No Lions and Tigers were on Noah’s Ark

[Tumah]

How do you know?

You're assuming deceptive forces at work that can create evidence for whatever they want and that we can't detect as false. How can you trust your judgement of anything?

I'm not making a judgment call. The verse in Isaiah 45:7 is in present tense, not past tense. Its not deceptive, the info is right there in Isaiah.

 

[Tumah]

Yes! Shall we found a new religion starting with now as the creation date?

Good luck to you.

 

[ArtieE]

No the dimension thing was just to explain how the light could be said to come from a star that is further away then the time limit allows. In reality, I'm talking about the process of emanationism that took place in an instant. So that when the emanation ended with the spontaneous corporeality of the universe, the process of emanationism translated from its spiritual dimension into the physical meant a star here and its light already over there.

So your god had already created a spiritual universe existing in a spiritual dimension with the spiritual equivalents of atoms and photons etc and just changed those spiritual atoms and photons into our atoms and photons? Or was there a spiritual big bang and he just waited until the right time and turned the spiritual atoms and photons into ours?

 

[Tumah]

So your god had already created a spiritual universe existing in a spiritual dimension with the spiritual equivalents of atoms and photons etc and just changed those spiritual atoms and photons into our atoms and photons? Or was there a spiritual big bang and he just waited until the right time and turned the spiritual atoms and photons into ours?

No. Go learn about emanationism first, then try to put the ideas that I discussed here into that context and then ask me the problems that you have left.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not making a judgment call. The verse in Isaiah 45:7 is in present tense, not past tense. Its not deceptive, the info is right there in Isaiah.

How do you know that Isaiah 45:7 actually exists? A deceiving spirit could have materialized the light en route to your eye to just make it appear to you like it was reflected off a book.

 

[Tumah]

How do you know that Isaiah 45:7 actually exists? A deceiving spirit could have materialized the light en route to your eye to just make it appear to you like it was reflected off a book.

First we'd have to establish the existence of "deceiving spirits" for it to be relevant, I think.
But even if that were true, so what?

 

[dust1n]

No the dimension thing was just to explain how the light could be said to come from a star that is further away then the time limit allows. In reality, I'm talking about the process of emanationism that took place in an instant. So that when the emanation ended with the spontaneous corporeality of the universe, the process of emanationism translated from its spiritual dimension into the physical meant a star here and its light already over there.

Yeah, sorry, just sounds like magic to me. It would be impossible for me to conceive of a process happening in an instant, or why I would call it a process at all then, since the process was obviously unnecessary in the formation of the observation. I would be probably even more impossible to find any validity to it, or even value from it. Thanks for answering my questions though.

 

[Tumah]

Yeah, sorry, just sounds like magic to me. It would be impossible for me to conceive of a process happening in an instant, or why I would call it a process at all then, since the process was obviously unnecessary in the formation of the observation. I would be probably even more impossible to find any validity to it, or even value from it. Thanks for answering my questions though.

Actually the process is integral in the formation of the observation. That's where emanationism comes in.
For my purposes here on the forums, the value is in its ability to provide an explanation that fits the Jewish year with the scientifically observable year. (There is other value to it in a Jewish context, that is not relevant here.)

 

[Ouroboros]

I have it! I get it all now! I know how the ark fit two of every species AND had room to bring food for all of them to boot!

Time Lord technology! It all makes perfect sense now. God is a Time Lord!

Yup. Actually, Jesus is the Doctor. And I saw an article once arguing it based on a Bible verse, so there.

 

[ArtieE]

No. Go learn about emanationism first, then try to put the ideas that I discussed here into that context and then ask me the problems that you have left.

Dagnabbit. I thought you were a creationist but you are opposed to creationism. I have to start over again...

 

[Tumah]

Dagnabbit. I thought you were a creationist but you are opposed to creationism. I have to start over again...

I am a creationist. The process of creation that I believe in is called emanationism.

 

[ArtieE]

First we'd have to establish the existence of "deceiving spirits" for it to be relevant, I think.
But even if that were true, so what?

Has the existence of your god been established and if not is he relevant?

 

[Tumah]

Has the existence of your god been established and if not is he relevant?

For me, yes. For me, yes.

 

[ArtieE]

I am a creationist. The process of creation that I believe in is called emanationism.

Now I'm terminally confused. Your link clearly states: "Emanationism is a transcendent principle from which everything is derived, and is opposed [opposed] to both Creationism (wherein the universe is created by a sentient God who is separate from creation) and materialism (which posits no underlying subjective and/or ontological nature behind phenomena being immanent)." My emphasis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First we'd have to establish the existence of "deceiving spirits" for it to be relevant, I think.

We need to take them as given to accept what you've claimed so far. If you don't want to do this, great... but then you're going to need to start your argument from the beginning and justify this assumption.

But even if that were true, so what?

So then the worldview you propose undermines all justifications, and therefore undermines its own justification.

 

[Tumah]

Now I'm terminally confused. Your link clearly states: "Emanationism is a transcendent principle from which everything is derived, and is opposed [opposed] to both Creationism (wherein the universe is created by a sentient God who is separate from creation) and materialism (which posits no underlying subjective and/or ontological nature behind phenomena being immanent)." My emphasis.

Hmmm, I hear you. So maybe emanationism requires that G-d be immanent, and the typical Christian understanding of Creationism requires transcendence. But both are describing ways that the universe was created by a First Cause.

 

[dust1n]

Actually the process is integral in the formation of the observation. That's where emanationism comes in.

I can even begin to get any meaningful out of this.

For my purposes here on the forums, the value is in its ability to provide an explanation that fits the Jewish year with the scientifically observable year. (There is other value to it in a Jewish context, that is not relevant here.)

I guess that makes sense then, as I have no interest or particular reason to provide an explanation of the Jewish year that fits the scientifically observable year, it follows that anything attempt to resolve those two things have little value to me. I have no skin in the game, as they say.

 

[Tumah]

We need to take them as given to accept what you've claimed so far. If you don't want to do this, great... but then you're going to need to start your argument from the beginning and justify this assumption.

I don't see why this should be true. Because something was not given to my immediate perception, means that it must be deceptive. Since how car engines work is not readily perceptible does that mean engineers are deceptive?

So then the worldview you propose undermines all justifications, and therefore undermines its own justification.

Undermines justification of what?

 

[Tumah]

I can even begin to get any meaningful out of this.

I'm just saying that emanationism (the process that we were discussing, going from the Singular to the Diverse) is integral to the formation of the observation. It is the reason why the observable is the way it is.

I guess that makes sense then, as I have no interest or particular reason to provide an explanation of the Jewish year that fits the scientifically observable year, it follows that anything attempt to resolve those two things have little value to me. I have no skin in the game, as they say.

Pretty much. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I'm just showing that I have an answer too.

 

[dust1n]

I'm just saying that emanationism (the process that we were discussing, going from the Singular to the Diverse) is integral to the formation of the observation. It is the reason why the observable is the way it is.

Well, it's a conjecture for the reason why the observable is the way it is, but it seems to be of little importance whether this actually be established or not, or proven, or even supported in any manner.

Pretty much. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I'm just showing that I have an answer too.

That's why I asked.