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.
Is this the same bible that states that plants were created before the sun? We know that plants cannot exist without sunlight. The bible is scientifically inaccurate here.
A circular argument is a fallacy. "The bible says its true therefore it is true. The bible says intelligence comes from God, we are intelligent, therefore God" This explains nothing and is a circular argument.
How do you know? There was light and we don't know what this light provided to the earth and that which lived upon it at that time.Is this the same bible that states that plants were created before the sun? We know that plants cannot exist without sunlight. The bible is scientifically inaccurate here.
Yes, just as the natural world can have only a natural explanation as only the natural world exists and can only be discovered by employing methodological naturalism.A circular argument is a fallacy. "The bible says its true therefore it is true. The bible says intelligence comes from God, we are intelligent, therefore God" This explains nothing and is a circular argument.
How do you know? There was light and we don't know what this light provided to the earth and that which lived upon it at that time.
Now it is not that the Bible saying it is true making it true, but the Bible making claims that can be then investigated and either confirmed or falsified or be determined unknown.
Yes, photosynthesis is required for modern plants to live, or for another source such as growing lights and such. There is work being done right now that has been successful in taking a gene and manipulating it which has plants surviving without sunlight and little if any water. Now I am not saying that we have support for plants being present before the sun but we didn't have support for plants being present 700 million years ago until just recently either. We didn't have evidence for anything liquid during the formation of the universe until recently either and yet we do now. Science seems to more and more align with the Bible the more we find out.Now you're committing the fallacy of begging the question. We know the sun is required for plants to perform photosynthesis but the bible says the sun was created after plants. This is impossible. If you have to beg the question for a different light source, your argument is unconvincing. I have no good reason to believe you unless you can substantiate your claims.
The Bible doesn't say that species were individually created. So your next statement makes no sense, in the first sentence you claim that species were individually created and that it was wrong. If the Bible said this you would be right and it could be falsified. Yet in the next sentence you claim it is unfalsifiable. It seems you can't decide.We know the claim that species were individually created is wrong. The existence of a God is unfalsifiable. Do you think you have a good reason to believe something if it is unfalsifiable?
There is work being done right now that has been successful in taking a gene and manipulating it which has plants surviving without sunlight and little if any water.
Science seems to more and more align with the Bible the more we find out.
The Bible doesn't say that species were individually created.
So your next statement makes no sense, in the first sentence you claim that species were individually created and that it was wrong. If the Bible said this you would be right and it could be falsified. Yet in the next sentence you claim it is unfalsifiable. It seems you can't decide.
We have evidence confirming that the universe began to expand 13.82 billion years ago and that this expansion continues still, but I somehow doubt that that's what you mean by "beginning."The Bible explains that the universe had a beginning. We have evidence that confirms this.
So where does God's intelligence come from?The Bible explains intelligence comes from the intelligence of God, we are testament to that.
Yes, photosynthesis is required for modern plants to live, or for another source such as growing lights and such. There is work being done right now that has been successful in taking a gene and manipulating it which has plants surviving without sunlight and little if any water. Now I am not saying that we have support for plants being present before the sun but we didn't have support for plants being present 700 million years ago until just recently either. We didn't have evidence for anything liquid during the formation of the universe until recently either and yet we do now. Science seems to more and more align with the Bible the more we find out.
The Bible doesn't say that species were individually created. So your next statement makes no sense, in the first sentence you claim that species were individually created and that it was wrong. If the Bible said this you would be right and it could be falsified. Yet in the next sentence you claim it is unfalsifiable. It seems you can't decide.
Are you claiming that the universe did not have a beginning? Yes, it expanded and is expanding which fits with what the Bible says about the heavens being stretched. There was no space, no energy, no time and no matter and then there was. That is a beginning.We have evidence confirming that the universe began to expand 13.82 billion years ago and that this expansion continues still, but I somehow doubt that that's what you mean by "beginning."
So where does God's intelligence come from?
I beg to differ. There is nothing that states that each species was created separately. After their kind, means just that. They came after their kind. What kind came before...? How much time was involved in that 24 hour day? WE know that a day to God is not the same as it is to us. Yes, all that was created then is all there is now. Nothing that exists today or even thousands of years ago existed when God created the universe.Bit the Bible does state the species were crated separately. There is not one single reference to one species being crated from another. Genesis claims all the animals appeared all at once, not in stages. Also, I have every reason to believe that the P source, author of Gen. 1, had in mind a literal 24-hour day. Also, the Bible clearly starts that creation is over, finished, done with. Evolution means that creation is continuous.
Modern Science wouldn't exist if it were not for the Christian worldview. If it were not for religion we would not have the scientific model in use today.And this demonstrates God exists, how? Could you cite one research paper that suggests something along the lines of "And this demonstrates the bible is correct" A Muslim would make the same argument about the Koran. Sounds to me like science making progress and religion goes back to twist up their scripture to fit the data. It reminds me that Galileo was placed under house arrest because of his heliocentric model. The church felt that didn't fit well with scripture. This also happened with evolution but evolution is accepted now by most Christians. Seems to me religion often gets it dead wrong when it comes to investigation about the natural world. But what is found in Genesis isn't surprising to me. It's exactly what I would expect to be written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.
Its a light source is it not?Oh really, provide several examples. Is the moon a source of light like the bible says or does it reflect light?
Genesis doesn't say they popped into existence.Genesis 1:20-25. These verses are describing species being created. We know species did not just pop into existence in their current form. We know these claims are demonstrably false.
They were not individually created and it doesn't say they were.What I meant that the existence of a God is not falsified because Genesis is not literal, it just falsifies the claims that species were individually created. If you take Genesis literally, your version of God is likely wrong but it doesn't disprove God.
Modern Science wouldn't exist if it were not for the Christian worldview.
If it were not for religion we would not have the scientific model in use today.
Its a light source is it not?
The Bible claims the heavens were stretched out and we now have evidence that they are expanding or stretching out.
The Bible claims that there are springs on the oceans floor and there was no way that Job would have had that knowledge and it took technology to prove that to be true.
Genesis doesn't say they popped into existence.
They were not individually created and it doesn't say they were.
Agreed.Having no other scientific options doesn't mean that the only one is correct or has evidence for it.
But before that, you said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim?I asked if you had any evidence as I was unaware of any that provided evidence for non-living matter becoming living matter.
What do you mean, "non-physical"? Is not your position that "life" can only come from "life"? How can the physical come from the non-physical, what ever that means?Providing physical evidence for a non-physical Being
What would those means be?compared to physical evidence for a physical process seems obvious would require different means in which to determine it.
In what sense are you using the word "beginning"?Are you claiming that the universe did not have a beginning?
I think you're stretching the Bible to fit the science.Yes, it expanded and is expanding which fits with what the Bible says about the heavens being stretched.
If that is what you mean by "beginning," then we don't know whether the universe "began."There was no space, no energy, no time and no matter and then there was. That is a beginning.
If our intelligence requires an explanation, then why doesn't God's?God is intelligence.
First of all the reason I presented the origins of modern science is due to the fact that you seem to have a scientific view of the world and I wanted to point out that the view you hold is centered upon the Christian worldview. Regardless, you might wish to look into who was responsible for Algebra, it might surprise you if you actually research it...and no I'm not claiming it too came from the Bible. The truth of Christianity rests in many areas including science.And this makes Christianity true, how? We wouldn't have algebra if it wasn't for Islam, therefore Islam is true. See how nonsensical your argument is?
Well, I think that the religion is not for or against any scientific discoveries. I think there are those in some organized religions that claim the label Christianity can and do sometimes feel threatened by scientific findings but overall religion and science have been hand in hand.Then why has religion been so opposed to so many scientific discoveries that threaten their dogma but then twist scripture to fit new discoveries and claim they knew it all along? Is the cure for AIDS in the bible? Or will we not see that until a cure is found? Does dipping a bird in blood cure leprosy like it is described in Leviticus 14? Or should we go with the modern medicine treatment of antibiotics?
Does reflected light not illuminate the night? Is it not a source of light in the darkness of the night? The fact that the light is reflected does not change that it is a fact that the moon gives us light in the darkness of night.No, the moon is not a light source. It does not emit light. It reflects light. The bible seems to think it's a source for light. It's not.
Actually it does, it says: He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.Does it give the explanation as to why it is expanding? No. If you think the bible fully understands the expansion of the universe, then you should be able to tell us what dark energy is and how it works. You'd win a Nobel Prize. Do you have an explanation? Basically all you have is a vague description and you're projecting it to mean what you want it to mean.
"Springs of the sea" is pretty vague with no description of what they are and what they do. Could you offer an explanation using the bible? Or are you just projecting what you want it to mean?
Has the earth even moved from its fixed place in the universe in relation to us or the sun? We know that if it were not fixed where it is in our universe we would not exist.Is this earth immovable like the bible describes or is it rotating on it's axis and orbiting the sun?
I think you should.You should probably reread Genesis
... but it's not... You really have to distort the history of science in order to claim that it is.First of all the reason I presented the origins of modern science is due to the fact that you seem to have a scientific view of the world and I wanted to point out that the view you hold is centered upon the Christian worldview.
So I have to question why you said what you said?Agreed.
No. You nor anyone else has provided evidence that non-living matter could ever become living matter. Your links provide no evidence that non-living matter to non-living matter could ever become living matter. Now if you or anyone else has evidence of non-living matter EVER becoming living matter or non-living matter having EVER became living matter or that non-living matter that has become more non-living matter and then becoming living matter then present it or if you or anyone else having evidence that.But before that, you said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". Is this you retracting this claim?
This is what I said. "Providing physical evidence for a non-physical Being compared to physical evidence for a physical process seems obvious would require different means in which to determine it." To ask for physical evidence for a non-physical Being can not be done in the same way as we find physical evidence to determine a physical process.What do you mean, "non-physical"? Is not your position that "life" can only come from "life"? How can the physical come from the non-physical, what ever that means?
That is simply false.... but it's not... You really have to distort the history of science in order to claim that it is.
I think Athee was spot on in his response to you about this.Yes, but the question I asked was, if you had felt that God was fictional, do you think would you have made that request?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/In what sense are you using the word "beginning"?
Demonstrate how I have stretched it to fit science.I think you're stretching the Bible to fit the science.
See above.If that is what you mean by "beginning," then we don't know whether the universe "began."
Why would it?[/Quote][/QUOTE]If our intelligence requires an explanation, then why doesn't God's?
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?