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.
In the latter case you have two immeasurably incredibly happenings (a divinity and the emergence of a universe). In the former you have but one immeasurably incredible happening.Not very convincing. Your asking the person to decide whether the universe came into existence through some unknown process or by the action of some unknown being. Without further evidence there is nothing to choose between them.
Matter/ energy is not eternal.
Thus it had to have a beginning. Before the beginning it did not exist.
Before the existence of matter/energy, nothing would exist. The absence of anything = absolute zero.
At absolute zero nothing happens, including the shifting of matter and anti-matter to create something out of nothing.
Correct. The physical laws of this universe apply to the nature of the composition of this universe. We do not, however, have reason to assume that there is any other universe.
Of course what we see is the bonding and unbonding of subatomic particles too small to have gravitational influence. When they bond we see them, when they unbond we do not. The existence of the particles has nothing to do with out ability to detect them.
We both know that it did. The problem is, we have no idea what the world looked like before. Was it one continent? Were there mountains or just high hills. What kind of change happened that blasted volcanoes from the sea and sent continents adrift? It would be incredible to know the before and the after condition.
Not really, they are quite different types of claim. To say the origin in unknown is an admission of lack of knowledge, the other a claim of specific knowledge. The significant difference is that one is a justified default position, the other an unjustified assumption.The choice for "origins" ultimately becomes one of personal preference. There is nothing to say one is by definition better than the other. Both have great unknowns. So both are equally problematic from a purely a priori stand point.
I am merely pointing out how the usual "First Uncaused Cause" argument tends to break down.
It's a matter of definition. Natural law does not apply to the supernatural.
God creating the universe makes sense. The universe creating itself makes no sense.
All Christians have, at some times, felt the presence of God. We know that God is real. We don't need subjective arguments to convince us of what we know to be true.
We should not worry about the claims of the godless who live in a world of make-believe where there is no consequence to sin.
They all assert as a foundation that they are correct.
From that it follows that whenever you find facts that seem to contradict what the bible says... you just "re-interprate" the relevant bible passages and assume that it really means the correct thing.
Indeed, just like I said: "Yeah, the bible seems to say Y, but it actually really means X"
You start with the dogmatic belief that the bible MUST be correct and whenever reality obviously contradicts biblical passages - you just go back to the bible and retro-actively say that the bible must be meaning the correct thing instead of what it seems to be saying.
As per your own admission (eventhough you seem to not be willing to come out and say it directly), you are incapable of saying that the bible is wrong about something, when it clearly is.
...hidden meaning...
Newsflash: the genesis flood is scientifically impossible. It can't happen, has never happened and will never happen.
My point is that you are criticising a position for asserting a foundation when you do so yourself.That's not the assertion I was referring to.
When you need to reinterpret the Bible to fit reality you where formally misinterpreting it.Can you demonstrate where this causes me to misinterpret Scripture?
It's a matter of definition
Natural law precludes the origination of anything from nothingness.
The supernatural nature of God has no such preclusion.
Natural law holds that all physical things are finite. God exists outside of the physical world and is infinite.
All physical things need a point of origination. God, being separate from the physical world, has no such requirement.
God creating the universe makes sense.
The universe creating itself makes no sense.
All Christians have, at some times, felt the presence of God.
We know that God is real
We don't need subjective arguments to convince us of what we know to be true.
We should not worry about the claims of the godless who live in a world of make-believe where there is no consequence to sin.
That's not the assertion I was referring to.
Can you demonstrate where this causes me to misinterpret Scripture?
Tell me something: When the weather man talks about "sunrise," do you take the language by what it literalistically means (which is what you seem to mean when you say "seems to be saying"), or what science tells you it must mean? I hope it is the latter.
No, I said that all truth is God's truth, and that includes demonstrable facts of science. That was my admission, and I gladly admit it, giving thanks to God. Is that a problem for you? It seems so.
Tell me, where have I inserted "hidden meaning" into any passage? I need a concrete example.
That's your belief. Mine just happens to be different.
My point is that you are criticising a position for asserting a foundation when you do so yourself.
When you need to reinterpret the Bible to fit reality you where formally misinterpreting it.
That point being, that you start from a dogmatic position that whatever the bible says - it can't be incorrect. And when science finds out things that contradict what the bible says, then from that it follows that the bible must be meaning something else then what it is saying - because "obviously" the bible can't be wrong.
No, that's not a belief. That's a fact. A demonstrable fact.
A flood as described in the bible, demonstrably never happened.
Can you give me an example where this leads me to plainly contradict the biblical text?
Asserting something over and over doesn't make it a demonstrable fact.
You assume this. You don't know this.
God: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.Only because you defined this to be so.
Again, blatantly false. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all matter is in a constant state of increasing entropy. It's wearing out and dying like we see stars die from time to time. Nothing which wears out or dies is eternal. Our bodies wear out and die. Our souls do not.Again, only because you defined this to be so.
If matter is not eternal it had to have a point of origination. While I admire that you believe I wrote the laws of nature, I have to admit that I did not. I have a hard time believing that you don't know these things. I think you are arguing just to be contrary.Once more, only because you defined it to be so.
Personally, I would say that water vapor condenses and crystalizes in the cold air. Snow doesn't form spontaneously. It's part of the hydrology system. Just like rain, its formation is part of a cycle.I'ld say that a snowflake simply "forms" quite spontanously due to the environmental circumstances.
Because this isn't Star Trek.Why couldn't that be the case for a space-time continuum?
No, we KNOW God is real, just like we know that you capitalize proper nouns whether you consider that entity a deity or not. We can't demonstrate or prove God to unbelievers because faith is the belief in things unproven and the only path to Heaven. If we could prove conclusively that God exists and Jesus was His son, then you couldn't have faith. The door to Heaven would be closed to you.No. You believe god is real. Knowledge is demonstrable. You can't demonstrate god.
Godless: having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic. Would you like to renounce atheism and embrace God? He exists either way, whether you acknowledge Him or not.Ow goodie.... a personal attack in an attempt to dissmiss arguments.
No, because what you said the assertion was is not what I was talking about. We are talking about two different things.
Wow, that's begging the question if I've ever seen it. Can you cite me some hermeneutical literature that would prove your point?
Can you give me an example where this leads me to plainly contradict the biblical text?
Asserting something over and over doesn't make it a demonstrable fact.
Me: Natural law precludes the origination of anything from nothingness.
Actually, we do. It's called the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
God: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Your statement is 100% false. I did not define God as being supernatural. That is the definition of God which predates my arrival.
Again, blatantly false. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all matter is in a constant state of increasing entropy. It's wearing out and dying like we see stars die from time to time. Nothing which wears out or dies is eternal. Our bodies wear out and die.
Our souls do not.
If matter is not eternal it had to have a point of origination. While I admire that you believe I wrote the laws of nature, I have to admit that I did not. I have a hard time believing that you don't know these things. I think you are arguing just to be contrary.
Personally, I would say that water vapor condenses and crystalizes in the cold air. Snow doesn't form spontaneously. It's part of the hydrology system. Just like rain, its formation is part of a cycle.
I don't see how that is an answer to the question.Because this isn't Star Trek.
No, we KNOW God is real, just like we know that you capitalize proper nouns whether you consider that entity a deity or not.
We can't demonstrate or prove God to unbelievers because faith is the belief in things unproven
and the only path to Heaven.
If we could prove conclusively that God exists and Jesus was His son, then you couldn't have faith.
The door to Heaven would be closed to you.
Godless: having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic.
Would you like to renounce atheism and embrace God?
He exists either way, whether you acknowledge Him or not
The third law of thermodynamics has nothing to say about "absolute nothingness".
The same problem remains. This is just a definition, with no grounding whatsoever in actual observable reality.
That which it comprises does.Matter doesn't "die out".
Again: knowledge is demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate this entity, then all you have is a belief, not knowledge.
No, God requires people to acknowledge that they have sinned and that they need a Savior for the forgiveness of sin. Jesus Christ is that savior. The offer of salvation is there but you have to accept it. Closing your eyes to the existence of God is not rational thinking. It's more like rebellion. The knowledge of good and evil is intrinsic. It dates back to Adam.Apparantly, your God hates rational thinking.
Baby eating monsters and atheists are both lost in their own sin, so how is one superior to the other. We could get into the baby KILLING monsters who support the abortion industry, but we won't.yeah... I was refering to the last words in your statement... about the "no consequences" thingy, in which you imply that we atheists are like a bunch of baby eating monsters.
The point is that this question is unanswerable. Precisely because this retro-active re-interpreting coupled with the dogmatic position that the bible can't ever be wrong about anything, results in a sitation where it becomes literally impossible to state that the bible is wrong about anything.
Then it goes like this:
"The bible says X"
"Science demonstrates Y"
"Ow but the bible actually means Y, eventhough it says X".
And round and round it goes.
I didn't just assert it. I explained it. Multiple times.
To summarize once more on a single point:
- the flood story predicts a genetic bottleneck in all species
- DNA analysis reveals that no such universal bottleneck exists
- therefor, the story is false.
And that's just one way it can be shown to be false. There still is all the data from geology, climatology, the fossil record, etc... All of which contradicts this flood story and none of which even only remotely confirms it.
The point is that you criticised a poster for asserting a foundation. But you also asserted a foundation. So for you to criticise a poster for the the same thing that you are doing is inappropriate.
It's not begging the question. It's pointing out the error in your statement.
Only if you can show me where the Bible was reinterpreted as a result of modern science. Otherwise it would be impossible.
Of course it MUST mean a thing. Otherwise it's just a disparate collection of oral records of myths handed down and eventually codified by consensus into a semi coherent narrative.Which was begging that question that Scripture, in your view, MUST mean a certain thing, which is doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of doing.
Of course it MUST mean a thing. Otherwise it's just a disparate collection of oral records of myths handed down and eventually codified by consensus into a semi coherent narrative.
It's meaning can't change for it to recount a true history.
No no, please don't misunderstand me. I do appreciate that the writers of the text that were later codified into the bible did not get things the way we would.thus not to recognize that these writers did not account for history and science in the same way we do in modernity is to be very unfair to the biblical witness.
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?