Push
If you keep ignoring my polite posts I’m going to start thinking that you have no idea what I’m talking about… You don’t have to answer but acknowledgement would be nice.
I asked you your opinion on some of the popular arguments for the existence of God are…
The ontological argument. The cosmological argument. The Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas.
Can you do that for me in a short post or is that beneath you?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
Push
If you keep ignoring my polite posts I’m going to start thinking that you have no idea what I’m talking about… You don’t have to answer but acknowledgement would be nice.
I asked you your opinion on some of the popular arguments for the existence of God are…
The ontological argument. The cosmological argument. The Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas.
Can you do that for me in a short post or is that beneath you? [/quote]
Wrong thread. Your posts are being ignored because you have chosen the wrong thread.
Even if you were in the “right” thread I am under no obligation to explain why I believe in God. You can take that for “Poor Push doesn’t know what he’s talking about” if you so choose.[/quote]
I am not asking you to defend your belief in God. My post was not an attack. It was a question out of curiousity. You’ve spend plenty of time in this thread defending creationist thought… so a question about your beliefs in creationism does not seem to be in the wrong thread. It’s not like I asked you a hard question… Theology deserves the same level of scrutiny as any other field.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK…so get this…the MOON is moving away from us year by year.
The day used to be 6 hours long…[/quote]
GTFO!!!
Next thing you’re going to type is that the Moon and Earth were likely once part of an aggregated mass…
G.T.F.O.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
Push
If you keep ignoring my polite posts I’m going to start thinking that you have no idea what I’m talking about… You don’t have to answer but acknowledgement would be nice.
I asked you your opinion on some of the popular arguments for the existence of God are…
The ontological argument. The cosmological argument. The Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas.
Can you do that for me in a short post or is that beneath you? [/quote]
Wrong thread. Your posts are being ignored because you have chosen the wrong thread.
Even if you were in the “right” thread I am under no obligation to explain why I believe in God. You can take that for “Poor Push doesn’t know what he’s talking about” if you so choose.[/quote]
I am not asking you to defend your belief in God. My post was not an attack. It was a question out of curiousity. You’ve spend plenty of time in this thread defending creationist thought… so a question about your beliefs in creationism does not seem to be in the wrong thread. It’s not like I asked you a hard question… Theology deserves the same level of scrutiny as any other field.
[/quote]
Wrong thread.[/quote]
I’ll meet you halfway. I disagree that this is the wrong thread. But you’re right you don’t have an obligation to tell me your beliefs.
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
The ontological argument. The cosmological argument. The Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas.
[/quote]
Why don’t you start your own thread and start by dismissing all these arguments and see if anyone cares?
What’s a day for a God? A million years? A billion years?
How do you explain to “cavemen” that the universe was created over billions of years? They couldn’t get it. It’s much easier to just say one event happened in a day.
Just stopping by to say that it’s reasonable that the concept of a day refers to a ‘literal day’ without the sun being created. If a day is (roughly) the amount of time it takes the Earth to spin once, any equivalent duration is the same length as a day. Regardless of how you measure, it still took a ‘day.’ So the fact that you don’t have a sun doesn’t really matter.
Anyways, carry on 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Just stopping by to say that it’s reasonable that the concept of a day refers to a ‘literal day’ without the sun being created. If a day is (roughly) the amount of time it takes the Earth to spin once, any equivalent duration is the same length as a day. Regardless of how you measure, it still took a ‘day.’ So the fact that you don’t have a sun doesn’t really matter.
Anyways, carry on :)[/quote]
Bingo.[/quote]
…and my point is, since days are now way longer, the significance placed on “a 24 hour day” in religion is void. In fact, since the days are now a different length, it loses much relevance at all other than to explain to humans that the Earth was created in a “certain amount of time”.
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Just stopping by to say that it’s reasonable that the concept of a day refers to a ‘literal day’ without the sun being created. If a day is (roughly) the amount of time it takes the Earth to spin once, any equivalent duration is the same length as a day. Regardless of how you measure, it still took a ‘day.’ So the fact that you don’t have a sun doesn’t really matter.
Anyways, carry on :)[/quote]
And an evening and a morning?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
[/quote]
Just finished reading the link. Good stuff. Very thought provoking. Made a lot of sense.
I’d be interested in reading Dr. Matt’s and Steely’s take on it.[/quote]
My take on it is that one (science) still doesn’t negate the other (religion) or vice versa.
The whole debate is framed differently for everyone depending on their belief. If you believe that the Bible (or any religious document) is to be interpreted literally word for word, then your debate is framed differently from someone who chooses not to believe literally every word but believe that The Word may be framed historically, or allegorically, or metaphorically.
You (Pusharder) and I, at the core, probably believe much (like 99%) of the same things from a relion standpoint. How we arrived there or how we choose to practice it might be different. In the end, the Faith is the same-- we are both Christians.
We obviously disagree on some interpretations there in teh beginin’. As far as creation goes (insignificant to me in terms of why I choose to be a Christian), you choose to believe literally the Words that were Divinely inspired by Him for us to read. I choose to believe the evidence and physics that were Divinely created by Him for us to discover.
Somehow, the two are consistent. Somehow. Obviously we (humans) are having some trouble with the units of measure or the message or the interpretation (IMO). I can accept that we don’t get it and that’s part of the journey.
It may not appear to us now and it may not be obvious, but I’m humble enough to believe that God, whatever His name is, whatever His form is is bigger and more complex than we could ever possibly comprehend at this stage of our evolution (doh!) or ever. This puzzle is bigger than all of us, so I really choose not to participate in the belittling of the belief one way or the other whether I agree with it or not.
Either way, 6k or 100000k years old, unless He turns the lights out for good tonight, I still gotta get up in the morning and work and homey ain’t gonna lose an ounce of sleep over it.
All I know is that this recently found forest sure has some OLD WOOD!
<— Awaiting jokes about Push’s penis.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
Push
If you keep ignoring my polite posts I’m going to start thinking that you have no idea what I’m talking about… You don’t have to answer but acknowledgement would be nice.
I asked you your opinion on some of the popular arguments for the existence of God are…
The ontological argument. The cosmological argument. The Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas.
Can you do that for me in a short post or is that beneath you? [/quote]
Wrong thread. Your posts are being ignored because you have chosen the wrong thread.
Even if you were in the “right” thread I am under no obligation to explain why I believe in God. You can take that for “Poor Push doesn’t know what he’s talking about” if you so choose.[/quote]
I am not asking you to defend your belief in God. My post was not an attack. It was a question out of curiousity. You’ve spend plenty of time in this thread defending creationist thought… so a question about your beliefs in creationism does not seem to be in the wrong thread. It’s not like I asked you a hard question… Theology deserves the same level of scrutiny as any other field.
[/quote]
I’ve spent very little time in this thread defending creationist thought. How and why did you come to that erroneous conclusion?
Again you are derailing this thread.[/quote]
God came into the mix in the first place when people jokingly referred to the world as being only a few thousand years old. You have been defending that as a possibility post after post… I know of very few atheists who would take the time and effort to defend such a position. From this I came to the conclusion that you are theist. I’m grouping theist and creationist under the same umbrella here… maybe the misunderstanding is in our definitions of the two terms.
In my mind, if one is to argue that the world is only a few thousand years old and use God as the creator, the argument shouldn’t just be whether the world is only a few thousand years old, the argument should also question the existence of God. Even if majority of science was somehow ruled as being wrong and the world was a few thousand years old… that doesn’t leave God as the default answer to why the world is so young.
You tend to respond to posts that other people put from some sort of intellectual high ground. No reason to get so fidgety bud.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Ghost16 wrote:
The ontological argument. The cosmological argument. The Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas.
[/quote]
Why don’t you start your own thread and start by dismissing all these arguments and see if anyone cares?[/quote]
Are you always an asshole and assume that you know what people are trying to do?
Why in the world would I dismiss these arguments? I love all of them, I find them fascinating and intriguing. Due to lack of experimental proof that God exists I understand the necessity for logical proofs and that’s exactly what all of these arguments are.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
All I know is that this recently found forest sure has some OLD WOOD!
<— Awaiting jokes about Push’s penis.[/quote]
Isn’t that what hit him in the face last year?