related you are going to look for the similarities of course.
But look for the dis similar things about God and His qualities regarding creation. See how many you find that dont describe him like what I have said.
But what science has discovered about quantum world and finely tuned universes for example doesn't have a answer that will fit what they know about our reality and relativity. That's why they come up with hologram and multi universe theories because there isn't a logical answer to find. They have to propose far fetched explanations because this is what the evidence is showing and pointing to.
Some say that they will never find an answer because it is beyond our reality and that this is a place we can never go to to find out. So its always going to be indirect evidence and not something we can test by handling it or going there to try it out. So its not so much that there's a answer out there in the future that they are yet to find which will make everything fall into place. Its that there isn't one to find that will answer their questions.
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you thing the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.What's wrong with that? You're cherry-picking, that's what's wrong. The only way you can support your narrative is by excluding Biblical passages inconsistent with it.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.No steve, evolutionary biologists would get in trouble for cherry-picking. Scientists who profligately cherry-pick from their data are likely to draw ire from the scientific community, at a cost to their reputation. By contrast, it seems that some apologists base their reputation on their ability to cherry-pick.
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.I've already examined one. Would you like to examine others?
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.Which doesn't make Goddidit a satisfying answer in its own right.
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you think the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.What's wrong with that? You're cherry-picking, that's what's wrong. The only way you can support your narrative is by excluding Biblical passages inconsistent with it.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.No steve, evolutionary biologists would get in trouble for cherry-picking. Scientists who profligately cherry-pick from their data are likely to draw ire from the scientific community, at a cost to their reputation. By contrast, it seems that some apologists base their reputation on their ability to cherry-pick.
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.I've already examined one. Would you like to examine others?
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.Which doesn't make Goddidit a satisfying answer in its own right.
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you think the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.What's wrong with that? You're cherry-picking, that's what's wrong. The only way you can support your narrative is by excluding Biblical passages inconsistent with it.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.No steve, evolutionary biologists would get in trouble for cherry-picking. Scientists who profligately cherry-pick from their data are likely to draw ire from the scientific community, at a cost to their reputation. By contrast, it seems that some apologists base their reputation on their ability to cherry-pick.
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.I've already examined one. Would you like to examine others?
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.Which doesn't make Goddidit a satisfying answer in its own right.
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you think the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.What's wrong with that? You're cherry-picking, that's what's wrong. The only way you can support your narrative is by excluding Biblical passages inconsistent with it.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.No steve, evolutionary biologists would get in trouble for cherry-picking. Scientists who profligately cherry-pick from their data are likely to draw ire from the scientific community, at a cost to their reputation. By contrast, it seems that some apologists base their reputation on their ability to cherry-pick.
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.I've already examined one. Would you like to examine others?
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.Which doesn't make Goddidit a satisfying answer in its own right.
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
As far as Moriarty is saying he cant really make this statement as he doesn't really know what the quantum world scales up to. Most scientists dont know but many are saying things that are along the lines of supernatural events. Thats scientists saying that not me or religion.
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you thing the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.
Yes thats what Ive been saying. It has taken us to get to the point of quantum physics to see this. Have you noticed that sinse we have discovered the world of quantum physics that more scientists are talking about strange and weird theories like holograms, string theory and multi universes.
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?