Something I can never understand - can anyone help?

[Archaeopteryx]

The God whom I worship and who has changed my life through Jesus Christ's salvation that I have received, has told us exactly what evidence there is for his existence:

'18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse' (Rom 1:18-20 ESV).​

These verses demonstrate:

• Why people suppress the truth for the evidence of God;
• The evidence for God's existence is PLAIN to all people as God has shown it to them.
  
• What has God shown to people? Evidence of his invisible attributes, eternal power, and divine nature.
• This evidence has been clearly perceived since the creation of the world.
• How? Through the things that God has made in the world.
• Where does that leave human beings when they face God? The will be 'without excuse'.

The Quran says something remarkably similar. I expect you are therefore on your way to the nearest mosque to beg God's forgiveness for suppressing his truth in unrighteousness.

 

[Davian]

You omit: How would you verify that? I would falsify it by demonstrating that God's design is clearly NOT seen in the intricate details of the functioning of all living things (incl human beings) and the universe.

The evidence is already in, thanks to astronomy, medicine, biology, etc. The evidence verifies grand design and precise functioning of living things and the universe.

Oz

I have looked into the intricate details of the functioning of all living things (incl human beings) and the universe, and studied the many scientific theories involved. I have seen no evidence of "God's design" or any mention of "gods" or "Gods" in the scientific literature.

Falsified it is.

 

[OzSpen]

I have looked into the intricate details of the functioning of all living things (incl human beings) and the universe, and studied the many scientific theories involved. I have seen no evidence of "God's design" or any mention of "gods" or "Gods" in the scientific literature.

Falsified it is.

That's based on your limited worldview where not all of the evidence is gathered. You have limited it to 'scientific literature'. Since when did scientific literature describe all that happens in our world? Please tell me how Captain James Cook's discovery of New Zealand and Australia will be described in the scientific literature to which you refer.

We can't have a reasonable conversation when your worldview, a priori, excludes evidence with which you disagree.

 

[OzSpen]

The Quran says something remarkably similar. I expect you are therefore on your way to the nearest mosque to beg God's forgiveness for suppressing his truth in unrighteousness.

It's a red herring fallacy when you don't deal with the content of what I wrote and slip into another topic - the topic of your choice.

 

[Davian]

That's based <snip>

Did you, or did you not, refer to astronomy, medicine, biology, etc?

 

[OzSpen]

Did you, or did you not, refer to astronomy, medicine, biology, etc?

And?

 

[Davian]

And?

You post specifically referred to astronomy, medicine, biology, etc - science. Are you now moving the goalposts to something else?

 

[paulm50]

Paul,

1. Eternal means everlasting, without beginning, without end. 'God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time' (Grudem 1994:168). Wayne Grudem provides an exposition of this statement in Grudem (1994:168-173). Sometimes this is called the teaching of God's infinity with respect to time. See Psalm 90:2 (ESV); Rev 1:8 (ESV).

Yes I can see where you get it from.

2. Only created things had a beginning. Try Genesis 1:1 (ESV). Ever heard of common sense to tell you that only created things had a beginning?

Genesis is wrong, as I pointed out with the link to the original.

3. There is evidence there will be New Heavens and a New Earth (2 Peter 3:13 ESV).

That's not evidence. evidence of Harry Potter, can't come from the Harry Potter book and be considered true. Nazi's quoted Mien Kampf, Communist Quote Marx. Doesn't mean it's true.

4. No problem if 'universe' is not used in the Bible as it is called the 'heavens and the earth'. So are you saying that you and science know more about the sun and moon than God does? You are an awfully skeptical witness.

No I'm saying I know more about the Universe, Heaven and Earth than is written in Genesis. So either god was telling them, or they were making it up on what they could only see with their eyes.

5. Your last paragraph has been refuted over and over. Jesus was not married and he did not have a wife. I have written a brief article to refute this view: Was Jesus married?
http://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/2014/02/01/was-jesus-married/

Your article is trying to find reasons the bible is right, not reasons that Constantine had a set purpose when compiling it. Jesus lived as a normal Jew up to starting his Ministry at 30. Unless he was in a religious sect. As a normal Jew he would of been married. Remember the penalty for homosexuals in 30 AD. So unless you can produce concrete evidence he wasn't married. Logic has to win, that he was married and the wife, like most women of the time. Didn't warrant mentioning much.
http://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/2014/02/01/was-jesus-married/

See also the article, 'Was Mary Magdalene Wife of Jesus? Was Mary Magdalene a Prostitute?'

Yes it's easy for men to write what they choose to.

 

[paulm50]

Invisible attributes that have been clearly perceived? Is that an attempt at biblical humour?

Oz has 101% blind faith in what ever people chose to include in a book. His standpoint on everything is start there.

Would a 30 year old Jewish man living in an Israeli town, in 30 AD been single or married? Because the bible doesn't say he was, the priesthood went the celibate route.

"Were any of the disciples married?"

"Was the apostle Paul married?"

His stand point on this tells us a lot.

 

[paulm50]

The evidence is already in, thanks to astronomy, medicine, biology, etc. The evidence verifies grand design and precise functioning of living things and the universe.

Oz

The evidence in medicine, biology, is overwhelmingly on the side of evolution. What evidence in astronomy, are you referring to? The people of the time could only write about what they could see. What did god tell them that they couldn't see in the Universe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's a red herring fallacy when you don't deal with the content of what I wrote and slip into another topic - the topic of your choice.

Do you know what a red herring is?

 

[OzSpen]

The evidence in medicine, biology, is overwhelmingly on the side of evolution. What evidence in astronomy, are you referring to? The people of the time could only write about what they could see. What did god tell them that they couldn't see in the Universe?

You refuse to accept what I said in context. I was not talking about evolution. I was talking about design in creation. Why must you distort what I state?

 

[lesliedellow]

.....and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

Because if the universe had always existed entropy would have run its course an infinitely long time ago, and we would be "living" in a heat dead universe.

What do Christians think about the origins of God, and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

That's a nice attempt at sleight of hand, but just a sentence or so previously, you were talking about the existence of intelligent life - not about the universe. So far as I know, not even an atheist has ever suggested that intelligent life has always existed.

 

[paulm50]

You refuse to accept what I said in context. I was not talking about evolution. I was talking about design in creation. Why must you distort what I state?

This is what you said.

The evidence is already in, thanks to astronomy, medicine, biology, etc. The evidence verifies grand design and precise functioning of living things and the universe.

Where is your evidence that verifies grand design and functioning of living things and the Universe. You can't fall back on the Genesis version, as it didn't happen like that.

 

[paulm50]

Because if the universe had always existed entropy would have run its course an infinitely long time ago, and we would be "living" in a heat dead universe.

Entropy noun

1. PHYSICS
   a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
   "the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"
   
   
2. 2.
   
   lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
   "a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"

That's a nice attempt at sleight of hand, but just a sentence or so previously, you were talking about the existence of intelligent life - not about the universe. So far as I know, not even an atheist has ever suggested that intelligent life has always existed.

Good point. Is it "intelligent life" at the level of a worm or Stephen Hawking?

 

[lesliedellow]

Entropy noun

1. PHYSICS
   a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
   "the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time.

So?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because if the universe had always existed entropy would have run its course an infinitely long time ago, and we would be "living" in a heat dead universe.

Not necessarily. If the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time, then in one sense the universe has always existed; it has existed for all time.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because if the universe had always existed entropy would have run its course an infinitely long time ago, and we would be "living" in a heat dead universe.

"the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"

You're both wrong. The level of entropy can stay the same. Also, it is the overall level of entropy that is in question, which means that entropy can decrease in one place as long as it also increases in another by at least the same amount.

 

[lesliedellow]

You're both wrong. The level of entropy can stay the same. Also, it is the overall level of entropy that is in question, which means that entropy can decrease in one place as long as it also increases in another by at least the same amount.

In theory the level of entropy in a closed system can remain the same, or even decrease. But the chances of it doing so are so vanishingly small that you might just as well call it a physical law to say that it can't happen. And that is the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Moral Orel]

In theory the level of entropy in a closed system can remain the same, or even decrease. But the chances of it doing so are so vanishingly small that you might just as well call it a physical law to say that it can't happen. And that is the second law of thermodynamics.

Still wrong. Calculating the probability of it staying the same is impossible.