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.
Except that it only settles it for you, so you might as well leave the, "I believe it," in there.
No. Because no matter how strongly you believe, it won't suddenly make me believe. It just doesn't work that way.No, it applies to you, too --- whether you choose to believe it or not. Just because you may not believe what's written between its covers, doesn't make you exempt.
No. Because no matter how strongly you believe, it won't suddenly make me believe. It just doesn't work that way.
But the moment you want to declare absolute truth, you have to claim you have evidence for that. Otherwise it is still nothing but your own belief. And thus you should preface it with, "I believe."I don't think you get the gist of our motto.
It means that whether we believe it or not, it's not going to be any more or less credible. It's like gravity --- I can choose to believe in it, or I can choose not to; but either way, it's not going to make a difference if I step off the Empire State Building.
Gravity says it, that settles it.
It's a false analogy, since the obvious difference here is that the claim of ex nihilo creation is not detectable in any way remotely like gravity, hence the faith part.I don't think you get the gist of our motto.
It means that whether we believe it or not, it's not going to be any more or less credible. It's like gravity --- I can choose to believe in it, or I can choose not to; but either way, it's not going to make a difference if I step off the Empire State Building.
Gravity says it, that settles it.
But the moment you want to declare absolute truth, you have to claim you have evidence for that. Otherwise it is still nothing but your own belief. And thus you should preface it with, "I believe."
It's a false analogy, since the obvious difference here is that the claim of ex nihilo creation is not detectable in any way remotely like gravity, hence the faith part.
Also, I'd just like to point out that even though a believer may fervently hold a religious belief, it should not be on forced on others. If that believer is entitled to his beliefs, then so is everyone else.
Like I said --- pick and choose all you want --- it's not going to change a thing.
Nice cop-out.This is why God advises us not to go by pure science.
[bible]2 Corinthians 5:7[/bible]
Nothingness cannot be expressed (in any language) because nothingness cannot be conceptualized. Only "something" can be conceptualized and then expressed.Again, I agree --- but only because there's no known way to express that in the English language.:æ: said:It doesn't make sense to say that a complete lack of existence... existed.
I disagree. It could be detected as an abrupt stop in history or reality. And so it's ruled out entirely as a possibility at any point after inflation.Nothingness cannot be expressed (in any language) because nothingness cannot be conceptualized. Only "something" can be conceptualized and then expressed.
As such, "nothingness" could not leave any evidence. Even if we stumble upon something (note that word) that appears to indicate nothingness, we could not describe it lest it become "something."
"Something out of nothing," while seemingly understandable at first glance, is actually illogical and cannot be comprehended by the mind.
"Something out of nothing," while seemingly understandable at first glance, is actually illogical and cannot be comprehended by the mind.
You're not out to prove your premise through empirical evidence.
You're doing this in reverse, you're stating a premise that you assert "is absolutely true" and then stating that any evidence that agrees with the premise "is real evidence" and anything that contradicts the evidence is "wrong" or "not real."
So why do you bother asking the question?
I simply want to show that there is no such a thing as evidence for ex nihilo creation
It's your premise. The onus is on you to show its validity.You're right --- I'm not out to prove my premise at all --- that's your job.
Then you are doing yourself a great disservice. Radiometric dating methods are quite reliable indeed. The way you check this is trivial: you simply compare completely different dating methods that make completely different assumptions. That way, if any of your assumptions are wrong, then the different dating methods will provide different dates, and you'll be able to go back and reexamine the evidence to get a more correct result.That's because I've been taught that carbon and radiometric dating methods are unreliable when it comes to dating things beyond a certain point; and rather than have to argue the point with people on here who are much more knowledgeable than I, who would bury me in technospeak, I just dismiss it outright.
Carbon dating can be performed out to about 50,000 years, and this limitation is going to be blatantly obvious to anybody that understands radiometric dating at all. The half-life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years, which means that half of the original amount will remain after 5730 years. After 50,000 years, roughly 1/500th of the C14 remains, and you start running into limits imposed by contamination and measurement of the C14.When I was growing up, people were carbon-dating skeletons of "hominids" as hundreds of millions of years old, until it was "discovered" that Carbon dating is ineffectual beyond 5730 years.
I really do not understand this insistence on your god being a deceiver. After all, radiometric dating methods are calibrated against other, completely independent dating methods. Radiocarbon dating, for instance, can be calibrated against tree rings and a number of other dating methods. Tree rings alone go out to about 11,000 years (and how, do you think, does that mesh with a global flood?).Same with radioactive elements. If you said this element has been here 10,000 years because its half-life is 20,000 years, then I would tell you that when God created it, it was currently at 16,000 years of half-life. (If I'm saying this right.)
This is absolutely true. So why believe it at all?I simply want to show that there is no such a thing as evidence for ex nihilo creation.
AV1611 -
snip
But your post simply says the same thing I did. That is, if physical evidence shows something contrary to what you believe is true, then you reject the evidence, insist your belief is true, and re-interpret the evidence to fit that belief. But as others have already pointed out to you, that says a lot about your version of God.
snip
That's because I've been taught that carbon and radiometric dating methods are unreliable when it comes to dating things beyond a certain point; and rather than have to argue the point with people on here who are much more knowledgeable than I, who would bury me in technospeak, I just dismiss it outright.
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?