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.
Because it has all the characteristics of an effect, thereby needing a Cause.
You are right about others seeing God.When one looks beyond the limited scope of the Bible, there are many more than those 20 who have seen God.
God's form is life itSelf, both the seen and unseen. I wouldn't call God the System Administrator. He's the essence of the System.
I think it's a Biblical description of the from of God as seen through the lens of a person who sees the body of Christ as extending throughout the universe. I believe it's also a description of a person who has God as their reality in life.When you say that God's form is life itSelf, I am confused by that description. Is that a description from the bible?
I understand scripture to say just the opposite, that it is Human Beings who are made in the Image of God. Though I think it right that an argument can be made in which we do in fact tend to define God in our image.Because the bible seems to indicate that God is made in our image and our likeness,...
It's our souls, not our body, that is made in the image of God. To take this another step towards God, personally, I see our souls as an activity of God.... which seems to indicate that God looks a lot like a human.
They are not incompatible with naturalistic cosmological models. And, theological "models", being unfalsifiable, can be made to 'fit' just about any evidence. Here, one should apply parsimony.Davian says:
But if the 'fine details' are evidence for both the naturalistic cosmological models and for the religious dogma, then parsimony says we toss the religions, in the absence of corroborating evidence for said religions.
That's what I have been trying to tell you. The fine tuned, precisioned, "universal constants" are part of the "fine details". They are not evidence for the naturalistic cosmological model.
Provide a scientific citation for this "math" you allude to.In fact the math proves,
they are evidence against it. If you are for the "naturalistic cosmological model", then you are for the "random chance happening model". They are one in the same. If you throw ID out of the equation, what do you have left? You have a natural event. What causes a natural event, "a random chance happening". Tell me of another cause of a natural event?
Parsimony does not come into play, because the "fine details" identify themselves with ID and against a natural chance happening.
Cosmologists and astrophysicists.Davian:In the context of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, with robust definitions, you have yet to present any evidence for this "id" that you speak of.
So you say because ID is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific endeavor for research, so there is no room for ID in science. How convenient.
Who decides if ID is not falsifiable?
Yet we still use Newton's laws to land space probes on the moons of Saturn. Are you arguing for a god-of-the-gaps?I know that under the scientific method, many theories, over the centuries have been proven to be a law, partly because it hasn't been proven false yet. But with new and improved experimental equipment, even monumental foundational laws have been at least partially falsified, such as gravity. Newton's gravity fits most situations, but now Einstein's quantum gravity fits others that are difficult for Newtons law.
So testable and falsifiable is perhaps a matter of time.
How do we test this "id" of yours?There are other scientific theories that are not testable, or falsifiable. So how do we move these types of scientific theories from theory to law. For instance, how do we test the multiverse theory? How is it possible to see if there are more than one universe out there? Should this even be considered a scientific theory? If it is not testable or falsifiable, should the theory be justified as science worthy?
Is ID science worthy? Can you test to see if ID exists or not? Is ID falsifiable? Well the answer is yes. There are many scientists that gleefully announce that they have proved that God does not exist. The latest announcement is the discovery of the Higgs boson (the god particle). Why the god particle? It is because this particle is supposed to be able to start the creation of mass from nothing. It is the latest answer from science that now we know how matter came into existence, and it comes with a gleeful note, that ID is not needed.
<citation missing>So now there is a real scientific theory that says ID does not exist.
<citation missing>There is also a scientific theory that says He does. It is called the agentivity theory and is based on the testability and falsifiability of the universal constants.
<citation missing>No scientist knows exactly how these constants started or how they are maintained. There are lots of theories, but the scientific theory I like the most is the agentivity theory. Now the crew of scientists that discovered Higgs boson are mighty proud of themselves for thinking that they are chipping away at the agentivity theory. But they are going to find out sooner or later that ID does not make matter out of nothing. He takes existing matter and organizes and reorganizes it as He wills, and with his superior intelligence about the elements of the universe.
Wake me when you have something of scientific significance.So keep testing and keep trying to falsify, because the more you do, the more solid ID looks. And the more ID will be accepted as scientific worthy.
I am not antagonistic towards "id" any more than I am antagonistic towards Bigfoot. I am simply critical of unsubstantiated, untestable, unfalsifiable claims being asserted as fact.If you "don't know", why do you seem to be so antagonistic toward ID.
I think I will go with the majority of scientists rather than some non-scientist hyperskeptical Ignostic on a Christian debate website.They are free to speculate and believe as they like; the "big bang" cosmological model is not about origins.
It had a beginning and it is changing, these are both characteristics of an effect.
You keep quoting "Prior to the t=0, space and time did not exist".The first cause argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:
A system is a region of space.
A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.
Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.
"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot havebeen brought about via causality.
You keep quoting "Prior to the t=0, space and time did not exist".
You or anyone, including the smartest scientist on the earth, have no idea if this is true or not.
Is this statement scientifically testable?
Is this statement scientifically unfalsifiable?
If "no", then it must not be acceptable for scientific theory. Therefore, your entire conclusion about causality should be discarded.
Then you are also going to reject God? Or are you now going to back-pedal?I think I will go with the majority of scientists rather than some non-scientist hyperskeptical Ignostic on a Christian debate website.
They are not incompatible with naturalistic cosmological models. And, theological "models", being unfalsifiable, can be made to 'fit' just about any evidence. Here, one should apply parsimony.
Provide a scientific citation for this "math" you allude to.
Cosmologists and astrophysicists.
Yet we still use Newton's laws to land space probes on the moons of Saturn. Are you arguing for a god-of-the-gaps?
How do we test this "id" of yours?
<citation missing>
<citation missing>
<citation missing>
Wake me when you have something of scientific significance.
There are around 20 or so men that have seen God since the beginning of the world. Of the trillions of people that have been born on this earth, only around 20 have seen God and it is recorded in the bible.
It is a sure thing that in John's audience, no man had seen God, nor had anyone known anybody personally that had seen God. That is why John could make such a statement.
Later John amended his statement and added, "save he is a man of God, then he hath seen the Father". The word "save"="except" in this case.
If God comes to earth and talks and walks with you, believe me, you are cleansed of your sins and you are clean to be in the presence of God. So although there was only 1 man, Jesus, that was sinless throughout his whole life, other men have been forgiven of their sins in order to enjoy the presence of God.
BTW what form do you think God is in, as the systems Administrator of the universe?
Happy Sabbath.
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periodsthrough its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]Can you give me an example of a "natural cosmological model"?
Only if you have actually established this possibility, and are not simply speculating or guessing, as you appear to be doing.We test for "ID" by using the scientific tool of probability. If there is a 0 possiblility of an event happening naturally, then we are forced to look scientifically at other options.
<citation missing>One of those options would be an intelligent, independent agent (ID). It is a science worthy option.
<citation missing>The universal constants
are so precision that it would take an ID to program the system, and roll it into existence. Could not be a chance random happening.
Speculation.IOW the universe did not just fly into existence for no reason.
Not in this case, where we do not have access to the time "before" what is described by the big bang cosmological model, and we can only speculate.So the test is to falsify everything else and what is left standing, must be the cause.
The cognitive faculties, by themselves? I don't see why they would.
When you look at an image, such as the one below, does your visual cortex resolve it as a static image, or one that appears to have movement? Even when you know that, intellectually, that the truth is that the image is actually static, does the perception of movement persist?
Sure, but the "god" usually proffered around here is the one that walks and talks and stomps around in a [mythical] Garden of Eden, created everyone via a literal Adam and Eve, mysteriously flooded the entire planet, repopulated it again with only a few individuals, and sent himself down to impress the populace with magic tricks. Not only am I asked to swallow that whale of a story (did I mention the whale story?), I now have to toss out virtually all of mainstream scrientific knowledge in order to accomodate such beliefs. It demands disbelief.
The "God" described in your link sound like something completely different. More of a deist type god. And, who cares about those?
That flies in the face of what others preach at me in these forums. You either believe in their god in their way, or you are going to burn forever.
No, my point was that they are not all necessarily genuine religious experiences. Think of the Whirling Dervishes; are those genuine religious experiences, or are they just getting dizzy? Or, is there really no actual difference; religious experiences are simply a feeling we get in our head. Or other places. YMMV.
I would say that it matters in the context of a search for truth. Or, as I prefer, an accurate description of reality.
If Theist B's "genuine religious experience" did not require the existence of a God, how then can we (you) be confident that Theist A's experience required a God?
Thank you for the prevailing cosmological model for the universe.The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periodsthrough its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Only if you have actually established this possibility, and are not simply speculating or guessing, as you appear to be doing.
<citation missing>
<citation missing>
Speculation.
Not in this case, where we do not have access to the time "before" what is described by the big bang cosmological model, and we can only speculate.
We can, however, eliminate unfalsifiable options, such "gods" and "IDs" and such, that lack a means of testing.
There is one other option as to what would be better. There would be nothing better than a man that has his sins removed and then sees God and then continues to do His will.and what if any man sees God physically, but commits iniquity against His will?!, what is better, a man that doesn't see God physically, but does His will, or, a man that sees God physically, but doesn't do His will?!
how can any biological cell see the whole body in which it is just one of the smallest biological units constituting it?!, similarly, we also cannot see how the system Administrator of the universe urges/drives/moves all units of the universe at once (being omnipresent), moreover, He doesn't want to make any (be)souled unit feel like a puppet in His hands, that is why He cannot afford to be visible/perceptible in His real form of system Administrator of the universe, or would you like to feel/see how you and all other units of the universe are some kinds of puppets in the hands of one gigantic Puppeteer?!, not (that) He wants to be that way, but there is a need of someone to do it, otherwise there could be no life, and of course this honor falls on Him (just because it is His turn)
Blessings
Off the top of my head, I don't know. Is that the gap in which you hope to fit your 'god'? Or was that "id"?Thank you for the prevailing cosmological model for the universe.
An integral part of the big bang theory is the Planck Epoch. This is the most important time of all the time frames contructed by this model. The time of this Epoch is from 0 to 10^-43 seconds.
I would like you to tell me how scientists have tested this hypothesis and 1)confirmed it is true or
2)have falsified it as untrue?
Oh, there is one more option: maybe this Epoch is untestable, and unfalsifiable. Let me know if this is the case.
I'm not sure what you mean by finite? You know that if you climb into a space ship that can travelIf the universe is infinitely old, we'd see infinitely far in all directions. We see finitely far because the universe had a beginning. Are you saying there wasn't a beginning? Are you saying there was a beginning but that stuff happened before the beginning? How is that the beginning?
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?