- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (charity @ Dec. 07 2007,22:47) 
Charity I asm really worried about you. Did you always feel that way? I just don't understand.
Love IreneQuote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,01:08) That was pretty robust Stu, but it didn't really answer the question. It demonstrated some interpretations of scientific data on processes, but did not demonstrate anything beyond processes. The bible says God rested after creation. To me this says he set in motion these processes that do not require him to directly intervene in order for them to operate smoothly according to his plan.
He rested
Doesn't sound very omnipotent to me!
The robust part of the answer, of course, is the 'I don't know…' We are talking about a worldview that sees the unexplained as material for investigation, not for getting on knees and giving thanks to non-existent supernatural (or to you, natural) beings.
Now if I have not answered your question, either there is no answer that will satisfy your question, or I don't know the answer. Physicists are working on it. Keep up your subscription to Nature and you will see progress. Keep reading scripture and you will see none.
Science has answered why there is a large variety of species, and many fossils of extinct species that are less varied but more radically different than living things today the older and deeper you dig. This goes hand-in-hand with the DNA comparison record. Also explained is the nature of the event that created matter, as you say the process. The events most difficult to describe each likely happened only once in the history of this universe -big bang and abiogenesis, so they are understandably open to more more speculation but the secrets of the Big Bang are unravelling.
I have not read anywhere here an attempt to give as much detail as I have about how the universe started. Are fundamentalists full of bluster? I think you and t8 might be asking 'why' questions where none are relevant, although you have not articulated them clearly. That is the result of placing your own model of things on top of the event any trying to wedge a creator in there where none is needed or even can be made to fit what happened. Certainly the Judeo-christian book of mythology is no help – it gives less of an explanation than an astrology chart. Do you concede the possibility that there was no kind of deity involved at all in the start of the universe as we know it? If not, then your version is the opposite of robust, it is coloured by prejudice, for which there is no room when really seeking truth.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,07:57) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,01:08) That was pretty robust Stu, but it didn't really answer the question. It demonstrated some interpretations of scientific data on processes, but did not demonstrate anything beyond processes. The bible says God rested after creation. To me this says he set in motion these processes that do not require him to directly intervene in order for them to operate smoothly according to his plan.
He rested Doesn't sound very omnipotent to me!
The robust part of the answer, of course, is the 'I don't know…' We are talking about a worldview that sees the unexplained as material for investigation, not for getting on knees and giving thanks to non-existent supernatural (or to you, natural) beings.
Now if I have not answered your question, either there is no answer that will satisfy your question, or I don't know the answer. Physicists are working on it. Keep up your subscription to Nature and you will see progress. Keep reading scripture and you will see none.
Science has answered why there is a large variety of species, and many fossils of extinct species that are less varied but more radically different than living things today the older and deeper you dig. This goes hand-in-hand with the DNA comparison record. Also explained is the nature of the event that created matter, as you say the process. The events most difficult to describe each likely happened only once in the history of this universe -big bang and abiogenesis, so they are understandably open to more more speculation but the secrets of the Big Bang are unravelling.
I have not read anywhere here an attempt to give as much detail as I have about how the universe started. Are fundamentalists full of bluster? I think you and t8 might be asking 'why' questions where none are relevant, although you have not articulated them clearly. That is the result of placing your own model of things on top of the event any trying to wedge a creator in there where none is needed or even can be made to fit what happened. Certainly the Judeo-christian book of mythology is no help – it gives less of an explanation than an astrology chart. Do you concede the possibility that there was no kind of deity involved at all in the start of the universe as we know it? If not, then your version is the opposite of robust, it is coloured by prejudice, for which there is no room when really seeking truth.
Stuart
of course I could be wrong.I view this as a weighing of evidence, both from of an empircal and personal nature.
But I Know (meaning have no doubt) that there is a God by my previous definition concerning the First Cause.
Like I said it is for me a matter of Defining him.
I don't get a subscription to Nature but I do get a subscription from Discover.
I don't refute any scientific claims, for me science is not an enemy at all to belief in God.
Hi Stu,
True science is a progression towards the truth of creation.
But belief in magic and the theory of evolution is far more popular.Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,00:32) I don't know what asymmetry in proto space-time caused the asymmetrical separation of baryons and antibaryons into matter and antimatter separated sufficiently that the likelihood of collisions between particles and their antiparticles was reduced enough for protons to become hydrogen nucleii orbited by electrons, an event that may prove very difficult to investigate given the extreme change in the nature of time that 'concurently' occurred. Neither do you, but let's hear what the Old Testament has to say about it by comparison.
Will post answer in Evolution discussion.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 08 2007,13:36) Hi Stu,
True science is a progression towards the truth of creation.
But belief in magic and the theory of evolution is far more popular.
More in Evolution thread…Stuart
Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,12:05) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,07:57) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,01:08) That was pretty robust Stu, but it didn't really answer the question. It demonstrated some interpretations of scientific data on processes, but did not demonstrate anything beyond processes. The bible says God rested after creation. To me this says he set in motion these processes that do not require him to directly intervene in order for them to operate smoothly according to his plan.
He rested Doesn't sound very omnipotent to me!
The robust part of the answer, of course, is the 'I don't know…' We are talking about a worldview that sees the unexplained as material for investigation, not for getting on knees and giving thanks to non-existent supernatural (or to you, natural) beings.
Now if I have not answered your question, either there is no answer that will satisfy your question, or I don't know the answer. Physicists are working on it. Keep up your subscription to Nature and you will see progress. Keep reading scripture and you will see none.
Science has answered why there is a large variety of species, and many fossils of extinct species that are less varied but more radically different than living things today the older and deeper you dig. This goes hand-in-hand with the DNA comparison record. Also explained is the nature of the event that created matter, as you say the process. The events most difficult to describe each likely happened only once in the history of this universe -big bang and abiogenesis, so they are understandably open to more more speculation but the secrets of the Big Bang are unravelling.
I have not read anywhere here an attempt to give as much detail as I have about how the universe started. Are fundamentalists full of bluster? I think you and t8 might be asking 'why' questions where none are relevant, although you have not articulated them clearly. That is the result of placing your own model of things on top of the event any trying to wedge a creator in there where none is needed or even can be made to fit what happened. Certainly the Judeo-christian book of mythology is no help – it gives less of an explanation than an astrology chart. Do you concede the possibility that there was no kind of deity involved at all in the start of the universe as we know it? If not, then your version is the opposite of robust, it is coloured by prejudice, for which there is no room when really seeking truth.
Stuart
of course I could be wrong.I view this as a weighing of evidence, both from of an empircal and personal nature.
But I Know (meaning have no doubt) that there is a God by my previous definition concerning the First Cause.
Like I said it is for me a matter of Defining him.
I don't get a subscription to Nature but I do get a subscription from Discover.
I don't refute any scientific claims, for me science is not an enemy at all to belief in God.
Go to evolution thread for more…Stuart
Charity if you are reading this, guess what I am not worried anymore, I know were you are at. I don't like it, but you made your choice. Goodbye.
Mrs.It is my opinion that the only forums that should be open to non-Christians is “Guestbook”, “General Stuff” and “Helpdesk”. I thought that limiting the forums here was a bad idea but the way things are is not working. You can place me in the “non-believers” group as I find I am becoming more like Gandhi who saw that no particular religion had a monopoly on truth. From Wikipedia on Gandhi
- Gandhi believed that at the core of every religion was truth and love (compassion, nonviolence and the Golden Rule). He also questioned hypocrisy, malpractices and dogma in all religions and was a tireless social reformer. Some of his comments on various religions are:
“Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty.” (source: his autobiography)
“As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side.”
“The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind.”
Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:“Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.”
Hi KJ,
Gandhi was a very cunning lawyer and politician.
He only took on his garb to be seen as a holy man.
Humanism is seen at it's best among godless politicians.And yet Gandhi likely positively affected more people than you ever will in your lifetime. But I expected no less from you — anyone who does not line up with your beliefs is godless.
Odd, but didn't Jesus basically say to love God and love people, and this was the basis for the rest of the Law? From what I studied about Gandhi, he did both. Like so many others, you have no personal insight into his heart and life, so you should not be so quick to disparage him.
Hi KJ,
Does fame rate with God?
Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.There is one major difference between Gandhi and Jesus: there is no doubt that Gandhi existed. Jesus exists in faith alone. No one can definitively prove in the existance of Jesus any more than they can God so it is left up to the individual to accept the reality of either or both. I accept that Jesus lived and died, but the true purpose for such has been corrupted.
That being said, no one need worship Gandhi, and Jesus never said to worship any other than God.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 19 2008,14:39) Hi KJ,
Does fame rate with God?
Luke 16:15
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
If fame did not rate with God, why was the point often made of Jesus fame?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 19 2008,14:42) Hi KJ,
Did you meet Gandhi?
Are you relying on hearsay?
We have overwhelming evidence of his existance, from his writings to pictures and videos. Don't throw out strawman arguments.Hi KJ,
No man who healed the sivck and the maimed and the blind could keep it quiet too long.Jn9
22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
Quote There is one major difference between Gandhi and Jesus: there is no doubt that Gandhi existed. Gandhi:
“When [we] shall get together on the teachings laid down by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems . . . of the whole world.”Quote We have overwhelming evidence of his existance, from his writings to pictures and videos.
And yet, if Gandhi existed in Jesus' time, no one today would have a clue who he was. Not so with Jesus.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 19 2008,14:45) Hi KJ,
No man who healed the sivck and the maimed and the blind could keep it quiet too long.Jn9
22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.
29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
And as you have been shown before, word of Jesus did not exist outside of scripture. So much for the fame.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
