Irony of the evolutionary belief

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, what is God speaking to you? What reference in the Bible are we talking about and what do you say it means?

God does not speak to people, including me. If you have a specific question, I will do my best to answer. But I'm not sure what you are asking.

 

[ElishaElijah]

God does not speak to people, including me. If you have a specific question, I will do my best to answer. But I'm not sure what you are asking.

You were saying it’s “my interpretation” of what God says, but you don’t even know about what and you are deaf to the voice of God.
You do your best to answer what?
You shouldn’t have said anything because you know nothing on this subject.
But know this, God does speak to people.
Why would anyone serve a God who is dead and doesn’t speak?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You were saying it’s “my interpretation” of what God says, but you don’t even know about what and you are deaf to the voice of God.
You do your best to answer what?
You shouldn’t have said anything because you know nothing on this subject.
But know this, God does speak to people.
Why would anyone serve a God who is dead and doesn’t speak?

I first replied to a post of yours, where you said: "That is exactly the case, by what people communicate about the Bible who “claim” they read and studied it prove by their comments that they don’t understand and walking in the dark." I replied that it was baloney. You are clearly attacking people who have studied the bible but simply interpret it differently than you. I have done a good job making that point. It did not involve any other biblical topic or verses. It addressed one issue only -- your implicit claim (via the quotation marks around "claim" they read) that your interlocutors have not actually read the Bible, which is nonsense. It is a groundless accusation against people who simply interpret differently than you, and stems from your arrogantly inflated view that your own interpretations are the voice of God.

Now, you seem to want me to answer some sort of question. But I have no idea what the question or topic even is, since it obviously is something other than the topic we have discussed previously. Please state your question, and be explicit, and I will do my best to answer.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I first replied to a post of yours, where you said: "That is exactly the case, by what people communicate about the Bible who “claim” they read and studied it prove by their comments that they don’t understand and walking in the dark." I replied that it was baloney. You are clearly attacking people who have studied the bible but simply interpret it differently than you. I have done a good job making that point. It did not involve any other biblical topic or verses. It addressed one issue only -- your implicit claim (via the quotation marks around "claim" they read) that your interlocutors have not actually read the Bible, which is nonsense. It is a groundless accusation against people who simply interpret differently than you, and stems from your arrogantly inflated view that your own interpretations are the voice of God.

Now, you seem to want me to answer some sort of question. But I have no idea what the question or topic even is, since it obviously is something other than the topic we have discussed previously. Please state your question, and be explicit, and I will do my best to answer.

If someone has no relationship with God, doesn’t believe He exists, or a person has never heard or had a conversation with God, who is the Author of the Bible, tries to tell me they read and understand what He said and meant in the Bible.
When I look at their comment and it’s obvious to me they have no idea what they are talking about. I do know and talk to Him, I understand what He said in the Bible, I know what He expects of me, I know Him, not as much as I want to but more and more every day.
He shows me things, directs my steps, works through me. This is a great priviledge that’s available to everyone that comes to God through Jesus Christ and is born again.
If you believe it’s baloney then tell of your relationship and show your wisdom and understanding of the Bible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If someone has no relationship with God, doesn’t believe He exists, or a person has never heard or had a conversation with God, who is the Author of the Bible, tries to tell me they read and understand what He said and meant in the Bible.

Someone can read your sacred texts and fully understand them, and yet still reject them.

When I look at their comment and it’s obvious to me they have no idea what they are talking about.

See here is where your arrogance kicks in. Sure you do find occasional people who have genuine problems with reading comprehension. But most people are fully literate these days. For you to say "they don't know what they are talking about" simply because they have a different take, is just chutzpah on your part.

If you believe it’s baloney then tell of your relationship and show your wisdom and understanding of the Bible.

I'm a fairly regular chatter in here.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Someone can read your sacred texts and fully understand them, and yet still reject them.

Well, please start doing that, because so far they haven’t.
That’s the height of arrogance, hey your Dad said such and such and this is what He meant. I say no it isn’t because this is what He means by that.
Then you argue with me but don’t even know the particular subject, lol.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, please start doing that, because so far they haven’t.
That’s the height of arrogance, hey your Dad said such and such and this is what He meant. I say no it isn’t because this is what He means by that.
Then you argue with me but don’t even know the particular subject, lol.

Correct. I wasn't debating you on any particular topic. I was commenting on your pattern of insufferably arrogant remarks to others, such as implying that in fact they had not read the texts in question.

At any rate, I've made my point. My expectation is that you will not alter your behavior, because you have no insight into your problem. But as I'm simply repeating myself, it serves no purpose to continue the discussion. If you would like to have the last word, that's fine, but I won't be replying further on this matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, please start doing that, because so far they haven’t.
That’s the height of arrogance, hey your Dad said such and such and this is what He meant. I say no it isn’t because this is what He means by that.
Then you argue with me but don’t even know the particular subject, lol.

I'd like to mention something here. Some time ago something happened and I was there. One of the persons present , a rather well known figure, reported the discussion. It was not true as to what was said, but since it happened a while back, did not impact anything important, can't be proved as to what was actually said (no tape recorders) and where, I realize from that history can definitely be distorted and histories can omit important occurrences.
Further, a lawyer I worked for told me a while ago that the reason depositions are taken is because people forget what they say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, so on the right we have creationist making a case for intelligent design and on the left we have physics, cause and effect scenarios, and an evolution of consciousness ... I think that's the argument, anyway. Question: Does this matter? What will an answer profit us?

The answers of the left will give us understanding, technology and progress.
The "answers" of the right will keep us ignorant and celebrate gullibility.

 

[shunyadragon]

The cookie cutter rendition of intelligent design may seem to be a stretch, but ... that's not to suggest an impossibility. My pan en theistic view as understood by myself may be similar to Vedic philosophy or Gaia, but It's panentheism or a branch of panentheism. To answer directly.

I never indicated it is and "impossibility." The problem is ID is a "subjective Theological proposal and belief." This makes it a non-scientific claim that cannot be falsified by scientific methods.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is the arrogant comment that deserves the no you haven’t read, studied or understood the Bible if this is your conclusion.

* Well, yes it easy to make up anything you want when you believe in ancient tribal religions, such as a literal belief in the Bible. You can believe a world flood, dragons a diverse selection of Gods, other supernatural creatures, or a universe less than 10,000 years old. Yes this is the belief of those that wrote and compiled the Pentateuch and believed by the authors of the NT of the whole meaning tof the text. This represents why ancient tribal world views are totally disconnected with the reality of the real universe we know through science and history today. Christians try to desperately deal with the contradictions with just plain denial, and many different interpretations to justify this conundrum, which is unresolvable.

Nice citation in bold of my post, which is vary factual and you have failed to respond.

 

[shunyadragon]

The cookie cutter models of perception are not a foreign method of discourse, obviously. I offered you my view, to which you reject based on a cookie cut model of what you choose to utilize as a source for your disagreement.

Nothing "cookie cutter" about my responses. I disagree with your beliefs and view, but this is not a rejection as such, it is a disagreement between two subjective world views. Actually when you consider the actual definition of "Panentheism" my belief as those of the Baha'i Faith.

The problem remains the issue of "Intelligent Design" which I responded to again in post #1.851.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I never indicated it is and "impossibility." The problem is ID is a "subjective Theological proposal and belief." This makes it a non-scientific claim that cannot be falsified by scientific methods.

So this is the world we live in and this has been the case as recorded since any records have existed from human beings, this has not changed:
What has changed is the scientific interpretation of natural selection.

”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.“
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭31‬ ‭ESV‬‬

 

[ElishaElijah]

Nice citation in bold of my post, which is vary factual and you have failed to respond.

I responded, did you fail to read and understand what I wrote? When you read Proverbs are you saying it’s disconnected from reality, or Isaiah 53,
Or Daniel? By the way, the prophecies of Daniel have been fulfilled up to the feet of the statue from the dream God gave the king.
Are you familiar with these?

 

[Balthazzar]

I never indicated it is and "impossibility." The problem is ID is a "subjective Theological proposal and belief." This makes it a non-scientific claim that cannot be falsified by scientific methods.

I was speaking specifically to your suggestion that my understanding of panentheism wasn't panentheism. You applied a pre cut model to my own understanding, which I disagreed with as a panentheist.

Intelligent design isn't scientifically verifiable, but is its counter part scientifically verifiable, particularly after your admittance to the possibility being viable? At least, you claimed you didn't claim it wasn't possible, just unverifiable.

Edit: Thus far, your argument rests in an opposition to other common views of intelligent design, suggesting that a hands on type of outer worldly entity does not interfere with life on earth. My premise is that the universe is full of life, that this world is connected to other worlds much like a brain and how its synapses connect with other synapses in it. This type of transfer of energy from one synapse to the others, universally speaking would equate to outer worldly influence and intervention. I personally call the whole of existence, including every potential synapse or planet with intelligent life, God, the Universe, the All.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was speaking specifically to your suggestion that my understanding of panentheism wasn't panentheism. You applied a pre cut model to my own understanding, which I disagreed with as a panentheist.

Intelligent design isn't scientifically verifiable, but is its counter part scientifically verifiable, particularly after your admittance to the possibility being viable? At least, you claimed you didn't claim it wasn't possible, just unverifiable.

There is a problem with the vague assumption something is possible or impossible. This is an open ended consideration that is difficult to deal with and as a matter of fact unanswerable. .

As far as the counterpoint from the scientific perspective the advocates of Intelligent Design have failed to present anything they call irreducible Complexity that has not demonstrated scientifically as explained complexity by scientific methods. They often look for "gaps" in the knowledge of science to 'argue from ignorance' that because the scientific knowledge is incomplete therefore science cannot explain the complexity.

Also the advocates of ID have failed to present a positive evidence based hypothesis that would be falsifiable by scientific methods.

 

[Balthazzar]

There is a problem with the vague assumption something is possible or impossible. This is an open ended consideration that is difficult to deal with and as a matter of fact unanswerable. .

As far as the counterpoint from the scientific perspective the advocates of Intelligent Design have failed to present anything they call irreducible Complexity that has not demonstrated scientifically as explained complexity by scientific methods. They often look for "gaps" in the knowledge of science to 'argue from ignorance' that because the scientific knowledge is incomplete therefore science cannot explain the complexity.

Also the advocates of ID have failed to present a positive evidence based hypothesis that would be falsifiable by scientific methods.

I added an edit to my previous post. I'm looking at the universe as if it were a brain, and the planets with life as synapses, through which information/energy is passed from one synapse to another via synaptic transmission. Through these channels "God" intervention could take place, much like it happens from person to person on earth. It's a known and well understood reality that we as conscious beings influence and effect our environments and life. It seems more plausible to presume that the same dynamic takes place across the universe.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Also the advocates of ID have failed to present a positive evidence based hypothesis that would be falsifiable by scientific methods.

Who ever said we had to? I don’t operate from theory but realty and facts. This also could change, like science does quite often.

Does Science Need Falsifiability?

Scientists are rethinking the fundamental principle that scientific theories must make testable predictions.

www.pbs.org

 

[shunyadragon]

I responded, did you fail to read and understand what I wrote? When you read Proverbs are you saying it’s disconnected from reality, or Isaiah 53,
Or Daniel? By the way, the prophecies of Daniel have been fulfilled up to the feet of the statue from the dream God gave the king.
Are you familiar with these?

I did not fail to read your post. Your citation of me is a legitimate killing post for your argument based on assumption from ancient tribal text without provenance.

* Well, yes it easy to make up anything you want when you believe in ancient tribal religions, such as a literal belief in the Bible. You can believe a world flood, dragons a diverse selection of Gods, other supernatural creatures, or a universe less than 10,000 years old. Yes this is the belief of those that wrote and compiled the Pentateuch and believed by the authors of the NT of the whole meaning tof the text. This represents why ancient tribal world views are totally disconnected with the reality of the real universe we know through science and history today. Christians try to desperately deal with the contradictions with just plain denial, and many different interpretations to justify this conundrum, which is unresolvable.

Nice citation in bold of my post, which is vary factual and you have failed to respond.

Who ever said we had to? I don’t operate from theory but realty and facts. This also could change, like science does quite often.

Does Science Need Falsifiability?

Scientists are rethinking the fundamental principle that scientific theories must make testable predictions.

www.pbs.org

Theory? Too vague. You do not operate from the perspective of science, archaeology and academic history.

Yes science does frequently chage based on new objective evidence and information. You are misusing the concept of the evolving nature of knowledge to justify an ancient text without any basis in science. Science is not going to go back and change the falsifiable facts of an cient earth, universe and life billions of years old.

It will also not change the facts in th ebould above. The basic foundation of science and the facts does not change, and universally supported sciences of evolution.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes science does frequently chage based on new objective evidence and information. You are misusing the concept of the evolving nature of knowledge to justify an ancient text without any basis in science. Science is not going to go back and change the falsifiable facts of an cient earth, universe and life billions of years old.

Except science doesn’t prove things

Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

www.psychologytoday.com

Are you positive about science not going back on life being billions of years old?