I think I'd rather remove my wisdom teeth with a plastic fork than continue.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is disproven by science? Really?
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
I think I'd rather remove my wisdom teeth with a plastic fork than continue.
Satan chose to make himself into a Satan - James 1:13-15
Satan's cherubic job is presented to us at Ezekiel 28:13-15
There is perfection in a relative sense and in an absolute sense. Absolutely God is Perfect.
Being a perfect God He did Not create angels nor humans to be robots, automatons.
So, perfection was in a 'limited' sense:
(a wedding ring measured is not perfect but perfect for a wedding ceremony)
( a knife is perfect to cut things but who would eat soup with a knife )
Obedience was No forced upon angels or humans, but obedience would show their choice or not choice.
If Satan and Adam had 'lacked the ability to choose' then they would have been 'imperfect'.
God is perfect in the absolute sense.
Creation was perfect in a relative sense.
If Satan and Adam had lacked the ability to choose then they would be robots, automatons, thus they would have No choice in matters and thus really be ' imperfect ' without ability to make choices.
Remember: Jesus like Adam started out sinless and according to the Bible Jesus chose to obey his God.
So unless you are saying Satan exists independently of creation by God then God is still responsible for why Satan exists. So this particular part of the story is something you have no choice in IF you insist God created everything.
I hear this claim quite a bit. But what theists don't seem to realize is that God could have made all these beings wise and perfect in their decision making instead of stupid and careless, like A&E were. As I said having free will doesn't;t mean being stupid. We see free will in people who make wise decisions in life as well as those who make stupid decisions. Why God didn't make these beings wise instead of stupid is my ongoing question, and you believers have no answer. God either knew what he was doing or God was stupid himself. If God is perfect, then God knew he created beings that were incapable of obedience and setting rules for them was bound to fail, especially when Satan was sent to tempt them.
Perfect beings know to be obedient to tules because they know the consequences and can temper their temptations. So given God's created acted foolishly the only explanation is that God created them to fail. Unless you accept that God in inept. You can't have it both ways.
Yes, Adam knew the consequences ( Genesis 2:17; 1 Timothy 2:14 )
Adam thus knew Eve would die, so rather that live without Eve then Adam deliberately ate .
Adam thus chose to commit suicide by breaking God's Law.
Adam chose Eve over his God.
God was Not inept but Adam sure was. it was Adam's deliberate choice. Adam's free-willed choice.
God forces No one to love or obey Him.
Job and Jesus under adverse conditions both chose to love and obey God showing Adam could have by his choice.
Adam thus knew Eve would die, so rather that live without Eve then Adam deliberately ate .
Adam thus chose to commit suicide by breaking God's Law.
Adam chose Eve over his God.
God was Not inept but Adam sure was. it was Adam's deliberate choice. Adam's free-willed choice.
God forces No one to love or obey Him.
Job and Jesus under adverse conditions both chose to love and obey God showing Adam could have by his choice.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but if God had made a perfect creation Aamd would have been able to "sin" but would not have. The same applies to Satan. And of course God left out the knowledge of right and wrongin the myth. The tree that Adam ate from was the one that gave that knowledge.
Don't worry, it is just a fairy tale aimed at children in an attempt to explain the world.
Then what was the benefit to disobey God? How was it better to face the consequences than to obey?
OK, then did Adam decide wisely? Was Adam smart to disobey God?
Ah, so there it is. Adam is exactly how God created him. Adam had no choice in how he was created and how inept he was. But God did have a choice to create Adam smart and wise, but didn't.
Yeah, inept as you admit. Free will can still mean you make wise decisions.
But if God creates you them he can make you very wise and smart, and a being that knows it is wise to obey the rules. God didn't do that. God created Adam inept, as you admit.
So Job was more capable than Adam, yet Adam was supposed to be a perfect being. See, it was a setup by God.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, can't help you there. Would a spork do?
Let me try that:
- I would rather try rolling a mossy boulder up a steep icy hill into a headwind during a mudslide than continue.
- I'd rather attempt to hurriedly saw off my leg with a rusty hacksaw in the middle of a desert while chained to a car leaking gasoline that was slowly running towards an open flame than continue.
- I would rather trust peewee Herman sitting behind me in a movie theater while hanging out with OJ Simpson and having drinks at Bill Cosby bar made with flint Michigan ice cubes after an elevator ride with Ray Rice all while having Casey Anthony babysit for me than continue.
These kinds of arguments generally have implied special pleading fallacies. The laws of nature need a law giver, but not the laws that keep a deity and its knowledge from dissipating. What maintains its structural integrity? Certainly not the deity.
Yes, but they were and still are considered heretics by the Jews, not authoritative sources on the Tanakh.
Equivocation error. You're using two definitions of scientist as if they mean the same thing. Without specialized training, about the only formal science one can do is look for undiscovered comets and asteroids. Your article is referring to empiricism, which can be thought of as informal science - the kind we all do every day to learn about how the world works and develop general rules that allow one to anticipate outcomes, like testing local restaurants to get a feel of what's out there and what kind of a meal you are likely to have at a familiar restaurant, information acquired empirically through the senses and used to generate correct inductions (rules that accurately predict outcomes). You also do informal science when you look both ways before crossing. You're collecting data in order to control outcomes according to a general rule for safety.
Being this second type of empiricist, which every learning animal is, does not qualify one to critique formal science.
What's blind to you is visible to others with the proper training in science and critical thought. With the proper background, one can conclude with near certainty that the scientists are correct by looking at the evidence directly - the opposite of blind belief. You've never done that, so it is your beliefs that are blind and believed by faith, like the guy blindly crossing the street without looking at the traffic situation.
Why would a tri-omni god need to make invariant physical laws to make your tools read correctly? Isn't the will of God enough to have your equipment show you readings that God already knows? What does a god need with gravity when it can will apples to fall to the ground and planets to orbit their stars?
But do you know what DOES require physical law to be predictable? A godless universe. Consider: What laws or rules does a juggler need to follow to juggle? Almost none that he can articulate. He can't describe which muscles to use in which order and at what strength. He just wills the balls to be juggled and they are. But if he wants to build a mechanical juggler, he'll need to work out the laws of juggling to program it. The juggler is equivalent to a universe operated by the will of a deity, and the soulless machine is analogous to the godless universe.
We use the fruits of science. So do you. It's not a lifestyle or philosophy of life. You don't even need to understand how it works.
No. The science was young and inchoate. The scientists understood that they were making best guesses based on the very limited data available about the SARS-Cov-2 virus, its mode of transmission, what would effectively diminish its impact (prevention and treatment), the pathology associated with it. It is typical for science to evolve with the quality and quantity of the available relevant evidence, like people trying to figure out what the image of a jigsaw puzzle will be if all they have is pieces and no picture. As the data accumulates (pieces placed), the image comes progressively into view, and early speculations of what that is will be allover the place, but with time, the picture becomes clear and consensus among viewers attains.
A conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that involves a conspiracy, and generally implies that people are doing something they shouldn't be doing, although technically, if you think that someone is throwing a surprise birthday party for you, you are positing that people are conspiring behind your back to celebrate you.
I believe that nobody knows more about Covid than the scientists that are experts in virology and epidemiology, and that there is no other source to turn to for guidance. The scientists certainly did more to keep us healthy than those disparaging them, who added zero knowledge to the science, just faith-based advice.
Only if it's plastic, a metal one would be too quick and I'd still be thinking about those quack doctors I looked up.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Traditionally a spork is plastic. But I am sure that a metal one could be acquired on Amazon.
But since you don't want a metal one that does not really matter.
I would figure that a KFC one would take the longest:
Traditionally a spork is plastic. But I am sure that a metal one could be acquired on Amazon.
But since you don't want a metal one that does not really matter.
I would figure that a KFC one would take the longest:
You're wrong, they're called splayd, were traditionally metal and were invented in the 40's by an Aussie.
Splayd - Wikipedia
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. I guarantee that those are sporks. A splayd is a Johnny Come lately to the utensil biz. The spork dates to the 1870's at least. And it was patented in the US in 1874. The spork is a combination of a spoon and fork. I guess the singular o is shared from the sources. The splayd is supposed to be spoon, knife, and fork. Some how the fork got lost in that portmanteau and the knife turned into a blade:
Spork - Wikipedia
I stand corrected, I had always thought spork was just another American bastardisation of the English language. I can confirm the splayd has a blade as my mother owned a set of them however I wouldn't want to cut anything more robust than scrambled eggs. I seem to remember her giving them to me when I left the nest and me depositing them in a garbage bin shortly after but surely I couldn't have done that to a family heirloom.
Looks like a different name for the same thing. Though those I see under the name splayd look more functional.
So they combine the function of a knife in too. Interesting. I suppose technically that would set them apart from the spoon/fork (spork) that I am familiar with. Plastic knives are practically worthless by themselves. I can't see a triple combo being better for cutting.
Aussie ingenuity, take something useless and make it even more useless. I think William McArthur used a probability of -3.
But now for the really important question. Should a fork have 3 or 4 tines? I say 4 and death to the blasphemous 3 tiners!
ETA: are they tines or prongs?
They serve no function other than the humour of watching someone try to use one and as a diversion from discussions on quack doctors that treat people with drugs that are more likely to kill them than the virus they have.
The latter was a draw for me as well.
I have tried using versions nearly identical to those in @Subduction Zone's picture and found them nearly useless. Some I saw pictured had longer tines that would have made them more serviceable as forks, but probably less as spoons. It seems a futile attempt at compromise that never really worked out as one. The only happy people would be the ones that convinced others that this appalling utensil should work.
I have only recently discovered the math involving probabilities above 1 and below 0. I'm glad you could provide another example for me to think on.
I'm gonna side with you on the tine issue. I recall using a 3 tine fork a few times and found them wanting.
I think either word works, but it may depend on what you are gonna do with that fork.