Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One can always hope. I hope that I won the lotto!! It is probably more likely.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And yet you cannot name even one. Why am I not surprised?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Post again. I always like a good laugh.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you laughing at your own inability to support your claims? That is funny. I have to agree with you there.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So you messed up for the umpteenth time.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that would be you.
Oh, and just for fun I just refuted your "induction" argument by demonstrating that it was based upon a false premise. Do you understand logic at all? Do you know what a false premise is?
Then why is there is so much ambiguity? So much divide? So many variations and religions that separated because of the bible(s)?
Why are you still throwing rocks at people claiming that they are damned?
Let me point out (as I should have when you first posted this) that you have a long way to go before you understand the meaning of the word "proof."
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I can't guess what you think I meant by undirected happenstance, but it most certainly is the current scientific paradigm.
While Newton's deterministic universe was and is useful on humanities narrow little island of experience, as far as a theory of reality, as Einstein has shown, it fails.
The current paradigm is a non-deterministic theory of reality -hence the undirected - spear headed by quantum indeterminacies - hence the happenstance.
The phrase would actually be diametrically opposed to religious motivation if by religion you mean faith in intelligent direction in creation of our universe.
Actually the current consensus in science is that quantum fluctuations can produce uncalculatable phenomena. Effects without causes if you will.
Of course if you want to marry the science with religion then you might say some scientists have faith that there are simply unknown/unknowable variables at play.
Abiogenesis is one of those things reliant upon variables which themselves are reliant upon quantum uncertainties (happenstance). The narrow range of outcome would be the quantum uncertainties collectively producing a particular result (Abiogenesis). And from the studies I've read about, that narrow range is actually against undirected Abiogenesis not for it....so far as probabilities go. The debate continues though.
We must keep in mind though that most scientists consider the probability of life fundamentally arising from non-life to be 100% simply because the idea of intelligent design is anathema not that they've proven something. The probabilistic arguments then become only about how life naturally arose not how improbable a purely natural cause is.
I'd have to disagree but perhaps you have some references to clarify how fractals relate to certainty of phenomena?
For one thing, while fractals statistically repeat exactly in a mathematically controlled environment there are no true fractals in fundamental nature though there may be statistical similarities. Fractals in nature do not repeat exactly and Quantum indeterminacy causes uncertainty in any naturally occurring fractal pattern.
Searching for patterns in nature tells us nothing about how those patterns fundamentally began in the first place or whether or not they will continue. For that we must look elsewhere.
As I've said your above here has been disproven by quantum theory. Your thinking in Newtonian terms which for all intents and purposes is only predictively useful for the mundane macroscopic scale of human experience. I believe sustained by God for human survival in the creation it made for us.
I wonder why people on here always have to point out how self assured they are of their opinions.Yeah, yeah I'm off the mark again. Probability is THE fundamental tool of science. That's indisputable.
There isn't a field in science that doesn't fundamentally rely on probability theory. Remove the use of probability in cause and effect estimates in science and you've rendered scientific prediction impotent.
Every effect observed in nature has a cause correlatively calculated with probability. Even those that we may consider or think to be obviously correlated. That is due to the inherent limitations of human nature and the fundamental nature of reality. There isn't a lot of scientists willing to say that a particular effect from some cause is 100% probable at subatomic levels of reality. Higher probabilities may be calculated with larger data sets but not with 100% predictability.
No...I'd say you have it backwards. Theological speculation is based on God/gods and a correlating creation existing. God isn't an effect of theological speculation if God exists but rather its cause - the natural proclivity of such a creation to be to know God . At least in Christian belief. Now, if God/gods don't exist then theological speculation may be the cause of the idea of God existing but not Gods actual existence.
Agreed, except I don't believe there was a "range" of possible outcomes. I believe that God created with 100% probability of known outcome from its perspective.
The driving force is speculative and arguable. I don't think that if the same fundamental ingredients are available for another planet similar to earth it in any way will make anything concerning life likely.
Not familiar with that idea of god.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not know what they knew. I only know what they wrote.
You know what they wrote but how do you know what they thought and what they knew?
How do you know that the words describing God in the Old Testament are wrong?
You'd have to know what God is like and what God did in order to know what God is not like and what God did not do.
Some Bible verses have clear meanings while others are ambiguous or vague, but even those verses that have clear meanings need to be read in the context of the chapter.
There is no reason to believe that all the words in the Old Testament are describing literal events that took place. Christians do not even agree as to whether the stories are literal or fictional.
God sent a big fish, some call it a whale, to swallow Jonah and to save him from drowning. While in the belly of the big fish (whale), Jonah prayed to God for help, repented, and praised God. For three days Jonah sat in the belly of the fish. Then, God had the big fish throw up Jonah onto the shores of Nineveh.
Jonah and The Whale - Bible Story Verses & Meaning
The final position is that the story of Jonah is to be taken as literal history, but some problems with dating the events and the miracles described in the book have been taken by some critics as an argument against a literal interpretation (Bullock 53-57).Jun 18, 2017
The Story of Jonah as Allegory, Parable or History?
The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a 'great fish' is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point.Is the story of Jonah and the whale a myth?
I know you don't believe in any gods since you stated that clearly. I only said that you sound as if you believe in the Abrahamic God.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Jonah is of course historical. Satan has deceived very many with the no God assumption.I do not know what they knew. I only know what they wrote.
You know what they wrote but how do you know what they thought, what they knew?
How do you know that the words describing God in the Old Testament are wrong? You'd have to know what God is like and what God did in order to know what God is not like and what God did not do.
Some Bible verses have clear meanings while others are ambiguous or vague, but even those verses that have clear meanings need to be read in the context of the chapter.
There is no reason to believe that all the words in the Old Testament are describing literal events that took place. Christians do not even agree as to whether the stories are literal or fictional.
God sent a big fish, some call it a whale, to swallow Jonah and to save him from drowning. While in the belly of the big fish (whale), Jonah prayed to God for help, repented, and praised God. For three days Jonah sat in the belly of the fish. Then, God had the big fish throw up Jonah onto the shores of Nineveh.
Jonah and The Whale - Bible Story Verses & Meaning
www.biblestudytools.com
The final position is that the story of Jonah is to be taken as literal history, but some problems with dating the events and the miracles described in the book have been taken by some critics as an argument against a literal interpretation (Bullock 53-57).Jun 18, 2017
The Story of Jonah as Allegory, Parable or History?
The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a 'great fish' is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point.
Is the story of Jonah and the whale a myth?
I know you don't believe in any gods since you stated that clearly. I only said that you sound as if you believe in the Abrahamic God.
God Almighty could have easily done that miracle.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Prove it.
I do not believe in Satan.
It does not matter what God could have done, it only matters what God actually did.
Explain how with no assumptions.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Why do you think otherwise?
Do you answer everything with a question?
And yes I do think otherwise. Satan is a made up character used to threaten people. Prove me wrong.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Why do you think I answer every question with a question?
Exhibit A
According to a story in a book that isn't fact-based. So we throw out literalist interpretations. What else do you have?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not seem to know what "historical" means. No, Jonah is clearly not historical. He is only mentioned in the Bible, which is of course a mixture of myths, legends and a just a little history.