spiritual science

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

More problems!!!

 

[dad]

I pray Jesus comes back soon as well, though I feel we could try, as we don't know when exactly Jesus will come back. Though, I see christians and society getting more un-godly with each passing day. So he may be coming soon, it's likely.

It does say when we BEGIN to see these things come to pass, that the generation seeing this will still be here to see Him return, so I can't see any 200 years, as the signs are all around now.

 

[Caphi]

Well, fine and dandy, we each have beliefs, and beliefs are not required to be shared. I do have, however, an ancient document that tells us of how it was when merged. More than your belief has --zilch! But, to each his own, and your belief is fine too, long as it isn't dressed up as science and rammed down children's throats!

You have not proved that your ancient document tells any kind of truth! I'm sorry about the bold, but I have to drive this into your skull: You have not proved that the Bible is true, therefore your Biblescience isn't needed to explain the world.

Well, if you think so, and are happy with granny, and the speck, bon apetit! They are mysterious madness to me, non existant, save in the imagination of believers!

Yet all the evidence points to the theory you so glibly call "granny and the speck," doesn't it? Except for the Bible, which you haven't proved except by a marvelous feat of circular logic. Your entire spiritual superstructure falls to the ground unless you can prove the Bible literally is true, which you decidedly haven't.

No, I don't say that! We can test science. What is faith alone is science, falsely so called, believing the future and past were physical only as the present is!

Why not? There's no reason at all to believe that the natural laws were anything but what they are today 2000, 6000, or four billion years ago - except the Bible, which you haven't proved is true, remember? Why should I accept your tortured, twisted Biblescience when I can just say the Bible is false? The latter assumption is much more reasonable than the former.

Completely wrong. Mine lay in the same logic and methodology, that is real science. Science falsely so called, on the other hand I reject out of hand for the belief it is, empty dreams, baseless boasts, and dark tormented tales of a death and decayed past!

Of course, your beliefs lie in logic (except that this entire topic is one big exercise in circular reasoning) and methodology (*** TEH BIBLE DOESN'T LIEK SCIENCE NOW IMA REDIFINE SCIENCE SO THAT TEH BIBLE IS GUD YAEY!!). Forgive me if I doubt your claims.

Whatever leads me there, it doesn't much matter. The important thing for non christians to remember is that their faith in a physical only future and past is nothing more than a belief.

So is your belief that the Bible is true. Only I've got better reasons to believe in the science of the past few centuries than you have to believe the Bible of two millennia ago.

Doesn't matter, on what grounds do you assert they do? Where is any proof the days of Eden were as the present, physical only??? If you can't prove it, assert it in some place other than a science class. Keep science real, and dark, evo bent dreams of some past never never land to your church, temple, or bedroom, or whatever!!

What if I turn it around, dad?

Doesn't matter, on what grounds do you assert they do? Where is any proof the days of Eden existed at all??? If you can't prove it, assert it in some place other than a science. Keep science real, and archaic, religious ideas of some past never never land to your church!!

You have nothing against me except a huge, steaming pile of romantic religiosity and circular logic. I have basic, logical principles of evidence and Ockham's Razor. Pathetic.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Spritual science or knowledge would concern things spiritual. Things spiritual very much and totally affected our past, and will affect our future, whether or not you can deal with it.

That's not an answer. I'm TRYing to work out what your 'spiriscience' is. So far you keep claiming that science is flawed, and spiriscience is the way to go. But you won't/can't even define what spiriscience is, and now that Im' trying to actually nail you down, you can't say in what way science is flawed, either.

For believers, in a thousand ways.

Great. WHAT ways? How many times do I have to ask this before you'll actually supply an answer?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I have tried to do that, with the split theory.

No, you haven't. You've merely claimed that such a thing exists. Every time anyone tries to nail you down to just what it is, you wiggle out.

When you say spiritual things do not have to conform in any way to science, I suppose this is true. But the things of the bible fit quite well with science. The odd man out is science, falsely so called. (belief that there was only the physical in the past)

Back to this lie? Science does NOT say "that there was only the physical in the past." How many times do you need to be told this?

It does say when we BEGIN to see these things come to pass, that the generation seeing this will still be here to see Him return, so I can't see any 200 years, as the signs are all around now.

Which is exactly what Christians have been saying for the last 2,000 years...yet amazingly, we're still here.

 

[dad]

Yet all the evidence points to the theory you so glibly call "granny and the speck," doesn't it?

Not in the light of the split.

Your entire spiritual superstructure falls to the ground unless you can prove the Bible literally is true, which you decidedly haven't.

Well, it's done alright down through the ages. We do prove it all the time, and it's prophesies etc are perfect. But as I say, you can believe what you want, just remember it is a belief.

Why not? There's no reason at all to believe that the natural laws were anything but what they are today 2000, 6000, or four billion years ago

Because there is no reason either to believe it was physical only near creation week. And whether you believe it or not doesn't matter, lets see you prove it!!!!!

Forgive me if I doubt your claims.

It isn't the claims you doubt, but the ones you believe at issue.

Only I've got better reasons to believe in the science of the past few centuries than you have to believe the Bible of two millennia ago.

I have said many times so do I! Science is not a concern here. I hope your comprehension is such that you catch that this time, as my patience has a limit.

I have basic, logical principles of evidence and Ockham's Razor. Pathetic

So what, I have God's sword, and logical principles of evidence, and all real science, and the bible to boot! Compared to all that, what you got, as you say, is Pathetic

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

You have not proved that your ancient document tells any kind of truth! I'm sorry about the bold, but I have to drive this into your skull: You have not proved that the Bible is true, therefore your Biblescience isn't needed to explain the world.

Quite frankly, I feel no need whatsoever to prove ANYTHING to you, as your oppinion does nothing to tip the cosmic scales of the universe. However, I will humor you. In Ezekiel 28, the Lord through the prophet Ezekiel prophesies against Tyre c. 1000+ B.C. and essentially says that the city will be razed to the ground and will never again be used for anything exept for fishermen drying their nets on the shore. Lo and behold, around 150 B.C., Alexander the Great comes through and levels Tyre. If you go to the island now, you'll only see one thing: The nets of Mediterrenian fishermen lying on the ground to dry. If you don't belive me, look it up for yourself.

Yet all the evidence points to the theory you so glibly call "granny and the speck," doesn't it? Except for the Bible, which you haven't proved except by a marvelous feat of circular logic. Your entire spiritual superstructure falls to the ground unless you can prove the Bible literally is true, which you decidedly haven't.

You seem to be unable to understand that circular reasoning does not prove something to be false, it simply proves that it is beyond the grasp of science.

Why not? There's no reason at all to believe that the natural laws were anything but what they are today 2000, 6000, or four billion years ago - except the Bible, which you haven't proved is true, remember? Why should I accept your tortured, twisted Biblescience when I can just say the Bible is false? The latter assumption is much more reasonable than the former.

It seems your entire argument revolved around your view that the Bible is false, and, on the topic, the reason is that you CAN'T say that the Bible is false! You have as little evidence that it is false as we have that it is true, possibly even less! The Bible is METAPHYSICAL, meaning that you can't disprove it with science! I know, you're probably complaining that we don't play by the rules of science. Well guess what: GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO.

Of course, your beliefs lie in logic (except that this entire topic is one big exercise in circular reasoning) and methodology (*** TEH BIBLE DOESN'T LIEK SCIENCE NOW IMA REDIFINE SCIENCE SO THAT TEH BIBLE IS GUD YAEY!!). Forgive me if I doubt your claims.

Despite the fact that that is untrue and therefore shouldn't bother me a bit, I find that fairly insulting and am inclined to remined yyou that CF doesn't tolerate insults on other's beliefs.

So is your belief that the Bible is true. Only I've got better reasons to believe in the science of the past few centuries than you have to believe the Bible of two millennia ago.

I think that going to heaven is a better reason to belive then you will ever have.

You have nothing against me except a huge, steaming pile of romantic religiosity and circular logic. I have basic, logical principles of evidence and Ockham's Razor. Pathetic.

Yes, you are. Sorry to break it to ya, but MAN IS FALLABLE, GOD IS NOT.

 

[Theophilus01]

Snaping his finger, because it shows that he doesn't even NEED a system.

who said that God needs a system? i never did. i simply said that is a lost cooler and God thought so too. systems show that God is intelligent - very intelligent. the rest of the Bible shows that God is almighty, so why be repetative?

 

[Caphi]

Not in the light of the split.

Hello! You haven't proved your "split" except by assuming the Bible is true, and you haven't proved the Bible except by assumine your split! That's circular reasoning, folks, and it simply means, to make it simple enough for dad's walnut brain, that you have proved SQUAT.

Well, it's done alright down through the ages. We do prove it all the time, and it's prophesies etc are perfect. But as I say, you can believe what you want, just remember it is a belief.

Of course, you've proved that snakes speak English, apple trees make you immortal, and people live for thousands of years. Oh wait, YOU HAVEN'T!

Because there is no reason either to believe it was physical only near creation week. And whether you believe it or not doesn't matter, lets see you prove it!!!!!

Until you conclusively prove the Bible is factually accurate, your spiritual science is a steaming pile of bunk.

It isn't the claims you doubt, but the ones you believe at issue.

No, it's your claim that you are speaking out of logic and rationality. It simply amazes me that you can create a topic which is nothing beyond a gigantic textbook example of circular reasoning and then have the audacity to claim that you speak from logic. Just amazing.

I have said many times so do I! Science is not a concern here. I hope your comprehension is such that you catch that this time, as my patience has a limit.

But it is! You've created your very own deus ex machina device so you can pretend the Bible matches science, but the world doesn't work that way at all, dad.

So what, I have God's sword,

Ahaha. And I have the Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee's stinger, but that means nothing to the debate, now does it?

and logical principles of evidence,

WHAT?! You have neither logic nor evidence. You have an old book and a gigantic pile of fallacy. Again, how can you create such a gigantic logical circle and then proclaim that your ideas are based on logic?! That's some audacity, dad!

and all real science,

None of it's real science. It's just some giant fantasy you've concocted because you can't cope with the fact that the Universe is five billion years old. Welcome to reality, my friend.

and the bible to boot!

The Bible isn't evidence. You have not given any sort of compelling argument as to why I should believe anything Genesis says, or indeed any of the Bible. Instead, you have a lovely circular house of cards. You haven't proved that either the Bible or your Biblescience is true in its own right, you've just propped them up against each other and hoped no one notices.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

who said that God needs a system? i never did. i simply said that is a lost cooler and God thought so too. systems show that God is intelligent - very intelligent. the rest of the Bible shows that God is almighty, so why be repetative?

I never even inplied that you said that. God would simply be proving a point to the world.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

Hello! You haven't proved your "split" except by assuming the Bible is true, and you haven't proved the Bible except by assumine your split! That's circular reasoning, folks, and it simply means, to make it simple enough for dad's walnut brain, that you have proved SQUAT.



Of course, you've proved that snakes speak English, apple trees make you immortal, and people live for thousands of years. Oh wait, YOU HAVEN'T!



Until you conclusively prove the Bible is factually accurate, your spiritual science is a steaming pile of bunk.



No, it's your claim that you are speaking out of logic and rationality. It simply amazes me that you can create a topic which is nothing beyond a gigantic textbook example of circular reasoning and then have the audacity to claim that you speak from logic. Just amazing.



But it is! You've created your very own deus ex machina device so you can pretend the Bible matches science, but the world doesn't work that way at all, dad.



Ahaha. And I have the Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee's stinger, but that means nothing to the debate, now does it?



WHAT?! You have neither logic nor evidence. You have an old book and a gigantic pile of fallacy. Again, how can you create such a gigantic logical circle and then proclaim that your ideas are based on logic?! That's some audacity, dad!



None of it's real science. It's just some giant fantasy you've concocted because you can't cope with the fact that the Universe is five billion years old. Welcome to reality, my friend.



The Bible isn't evidence. You have not given any sort of compelling argument as to why I should believe anything Genesis says, or indeed any of the Bible. Instead, you have a lovely circular house of cards. You haven't proved that either the Bible or your Biblescience is true in its own right, you've just propped them up against each other and hoped no one notices.

I am not even going to bother adressing these individualy. They say nothing more than what has already been said and responded to.

That's circular reasoning, folks, and it simply means, to make it simple enough for dad's walnut brain

Enough!!! Any more of that and I'm gonna have to report you.

 

[Theophilus01]

No, you have been misled. They are good as gold, and can be taken to the bank.

so tell me this, do you believe in the ancient Greek and Roman ideas? both were created by people. i am afraid that you have been misled. you may say that God inspired the Jews, but there is evidence that all peoples have been visited by God. do you think it's weird that a majority of the native American religions believe in a single "Creator God"?

I do. The spirit of the bible I don't think lies to us, and gives us fibs and fables. Otherwise, what kind of spirit do you think that would be?!

the spirit is not in the literal interpretation, but in the spiritual interpretation. folk tales about giant people clearing forests with a giant blue ox. do you believe in that literal interpretation or do you look deeper into what the author was trying to say? the creation story in the Bible shows that God is almighty, do not cross Him, and He offers us eternal happiness, but being human makes us rebel against Him. that is spiritual interpretation. the spiritual truth that the story tries to tell us. not to mention, God knows that it is more interesting than swirling clouds of hydrogen collapsing into themselves creating stars and black holes with the fusing of hydrogen into helium, lithium, boron, etc. God didn't lie to us. the spirit of the story is true. God did create us and is our one and only God.

Hey, He used Ballam's ass as well, so what? If it's handy, He might just use something.

i guess i have no idea what you are talking about. science is handy though, so He used it.

No contest. It is more glorious for Him to tell us the truth.

as i said earlier, He did tell us the truth. don't get caught up in the literary techniques. and what is truth? literal truth (what the Jews did and Jesus corrected them on) or the spiritual truth (what Jesus asks all of us to seek)? and that has nothing to do with what i said. i stumped you, so you said someting totaly unrelated.

Glad that one works for you. Hate to break the news however, you'll have to adore Him for something else than the big bang and the first lifeform that appeared when the first evo snapped her finger! The story takes creativity all right, but not His.

i adore Him for much more. this is only one thing that i adore about Him. who is the first evo? so your saying that God isn't creative? are you saying that evolution is the product of our creativity? if there was no evidence, what do you think the likelyhood is of someone, anyone coming up with these ideas is? i wouldn't be able to dream that up on a whim. maybe you, but i'm not God.

 

[Caphi]

Quite frankly, I feel no need whatsoever to prove ANYTHING to you, as your oppinion does nothing to tip the cosmic scales of the universe. However, I will humor you. In Ezekiel 28, the Lord through the prophet Ezekiel prophesies against Tyre c. 1000+ B.C. and essentially says that the city will be razed to the ground and will never again be used for anything exept for fishermen drying their nets on the shore. Lo and behold, around 150 B.C., Alexander the Great comes through and levels Tyre. If you go to the island now, you'll only see one thing: The nets of Mediterrenian fishermen lying on the ground to dry. If you don't belive me, look it up for yourself.

Yes, because all cities stay there forever. Come now, you don't really believe that any kind of divine foresight was necessary to say that eventually the city was going to fall, was it? If Alexander hadn't come through the city, it still would have degraded eventually, and you'd still be using it as evidence. And, given that the Bible pretty much acts on the Mediterranean region, have you heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?

You seem to be unable to understand that circular reasoning does not prove something to be false, it simply proves that it is beyond the grasp of science.

No, it means that he hasn't actually proved either his science or the Bible, yet he wants me to take both for granted. Sorry, have a nice day, door's to your left.

It seems your entire argument revolved around your view that the Bible is false, and, on the topic, the reason is that you CAN'T say that the Bible is false! You have as little evidence that it is false as we have that it is true, possibly even less! The Bible is METAPHYSICAL, meaning that you can't disprove it with science! I know, you're probably complaining that we don't play by the rules of science. Well guess what: GOD DOESN'T HAVE TO.

This is funny for so many reasons. Is what you're saying that you want me to accept what you're saying as true because you're excused from proving it to me? What if I told you that there is an invisible red elephant at the top of the Sears Tower, and when you asked me to prove it I told you that the elephant is outside of normal science so it doesn't have to prove it to you? Hmm? What would your reaction be?

Despite the fact that that is untrue and therefore shouldn't bother me a bit, I find that fairly insulting and am inclined to remined yyou that CF doesn't tolerate insults on other's beliefs.

Insults? I'm not the one who's been calling everyone adherents to "wild baseless dreams."

I think that going to heaven is a better reason to belive then you will ever have.

I see. So you're expecting a reward for believing in a book, rather than going out and actually trying to find the truth, be it the Bible, the Big Bang, or little pink fairies. That's an interesting position.

Yes, you are. Sorry to break it to ya, but MAN IS FALLABLE, GOD IS NOT.

More intellectual laziness? Whatever I say is false because, being human, I'm fallible, but anything you say is true because, hey, you don't have to follow the rules of logic, do you? I will thank you to debate properly instead of copping out like this.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

That's not an answer. I'm TRYing to work out what your 'spiriscience' is. So far you keep claiming that science is flawed, and spiriscience is the way to go. But you won't/can't even define what spiriscience is, and now that Im' trying to actually nail you down, you can't say in what way science is flawed, either.

See post #189.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

Yes, because all cities stay there forever. Come now, you don't really believe that any kind of divine foresight was necessary to say that eventually the city was going to fall, was it? If Alexander hadn't come through the city, it still would have degraded eventually, and you'd still be using it as evidence. And, given that the Bible pretty much acts on the Mediterranean region, have you heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?

Why do I bother? You're a textbook lost cause. Say, have you ever actually bothered to read the Bible for yourself?

No, it means that he hasn't actually proved either his science or the Bible, yet he wants me to take both for granted. Sorry, have a nice day, door's to your left.

We don't NEED to prove ANYTHING to you. I care less about your opinion than I do about how many potatos the average Ukrainian farmer harvests every 0.8 months.

This is funny for so many reasons. Is what you're saying that you want me to accept what you're saying as true because you're excused from proving it to me? What if I told you that there is an invisible red elephant at the top of the Sears Tower, and when you asked me to prove it I told you that the elephant is outside of normal science so it doesn't have to prove it to you? Hmm? What would your reaction be?

No, I'm telling you to stop arguing it, because it will get you nowhere.

Insults? I'm not the one who's been calling everyone adherents to "wild baseless dreams."

Name one post where I said that.

I see. So you're expecting a reward for believing in a book, rather than going out and actually trying to find the truth, be it the Bible, the Big Bang, or little pink fairies. That's an interesting position.[/quote

[/b]
More intellectual laziness? Whatever I say is false because, being human, I'm fallible, but anything you say is true because, hey, you don't have to follow the rules of logic, do you? I will thank you to debate properly instead of copping out like this.

I'm not EXPECTING a reward, I'm geranteed one, which is more that evolutionists cane ever say. Your pathetic attempts to argue me away from creationism are doomed to fail. My faith is to strong to be shaken by that.

 

[MartinM]

If you go to the island now, you'll only see one thing: The nets of Mediterrenian fishermen lying on the ground to dry.

...and the city of Tyre.

 

[MartinM]

I'm not EXPECTING a reward, I'm geranteed one, which is more that evolutionists cane ever say.

Sounds to me like you're saying that 'evolutionists,' whatever they are, can't be Christians.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Your pathetic attempts to argue me away from creationism are doomed to fail. My faith is to strong to be shaken by that.

As always, it comes down to this...creationists' faith in themselves, not in their god, is too strong.

 

[Theophilus01]

We don't NEED to prove ANYTHING to you. I care less about your opinion than I do about how many potatos the average Ukrainian farmer harvests every 0.8 months.

maybe you shouldn't be on a forum if you don't care about what other people think. forums are for people to express themselves and let others express themselves.

No, I'm telling you to stop arguing it, because it will get you nowhere.

exactly what your problem is. you are a "knower" which means that you can never be shaken or changed in your beliefs. we probably all are knowers. i know i am.

I'm not EXPECTING a reward, I'm geranteed one, which is more that evolutionists cane ever say. Your pathetic attempts to argue me away from creationism are doomed to fail. My faith is to strong to be shaken by that

in your opinion, the salvation of our soul all depends on whether or not we believe in literal interpretation of the Bible. i think that Jesus is more concerned with how we treat others, how we have served Him and others, and how we interact with Him. to say that we are not garanteed salvation is wrong and blasphemous. His dying on the cross was an act of love. salvation is a free gift to all people. who are you to choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell? are you God? in saying this, you are going against the very book that you are defending, here! don't be a hypocrite!

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

...and the city of Tyre.

If you bothered to do any reserch at all, you'll see that the city was never rebuild and no longer exists in any way, shape or form.

Nice try.

P.S. Work on your geography skills. A lot.