- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,652
- 52,517
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Would you know it if He was?He appears to be in the minority percentage (with you) who believe: God is dishonest.
Many people, including stauch supporters of the theory of evolution, believe that "In the beginning, God created."Norbert belongs in that percentage that believes: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED.
And in that 100% of those who ever lived, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow, who believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.
In short, Norbert knows how to prioritize.
No, but it does beg the question of why you consider him worthy of worship.Would you know it if He was?
Yup.Many people, including stauch supporters of the theory of evolution, believe that "In the beginning, God created."
Didn't you consider Him worthy of worship at one time?No, but it does beg the question of why you consider him worthy of worship.
Mixed up with someone else. I got as far as considering training as a missionary before the silence became too obvious.Didn't you consider Him worthy of worship at one time?
Or do I have you mixed up with someone else?
Mormon, I take it?Mixed up with someone else. I got as far as considering training as a missionary before the silence became too obvious.
But every Christian who ever lived, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow, believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.
To be fair if God made it then there can’t have been nothing. Because there was God before the universe came into existence.This is more theological than scientific IMO.
God, who is eternal, created everything out of nothing. Science is used to look at the truths of the universe. Depending on your interpretation, they can work together.
I don't know how trying to define a nothing as an absence would be arguing for or against having the singular God of the Bible or polytheistic gods in general and whether such a thing indicates dishonesty or truthfulness. Seems character evaluation is a bit of a stretch and unrelated.That's just arguing for a dishonest god who removed evidence. I'm sure AV will object.
Your argument was that the evidence went missing and therefore became absent. That necessitates evidence existing and then being removed, which most people would consider to be dishonest.I don't know how trying to define a nothing as an absence would be arguing for or against having the singular God of the Bible or polytheistic gods in general and whether such a thing indicates dishonesty or truthfulness. Seems character evaluation is a bit of a stretch and unrelated.
I agree.Your argument was that the evidence went missing and therefore became absent. That necessitates evidence existing and then being removed,
Unless there was a reason for it.Bungle_Bear said:... which most people would consider to be dishonest.
I'm trying to avoid placing character traits with motives into this discussion. Sometimes a missing child at the store is evidence that an adult got distracted and their child wandered off. Being removed isn't the only conclusion, it could very well be only out of sight.Your argument was that the evidence went missing and therefore became absent. That necessitates evidence existing and then being removed, which most people would consider to be dishonest.
Thanks, this is useful! Absence: the state of being away from a place or person. Absence requires two things. A state of being(1) unavailable from a location(2). This is already two somethings both of which require having an external observation which says something of a proof that is meaningful. From or out of nothing creation does need external observers who say things as proof about the meaning they wish to inject into the discussion.Let me try:
"Ex nihilo": has nothing, says nothing, proves nothing, means nothing.
...there you go.
The traditional interpretation of Aristotle, which goes back as far as Augustine (De Genesi contra Manichaeos i 5–7) and Simplicius (On Aristotle’s Physics i 7), and is accepted by Aquinas (De Principiis Naturae §13), holds that Aristotle believes in something called “prime matter”, which is the matter of the elements, where each element is, then, a compound of this matter and a form. This prime matter is usually described as pure potentiality, just as, on the form side, the unmoved movers are said by Aristotle to be pure actuality, form without any matter (Metaphysics xii 6). What it means to call prime matter “pure potentiality” is that it is capable of taking on any form whatsoever, and thus is completely without any essential properties of its own. It exists eternally, since, if it were capable of being created or destroyed, there would have to be some even lower matter to underlie those changes. Because it is the matter of the elements, which are themselves present in all more complex bodies, it is omnipresent, and underlies not only elemental generation and destruction, but all physical changes.
Evidence doesn't wander off, particularly when there's an (apparently) all-powerful god involved. Evidence being removed, hidden, or disguised - whichever deception you want to pick the conclusion is still dishonesty. You may not want to attribute character traits, but if the perpetrator displays such traits what should you conclude?I'm trying to avoid placing character traits with motives into this discussion. Sometimes a missing child at the store is evidence that an adult got distracted and their child wandered off. Being removed isn't the only conclusion, it could very well be only out of sight.
That dishonest professionals removed the evidence of Hurricane Katrina for sanitary and safety reasons?Evidence doesn't wander off, particularly when there's an (apparently) all-powerful god involved. Evidence being removed, hidden, or disguised - whichever deception you want to pick the conclusion is still dishonesty. You may not want to attribute character traits, but if the perpetrator displays such traits what should you conclude?
That dishonest professionals removed the evidence of Hurricane Katrina for sanitary and safety reasons?
Looks clean to me.Alas, Katrina was an Act of God... Which just goes to show He has little interest in cleaning up His own messes.
Yes. I agree with this post.To be fair if God made it then there can’t have been nothing. Because there was God before the universe came into existence.
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?