INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[metis]

Don't you know? A handful of sheep herders got it right 2,500 years ago. Not the thousands of scientists the last 200 years.

Dah, how could I have forgotten that?!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This will mean more if the context of my and the one who this was a response to's history is taken into account. The discussion was about whether the universe was finite or infinite.

There is nothing in the BBT that can be claimed as evidence for any infinite actuality. It contains only 100% finite concepts. Even what is not known to be impossible as to be infinite (but most likely is impossible)lies outside BBT.

The BBT is not a complete theory that explains everything. It is simply the origin of our universe or at least our understanding of the early universe.

Though there are the questions of "If we are expanding what are we expanding into?" sort of thinsg. Those are infinite concepts that are yet to be defined and to my knowledge untouched specifically by the BBT.

It is an overwhelmingly accepted theory of Cosmology (I do not know about science in general). The theorems main purpose was to be bullet proof and simple. If anyone disagrees with it's main contention then they are either an idiot or swimming in the deepest end of the theoretical fantasy science. It is overwhelmingly accepted by cosmologists. That theorem was not produced by Christianity and creationists have nothing to do with it.

What I mean is that the theory doesn't suggest what you are talking about. Its a scientific theory that isn't widely reguarded with same weight as the BBT. Nor does it support a theological outcome in logical deduction.

I have posted what Vilenkin said about them one after the other. I have posted why even the theoretical hypothetical infinites could not exist. If a person says X is impossible the evidence is the lack of evidence for it's existence. So until someone produces an example of an actual infinite my claim stands.

It stands but not in support of your overal argument.

Pick a fantasy infinite (because no actual ones are available) and then I will tell you why it is likely to be impossible. I can't go through every claim to a hypothetical infinite and state why each is probably impossible. There are too many fictions in science to make that practical.

There are infinite possiblities within the quantum world. There are probabilities rather than realities for the most part. There is an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. Ect.

It is perfectly valid to discuss science if it is reliable and has a role in the case for God's existence. It is invalid to instead discuss science that is 99% faith and unreliable in the same context or almost any context. Almost every historical, legal, and theological claim involves best explanations for what is reliably known. If I have a finite universe then it began to exist. Everything that begins to exist requires a sufficient cause. Nature did not exist to create its self. Only something beyond nature could exist to create nature. That is an almost certainty and I refused to be distracted from a virtual certainty by discussing a virtual impossibility. Through using philosophic principles about causation you wind with whatever caused everything else must be virtually identical to God as described by ignorant men 5000 years ago. For some reason that is very inconvenient for an atheist and they obsess on the vanishingly small likely hood infinites exist of any kind in nature and ignore the almost certain science. That was what I complained about not the use of science its self.

What science are we talking about that is 99% faith? And what part of the science says that it must have been created by god? And how is the extremly vague god design an "exact fit"?

 

[aka[DoW]]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

In human understanding.... According to physics energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed by an outside force. This means that all the energy in the universe has always been and always will be. Some like the Buddahist attribute no personality or consciousness to this energy, however I feel that this energy I call God does, simply because I dont believe we could be imbued with something by the creator that He Himself doesnt have.

 

[1robin]

This is what I was referring to in regards to what you wrote: "It is perfectly valid to discuss science if it is reliable and has a role in the case for God's existence. It is invalid to instead discuss science that is 99% faith and unreliable in the same context or almost any context. Almost every historical, legal, and theological claim involves best explanations for what is reliably known."

I see no problem whatever here.

I don't think it's really difficult to explain what's so bizarre about that statement, therefore, it is not I who is "nuts". "Infinity" is a hypothesis, therefore it's not based on "faith", and there is no such thing as "Biblical cosmology", which is terminology you claimed you never stated in an earlier post.

Faith equal claiming to believe that X is true even if X is not proven. There are different levels of faith but every claim (with one possible exception) has a level of faith within it. So no matter if a hypothesis, theory, or even claimed as a fact it contains faith. As the great Christian father of modern philosophy has said. The only thing we know is that we think and so exist. However we do not know if we are all not brains in a vat somewhere being fed false information for some bizarre reason. So all claims are faith based. The ones about infinity are not only almost entirely faith and almost devoid of evidence, most defy very good evidence. However it is the double standards that get me more than the confusion of fact and faith. Let me illustrate from my own experience.

If I say that evolution has holes or problems no known solution has resolved but yet I believe it occurred. I am instantly met with howls from your side that I should go with the reliable conclusion that it has occurred and it the sole dynamic that shapes life. Even if I point out that is has assumptions that defy laws of biology I am told the majority of scientists believe it so I should accept it in entirety.

Centrist that with this.

Every shred of reliable data we have suggest the universe is finite.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

That link contains why other theories are impossible as well as a bonus.

There are reasons most infinite concepts are considered impossible and no reason to believe whatever is left is possible. No actual infinities are known to exist. In this case I am told that I should not go with the most reliable science in this case and there for not derive a creator from a universe in need of one. This is completely inconsistent and occurs in claim after claim. Double standards exist in more atheist posts that those that do not contain them.

Double standards always indicate two things. A failed argument and a preferred position not derived from the evidence.

 

[metis]

I see no problem whatever here.



Faith equal claiming to believe that X is true even if X is not proven. There are different levels of faith but every claim (with one possible exception) has a level of faith within it. So no matter if a hypothesis, theory, or even claimed as a fact it contains faith. As the great Christian father of modern philosophy has said. The only thing we know is that we think and so exist. However we do not know if we are all not brains in a vat somewhere being fed false information for some bizarre reason. So all claims are faith based. The ones about infinity are not only almost entirely faith and almost devoid of evidence, most defy very good evidence. However it is the double standards that get me more than the confusion of fact and faith. Let me illustrate from my own experience.

If I say that evolution has holes or problems no known solution has resolved but yet I believe it occurred. I am instantly met with howls from your side that I should go with the reliable conclusion that it has occurred and it the sole dynamic that shapes life. Even if I point out that is has assumptions that defy laws of biology I am told the majority of scientists believe it so I should accept it in entirety.

Centrist that with this.

Every shred of reliable data we have suggest the universe is finite.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

That link contains why other theories are impossible as well as a bonus.

There are reasons most infinite concepts are considered impossible and no reason to believe whatever is left is possible. No actual infinities are known to exist. In this case I am told that I should not go with the most reliable science in this case and there for not derive a creator from a universe in need of one. This is completely inconsistent and occurs in claim after claim. Double standards exist in more atheist posts that those that do not contain them.

Double standards always indicate two things. A failed argument and a preferred position not derived from the evidence.

Believe whatever you want to believe, but belief is not science. Vilenkin’s opinion is only one of many, and it's by far not the most common, which I have shown you before from surveys of cosmologists that have been taken that you have repeatedly poo-poohed away. One doesn't have to verify religious beliefs, but in science we work on the basis of evidence, and there simply is not any objective evidence for a theistic cause to our universe-- period. If there had been, it would be overwhelmingly shouted from the mountaintops by theologians and scientists the world over, but it hasn't been for one good reason-- it doesn't exist.

The relative silence speaks loudly.

 

[1robin]

The BBT is not a complete theory that explains everything. It is simply the origin of our universe or at least our understanding of the early universe.

I did not claim it was an explanation of everything. No theory is. Why is that a criteria for anything. It is however the most accepted model of cosmology and it contains a finite universe. So does BGV, and every other reliable theory based on good evidence. All these infinite things are fantasies that nothing real testifies to.

Though there are the questions of "If we are expanding what are we expanding into?" sort of thinsg. Those are infinite concepts that are yet to be defined and to my knowledge untouched specifically by the BBT.

The BBT says that the initial expansion is creating the space it is growing into. Of course there are questions. That is true of any theory.

What I mean is that the theory doesn't suggest what you are talking about. Its a scientific theory that isn't widely reguarded with same weight as the BBT. Nor does it support a theological outcome in logical deduction.

The theory is not said by me or anyone to directly suggest God. It does however suggest the universe began to exist and that it does not contain the cause of its self within its self. That does posit a creator. Philosophy takes over at that point and tells us what type of a creator the universe mandates. Theology steps is and compares the God of the Bible with what the Philosophers resolved form the science and they match perfectly. There is no way to know if it is correct this side of the dirt but it has no known flaw in its logical progression either. There is no flaw in the logic from what we have back through the BBT and BGV and eventually to God.

It stands but not in support of your overal argument.

My argument is A + B + C = X. The claim I used for A stands as A and perfectly fulfills its roll in that equation. I think you must be saying well A does not prove X, but I was not using A to prove X alone. It is a simple causal progression and each link in it's chain is the best fit for it's link position known.

There are infinite possiblities within the quantum world. There are probabilities rather than realities for the most part. There is an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. Ect.

How do you know if there are infinite anything. Their infinite you can't count them. No division of anything contains an infinite. Nothing with attributes not KNOWN to be infinite can produce infinite results. The Quantum is a black hole where maybe 1% of the best scientists understand 5% of it so far. Stating any certainty about the Quantum is meaningless. What it is not known to do it produce its self. Quantum is anew type but still natural law. Natural law can't create nature. It can't bring anything into existence of any type. The quantum is part of the finite universe and needs a cause just as much as the rest and even if it did not you would have no way to know that.

What science are we talking about that is 99% faith? And what part of the science says that it must have been created by god? And how is the extremly vague god design an "exact fit"?

Theoretical cosmology as it concerns infinites actualities, multiverses, oscillation universes, bubble universes, M theory, maybe even string theory to a point. In short every single scientific claim that is used or misused to contend with God comes from the least reliable part of an unreliable field of science. The fictional end of theoretical cosmology. I did not use science to get directly to God though God is the best explanation for many natural things and events. I used science for what it can do. Show the universe began to exist and could nit have created its self. Se the above for he steps. This same cosmological argument has been bulletproof since the Greeks. No matter how much ado is made about nothing it is still standing as tall as ever and has no known flaw and the more about the universe we learn the more absolute it gets. I made no God design argument so I did not understand that question.

 

[1robin]

Believe whatever you want to believe, but belief is not science.

What the heck are you talking about? My claims are based on the best science available. Your the one off in fantasy land. Look if your going to go with the least likelihood and least reliable science fine, but do not compound the problem by hypocritically telling me that my science is faith. I went with the most accepted cosmology there is. Why didn't you? but even worse why did you act as if I chose something with a little evidence as you have.

Vilenkin’s opinion is only one of many, and it's by far not the most common

No it is not like the others. It was built to meet a purpose. The purpose was to arrive at truth using the most reliable and simplest data available and to be bullet proof. It primary claim has no argument. Any universe which is on average expanding has a finite past. There is not one reliable scientific fact known that is inconsistent with this.

which I have shown you before from surveys of cosmologists that have been taken that you have repeatedly poo-poohed away.

I do not remember any surveys.

One doesn't have to verify religious beliefs, but in science we work on the basis of evidence,

Not the science we are discussing (or at least you are discussing). The science you are talking about is not even science at all. It is fantasy, faith, metaphysics and terrible philosophy dressed in scientific terminology. Hawking's latest book is 80% philosophy and 80% of that is wrong. There is far more faith required given far less evidence for your claims than for my faith. My faith has been shared by the most curious, rigorous, professional top experts of every field, including SCIENCE, law, history, philosophy. It is a reasoned belief based on mountains of evidence. Your science is not only devoid of evidence (which is why none was and none can be given by you for it), it is actually contradictory to all the evidence. One of if not the greatest cosmologist of modern times is a Christian (Sandage), the guy who decoded DNA, etc.... I have no idea where you people get this faith is devoid of evidence and theoretical cosmology has any stuff, but you need to get your money back because it is not even remotely true. Let me go back to something you said earlier. I have never heard any cosmologist (even the kookiest and most theoretical of them) not posit BBT as an almost certainty. Not only that but they also acknowledge issues like fine tuning, abiogenesis, divergent evolution, many of the constants in nature, have no known natural explanation. The atheists among them like to speculate that maybe A + B produced X and that led to Y and so on. However they have no A's, B's, X's, or Y's to justify them claiming so.

and there simply is not any objective evidence for a theistic cause to our universe-- period.

There is mountains of evidence to indicate God is the most likely cause. In fact he is the only cause currently available, and a perfect fit. If there had been, it would be overwhelmingly shouted from the mountaintops by theologians and scientists the world over, but it hasn't been for one good reason-- it doesn't exist. There is no objective proof and I think your getting the two confused. However there is no objective proof anything is true, except that we think, if you wish to be arbitrarily strict about it. Faith is a part of ever claim ever made about anything.

The relative silence speaks loudly.

What silence?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What the heck are you talking about? My claims are based on the best science available. Your the one off in fantasy land. Look if your going to go with the least likelihood and least reliable science fine, but do not compound the problem by hypocritically telling me that my science is faith. I went with the most accepted cosmology there is. Why didn't you? but even worse why did you act as if I chose something with a little evidence as you have.



No it is not like the others. It was built to meet a purpose. The purpose was to arrive at truth using the most reliable and simplest data available and to be bullet proof. It primary claim has no argument. Any universe which is on average expanding has a finite past. There is not one reliable scientific fact known that is inconsistent with this.



I do not remember any surveys.

Not the science we are discussing (or at least you are discussing). The science you are talking about is not even science at all. It is fantasy, faith, metaphysics and terrible philosophy dressed in scientific terminology. Hawking's latest book is 80% philosophy and 80% of that is wrong. There is far more faith required given far less evidence for your claims than for my faith. My faith has been shared by the most curious, rigorous, professional top experts of every field, including SCIENCE, law, history, philosophy. It is a reasoned belief based on mountains of evidence. Your science is not only devoid of evidence (which is why none was and none can be given by you for it), it is actually contradictory to all the evidence. One of if not the greatest cosmologist of modern times is a Christian (Sandage), the guy who decoded DNA, etc.... I have no idea where you people get this faith is devoid of evidence and theoretical cosmology has any stuff, but you need to get your money back because it is not even remotely true. Let me go back to something you said earlier. I have never heard any cosmologist (even the kookiest and most theoretical of them) not posit BBT as an almost certainty. Not only that but they also acknowledge issues like fine tuning, abiogenesis, divergent evolution, many of the constants in nature, have no known natural explanation. The atheists among them like to speculate that maybe A + B produced X and that led to Y and so on. However they have no A's, B's, X's, or Y's to justify them claiming so.


There is mountains of evidence to indicate God is the most likely cause. In fact he is the only cause currently available, and a perfect fit. If there had been, it would be overwhelmingly shouted from the mountaintops by theologians and scientists the world over, but it hasn't been for one good reason-- it doesn't exist. There is no objective proof and I think your getting the two confused. However there is no objective proof anything is true, except that we think, if you wish to be arbitrarily strict about it. Faith is a part of ever claim ever made about anything.

What silence?

Except there isnt' a mountain of evidence. THe claim you make is that God is X...but you have no actual proof of that.

 

[1robin]

Except there isnt' a mountain of evidence. THe claim you make is that God is X...but you have no actual proof of that.

This is exactly what I said your side does. You said there is not Y amount of evidence for X. Then you said that is because no proof exists. I said evidence not proof. Evidence is not proof, proof is not evidence. Evidence are facts (or the most likely conclusions) that are used to evaluate a proposition. God is the most consistent explanation with the most facts. I consistently set up the same type of arguments (which are valid and used in every single field everyday). A set of facts Z are either proven or based on the most reliable evidence we have. I look at all possible explanations for those facts. God is almost always the best explanation for the evidence I use for the arguments I make. God is the only explanation we have currently, for others. Some may not like that but I just can't see how they misunderstand it so often. Not one thing I said is not used by every field of study that has ever existed where evidence is relevant, except the one field used to contend with God, the deep end of theoretical science (anything and everything is valid there). It does not have to work, it has no real application, there is more of it that will probably never be known than will, and even that is a long long way off.

It is very simple. I have mountains of evidence, and God is the best explanation for most of it. Franklin there is no way that you do not at least understand that process. I believe you too intelligent for that. The universe the best science indicates exists is the exact same universe you will get from reading Genesis. Not prof alone, and not even convincing alone. However when thousands of these same type arguments are summed, non-faith starts looking very similar to preference and a lot less like logic.

 

[metis]

What the heck are you talking about? My claims are based on the best science available.

Oh really?

Your the one off in fantasy land. Look if your going to go with the least likelihood and least reliable science fine, but do not compound the problem by hypocritically telling me that my science is faith.

As you have admitted when you have said you believe in "Biblical cosmology".

I went with the most accepted cosmology there is. Why didn't you? but even worse why did you act as if I chose something with a little evidence as you have...

No it is not like the others. It was built to meet a purpose. The purpose was to arrive at truth using the most reliable and simplest data available and to be bullet proof.

You can't even keep your story-line straight as we see with the parts I underlined above.

I do not remember any surveys.

You've gotta be kidding.

T

he science you are talking about is not even science at all. It is fantasy, faith, metaphysics and terrible philosophy dressed in scientific terminology.

Oh, so a hypothesis that suggests that sub-atomic particles may go back into infinity is "fantasy, faith, metaphysics and terrible philosophy". You have just given us proof that you have no idea whatsoever how science works.

The atheists among them like to speculate that maybe A + B produced X and that led to Y and so on. However they have no A's, B's, X's, or Y's to justify them claiming so.

Hypotheses are possible projections based on some evidence that indicates they could be true, whereas your theistic claims have no evidence to support them even as any serious theologian will tell you.

There is mountains of evidence to indicate God is the most likely cause. In fact he is the only cause currently available, and a perfect fit. If there had been, it would be overwhelmingly shouted from the mountaintops by theologians and scientists the world over, but it hasn't been for one good reason-- it doesn't exist. There is no objective proof and I think your getting the two confused. However there is no objective proof anything is true, except that we think, if you wish to be arbitrarily strict about it. Faith is a part of ever claim ever made about anything.

What silence?

"Mountains of evidence" for God-- Well, congrats that you know so much more than all the theologians combined. :run:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This is exactly what I said your side does. You said there is not Y amount of evidence for X. Then you said that is because no proof exists. I said evidence not proof. Evidence is not proof, proof is not evidence. Evidence are facts (or the most likely conclusions) that are used to evaluate a proposition. God is the most consistent explanation with the most facts. I consistently set up the same type of arguments (which are valid and used in every single field everyday). A set of facts Z are either proven or based on the most reliable evidence we have. I look at all possible explanations for those facts. God is almost always the best explanation for the evidence I use for the arguments I make. God is the only explanation we have currently, for others. Some may not like that but I just can't see how they misunderstand it so often. Not one thing I said is not used by every field of study that has ever existed where evidence is relevant, except the one field used to contend with God, the deep end of theoretical science (anything and everything is valid there). It does not have to work, it has no real application, there is more of it that will probably never be known than will, and even that is a long long way off.

It is very simple. I have mountains of evidence, and God is the best explanation for most of it. Franklin there is no way that you do not at least understand that process. I believe you too intelligent for that. The universe the best science indicates exists is the exact same universe you will get from reading Genesis. Not prof alone, and not even convincing alone. However when thousands of these same type arguments are summed, non-faith starts looking very similar to preference and a lot less like logic.

You always say your side, yet I'm sure you don't know my side.

Like I said you don't have evidence, and you don't have proof. What you have is faith, that alone should be enough, so why do you try to drag science which you have to twist and turn to try to fit into the idea?

What type of Universe does the best science indicate? How does it agree with creation in Genesis? A creation with similarities to Sumerian myths? A creation that many scholars agree gives two separate accounts of the process?

Where exactly is the heavens described in Genesis? Because later in readings in Genesis (tower of babel), seems to indicate that Heaven was quite reachable to man.

Regarding Genesis and it's relationship with Modern Science, have you studied all cosmological myths stretching across the world? While you can advocate a creator and I agree with you on that how, can you advocate that one particular myth got it right and all others got it wrong?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is exactly what I said your side does. You said there is not Y amount of evidence for X. Then you said that is because no proof exists. I said evidence not proof. Evidence is not proof, proof is not evidence. Evidence are facts (or the most likely conclusions) that are used to evaluate a proposition. God is the most consistent explanation with the most facts. I consistently set up the same type of arguments (which are valid and used in every single field everyday). A set of facts Z are either proven or based on the most reliable evidence we have. I look at all possible explanations for those facts. God is almost always the best explanation for the evidence I use for the arguments I make. God is the only explanation we have currently, for others. Some may not like that but I just can't see how they misunderstand it so often. Not one thing I said is not used by every field of study that has ever existed where evidence is relevant, except the one field used to contend with God, the deep end of theoretical science (anything and everything is valid there). It does not have to work, it has no real application, there is more of it that will probably never be known than will, and even that is a long long way off.

It is very simple. I have mountains of evidence, and God is the best explanation for most of it. Franklin there is no way that you do not at least understand that process. I believe you too intelligent for that. The universe the best science indicates exists is the exact same universe you will get from reading Genesis. Not prof alone, and not even convincing alone. However when thousands of these same type arguments are summed, non-faith starts looking very similar to preference and a lot less like logic.

The level of delusion espoused in this post is just... staggering. Hard to imagine how someone could be this dishonest or confused (or both). Seriously, why do you bother posting here since you're nothing more than a broken record- repeating the same patently false nonsense over and over, regardless of how many times your errors and sloppy reasoning are pointed out to you? Do you honestly think you're ever going to persuade anybody by misrepresenting/misunderstanding contemporary science, and stamping your foot and shrilly insisting that long-discredited arguments are "valid" and "used everyday"? Wouldn't you, after what, 7000+ posts, start to get curious about how everyone somehow manages to urge the exact same objections to your posts- do you think there's some world-wide conspiracy against you? Or is it just one gigantic coincidence?

 

[1robin]

Oh really?

Was that an argument?

As you have admitted when you have said you believe in "Biblical cosmology".

Of course I do. It is the same as observed cosmology. The Bible posits a finite universe that does not contain the cause for its self, which contains life that is not self causal, is rational, obeys law, is fine tuned for life of any kind, and has constants no natural explanation exists for. That is exactly what is seen.

You can't even keep your story-line straight as we see with the parts I underlined above.

What you can't track is not my fault. The first sentence concerned BBT. The second BGV. Neither concerned an average or a common but a most accepted and evidenced.

You've gotta be kidding.

No I am not. I did not say you did not post them. I said I do not remember you doing so. As an orthodox Christian I am most times a one man show and have between 6 and 12 non-theists aiming their venom at me alone. I can't remember every post ever made.

Oh, so a hypothesis that suggests that sub-atomic particles may go back into infinity is "fantasy, faith, metaphysics and terrible philosophy". You have just given us proof that you have no idea whatsoever how science works.

Yep, complete fantasy. I do science every day. I was educated to do so. I work with atomic particles every single day, do you. In fact al the time I have to debate comes as a result of the fact that even application science concerning late 90's technology is not reliable. I have had 12 instruments built as drop in replacements for avionics equipment like targeting systems, rubidium oscillators, $500,000 spectrum analyzers, heads up displays, flight computers, multiplexors, etc.. All 12 have failed. Some time after time. If 90's technology that must works does not work then any claims about tens of billions of years ago, infinity, other universes, etc... is complete speculation. When we can't agree on what took place in pickets charge with a hundred eyewitness battle reports from less than 200 years ago claims about infinity are just silly.

Hypotheses are possible projections based on some evidence that indicates they could be true, whereas your theistic claims have no evidence to support them even as any serious theologian will tell you.

So are fantasies? What separates the two is the quality of evidence they are based on. These infinite things have the worst evidence possible and most have none, and many defy what evidence does exist. Which is why all the explanations of them sooner or later become mostly philosophy and metaphysics not science, and they even get most of the philosophy wrong. My theistic claims have thousands of times the evidence any theoretical cosmological claim does.

"Mountains of evidence" for God-- Well, congrats that you know so much more than all the theologians combined. :run:

No, they are who I get the evidence from and pretty much say what I have. Do you want some of the best scholars in histories quotes concerning evidence, as proof? We can start with the two of the most prestigious experts (if the two) in testimony and evidence in human history if you wish? In fact most of the greatest scientists and those that actually created the fields of science themselves have been men of faith. The greatest scientist in history wrote more on theology than science. This line will not end well for your cause.

 

[1robin]

You always say your side, yet I'm sure you don't know my side.

If Christianity is true there are two sides. Born again Christians and everyone else. Since you have adopted the position completely opposite in most cases from born again Christians I assume your in the other group. In fact I am all but certain of it, but being sympathetic have not insisted on it, since it is a personal matter. Occasionally what I am virtually certain of comes out in indirect statements concerning sides.

Like I said you don't have evidence, and you don't have proof. What you have is faith, that alone should be enough, so why do you try to drag science which you have to twist and turn to try to fit into the idea?

I have more evidence than we put together could ever get through in a life time. I have no objectively available proof but I do have personal proof. Lets reexamine what you said above here. You say I have no evidence for God. That is not even remotely true but you believe it is. How can you be on my side of faith and think no evidence for God exists? If you believe in what has no evidence, you might be a theoretical scientists but you can not become a Christian that way. Saving faith even if based on no evidence (and this is absurd) produces evidence in the event of being saved. Now for evidence:

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."


Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
That link contains some of histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence. Their comments were too long for a post.

What type of Universe does the best science indicate? How does it agree with creation in Genesis? A creation with similarities to Sumerian myths? A creation that many scholars agree gives two separate accounts of the process?

1. A finite universe that does not contain its own cause and contains all of nature.
2. The Bible posits a finite universe that does not contain the cause for its self, which contains life that is not self causal, is rational, obeys law, is fine tuned for life of any kind, and has constants no natural explanation exists for. That is exactly what is seen.
3. There are always similarities in texts about the same issues. There is no evidence and no possibility the Bible borrowed from other myths. DR Whites debate on parallelism is a good source for why?
4. That is not what good scholars say. One list associated with creation is a sequential time table of events stated in very general terms. The other is simply a list which has no chronological reference. There are sites that go through this well known canard step be step. However my contention does not get into sequences at all.

Where exactly is the heavens described in Genesis? Because later in readings in Genesis (tower of babel), seems to indicate that Heaven was quite reachable to man.

NO it does not say that. It say in man's ignorance he thought he could do so and was wrong. Heavens are a complex issues because of translations and there being three languages used in the Bible. Heavens can mean two different things, or there can be more than one. The heavens can mean space. It can mean where the birds are (atmosphere). Or it can mean the future home of Christians and is now currently being completed somewhere we have no access to.

Regarding Genesis and it's relationship with Modern Science, have you studied all cosmological myths stretching across the world?

Nope.

While you can advocate a creator and I agree with you on that how, can you advocate that one particular myth got it right and all others got it wrong?

I am not even getting out of the starting gate with the cosmological argument. I have not even finished with it yet. The philosophy of sufficient cause gives general characteristics that what ever the cause was must have. More powerful than anything we know of, omniscient, outside of time, independent of space, independent of matter. Personal, rational, etc..... That eliminates 99% of God concepts or at least almost all of them. Then we go to step B and so on until we are at step Z + a million. By the time we get to Z + a million we have no other God available that meets all the conditions and evidence we have found available. That is of course beyond the scope of a post or even a forum. I can only cover one or two at a time.

Do not take my comments indicating I believe you are not on my side of faith as any indication you are immoral or bad. Atheists, Agnostics, people who have head faith alone, etc.. can be just as moral as any Christian and many times are more so.

 

[1robin]

The level of delusion espoused in this post is just... staggering. Hard to imagine how someone could be this dishonest or confused (or both). Seriously, why do you bother posting here since you're nothing more than a broken record- repeating the same patently false nonsense over and over, regardless of how many times your errors and sloppy reasoning are pointed out to you? Do you honestly think you're ever going to persuade anybody by misrepresenting/misunderstanding contemporary science, and stamping your foot and shrilly insisting that long-discredited arguments are "valid" and "used everyday"? Wouldn't you, after what, 7000+ posts, start to get curious about how everyone somehow manages to urge the exact same objections to your posts- do you think there's some world-wide conspiracy against you? Or is it just one gigantic coincidence?

Well we have person commentary from start to finish and the obligatory sarcasm sprinkled throughout. What we do not have is even an attempt to provide any reason to believe any of it is true. I am sick of the hostility posted where evidence and reason should be. If you walk around this frustrated all the time do not get any of it on me at least. The scientific arguments I have made are currently accepted cosmology. The cosmological arguments based on them have withstood the worst your sides emotional distaste could generate for 2500 years and has only gotten stronger. I do not think what an few atheists and Gnostics in a forum cough up is any challenge, especially since it is completely wrong, much of it can't possibly be right. You would and do oppose the greatest scientists in history of anything they say makes God any more likely, I am in good company. If your too weary to post arguments instead of sarcastic rhetoric then don't post anything to me. Either way, the best science, philosophy, history, and theology has produced is squarely in my corner not yours.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If Christianity is true there are two sides. Born again Christians and everyone else. Since you have adopted the position completely opposite in most cases from born again Christians I assume your in the other group. In fact I am all but certain of it, but being sympathetic have not insisted on it, since it is a personal matter. Occasionally what I am virtually certain of comes out in indirect statements concerning sides.

I have more evidence than we put together could ever get through in a life time. I have no objectively available proof but I do have personal proof. Lets reexamine what you said above here. You say I have no evidence for God. That is not even remotely true but you believe it is. How can you be on my side of faith and think no evidence for God exists? If you believe in what has no evidence, you might be a theoretical scientists but you can not become a Christian that way. Saving faith even if based on no evidence (and this is absurd) produces evidence in the event of being saved. Now for evidence:

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said:
"The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."


Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
That link contains some of histories greatest experts on testimony and evidence. Their comments were too long for a post.






1. A finite universe that does not contain its own cause and contains all of nature.
2. The Bible posits a finite universe that does not contain the cause for its self, which contains life that is not self causal, is rational, obeys law, is fine tuned for life of any kind, and has constants no natural explanation exists for. That is exactly what is seen.
3. There are always similarities in texts about the same issues. There is no evidence and no possibility the Bible borrowed from other myths. DR Whites debate on parallelism is a good source for why?
4. That is not what good scholars say. One list associated with creation is a sequential time table of events stated in very general terms. The other is simply a list which has no chronological reference. There are sites that go through this well known canard step be step. However my contention does not get into sequences at all.


NO it does not say that. It say in man's ignorance he thought he could do so and was wrong. Heavens are a complex issues because of translations and there being three languages used in the Bible. Heavens can mean two different things, or there can be more than one. The heavens can mean space. It can mean where the birds are (atmosphere). Or it can mean the future home of Christians and is now currently being completed somewhere we have no access to.


Nope.

I am not even getting out of the starting gate with the cosmological argument. I have not even finished with it yet. The philosophy of sufficient cause gives general characteristics that what ever the cause was must have. More powerful than anything we know of, omniscient, outside of time, independent of space, independent of matter. Personal, rational, etc..... That eliminates 99% of God concepts or at least almost all of them. Then we go to step B and so on until we are at step Z + a million. By the time we get to Z + a million we have no other God available that meets all the conditions and evidence we have found available. That is of course beyond the scope of a post or even a forum. I can only cover one or two at a time.

Do not take my comments indicating I believe you are not on my side of faith as any indication you are immoral or bad. Atheists, Agnostics, people who have head faith alone, etc.. can be just as moral as any Christian and many times are more so.

I have actually not taken any sides. You only assume that because I do not agree with you. Especially in how you attempt to define God.

At some points you claim that we do not have enough information about the Universe to make claims, however you make the claim that the information we have about the Universe is enough to claim God? Your description of a Finite Universe is found in virtually all known Mythologies, and a creation that is similar to say the big bang is found in some Tao mythologies. It is not a Universal Genesis Trait. I actually do not know of any actually mythology that claims an infinite Universe, in most the Universe (or heaven as they notion of a Universe as vast as what we are proposing now certainly did not exist back then), would be destroyed and restored in various cycles.

The Tower of Babel. The story in Genesis is very clear that the reason that man was struck down was due to our ability to accomplish anything when we work together. The "Man grew proud" is from a Jewish Midrash to explain what happened but is not found in the text itself.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

Man's motive was to a make a name for themselves is usually what people use to defend the idea of hubris. It however ignores the usage of And, which shows a more logical, and even altruistic reasoning...they didn't want to be split up.

No evidence that the Bible Borrowed from myths? I suppose that comes down to the composition time of the books.

I think the arguments themselves can be better, I have nothing against what you are arguing for.

 

[1robin]

I have actually not taken any sides. You only assume that because I do not agree with you. Especially in how you attempt to define God.

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice (Rush), and that lack of choice means you are not on my side. I think you have a different definition of side in this context that I do. As I said the Bible gives two categories. Born again Christians and every one else. You are talking about intellectual allowance not an absolute commitment to a person and revelation in exclusion of all others which generated a response to confirm it. That is my side.

At some points you claim that we do not have enough information about the Universe to make claims, however you make the claim that the information we have about the Universe is enough to claim God? Your description of a Finite Universe is found in virtually all known Mythologies, and a creation that is similar to say the big bang is found in some Tao mythologies. It is not a Universal Genesis Trait. I actually do not know of any actually mythology that claims an infinite Universe, in most the Universe (or heaven as they notion of a Universe as vast as what we are proposing now certainly did not exist back then), would be destroyed and restored in various cycles.

I said or tried to say we do not have enough information about the far reaches of time or the universe to be certain. However some claims are based on much more reliable and accessible evidence than others. There is a relative value between claims even if the objective value is less than ideal. My faith lines up with all of the more reliable claims. The science used against God is always from the worst, most inaccurate, and least evidenced spectrum of science. I was objecting to either claims of certainty or the lack of relative differences in reliability. I will let a cosmologist demonstrate.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

Now however reliable that statement may be, it's relative reliability compared to other theories without beginnings is astronomical. If you want to know why go to the link and he shoots them down one after the other and he is no Christian that I am aware of. Same with BBT and 99.9% of the best observations.

The Tower of Babel. The story in Genesis is very clear that the reason that man was struck down was due to our ability to accomplish anything when we work together. The "Man grew proud" is from a Jewish Midrash to explain what happened but is not found in the text itself.

What? Why in the world would God be against man's doing something together. He did not strike the Egyptians down. If that was true to any extent it might be because we so often do things together we should not do. Attempting to reach heaven on our own terms instead of the terms the ruler of heaven dictated being one example.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

You see they attempted to reach heaven on their own merit and to make a name for themselves when it was Christ's name that was to get people into heaven.

10 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
John 10 NIV - The Good Shepherd and His Sheep - Bible Gateway
This is an analogy. The gate is Christ, The pasture is the kingdom of God. Those that try to get in by some other way are those people who built that tower. God said faith in the messiah will save you. They said screw faith in the messiah we will build a tower and take the kingdom. As usual this does not ever turn out good.

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

This one I will be lazy on and copy the most accepted commentators there are. But let me offer some advice first. If you actually care what Bible verses mean then it is hard work. Most don't (they only read far enough to justify something they wished to say, but you might so I will explain.

1. Look up the original language use. Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek.
2. Use a Lexicon to determine what the words mean in English.
3. However in cases like with the Greek there are so many descriptive terms that several terms in Greek with different meanings might have only one word in course English to correspond to.
4. Make sure you are not dealing with the 5% at most of the Bible where scribal errors exist. Fortunately they are almost ell known and indicated in all modern Bible's.
5. Then look up at least ten commentaries and see if a Quorum exists.

Anyway you get the drift.

Here is the above verse after having done most of that.

11:3Go to, let us make brick, let us build us a city - The country being a plain, yielded neither stone nor morter, yet that did not discourage them, but they made brick to serve instead of stone, and slime, or pitch, instead of morter.Some think they intended hereby to secure themselves against the waters ofanother flood, but if they had, they would have chosen to build upon a mountain rather than upon a plain. But two things it seems they aimed at in building.

1. To make them a name: they would do something to be talked of byposterity. But they could not gain this point; for we do not find in any history the name of so much as one of these Babel - builders.Philo Judeus saith they engraved every one his name upon a brick; yet neither did that serve their purpose.
2. They did it to prevent their dispersion; lest we be scatteredabroad upon the face of the earth - It was done (saith Josephus) in disobedience to that command, Genesis 9:1 , replenish the earth. God orders them to scatter. No, say they, we will live and die together. In order hereunto they engage themselves and one another in this vast undertaking. That they might unite in one glorious empire, they resolve to build this city and tower, to be the metropolis of their kingdom, and the center of their unity.

11:5And the Lord came down to see the city - 'Tis an expression after the manner of men, he knew it as clearly as men know that which they come upon the place to view. And the tower which the children of men builded - Which speaks,

1. Their weakness and frailty, it was a foolish thing for the children of men, worms of the earth, to defy heaven.
2. Their sinfulness, they were the sons of Adam, so it is in the Hebrew; nay, of that Adam, that sinful disobedient Adam, whose children are by nature children of disobedience.
3. Their distinction from the children of God, from whom those daring builders had separated themselves, and built this tower to support and perpetuate the separation.

11:6And the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language - And if they continue one, much of the earth will be left uninhabited, and these children of men, if thus incorporated, will swallow up the little remnant of God's children, therefore it is decreed they must not be one. And now nothing will be restrained from them - And this is a reason why they must be crossed, in their design.

Man's motive was to a make a name for themselves is usually what people use to defend the idea of hubris. It however ignores the usage of And, which shows a more logical, and even altruistic reasoning...they didn't want to be split up.

They did not want to do what God had dictated they must. It is the same story for all sin. Which form it comes in matters little. Whether in the garden, the flood, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Islam, secularism according to the Bible it is the substitution of man's futile truth for the productive truth of God.

No evidence that the Bible Borrowed from myths? I suppose that comes down to the composition time of the books.

That is sure one of the aspects but the scholars that debate parallelism use far more complex and comprehensive methods than just that. Look up the DR White debate on I parallelism. It is not that long and he is well credentialed master of textual history.

I think the arguments themselves can be better, I have nothing against what you are arguing for.

Most of the arguments I use are from professional theologians like Aquinas and Henry, textual scholars like White and Wright, Philosophers like Craig and Zacharias, scientists like Newton, Vilinken, even Hawking. I am at the mercy of the best data available. The arguments have converted empires, have withstood thousands of years of relentless scrutiny, have routinely embarrassed secular scholars, convinced the most intellectual and skeptical minds in history in al subjects, and have produced the most successful faith in history composed of billions. Considering it is based on the three year career of a person in a minor backwater of a Roman province it is chillingly effective. If there is a weakness I am unaware of it. However we can always wish we had more, but instead I do with what we have and that is plenty.

 

[metis]

Was that an argument?



Of course I do. It is the same as observed cosmology. The Bible posits a finite universe that does not contain the cause for its self, which contains life that is not self causal, is rational, obeys law, is fine tuned for life of any kind, and has constants no natural explanation exists for. That is exactly what is seen.


What you can't track is not my fault. The first sentence concerned BBT. The second BGV. Neither concerned an average or a common but a most accepted and evidenced.


No I am not. I did not say you did not post them. I said I do not remember you doing so. As an orthodox Christian I am most times a one man show and have between 6 and 12 non-theists aiming their venom at me alone. I can't remember every post ever made.

Yep, complete fantasy. I do science every day. I was educated to do so. I work with atomic particles every single day, do you. In fact al the time I have to debate comes as a result of the fact that even application science concerning late 90's technology is not reliable. I have had 12 instruments built as drop in replacements for avionics equipment like targeting systems, rubidium oscillators, $500,000 spectrum analyzers, heads up displays, flight computers, multiplexors, etc.. All 12 have failed. Some time after time. If 90's technology that must works does not work then any claims about tens of billions of years ago, infinity, other universes, etc... is complete speculation. When we can't agree on what took place in pickets charge with a hundred eyewitness battle reports from less than 200 years ago claims about infinity are just silly.



So are fantasies? What separates the two is the quality of evidence they are based on. These infinite things have the worst evidence possible and most have none, and many defy what evidence does exist. Which is why all the explanations of them sooner or later become mostly philosophy and metaphysics not science, and they even get most of the philosophy wrong. My theistic claims have thousands of times the evidence any theoretical cosmological claim does.


No, they are who I get the evidence from and pretty much say what I have. Do you want some of the best scholars in histories quotes concerning evidence, as proof? We can start with the two of the most prestigious experts (if the two) in testimony and evidence in human history if you wish? In fact most of the greatest scientists and those that actually created the fields of science themselves have been men of faith. The greatest scientist in history wrote more on theology than science. This line will not end well for your cause.

I have decided that it's time to part ways, but I want to send one last message to you to apologize for at times being sarcastic with you. I feel it's best to do this because it's not helping either of us, nor anyone else.

Shalom & take care

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What? Why in the world would God be against man's doing something together. He did not strike the Egyptians down. If that was true to any extent it might be because we so often do things together we should not do. Attempting to reach heaven on our own terms instead of the terms the ruler of heaven dictated being one example.


You see they attempted to reach heaven on their own merit and to make a name for themselves when it was Christ's name that was to get people into heaven.

10 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
John 10 NIV - The Good Shepherd and His Sheep - Bible Gateway
This is an analogy. The gate is Christ, The pasture is the kingdom of God. Those that try to get in by some other way are those people who built that tower. God said faith in the messiah will save you. They said screw faith in the messiah we will build a tower and take the kingdom. As usual this does not ever turn out good.

This one I will be lazy on and copy the most accepted commentators there are. But let me offer some advice first. If you actually care what Bible verses mean then it is hard work. Most don't (they only read far enough to justify something they wished to say, but you might so I will explain.

1. Look up the original language use. Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek.
2. Use a Lexicon to determine what the words mean in English.
3. However in cases like with the Greek there are so many descriptive terms that several terms in Greek with different meanings might have only one word in course English to correspond to.
4. Make sure you are not dealing with the 5% at most of the Bible where scribal errors exist. Fortunately they are almost ell known and indicated in all modern Bible's.
5. Then look up at least ten commentaries and see if a Quorum exists.

Anyway you get the drift.

Here is the above verse after having done most of that.

11:3Go to, let us make brick, let us build us a city - The country being a plain, yielded neither stone nor morter, yet that did not discourage them, but they made brick to serve instead of stone, and slime, or pitch, instead of morter.Some think they intended hereby to secure themselves against the waters ofanother flood, but if they had, they would have chosen to build upon a mountain rather than upon a plain. But two things it seems they aimed at in building.

1. To make them a name: they would do something to be talked of byposterity. But they could not gain this point; for we do not find in any history the name of so much as one of these Babel - builders.Philo Judeus saith they engraved every one his name upon a brick; yet neither did that serve their purpose.
2. They did it to prevent their dispersion; lest we be scatteredabroad upon the face of the earth - It was done (saith Josephus) in disobedience to that command, Genesis 9:1 , replenish the earth. God orders them to scatter. No, say they, we will live and die together. In order hereunto they engage themselves and one another in this vast undertaking. That they might unite in one glorious empire, they resolve to build this city and tower, to be the metropolis of their kingdom, and the center of their unity.

11:5And the Lord came down to see the city - 'Tis an expression after the manner of men, he knew it as clearly as men know that which they come upon the place to view. And the tower which the children of men builded - Which speaks,

1. Their weakness and frailty, it was a foolish thing for the children of men, worms of the earth, to defy heaven.
2. Their sinfulness, they were the sons of Adam, so it is in the Hebrew; nay, of that Adam, that sinful disobedient Adam, whose children are by nature children of disobedience.
3. Their distinction from the children of God, from whom those daring builders had separated themselves, and built this tower to support and perpetuate the separation.

11:6And the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language - And if they continue one, much of the earth will be left uninhabited, and these children of men, if thus incorporated, will swallow up the little remnant of God's children, therefore it is decreed they must not be one. And now nothing will be restrained from them - And this is a reason why they must be crossed, in their design.

They did not want to do what God had dictated they must. It is the same story for all sin. Which form it comes in matters little. Whether in the garden, the flood, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Islam, secularism according to the Bible it is the substitution of man's futile truth for the productive truth of God.

That is sure one of the aspects but the scholars that debate parallelism use far more complex and comprehensive methods than just that. Look up the DR White debate on I parallelism. It is not that long and he is well credentialed master of textual history.

Most of the arguments I use are from professional theologians like Aquinas and Henry, textual scholars like White and Wright, Philosophers like Craig and Zacharias, scientists like Newton, Vilinken, even Hawking. I am at the mercy of the best data available. The arguments have converted empires, have withstood thousands of years of relentless scrutiny, have routinely embarrassed secular scholars, convinced the most intellectual and skeptical minds in history in al subjects, and have produced the most successful faith in history composed of billions. Considering it is based on the three year career of a person in a minor backwater of a Roman province it is chillingly effective. If there is a weakness I am unaware of it. However we can always wish we had more, but instead I do with what we have and that is plenty.

Of course it has, because it allows one to create qualifications for what God is. That is going to be successful. The arguments however have not really actually been challenged until the start of the 19th century and there were plenty of arguments around but threats of being called a heretic pushed them down, I'm sure you know of them.

As for your point in the Tower of Babel, again you are relying on commentary yet not what is being said

The version I quoted was the NIV

Here's the KJV

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

here's the Lexham Version

Then[e] Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower that humankind[f] was building. 6 And Yahweh said, “Behold, they are one people with one language,[g] and this is only the beginning of what they will do.[h] So now nothing that they intend to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand each other’s language.

Here's the New American Standard
The Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have [d]the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be [e]impossible for them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their [f]language, so that they will not understand one another’s [g]speech.

THe Good News Translation

5 Then the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which they had built, 6 and he said, “Now then, these are all one people and they speak one language; this is just the beginning of what they are going to do. Soon they will be able to do anything they want! 7 Let us go down and mix up their language so that they will not understand each other.”

The Orthodox Jewish Bible

And they said, Come, let us build us an Ir and a Migdal, whose rosh (top) may reach unto Shomayim; and let us make us a shem, otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of kol HaAretz.
5 And Hashem came down to see the Ir and the Migdal, which Bnei HaAdam built.
6 And Hashem said, See, the Am is echad and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be impossible for them, which they have proposed to do.
7 Come, let Us go down, and there confuse their sefat, that they may not understand one another’s language.

Complete Jewish Bible

Adonai came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 Adonai said, “Look, the people are united, they all have a single language, and see what they’re starting to do! At this rate, nothing they set out to accomplish will be impossible for them! 7 Come, let’s go down and confuse their language, so that they won’t understand each other’s speech.” 8 So from there Adonai scattered them all over the earth, and they stopped building the city.

In all of these God makes the claim "Nothing will be impossible for them"

That is the main concern, not "they are not multiplying" it's just assumed in commentary that is what is meant...but here we have the words of God themselves making the exclamation in quotations...and again we get the third usage of US from God...though I guess it's the royal use of US?

 

[1robin]

I have decided that it's time to part ways, but I want to send one last message to you to apologize for at times being sarcastic with you. I feel it's best to do this because it's not helping either of us, nor anyone else.

Shalom & take care

I apologize as well. I never intend to be sarcastic and always limit it but at times things get a little frustrating. No hard feelings and Selah,