Some would argue that time does not exist even now and that it is a human concept. That time is not something inherent in the universe. They would go on to say that what does exist as a constant is "change".
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.
Some would argue that time does not exist even now and that it is a human concept. That time is not something inherent in the universe. They would go on to say that what does exist as a constant is "change".There was a time when time didn't exist.
I'm not sure we should be relying on the Bible for cosmology.I don't know if it was ex nihilo. All we know from the Bible account is that this universe we are currently residing within was created having no space, no matter, no energy and no time.
That doesn't seem to be coherent.There was a time when time didn't exist.
How then is the past fixed if time didn't exist? We know that the present moment exists and becomes the past. So if they argue it doesn't exist they have more than just that to explain it.Some would argue that time does not exist even now and that it is a human concept. That time is not something inherent in the universe. They would go on to say that what does exist as a constant is "change".
Many have depended on the Bible and great discoveries have come from it.I'm not sure we should be relying on the Bible for cosmology.
I can't say I don't disagree.That doesn't seem to be coherent.
Many have depended on the Bible and great discoveries have come from it.
No kidding, that is my husbands favorite joke. IF there is some way he can do that he will. So I hear ya...no pun intended.I am a hearing resource teacher... Wow I like telling people that in text way better than in person... Very minimal chance that you will respond with...
You teach what (pretending that you didn't hear me)?
Uh...yes...?...
Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by aware of.But believers in most God concepts say they are aware of this extra, spiritual realm.
But in many cases we do know. For instance, we know now that there are elements in the universe that support conclusions that God exists. It isn't from what we don't know but what we do know.The default position for any proposition should be "I don't know". Then we look at the evidence and are compelled one way or the other on a given issue. You seem to be saying that the fact that there are puzzling things we don't understand about our universe, that therefore you are justified in moving from "I don't know" to "I'm certain my God exists". That is a problem. In the past as we have discussed, every time there was something mysterious about our world or experience that a God was supposed to explain, it turns out that a God is not needed to explain it. So if anything the fact that there are questions, odd things that seem counterintuitive, should more firmly root us in the belief that there will be a natural explaination...there always has been in the past. Put another way, the fact that we humans don't know everything is not evidence for your God.
There are things I rule out as highly unlikely without disproving them. I find it highly unlikely that this universe is just a hologram but I've not disproved that possibility.I am baffled... What does the question "how have you ruled out all other possibilities?" mean, if it doesn't mean how have you disproved all other possibilities?
Morality would be a property of goodness, but what property does goodness come from? It seems that if Ed is truly evil, he is then violating objective moral standards and from what origin do they arise? Not Ed who is evil and who violates that which is good, so there must be something or someone greater than Ed from which the rules or obligations from which he is violating arise.The reason ed doesn't have a Bible is because it is part of his plan to remain hidden.
But all the evidence in the universe is consistent with Ed's existence so the state of the universe and the human condition all serve as evidence that he exists.
This is a bunch of assertions. There is no reason to think that goodness can't be the withholding of evil, nor does there have to be a source for good.
Morality is a property of goodness such that when ed withholds his evil, the goodness that he thereby allows, contains morality within it.
No, what I am saying is that I do believe that they were created as described in the Bible but how that occurred I've no clue.So it seems like you are saying you don't know of Adam and Eve were made the way the Bible says they were. Fair enough. The question then is how do you decide what parts of the Bible to believe actually are historical? Shouldn't you be able to ask the holy spirit what is the truth about Adam and Eve and find out?
Are you claiming that there is no evil that should receive punishment, and no person deserves to die for the harm they have caused?The story of pharaoh is proof of concept. Why did God harden the Pharaoh's heart.. So that he might more fully reveal his glory. In this case by killing a bunch of people. Seems that in this instance God's glory was more important the lives of all those people he created in Egypt.
I very much like this analogy. I think it is very concise and conveys your point very well. So many times the analogies used don't fit with the context of the argument being made. So kudos to you.Yes I think that is basically correct. By way of analogy... Let's say two kids ages 3 and 5 are in a room. The room is empty and entirely made of metal. There is only one exit to the room, a ladder that begins 6 feet above the floor (too high for one kid standing on the other to reach. Some how these kids are trapped in there and the floor begins to heat up. At some point the flood will be so hot that the only thing the older kid can do to stop the pain is to stand on top of the body of the younger one ( it wouldn't work the other way because the younger one doesn't have the balance, let's say). This is horrible and in most other circumstances standing on top of your sibling causing them to burn to death would be atrocious. In this case it is the only way for any of the kids to survive. So it is awful yes but not immoral.
Now take that same situation and make it an adult and a toddler. Should the adult stand on the toddler to stay alive? Of course not, the adult can pick the kid up, grab the bottom of the ladder and get them both out.
God is like that adult except instead of choosing to use his power to save the life of that toddler he allows them to burn in hell.
Darn, I really am pulling for you too. I want you to spend an eternity with those you love.Not yet
No person converts a non-believer. That is only done by God. All we do is hopefully make a reasoned argument and defend our position.There should be an achievement on this website for Christians who successfully convert a non believer!
He has always existed.On what basis did you determine that God didn't create himself?
Can God make a square circle? Its the same issue.Why is it outside his power to make a sinless being?
I don't think that is established. I know that God says we have a choice. He can and has determined how someone He knew would reject Him in any possible world at any possible time would be placed for His purpose but I don't believe that He takes away their right to salvation.Remember that God predestined those who would be saved. So his great and good plan from the beginning has included this aspect of most of his created souls, made in his image, going to hell. How is this a good plan?
It wasn't a virtuous decision as He went after the Jews even after He said they could go free. Not to mention the fact that Pharaoh had dealt very harshly with the Jews even to the act of killing all the Hebrew first born males.Maybe God knows pharaoh would have hardened his heart again in his own but we don't. There is a pattern to be sure but it is far from clear that pharaoh was free in any of those instances. Remember God told Moses ahead of time that he was going to harden pharaohs heart. So that is problem number 1. Problem 2 is that your your distinction between intervening and subverting is a distinction coupon without a difference. In the critical moment of decision Gog stops pharaoh from making the virtuous decision, forces him to sin against God so that God can punish him.. Why worship a being like that?
What we know and what has been shown is that God will predestine people to be used for His purposes and yes His glory but that doesn't mean He acts against their own will.So remember that God predestined those who would be saved. Now you are telling me that God is the agent that allows that to happen at all. So those non predestined suckers never had a chance in hell, literally. God knows what and how much nudging would bring us to salvation a d he is the only one who can do it. He has demonstrated that he is willing to do physical appearances, miraculous signs etc. So maybe the reason he doesn't do that for us all is that he actually doesn't want us all saved. Again why worship a God like that?
You weren't talking about the sermon on the mount?Nope, good effort though. Did you want me to post the verses again? I agree that Jesus said those things (on your assumption the the Bible is true) but this is a different part of the sermon. In the verses I cited he does say you are to obey the OT laws. If you disagree, deal with the actual passages in your response.
That is simply untrue. On what basis do you claim that they were denied a relationship with God or that they were unaware and had no warning from God?Every time God rescued the news it was at the expense of those around them but more the point... God made a way for one group and one group only to be I right relationship with him at the time. Before Jesus you would say that God was still God and that sin was still sin even if those other people didn't know it. So they sinned against God but because they were not Israelites they had no path back to relationship with him. Basically they get sent to hell because God had them be born into the wrong people group.
God was on their side but would not force them to act. They feared the iron chariots and would not have faith in God's word.But it's crazy that it happened even once right. I mean the all powerful God of the universe, thwarted by some iron chariots.
How do you make sense of that?
My vote is that after the Israelites had told everyone that God was on thier side... And then got beat, they made up a story about why they lost.
How do you explain it?
If you create only souls that would be saved takes away real love.If saving souls were the main point he would either only create souls that would be saved or just kill everybody who would get damned the instant they are born (Or maybe even before - Hosea). The fact that he does not do this by a long shot shows that there is something more important to God than saving the souls of his created beings. What do you think it is?
You again are not seeing the sin component in all of this. Do you feel that great harm to others is permissible and should go unpunished?That's true, I extrapolating. And may even your answer to the prior question will clear this all up.
He has given people 2,000 years warning that if they take the mark of the beast they seal the deal and there is no turning back.Exactly. This is yet another example God actively making sure some of his created souls go to hell that allegedly wasn't meant for them. In this case it is even worse though. God knew that these people are about to turn to him and receive grace but he decideves them specifically so that they won't get to have grace.
How is this a good God?
Knowing something doesn't mean you made it happen.Who made them? Who knit them together in thier mothers womb, who planned out all the days of thier lives in his book before the creation of the universe? So he k ew before he made them but he made them anyway so that his plan would work out the way he wanted it to... You know, the one where most people go to hell.
Yes, that God allowed behavior due to the time the Hebrews lived and the culture that they lived in.That God agrees with you about slavery?
What would a slave do with money? They had no possessions. There was no reason for compensation because they didn't work for money. For the most part, slaves or indentured servants were the majority of people we are talking about. They sold themselves to the Hebrews so that they could survive. If they didn't they would starve to death, they and their families. They gave up their rights of autonomy for survival.No I am saying that if a man's leg get broken by someone on purpose, that there should be a consequence. One that reflects the inherent worth and equal value of all humans. God doesn't say "thou shalt break legs!" but he commands that in one case there be a consequence and in the other none. The only difference is that one person is part of the I - group and that the other is just considered property. This is morally outrageous but you worship the God who commands this. Why?
I'm left wondering how you meant it then. I don't see any other way it could have come across. I accept your apologies but I don't know how I could think anything other than what I did.[/QUOTE]Oops I didn't mean for it to come across that wayI was only trying to remind you of what that point was since it happened so long ago. My apologies you thought I was critical that you hadn't answered it. I agree that we have tabled it for now.
Such as what? Please cite research that substantiates this claim.
What I am doing Davian is withdrawing from your horse and pony show provided for your enjoyment. I find your motivation and your style of argumentation to be unworthy of my time or effort.Are you conceding that we have no evidence of life arising from gods?
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
You can look them up and see how some Bible related belief led to most of these men and what they discovered.
Is that not the same list as scientists that wore pants?SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
TABLE II
NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
CONTRIBUTION SCIENTIST
ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)
INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)
SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)
THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
http://www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/
Or, you could substantiate you own claim in this thread.You can look them up and see how some Bible related belief led to most of these men and what they discovered.
And incompatible with your evasive and burden-shifting style of argumentation.What I am doing Davian is withdrawing from your horse and pony show provided for your enjoyment. I find your motivation and your style of argumentation to be unworthy of my time or effort.
Lets take Matthew Maury: This is a fair accounting on his ideas bringing about his achievements.Copy and pasting from a creationist website that is notorious for lying and misrepresenting facts will get an eye roll.
This is your claim though. You're going to have to substantiate it. Please cite any research from anyone on this list that explicitly states that the discoveries made by their research were made possible by the bible.
Lets take Matthew Maury: This is a fair accounting on his ideas bringing about his achievements.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=361
The argument goes like this: If human beings did not exist and so were not able to put the awareness of time past and future together into our consciousness, you would have no time to keep track of. They say that time is relative only to Human Beings. And that it's Change that the rest of the universe reacts to, not time.How then is the past fixed if time didn't exist? We know that the present moment exists and becomes the past. So if they argue it doesn't exist they have more than just that to explain it.
And how does that matter exactly?The argument goes like this: If human beings did not exist and so were not able to put the awareness of time past and future together into our consciousness, you would have no time to keep track of. They say that time is relative only to Human Beings. And that it's Change that the rest of the universe reacts to, not time.
Copy and pasting from a creationist website that is notorious for lying and misrepresenting facts will get an eye roll.
This is your claim though. You're going to have to substantiate it. Please cite any research from anyone on this list that explicitly states that the discoveries made by their research were made possible by the bible.
And many, many more have not.Many have depended on the Bible and great discoveries have come from it.
?I can't say I don't disagree.
I wouldn't bother asking this. You'll just get a gish gallop. If you're lucky, it'll at least be tenuously related to your question.Such as what? Please cite research that substantiates this claim.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was claiming. I said: Many have depended on the Bible and great discoveries have come from it.You've failed to provide any scientific research papers that explicitly use the bible to reach their conclusions. Instead, you copy pasted from an apologetics page. Did Keplar use the bible for his discoveries or mathematical models? Please describe things in your own words instead of copy/pasting from creationist and other apologetic websites. Demonstrate that you understand what you're talking about.
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?