[quote]Makavali wrote:
While I’m still here, who wants to place bets on push responding to my posts while knowing I can’t see them?[/quote]
I place a $1,000,000 on it. I am not a betting man, but he posted just before you did.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am going to use the Bible, which many on here to not beleive, but to answer your question. It is because God has sent the Holy Spirit to us. That is how he speaks to us today. Do I hear an audible voice telling me that what I beleive is right? No, but I do sence his precense when I am spending time with God. I know he is leading me.[/quote]
Ok, so you believe the Holy Spirit speaks to you when you’re in prayer, because of the way you feel. Even though you don’t hear words, you call it speaking.
Why, then, is it so hard to believe that maybe the authors of the bible did the same thing? Maybe they were talking about the presence they sensed and didn’t literally mean they heard a voice?
Doesn’t that make a bit more sense than a literal interpretation?[/quote]
First, I do not take the entire Bible as Literal, but most of it is. Jesus used a bunch of Hyperbole to get his point across. For instance how can we take the Creation story as a day to God means a day to us. The Sun was not created till the 4th day, so were the first 3 days 24 hours? I really do not know. If God is who he says he is then yes it could be, but then again maybe God took his time and it took millions of years to make the world. The Old Testament reads more like a history book then say a myth. It shows God rescuing his people from torment, then people turn to God, then turn from God, and then bad things happen to them, people then repent and turn back to God, God then rescues them. This happens over and over again in the Old Testament. God’s covenant with the Jews were always broken by the Jews, but God was always faithful to bring the people back to him. The final way God gives us to repent is through Jesus. He wants us to be with him. When you look at the Bible like this you can see how God loves us. He disciplines us no doubt, but only a parent who loves their children disciplines.
I can see your point on the Holy Spirit talking with the writers of the Bible, but there are points in the Bible where an angel came down and spoke. Sometimes people were spoke to in a dream, maybe the Holy Spirit. Maybe the burning bush was a dream, but I can not say. Maybe the cloud by day and fire by night that the Israelites followed in the wilderness was a mass hysteria. I really can not speculate, but I do have to take what the scripture offers. Sometimes it is literal, and sometimes it is figural. The biggest one is the actual presence of God in Jesus. The apostles, and Paul each saw, felt, and spoke to Jesus. This is not figural but literal. The entire New Testament is about what Jesus said and did. When Jesus ascended into heaven is when God sent the Holy Spirit to guide us. You see that twice in the book of Acts. The first is the Holy Spirit coming to the Jews, and Second, to the Gentiles. Once all the people who knew him died, a martyrs death I might add, all we have left is the Holy Spirit. I can not discount what the Bible says. There were over 60 authors over 2000 years, and if you look at the thread woven by all of them you can see that God never changed. Pretty remarkable if you ask me.
I can see your point and the points of others, and see why you do not beleive, but IMO it is because you are looking at the physical, and not the spiritual side. You look at the priests that do horrible things to children. You look at the hypocrites, I am one, and say how can they act that way and tell me I am going to Hell. I see why, but if you look to God he is much better than we are. I try to compare myself to God everyday. He really shows me how sinful I am and what I need to do to make myself better. I have told people they are going to Hell, but the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I have to apologize, and ask for forgiveness. The only Judge is God himself, so I should not overstep my bounds.
I will stop now sorry. God Bless.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m interested in serious debate about anything religious. You can be religious (any religion), anti-religious, irreligious, whatever. Just be ready to back your statements or claims with real sources otherwise it’s just an argument about God vs. Science or whatever.
I am well aware that it will probably get bogged down with arguments, insults, and whatever else, but if you would like to avoid all that I am open to debate about anything. Post away.[/quote]
What do you mean by “back your statements or claims with real sources?” By sources do you mean the Bible? [/quote]
No, I mean websites that contain well cited bibliographies, books, etc. That was what I was trying to avoid was a Christian saying “the Bible says” and someone else saying “the Bible isn’t true.” Then it just becomes an argument.[/quote]
That’s what I thought. One has to be careful relying on websites that contain well cited bibliographies and books because they are opinions based on the opinions of other men.
First Corinthians 2:14 states that the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Relying on the wisdom of men is one of the main contributing factors to peoples lack of faith in the Bible and God. The wisdom of men for centuries have tried to discredit the Bible from a scientific and historical point of view and time and time again the Bible proved to be right. For a religious Christian, the Bible should be the ultimate source of information and the ultimate authority for religious doctrine. However, if you want to have a clearer understanding of Bible copyiest and translators, then turning to secular sources is a good idea. I did that and came away with a better understanding of the different translations and even more faith that God made sure that his word would be preserved accurately through honest and dedicated copyiest and translators and that putting all of this in a book was the absolute thing to do.
People who don’t believe in the Bible or God are not religious people so I’m not sure why they even have an interest in threads such as this. I guess it’s just to argue and try to belittle those who have faith in the Bible and God. There is no convincing these people so why even engage them in a debate about religion. It’s like trying to convince people who thought the world was flat that the world is round. All their eyes could see was a straight horizon and nothing beyond that. People who don’t believe in God and the Bible only believe what their eyes can see so debating them about religios topic is a waste of time.[/quote]
Maybe people that are not religious are here to see what we have to offer, because the world has let them down? Maybe they think there is something bigger than themselves, and want to know what the truth is? They do not have to be here to make us feel bad about ourselves. There are those that do not post but see how we behave as Christians.
mse2us - we may not beleive in the same exact translation of the Bible, but I would say I agree with you 90% of the time. We need to work on the 10%. We are really close, but not there yet.
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Scientists do recognize the REALITY that there is stuff beyond our understanding and are constantly using the scientific method to find out what that stuff is and how it works. Do you think prehistoric man could even imagine the knowledge and technology we have today? [/quote]
Do you think 2010 man can even imagine the knowledge and technology of 100 - 200 years from now?[/quote]
Hmmm… that’s an interesting one. About half a century ago, people were predicting that we would have flying cars but that hasn’t happened, but they had no idea about how far information technology would go. I think it would be easier to predict 100-200 years ahead of us then it would for prehistoric man to imagine what we have today. But let me put it this way, I would not want to place bets on that one (like if someone had a crystal ball that reads the future and you place bets to see what will happen before you look into it).
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m interested in serious debate about anything religious. You can be religious (any religion), anti-religious, irreligious, whatever. Just be ready to back your statements or claims with real sources otherwise it’s just an argument about God vs. Science or whatever.
I am well aware that it will probably get bogged down with arguments, insults, and whatever else, but if you would like to avoid all that I am open to debate about anything. Post away.[/quote]
What do you mean by “back your statements or claims with real sources?” By sources do you mean the Bible? [/quote]
No, I mean websites that contain well cited bibliographies, books, etc. That was what I was trying to avoid was a Christian saying “the Bible says” and someone else saying “the Bible isn’t true.” Then it just becomes an argument.[/quote]
That’s what I thought. One has to be careful relying on websites that contain well cited bibliographies and books because they are opinions based on the opinions of other men.
First Corinthians 2:14 states that the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Relying on the wisdom of men is one of the main contributing factors to peoples lack of faith in the Bible and God. The wisdom of men for centuries have tried to discredit the Bible from a scientific and historical point of view and time and time again the Bible proved to be right. For a religious Christian, the Bible should be the ultimate source of information and the ultimate authority for religious doctrine. However, if you want to have a clearer understanding of Bible copyiest and translators, then turning to secular sources is a good idea. I did that and came away with a better understanding of the different translations and even more faith that God made sure that his word would be preserved accurately through honest and dedicated copyiest and translators and that putting all of this in a book was the absolute thing to do.
People who don’t believe in the Bible or God are not religious people so I’m not sure why they even have an interest in threads such as this. I guess it’s just to argue and try to belittle those who have faith in the Bible and God. There is no convincing these people so why even engage them in a debate about religion. It’s like trying to convince people who thought the world was flat that the world is round. All their eyes could see was a straight horizon and nothing beyond that. People who don’t believe in God and the Bible only believe what their eyes can see so debating them about religios topic is a waste of time.[/quote]
Maybe people that are not religious are here to see what we have to offer, because the world has let them down? Maybe they think there is something bigger than themselves, and want to know what the truth is? They do not have to be here to make us feel bad about ourselves. There are those that do not post but see how we behave as Christians.
mse2us - we may not beleive in the same exact translation of the Bible, but I would say I agree with you 90% of the time. We need to work on the 10%. We are really close, but not there yet.[/quote]
Maybe their defending a stance concerning religion, just like you are. I for one am an atheist (term used loosely); however, that’s not to say I don’t have faith at all. I do believe in a greater process that will lead to eternity for mankind through an evolutionary process (not Darwinian evolution, but it is included). I think it would be more fruitful for our species to imagine that we can make our species survive indefinitely, than to take a nihilistic approach as I think this attitude would lead towards more progress that would lend itself towards that goal than nihilism. It seems that there is sort of an evolution going on in the universe. Such as the formation of the first atoms, then starts, then galaxies, then life, then all the way to man and so on. It’s almost like there is a growing ‘intelligence’ in the universe (an atom being more intelligent than loose subatomic particles) As far as what’s driving that process, mankind simply does not know and may never know, and I personally feel that it would be better to accept this as a fundamental knowledge gap rather than substitute complex religious beliefs. Many of my ideas come from a guy named John David Garcia and his concept of evolutionary ethics for those who may be interested. And of course when doing research, one should take at least a glance at the citations used to evaluate credibility. That’s not just religious debate, that goes for any research.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html[/quote]
That was terrible. Sorry, but I’m not going to try and refute that long piece, with so much wrong. But as an example, this guy gives us Christians the shocking news that Christ didn’t display ‘omnipotence’. That he had to retreat from danger. Does this guy even know what Christ’s mission was? Does he understand that Christ subjected himself to fraility of mortal flesh? This is suppossed to be earth shattering news to us, that he could be physically harmed? For crying out loud, one of the central events in Christianity is his Crucifixion.
I also couldn’t help but chuckle over the claim that Christ was never referred to as God, yet, then inexplicably he quotes passages that say just that…
John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Then goes on to speak about John the Baptist preparing the way, before coming back to the “Word.”
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ " From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m interested in serious debate about anything religious. You can be religious (any religion), anti-religious, irreligious, whatever. Just be ready to back your statements or claims with real sources otherwise it’s just an argument about God vs. Science or whatever.
I am well aware that it will probably get bogged down with arguments, insults, and whatever else, but if you would like to avoid all that I am open to debate about anything. Post away.[/quote]
What do you mean by “back your statements or claims with real sources?” By sources do you mean the Bible? [/quote]
No, I mean websites that contain well cited bibliographies, books, etc. That was what I was trying to avoid was a Christian saying “the Bible says” and someone else saying “the Bible isn’t true.” Then it just becomes an argument.[/quote]
That’s what I thought. One has to be careful relying on websites that contain well cited bibliographies and books because they are opinions based on the opinions of other men.
First Corinthians 2:14 states that the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Relying on the wisdom of men is one of the main contributing factors to peoples lack of faith in the Bible and God. The wisdom of men for centuries have tried to discredit the Bible from a scientific and historical point of view and time and time again the Bible proved to be right. For a religious Christian, the Bible should be the ultimate source of information and the ultimate authority for religious doctrine. However, if you want to have a clearer understanding of Bible copyiest and translators, then turning to secular sources is a good idea. I did that and came away with a better understanding of the different translations and even more faith that God made sure that his word would be preserved accurately through honest and dedicated copyiest and translators and that putting all of this in a book was the absolute thing to do.
People who don’t believe in the Bible or God are not religious people so I’m not sure why they even have an interest in threads such as this. I guess it’s just to argue and try to belittle those who have faith in the Bible and God. There is no convincing these people so why even engage them in a debate about religion. It’s like trying to convince people who thought the world was flat that the world is round. All their eyes could see was a straight horizon and nothing beyond that. People who don’t believe in God and the Bible only believe what their eyes can see so debating them about religios topic is a waste of time.[/quote]
Maybe people that are not religious are here to see what we have to offer, because the world has let them down? Maybe they think there is something bigger than themselves, and want to know what the truth is? They do not have to be here to make us feel bad about ourselves. There are those that do not post but see how we behave as Christians.
mse2us - we may not beleive in the same exact translation of the Bible, but I would say I agree with you 90% of the time. We need to work on the 10%. We are really close, but not there yet.[/quote]
Good point. But I’m not talking about the non-posters. I’m talking about the ones who post and debate and then belittle. I rarely see these individuals asking sincere questions so that’s why I said it’s a waste of time to debate them.
Dmaddox - I do believe in the translation you use. You misunderstand. I said there are translations that are better then others. All my beliefs can be found in any translation of the Bible. Unfortunatley, the Trinity, the true condition of the dead, who goes to heaven and God’s purpose for the earth are what make up that 10%.
Dmaddox, let me share a nugget of Biblical info with and let’s see how you take it.
I think in your post before this you stated that you didn’t take all parts of the Bible as literal and used the creative days as one reason because there were several parts you did not know. I’ll answer those questions for you.
The Bible does not state when the earth or any part of the universe was created. All six of the creative days in the Bible are specific to the changes that took place on earth. How do we know. Genesis 1:1 states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So the earth along with the sun and all of the other planets in the solar system were already created. After Genesis 1:1 then the creative days started.
Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep. So apparently there was a cloud mass that prevented light from the sun from penetrating the surface of the earth.
Genesis 1:3 states God said let there be light. Apparenlty diffused light started to penetrate the cloud mass.
Genesis 1:4,5 states that God saw light was good and he put a division between the light and darkness and began calling the light day and the darkness night. This indicates that the earth was already rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun so that it’s hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of lightness and darkness.
Skip to day four at Genesis 1:14-18. Up until this point diffused light penetrated the cloud masses but in verses 14-18 the purpose of the sun and the moon are explained in that they are there to distinguish between day and night and serve as signs for seasons days and years. So God made the sun and moon discernable from the surface of the ground so that it could provide guidance and help man in various ways. So how do we know that the sun and moon were not created on day four? It’s because if you look at day 3 at Genesis 1:11,12 God creates vegetation and vegetation begins to grow. I’m sure you know that vegetation could not grow without sunlight.
How long is a day to God? It’s not a 24 hour period. Second Peter 3:8(NIV) states:
“8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”
So a creative day in the Bible is at least 1000 years.
I hope that clarifies your understanding of the creation account and of how long a day is to God.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
IF that’s the manner you want to look at it, sure. But that never sufficed for me. What came before God? What happens after God? How can their be a creator who sprung from nothingness?
[/quote]
By definition, God cannot be created or terminated. Otherwise he would not be an uncaused-cause. He would be a caused-causer, like us.
[quote]
Time is not something that can be controlled necessarily- it only moves forward as far as we know. For God to control it would mean that there is something to control- but there’s no hard thing for him to grasp or change.
To say that he exists independently of time can’t be possible, for that reason that there is no entity- it just is, maybe like christians describe god himself. Maybe God is Time. [/quote]
Oh boy. Time is the measurement movement/ change of physical matter. Where there is no physical matter, there is no time. Not everything that exists is physical, as a matter of fact it’s quite the opposite, most all existence is metaphysical. Physical matter makes up a small portion of existence.[/quote]
Time would be one of these non physical concepts. Time, in quantum mechanics, can actually flow forwards and backwards. We, as physical humans, cannot move backwards through time. Time is also controlled by space, hence the term space-time. Without space there is nothing to keep time of. If God were time then he would be limited in the sense that space would have to exist in order for him to move forward or backward. So God could have never created the universe because before its creation there was neither space nor time. [/quote]
Time is a non-physical construct, because it’s merely a measurement. Time doesn’t move backwards or forward in the quantum world, some have theorized that it’s possible to have quantum particles appear before they are sent (reverse or backwards causality), but it has not been flesh out mathematically or empirically at any level. Simultaneous causation is the best they have done with the EPR paradox. But in this paradox, it’s not material the trumps the speed of light, but just a ‘signal’ to reverse polarity. Nobody has been able to speed actual physical material faster than the speed of light.
Time does exist in space physical matter takes up space. If you are moving through this space, it is occurring in time. However, for us, we won’t know we are moving unless we have something else to compare our movement against.
Where athiests screw up, is they can show how these things operate with in space and how weird things start to happen in space, but space isn’t nothing, its a something. You have to prove that absolute nothingness, a complete absence of existence, suddenly begot ‘somethingness’.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m interested in serious debate about anything religious. You can be religious (any religion), anti-religious, irreligious, whatever. Just be ready to back your statements or claims with real sources otherwise it’s just an argument about God vs. Science or whatever.
I am well aware that it will probably get bogged down with arguments, insults, and whatever else, but if you would like to avoid all that I am open to debate about anything. Post away.[/quote]
What do you mean by “back your statements or claims with real sources?” By sources do you mean the Bible? [/quote]
No, I mean websites that contain well cited bibliographies, books, etc. That was what I was trying to avoid was a Christian saying “the Bible says” and someone else saying “the Bible isn’t true.” Then it just becomes an argument.[/quote]
That’s what I thought. One has to be careful relying on websites that contain well cited bibliographies and books because they are opinions based on the opinions of other men.
First Corinthians 2:14 states that the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Relying on the wisdom of men is one of the main contributing factors to peoples lack of faith in the Bible and God. The wisdom of men for centuries have tried to discredit the Bible from a scientific and historical point of view and time and time again the Bible proved to be right. For a religious Christian, the Bible should be the ultimate source of information and the ultimate authority for religious doctrine. However, if you want to have a clearer understanding of Bible copyiest and translators, then turning to secular sources is a good idea. I did that and came away with a better understanding of the different translations and even more faith that God made sure that his word would be preserved accurately through honest and dedicated copyiest and translators and that putting all of this in a book was the absolute thing to do.
People who don’t believe in the Bible or God are not religious people so I’m not sure why they even have an interest in threads such as this. I guess it’s just to argue and try to belittle those who have faith in the Bible and God. There is no convincing these people so why even engage them in a debate about religion. It’s like trying to convince people who thought the world was flat that the world is round. All their eyes could see was a straight horizon and nothing beyond that. People who don’t believe in God and the Bible only believe what their eyes can see so debating them about religios topic is a waste of time.[/quote]
Maybe people that are not religious are here to see what we have to offer, because the world has let them down? Maybe they think there is something bigger than themselves, and want to know what the truth is? They do not have to be here to make us feel bad about ourselves. There are those that do not post but see how we behave as Christians.
mse2us - we may not beleive in the same exact translation of the Bible, but I would say I agree with you 90% of the time. We need to work on the 10%. We are really close, but not there yet.[/quote]
Good point. But I’m not talking about the non-posters. I’m talking about the ones who post and debate and then belittle. I rarely see these individuals asking sincere questions so that’s why I said it’s a waste of time to debate them.
Dmaddox - I do believe in the translation you use. You misunderstand. I said there are translations that are better then others. All my beliefs can be found in any translation of the Bible. Unfortunatley, the Trinity, the true condition of the dead, who goes to heaven and God’s purpose for the earth are what make up that 10%.
Dmaddox, let me share a nugget of Biblical info with and let’s see how you take it.
I think in your post before this you stated that you didn’t take all parts of the Bible as literal and used the creative days as one reason because there were several parts you did not know. I’ll answer those questions for you.
The Bible does not state when the earth or any part of the universe was created. All six of the creative days in the Bible are specific to the changes that took place on earth. How do we know. Genesis 1:1 states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So the earth along with the sun and all of the other planets in the solar system were already created. After Genesis 1:1 then the creative days started.
Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep. So apparently there was a cloud mass that prevented light from the sun from penetrating the surface of the earth.
Genesis 1:3 states God said let there be light. Apparenlty diffused light started to penetrate the cloud mass.
Genesis 1:4,5 states that God saw light was good and he put a division between the light and darkness and began calling the light day and the darkness night. This indicates that the earth was already rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun so that it’s hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of lightness and darkness.
Skip to day four at Genesis 1:14-18. Up until this point diffused light penetrated the cloud masses but in verses 14-18 the purpose of the sun and the moon are explained in that they are there to distinguish between day and night and serve as signs for seasons days and years. So God made the sun and moon discernable from the surface of the ground so that it could provide guidance and help man in various ways. So how do we know that the sun and moon were not created on day four? It’s because if you look at day 3 at Genesis 1:11,12 God creates vegetation and vegetation begins to grow. I’m sure you know that vegetation could not grow without sunlight.
How long is a day to God? It’s not a 24 hour period. Second Peter 3:8(NIV) states:
“8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”
So a creative day in the Bible is at least 1000 years.
I hope that clarifies your understanding of the creation account and of how long a day is to God.[/quote]
I see your point about creation, but there are beleivers that think that God created the Earth and everythin on it in 6 days or 6 24 hour periods. I do not want to discount what they say because we do not know. I understand the Genesis Creation story so I do not need it spelled out.
Peter was using Hyperbole with the 1000 years bit. “A day is “like” a thousand years.” It did not say it was a thousand years. It is like me saying that Some older person is 1000 years old. I am just trying to get across that the person is old. Peter is saying the a day to God is not like a day to us. Could it be 24 hours yes, but it could also mean that a day is 1 gazillion, billion, google hours. We will never know and the Bible is not exact or does it need to be on this topic.
On your thesis about the second day and the cloud that kept the light out, on the third day Light was created so the cloud part does not really hold water if you are a strict literalist. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying you need to look at what the entire story is trying to say.
Everyone always looks at the Ancient people as idiots, but for a people that were idiots their way of describing what happened in creation follows what the scientists are now answering. I just find that ironic. Evolution vs Creation will be battled until the end of time. This does not change who and what God does for everyone. You see my point.
I dont want this thread to turn into another Catholic or God vs Hell Thread. Lets try and stay on topic.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
IF that’s the manner you want to look at it, sure. But that never sufficed for me. What came before God? What happens after God? How can their be a creator who sprung from nothingness?
[/quote]
By definition, God cannot be created or terminated. Otherwise he would not be an uncaused-cause. He would be a caused-causer, like us.
I hope all of you understand this, because it just went straight over my head. I think I picked up a few pieces of info, and feel smarter because I could read all the words. You guys are a lot more intellegent than I am. Wow.
I would have said, “Space, the final frontier, these are voyages of the Starship Enterprise…” I am just kidding. You guys are really smart though whether you believe in God or not. Wow. I need to get back into my Physics books.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh boy. Time is the measurement movement/ change of physical matter. Where there is no physical matter, there is no time. Not everything that exists is physical, as a matter of fact it’s quite the opposite, most all existence is metaphysical. Physical matter makes up a small portion of existence.[/quote]
Why does it require matter to have time?
If the fate of the universe is that it ends up black with massive atoms bumping into each other like some physicists suggest, that doesn’t mean that time isn’t passing. Especially if that universe was going to exist for a while, and then collapse back to form another big bang.
Just because there’s no one there to measure what “a while” is, doesn’t mean that the time itself is not passing.[/quote]
Think about how we measure time. The Earth revolving around it’s axis counts for seconds, minutes, hours, and days. The Earth’s position around the sun dictates weeks, months, and years. What do they have in common? Relativity. A point on the Earths surface relative to the axis of the earth, the earth’s position relative to the sun.
Its the same thing in space. It takes a single particle moving through space to have time. It takes another particle moving slightly differently for a basis of comparison to know it.
It takes more than matter to have time. It must either move or change (where in this case change really is just movement). If everything suddenly stopped moving, from the largest super massive black hole to the tiniest subatomic particle time would equal zero.
Just like in the case of going the speed of light. Any object that is visible, i.e., giving off or reflecting light, would not move. Same if you were staring at an atom, to you, it would stop moving.
That’s why the speed of light is time equal zero, because from the perspective of the light beam, nothing’s moving or changing.
Of course there are various theories about this maybe being somewhat different. Particularly as to what lies beyond the event horizon in a black hole, but at the moment, the speed of light is still it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html[/quote]
That was terrible. Sorry, but I’m not going to try and refute that long piece, with so much wrong. But as an example, this guy gives us Christians the shocking news that Christ didn’t display ‘omnipotence’. That he had to retreat from danger. Does this guy even know what Christ’s mission was? Does he understand that Christ subjected himself to fraility of mortal flesh? This is suppossed to be earth shattering news to us, that he could be physically harmed? For crying out loud, one of the central events in Christianity is his Crucifixion.
I also couldn’t help but chuckle over the claim that Christ was never referred to as God, yet, then inexplicably he quotes passages that say just that…
John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Then goes on to speak about John the Baptist preparing the way, before coming back to the “Word.”
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ " From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
[/quote]
Clearly written by somebody who doesn’t know shit about Christianity.
The “immorality of Yahweh in the Torah”? That makes me immediately dismissive. He makes no attempt or argument to show this is in anyway true, yet he states this like it’s a fact. Really? Prove the premise first then we can move on to the next statement.
[quote]pat wrote:
Simultaneous causation is the best they have done with the EPR paradox. But in this paradox, it’s not material the trumps the speed of light, but just a ‘signal’ to reverse polarity. Nobody has been able to speed actual physical material faster than the speed of light.[/quote]
Godel’s model has closed timelike curves, and it’s been known for the best part of a century.
What about relativity? To use an example from a joke of Einstein: how do I know if I stand on a train platform that the train is coming to me, and that the platform isn’t moving towards the train?
Not all physists are atheists. But your criticism is wrong because it is based on false assumptions. If the total energy in the universe is zero, then nothing came from nothing. You can’t mix metaphysics and physics and expect to have any kind of rigorous argument.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m going to offer you your debate on your own ground. This gentleman, referenced by me in the Noah’s Ark thread, has issued a challenge. He is using your very own Bible for most of his arguments therefore, his “credentials” are irrelevant and you lose yet one of your arguing points. Craft your reply. Debunk him. Save Christianity. May I make a prediction? You cannot.
http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity.html[/quote]
He says Jesus never claimed divinty yet in John 10:30 “the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Jesus failed to perform miracles: Wine to water, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing the leper, healing the blind man, etc.
Fails to gain accounts: Josephus wrote of Jesus
Failure to recruit a family member: His brother James was an apostle
Trinity- Jesus had a dual substance, being fully man and fully God. Jesus, the man, was just that, a man. No man has power except through God. Jesus was also fully God. He had all the powers God the Father has.
Jesus was schizophrenic- impossible to diagnose based on what was written about him. We would first have to know what Jesus actually thought.
Resurrection- Jesus’ disciples often preached his resurrection to their death (Peter, Thaddeus, both James, Bartholemew, Thomas, Simon, Phillip, Andrew, and Paul). Seems unlikely they would have preached resurrection to the death had they just made it up. Paul tried to have Christian executed and gave up a high place in society to preach Jesus resurrection to the death while exhorting his audience to question the no fewer than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus with him.
And that’s just to scratch the surface.
[quote] Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote] pat wrote:
Simultaneous causation is the best they have done with the EPR paradox. But in this paradox, it’s not material the trumps the speed of light, but just a ‘signal’ to reverse polarity. Nobody has been able to speed actual physical material faster than the speed of light.
[/quote]
Godel’s model has closed timelike curves, and it’s been known for the best part of a century.
[/quote]
So? It is one of many possible explanation for the phenomenon. It certainly not the only one and it’s hardly a juggernaut explanation. Nobody really knows why it happens.
I never said that that all physicists were athiests, at all!
This “energy” and the “universe” are somethings. To say something would come from that only make sense as something can beget something. Something can be contingent on something, but not nothing. Nothing is nothing, not a little bit off something.
What the do think the “laws” of physics are? Metaphysical constructs,and yet, the objects of physics hold rigorously to these laws. How can you say you cannot mix physics and metaphysics? They are intrinsically tied together. When you talk about “how” and “why” you are discussing metaphysics.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
…For instance how can we take the Creation story as a day to God means a day to us. The Sun was not created till the 4th day, so were the first 3 days 24 hours? I really do not know. If God is who he says he is then yes it could be, but then again maybe God took his time and it took millions of years to make the world…[/quote]
Don’t get hung up on this. It’s simpler than you think.
Day 1 - all matter and energy is created.
Day 2 - earth’s atmosphere is formed. In other words earth’s shape and mass is formed basically as we now know it.
Day 3 - vegetation created.
Day 4 - sun, other stars and moon (and possibly galaxies, planets, asteroids, super novas, and all the stuff the USS Enterprise would later run into?) created along with planetary and lunar orbit and rotation, etc. Now here’s where you want to stick with a 24 hour day which is precisely THE word used in Hebrew, “yom.” You don’t want each “day” to consist of millions of years because friend, you don’t want all that vegetation created on Day 3 sitting in darkness and/or without the earth’s orbit and rotation in play.
God plants all vegetation on the earth and 24 or 12 or 6 or 1 hour(s) later the sun, moon and stars are operating. Their photon beams are “in place” and their presence is energizing the biological process of photosynthesis. See, maybe God used the entire 24 hours (who knows) on Day 3 to create plant life and then bingo, immediately on Day 4 the sun, moon and stars appear. Thus there is no valid reason to question why God created plants on Day 3 and the sun on Day 4…unless one insists on the zillion year definition of yom.
Make sense?[/quote]
Without the Sun vegetation would’ve died of pretty much instantly. So, millions of years or one hour, it wouldn’t have mattered.