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.
All-powerful doesn't have to mean infinitely powerful. Nothing can meaningfully be described as infinite because infinity is not a specific number. At best one could speak of potential infinity. For example a piece of matter is limitlessly divisible if you continue to split the pieces over and over. But any ACTUAL division - that is at any moment of time - you're currently stuck with a finite number.And of course, God being the ominpotent Creator, He has no need to tinker with creation to make it work.
Exactly. A finite being as I've been stating this whole thread. Seems you prefer to debate someone else rather than discuss MY views.Design is what limited creatures do. God creates. Doesn't matter if you confuse the two.
Nope. That's an incomplete reading of Paul. The heart has the POTENTIAL for knowledge of God - but it is the grandeur of Nature that triggers this recognition. Even if you disagree with that flow, nonetheless Paul is referring to Nature at Romans 1:18-20.As St. Paul points out, even gentiles know in their hearts without the law.
Paul isn't dealing with Darwinian students.(A) might work for someone who God gave that knowledge. But Paul's statement:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Is more compelling when one learns more about creation. The growing evidence for abiogenesis, for example, is confirmation that the Earth did bring forth living things. The evidence for common descent again confirms the power of a Creator who could use nature to do His will.
Do you have a background in those above disciplines?Yeah, there's that one too. But I don't sweat it either!
I guess this is where I offer a shameless plug for the benefits of the fields of Historiography, the Philosophy of History, the Craft of Historical Writing and even Hermeneutics. These can come in handy when you want to assess how the Gospel of Luke doesn't sync with Josephus in regard to some issues like the one involving Quirinius, or as to how historical writings [all historical writings] are constructed and why different historians disagree with one another, whether they do so today or "yesterday."
Oh, I forgot! I need to add from the above that the study of Natural History and Anthropology also come in handy where the collision of Evolutionary science and the book of Genesis is concerned. It's always good to keep this mind, Sis, since it means that no one necessarily has the last, decisive word on either The Word or the World.
Do you have a background in those above disciplines?
It has to suppose that some how millions of life forms evolved at the same time, against impossible odds.
The common calculation is:What do you think the odds are? Can you show us your math?
Given that we see new species evolving on a regular basis, it would seem pointless to argue that it's impossible.
Nope. That's an incomplete reading of Paul. The heart has the POTENTIAL for knowledge of God
Exactly. A finite being as I've been stating this whole thread. Seems you prefer to debate someone else rather than discuss MY views.
Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the supposed age of the universe.
And that's just to begin life.
Reasserting your position doesn't disprove my flow. And, as I ALSO stated, it's a moot point because Romans 1:18-20 describes a Nature-based inference, regardless of Romans 2:14.As St. Paul points out, even gentiles know in their hearts without the law.
See above.Well, let's take a look...
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
No, he says that they know the law in their hearts.
This is your proof that God can be meaningfully described as infinite? Um...er...Newsflash: an incoherent conclusion cannot be proven.Job 42:1
Then Job answered the Lord and said, “I know that You can do all things, 2:And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
Omnipotence is not an attribute of a limited being.
This I can do - but the burden of proof is NOT on me. All we know for sure are finite material objects. All I believe in are - wait for it - finite material objects. Anything beyond that is an extraordinary claim, viz. "Use the immaterial Force, Luke!" Extraordinary claims cry out for extraordinary amounts of corroborating evidence. That puts the burden of proof on YOU. And that's a burden you cannot meet, because infinitude is an incoherent claim.Perhaps you should show us that God is a limited being.
That doesn't make any sense... For me you already have all that existing parts available, not so for the first life.But let's consider you, given your great,great grandparents. The likelihood of a person with your genes, given their genes, is even more unlikely. So you've also "proven" that you can't exist.
That doesn't make any sense... For me you already have all that existing parts available, not so for the first life.
This I can do - but the burden of proof is NOT on me.
I've already done it on other threads. I'll probably do it here too.Perhaps you should show us that God is a limited being.
So you could prove this, but the Evil Barbarian won't let you? Seriously?
Annoyingly, some people take the irrational and irresponsible stance, "If you can't prove your position 100%, my position must be accepted."
Um, not.Um, that's what you just did.
Again, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me. I'm the only one who makes no extraordinary claims.
Ok. Provided you agree to the following ground rule. Let me explain. Suppose I made an incoherent statement and then said, "See I just disproved evolution." Unacceptable, right?Perhaps you should show us that God is a limited being.
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?