partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,626
- 1,047
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
This would of course include the possibility that I'm God.
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.
Anything is possible with God.
There is zero science in yourYeah it's not difficult, it's impossible.
I disagree that this is a science thread, and I did offer something factual IMO - the video is stupid. Science attempting to tell us what an omnipotent God can or can't do is stupid. It's like saying a software engineer can't put a flying horse character into his video game because horses don't have wings. Or, I remember the Monty Python's Flying Circus TV show, where there might be a skit set in ancient Rome, then later there'd be a skit set in a modern London business office, and the ancient Roman characters would burst into the modern day office. When you're in control of matter and space and time, nothing is impossible.
And did not. For example, no godBut science can indeed give us some insight as to what an omnipotent God did do.
Maybe, maybe not. But "some insight" is just that, it may not be complete knowledge.But science can indeed give us some insight as to what an omnipotent God did do.
That's true only if one believes in a Roman/Greek Pagan type of deity standing at the ready to hocus-pocus things at their desire.When you're in control of matter and space and time, nothing is impossible.
You're contradicting yourself. You're saying this is a science thread about God, but God has nothing to do with science. Make up your mind.There is zero science in your
so-called omnipotent god.
My statement does not address
whether there is such a "god".
It merely says that, as with reports
of live dinosaurs in the Congo, gold books
telling of Jesus' adventures in America, or
anvient civilization on Mars, there is zero (0)
data of any sort to indicate their excidtence.
So your claim about " god" and his behaviour have
nothing whatever to do with fact, or science.
Youve offered no data, only your
(very ) ill informed opinions.
Science deals with data. This is a science
thread. If youve no data its best for you to leave.
Only if we imagine it so.But science can indeed give us some insight as to what an omnipotent God did do.
Your point?That's true only if one believes in a Roman/Greek Pagan type of deity standing at the ready to hocus-pocus things at their desire.
One should be cautious about the over-the-top type statements.For example, no god or amything else did a world wide flood.
Complete knowledge is an impossibleMaybe, maybe not. But "some insight" is just that, it may not be complete knowledge.
Its not about "god". Its about yec.You're contradicting yourself. You're saying this is a science thread about God, but God has nothing to do with science. Make up your mind.
One should be cautious about the over-the-top type statements.
Nature itself already flooded the entire Earth...in effect. As it went from liquid lava more or less to at one point being a Ocean World, we have physical evidence that strongly suggests.
Scientists determine early Earth was a ‘water world’ by studying exposed ocean crust
The Earth of 3.2 billion years ago was a "water world" of submerged continents, geologists say, after analyzing oxygen isotope data from ancient ocean crust now exposed on land in Australia. The…new.nsf.gov
The first evidence was found in 2017, and since then more groups have found additional evidence to extend the evidence for this conclusion.
Of course, that has little or nothing to do with the Flood Story we were discussing, but what I'm trying to point out is one needs to be pretty cautious about just asserting conclusions that are too broad.
You are good with the science of 3.2 billion y.a. floodOne should be cautious about the over-the-top type statements.
Nature itself already flooded the entire Earth...in effect. As it went from liquid lava more or less to at one point being a Ocean World, we have physical evidence that strongly suggests.
Scientists determine early Earth was a ‘water world’ by studying exposed ocean crust
The Earth of 3.2 billion years ago was a "water world" of submerged continents, geologists say, after analyzing oxygen isotope data from ancient ocean crust now exposed on land in Australia. The…new.nsf.gov
The first evidence was found in 2017, and since then more groups have found additional evidence to extend the evidence for this conclusion.
Of course, that has little or nothing to do with the Flood Story we were discussing, but what I'm trying to point out is one needs to be pretty cautious about just asserting conclusions that are too broad.
I removed the superfluous part of asking me about a claim I did not and would not ever make. So, why waste time on a straw man etc.... what is the point of mentioning a world-wide ocean state (not a flood) before multicellularity evolved?
but reject the no-biblical-flood science?
While as I've said many times and maybe even to you also, the Flood story is a parable, and also isn't likely to even be in story form about a flood around the entire Earth as we know it, but instead as Noah knew it....
In the story, the waters cover all mountains "under the heavens" -- that is as far as the eye can see from Noah's perspective. Like a large flood. Probably even more intense than the one that happened to Pakistan a few years back, where most of the nation flooded. So, what people might call a "1,000 year" flood or a "5,000 year" flood, meaning most floods are far smaller. (though physically it's also possible the the commonplace event in Earth's history of comet impact in deep ocean could if at a shallow enough angle and an ice comet simply just vaporize a vast amount of ocean water, leading to weeks of world-wide rain, so one can imagine one of those floods at some level could happen, and it's only just normal event in Earth's history, etc....)
In the story, the flood covered the 'mountains' (really mounts, or hills basically) in the area Noah knew, so that all the local hills Noah knew (as I'd call them having been to a place with real mountains like Colorado) were covered. The tallest mountains Noah knew about, but what I'd call sizable hills.
Basically Noah would have looked out in all directions trying to see land if he's on a boat in a flood....
It'd be like....imagine if you were in the middle of Lake Michigan: you'd see only water in all directions from the top of a large boat. You could float in circles for months if the winds were right, and you'd only see water (if you survived). But that's all pretty unimportant.
The story is a parable -- that's why it's in the text. (the text has very strong parable elements included in it)
Since the story is a parable, if someone misses the parable side of the story, they have literally missed most of the meaning, so I've then tried to help people by telling them, "If you miss the parable side of the story, you've missed about 99% of the meaning."
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?