which is way i have no issue admitting my intent.
-
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!
There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.
- Thread starter Serenity7855
- Start date
TheGunShoj
Active Member
I know that you know
That was intended more for Serenity without having to directly address him. I don't want to go down that road again.
Stovepipe_Hat
One who will die.
The general idea I get is that atheists duck behind the position that they make no claims. Yet we can't deny there are serious problems with all religious cosmologies, which are untestable at best, and more usually contradict known facts. Sacred text tradition is fine. We just don't take it at face value.
We should regard scientific cosmologies as provisional as well. Unfortunately, we're seeing them presented to youngsters as incontrovertible in almost the same way that creationism used to be.
The logic in Hebrew legislation is hard to follow. The only manslaughter statute I found in the OT is at Numbers 35:22-29. It says that the person who kills someone accidentally has a right to go to a town of asylum, but that relatives of the victim can take revenge if the killer leaves the asylum. And note that lack of enmity was required:
Num. 35:22 "But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity,..."
Striking a slave in anger would not have been covered, probably.
Although there is doubt that actual legal practice in Hebrew communities even followed the Torah's prescriptions to the letter. In other words, it was either left up to the parties involved in a dispute to settle on their own, or came down to the opinion of whoever was judging a case.
adi2d
Active Member
Be careful friend. It doesn't help much to give bible verses to the serene one. He has the Holy Ghost on his side. He can never be wrong. In this thread he has said humans appeared during the cambrian. God is helpless God couldn't stop an apple from falling off table. You should skim the thread. Its interesting reading. Funny at times. "God condoms"
Anyway. Have fun
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Actually its because there hasn't been a case for Intelligence in cosmological arguments.
The scientific cosmologies only lay claim to what we are pretty sure of. Which is right after the big bang. Science doesn't make any claims of facts or knowledge prior to this that I am aware of.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are correct as there are numerous hypotheses dealing with what my have caused the BB.
I know that you know
I was surprised to hear back from him after the indecent the order day, managed to ignore me for a day.
Stovepipe_Hat
One who will die.
Scientific cosmologies are basically mathematical formulations derived from particle physics and telescopic observation. The telescope can fool the eye, as Percival Lowell learned when he saw canals on Mars. And, it can probably fool an electronic detector as well. A telescopic image or spectrum requires interpretation. For instance, the red shift involves inferences made by comparing the telescope's spectrum with a similar one produced in the lab, under the assumption the same physical process is behind both.
I don't have the qualifications needed to evaluate the Big Bang theory, so I'm willing to accept the judgment of experts who state that it is sound according to current standards of science. Which is good.
But look at a child's book on the subject. Issues of provisional truth are beyond the maturity of 11-year olds to appreciate, so absolute truth is presented to them instead, with pictures of gasses flying out from a central bright area of the picture and galaxies condensing near the margins.
I agree there's no direct evidence that an intelligent being is involved in any fundamental physical process. Belief in a creator is strictly a matter of faith. But our sciences also require more faith and more interpretation than we acknowledge.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Scientific cosmologies are basically mathematical formulations derived from particle physics and telescopic observation. The telescope can fool the eye, as Percival Lowell learned when he saw canals on Mars. And, it can probably fool an electronic detector as well. A telescopic image or spectrum requires interpretation. For instance, the red shift involves inferences made by comparing the telescope's spectrum with a similar one produced in the lab, under the assumption the same physical process is behind both.
I don't have the qualifications needed to evaluate the Big Bang theory, so I'm willing to accept the judgment of experts who state that it is sound according to current standards of science. Which is good.
But look at a child's book on the subject. Issues of provisional truth are beyond the maturity of 11-year olds to appreciate, so absolute truth is presented to them instead, with pictures of gasses flying out from a central bright area of the picture and galaxies condensing near the margins.
I agree there's no direct evidence that an intelligent being is involved in any fundamental physical process. Belief in a creator is strictly a matter of faith. But our sciences also require more faith and more interpretation than we acknowledge.
Scientists in general are very cautious about making absolutist-type claims, but unfortunately the media sometimes is not as cautious. Scientific papers are tedious, mostly boring, and worded very cautiously, by and large.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Yes and I wonder if that's why Dawkins, Sagan and Hawking were all divorced twice because they bored the krap out of their wives?..
I can just imagine how the pillow talk went-
WIFEY- "Oh Dicky darling, talk sexy to me and tell me the things I want to hear"
DAWKINS- "A uniflagellar sperm cell that is motile is referred to as a spermatozoon, whereas a non-motile sperm cell is referred to as a spermatium.
Sperm cells cannot divide and have a limited life span, but after fusion with egg cells during fertilization, a new organism begins developing, starting as a totipotent zygote.
In mammals, sperm develops in the testicles and is released from the penis"
WIFEY- "Oh shut the f*** up and just DO it!"
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
SAGAN- "there are billions upon billions of sperm"..
HAWKING- "And all go down that black hole"..
HAWKING- "And all go down that black hole"..
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes and I wonder if that's why Dawkins, Sagan and Hawking were all divorced twice because they bored the krap out of their wives?..
I can just imagine how the pillow talk went-
WIFEY- "Oh Dicky darling, talk sexy to me and tell me the things I want to hear"
DAWKINS- "A uniflagellar sperm cell that is motile is referred to as a spermatozoon, whereas a non-motile sperm cell is referred to as a spermatium.
Sperm cells cannot divide and have a limited life span, but after fusion with egg cells during fertilization, a new organism begins developing, starting as a totipotent zygote.
In mammals, sperm develops in the testicles and is released from the penis"
WIFEY- "Oh shut the f*** up and just DO it!"
Hey, maybe you should do some writing for the Big Bang Theory. The above is good.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Dead easy mate, God wrote the 'Creation/Evolution Program' then hit "Enter" to start it with a Big Bang..
Sapiens
Polymathematician
It is important that we attach proper warning labels: "THIS IS AN UNSUPPORTED CLAIM."Dead easy mate, God wrote the 'Creation/Evolution Program' then hit "Enter" to start it with a Big Bang..
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Okay, let's try 'Genesis Project'..
"God made the worlds.. (Hebrews 11:3 KJV)
And maybe Jesus is out there tending them-
"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also" (John 10:16)
But before he went he told us-
"I'll be back" (Mark 13:26)
Sapiens
Polymathematician
It is important that we attach proper warning labels: "THIS IS A QUOTE, NOT A SUPPORTED CLAIM."Okay, let's try 'Genesis Project'..
"God made the worlds.. (Hebrews 11:3 KJV)
It is important that we attach proper warning labels: "THIS IS A QUOTE, NOT A SUPPORTED CLAIM."
He was the Terminator?
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Jesus was a tall, blond Austrian with a heavy accent.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Yes, I knew that was your angle, but your trap was anticipated. I have been around you atheists for some time and know your dishonest methods well.
A commandment, principle and precept is as valid today as 4000 years ago, regardless of culture. To commit adultery by having sex with a married woman, or visa versa, is the same sin now as it has ever been. Slavery is as wrong today as it was then, we know this as it is probably as prevalent today. What is different, and must be taken into consideration, is colloquialisms.
The definitions of the words must be evaluated, like "theory" has a different meaning in science then it does outside of science. Slavery then meant volunteering to work for someone in return for food, shelter and protection. Slavery in the 18th century, and today, means one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune forever with no likelihood of freedom and every likelihood of being abused. The two words are the same, however, their meanings are very different. The same mistake that TheGunShoj kept making.
I wonder If the same kind of thraldom was used in today's day and age, whether we would see children dying in Africa from malnutrition.
So yes, the bible is the same throughout all ages. Every individual contravention of the law has a severity and a consequence.
Your trap has been sprung but the bate was taken without any harm to the target. I knew it was coming. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.