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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I do not revere anything men make. Revere is short for reverence which is reserved for God. I do respect and admire many things men of science have produced. I am not sure science has produced the bulk of what we know but as It makes little difference then fine. However it has abjectly failed in the most profound aspects I have mentioned. The method of concepts like error correction you think are admirable are common to virtually every scholarly field in existence. Concepts learned about by common sense and present in all areas of life are great but nothing special in science.
That was not my list. Here is the first one that pops up.
Yet again you are warping what I said into something you hope is easier to contend with. How many times is this? I never said it would be fine, I said it was better. Even if true is the emotional impact of riding on the back of a bus is not a big price to pay for saving a million babies a year, restoring tens of thousands of families to two (man and a women) parents, saving a hundred thousand teens from being pregnant, stopping 20 thousand babies from being born addicted to crack, putting 20 trillion back into where ever we borrowed it from to fund a million giveaways that increased dependence used to buy poor folks votes (much of it stolen from SS), and getting a hundred thousands kids off dope used to make them less sensitive to the BS going on around them. If Christianity was completely followed and not just a foundational concept in the 50's then even racism (all men ar born equal) and womens rights would have been where they should have been. The gay rights agenda is going the wrong way. All this while defeating two of teh Earths greatest empires decisively. We no longer even have the moral courage or certainty with secularism to win one against a pathetic force of Jihadists that in our secular omnipotence the administration will not even call terrorist acts many times. By the way the same PC crap that produced man made disasters instead of terrorism also stopped the people who knew those Boston bombers from reporting them. Afraid of being called an Islamaphobe got 200 people messed up. Yet the thing that gets the goat is that even after it happens instead of admitting the mistake and fixing it will be explained away and made worse. This will not end well and is obviously headed in that direction at an ever increasing rate. The wreck rolls on below:
None of this was on my list and my list whether you liked it or not was the context my statement was in.
That is like telling a child when asked why did you spank me, the ballistics of the belt. Or when a prisoner asks what am I doing in jail explaining the rigidity coefficients and tensile strength of the steel bars. Don't think that I am claiming that any disease is a specific punishment on any one. I claim that nature was perfect until it fell and God stopped sustaining it. All of creation is broken and we through rebellion are now almost always at natures blind mercy. My claims are very general and not applied to any one person.
Where did the flood come from? Did I mention it? There is quite a lot of evidence for a flood. However I am leaning towards a symbolic understanding of the story in the last few years. The Pentateuch is in my opinion by far the least understood (interpreted reliably) of any of the Bible. It is very hard to determine what is literal and what is symbolic because there is no written history to corroborate it with. I usually only draw general conclusion from these book unless the interpretation is obvious. God did not make planet before light. Is this really what you think is an argument. If you allow that God could both produce plants and produce suns is it really an argument to suggest he is bound by photosynthesis. Not that that is even a problem as the light (not the sun) was created on day one. The exact same light that will light heaven for eternity. The sun nor even the oceans will be needed on the new earth. This is of course shocking to our finite limited minds but is it really too hard for a God that invented nuclear fusion or love and created Canis Majoris?
That is the worst comeback for this I have ever heard or is even possible I think.
I never said they did it all, I said they are very disproportionately represented in the big issues in scientific history. BTW Islam only made progress because they kept alive Greek teachings and added a little to them. They were also good in medicine. It however is less than imagined because the Catholics were going the opposite direct for many years.
That certainly explains a lot. I am in defense technology and am not allowed or at least warned not to be specific but I see science in all its glory and miserable failure every single day.
Actually aliens may very well exist. I know of nothing that prevents them from existing. When I speak negatively about them I mean any roll they have had with Earth and humanity. BY the way what is it you think about my personal testimony and that of billions of other Christians that claim to have experienced God. Are we all lying? If dear to your heart that should be of vital importance. Well Book two volume thirty seven in the bank. Next.
Where did you come from? I thought I was in the wrong thread. You might actually want to stay in this one because I think you are right about this one, and I will correct my claim (and maybe get out of the other one where you are all over the place). It was something I heard long ago and I should have investigated further. However this does nothing to make life more probable without God.
It is not fair for you to use 1 word for every 100 I use. I type all that good stuff and you say nu-uh. I cant keep up volume wise with you even if we use the same amount of words. At this ratio I will have to quit work and hire a court reporter.
Now that is science. We are so God isnt. Glad we go that figured out.
That is not what my site said. It did not even include order which makes things even far worse. It only used the number of LH amino acids for a simplistic protein.
Would you please be so kind as to point me to the post where you showed the math for all probability claims?
The first part of that is an accurate scientific claim. The second part is a assumption based on preference which is not derived from it's premise even theoretically.
Now you are assuming why he assumed. It just keeps piling up.
No, the chances that most lotteries are won is one in one. The chances you get life form non life are similar to the same person winning 1000 consecutive lotteries. What your doing is even worse. You see a man with 100 billion dollars and assume he got it by winning the lottery 1000 times in a row. I look at the man and say well since your proposition is virtually impossible then he must have earned or inherited it. I may be wrong but all the probabilities are on my side. The chances God exists are probably greater than 1 in 2.
As I explained to even get to what you need (right or wrong) there must be a series of even vastly more improbable events piled on one another as I explained in post 1080.
In Physics it is a common practice (a rule) that anything with greater than 1 in 10^50 can be considered zero and dismissed. There are dozens and dozens of contingent probabilities that each are thousands of orders of magnitude worse and they must all be multiplied together which gives a number trillions and trillions of orders of magnitude larger. If life arose on its own it would be a greater miracle but require far greater faith given far less evidence than my faith does. This has been compared to a bunch of monkeys typing Shakespeare (it is actually more like typing everything that ever was written a trillion times). However only someone who looks through the lens of preference would find a copy of King Lear and say look what a bunch of Monkeys did, there is no human Author.
Why don't you find some life in a lab and quit woryying about one of it's vast numbers of components that no one ever said did not exist in space? If you find a rock in space it does not prove the pyramids self assembled. In fact it is of no use what so ever in the debate.
It would be nice to get these pointers but s/he clearly demonstrated to be intellectually dishonest, some would even go a step further and say intellectually challenged.
#1015
I think you need to stop making apples and oranges comparisons between self-replicating organisms and inanimate objects. It obfuscates the discussion.
Again, I think this is usually brought up as a response to special pleading than anything else. I think the question of "if God created the Universe then what created God" is really just a demonstration of that logical fault, and clearly illustrates that assuming the intervention of some divine agency isn't really answering the question. The response that "God is eternal" demonstrates that the claim itself is a form of special pleading, since the response that usually follows is "well, then the Universe can be eternal, therefore no act of creation is required, therefore God is not a logical conclusion".