ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I don't have such a theory - neither, as far as I know, does anybody else. Once again your comprehensive ignorance of science is on full display. And you ignored my point completely.
-
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!
Truth: either God exists or He don't.
- Thread starter capumetu
- Start date
I don't have such a theory - neither, as far as I know, does anybody else. Once again your comprehensive ignorance of science is on full display. And you ignored my point completely.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry wrong on both counts. But then these are typical errors by the scientifically illiterate. Changes in the speed of light would have physical consequences. One does not get to change such basics willy nilly. The energy of radioactive decay is tied to the speed of light. Your claim of light being faster at one point would in effect melt the Earth. You are the one that is making assumptions since you do not understand the consequences of changing rates of decay, speed of light, etc..
As to your claim of research pointing to an Intelligent Creator for DNA you need to support that. In other words Citation Needed! And that means a reliable scientific source. Not a dishonest one where authors are required to swear to not follow the scientific method.
Wrangler
Ask And You Will Receive
Boy, are you confused.
Don’t let semantics trip you up. God imbued us as moral agents. He gave us liberty along with life. This is our nature, capacity to choose.
Given our moral agency, we inevitably make wrong choices. This does not mean that every human makes the same wrong choice. We are not equally tempted by the same thing.
The paradox is that God made us capable of error while holding us to a standard of perfection. The solution is humility so no man can brag. We are not made to make it alone. We are made to require divine grace through His Son.
It is perfect. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You really need to learn what is and what is not evidence. Hand waving is not evidence. The Bible is not evidence. In the sciences there is a very rational definition of evidence:
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.
And once again you claim that God is immoral. If you want people to worship your God why do you keep claiming that he is a liar and now immoral?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So according to you God is immoral and unjust. That explains a lot.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Only in terms of determining whether my natural surroundings were created by someone. Logic 101.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Leaving aside total lack of evidence (which we would actually expect); so your god just changed the rates to fool (lie to) us?
Such as (from non-creationists - creationist sources are unreliable and often lie)?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not just according to me. According to anyone that can reason rationally. And what gall! You think that you can tell your God how he created the Earth. That is amazing. If God is real his work tells us how he made the Earth. The Earth tells us a different story.
You should know that it was early Christian scientists that first refuted the Noah's Ark myth.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So your god is cruel and unjust.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Except that doesn't actually work, does it? People who believe don't stop 'sinning', do they?
37818
Active Member
There are different interpretations of the water of John 3:5. It is my understanding it is Jesus' answer to Nicodemus' question, John 3:4, "Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
". . . That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. . . ." So in John 3:5 Jesus speaks of two births, not just one.
Nice claim. Evidence?
I pointed out before that science does NOT say that 'something came from nothing'. In fact, it is *religion* that says this.
What science actually says is that whenever there was time, there was also space, matter, and energy.
So, don't claim that others are holding to a belief that is implied by your system and NOT by theirs.
Isn't that convenient? you can ignore the evidence and say the truth is just hidden.
On the other side, I say that the truth is public and can be observed. All you need to do is take the actual evidence seriously.
A deity that withholds evidence to fool people is a deceiver. Do you really claim that is what is going on?
Actually, that is not the case. It is possible to test whether rates were the same in the past. For example, the constancy of the speed of light was tested by the 1987 supernova when the light from the supernova was reflected by a cloud nearby. The distance between the supernova and the cloud was consistent with the *modern* speed of light and NOT a faster speed in the past.
This is only one case, but the constancy of the basic parameters is something that is tested.
Show the reference where DNA points to an intelligent creator.
37818
Active Member
We have a different understanding of the death of the soul. Jesus said, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Matthew 10:28. Hell aka the second death. Revelation 21:8.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, we do have a different understanding, but who is to say your understanding is correct and my understanding is incorrect?
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Where in that verse does it say the soul will experience physical death, annihilation? It says "destroy." To me, destroying the soul means that soul will experience spiritual death, so it will not have eternal life as do the souls of those who are near to God.
Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Jesus was saying to deny our selfish desires, things we want that are not of God, and to follow in His Way. For whoever will live for self shall lose his eternal life, but whoever will sacrifice his life for the sake of Jesus and God shall gain eternal life. It is the soul that gains eternal life, not the body.
So if we live for self and the worldly things we gain the whole world but we lose our soul because our soul will not gain eternal life, it will lose eternal life. In that sense our soul dies. However, since the soul is immortal, it continues to exist in the spiritual world after their physical body dies.
“In the same way, the souls who are veiled from God, although they exist in this world and in the world after death, are, in comparison with the holy existence of the children of the Kingdom of God, nonexisting and separated from God.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 243
Baha’u’llah wrote the same thing as Jesus said regarding the soul that does not deny self, the destination of such a soul: “If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...” means it sinks into hell.
“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. It is the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him. If it be faithful to God, it will reflect His light, and will, eventually, return unto Him. If it fail, however, in its allegiance to its Creator, it will become a victim to self and passion, and will, in the end, sink in their depths...”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159
There are many different understandings of the second death. How do you know your understanding is correct?
I do not have an understanding because I never took the time to interpret those verses.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You're contradicting yourself (not for the first time). How can this 'evidence' be stark and before us if it's being deliberately hidden by your god?
You appear to have wrapped yourself up in an entirely self-referential belief system that no element of reality can be allowed to upset. Any evidence, no matter how solid, can be dismissed as god's deception, hiding of the truth, or doing things in ways that we cannot understand or judge because of our limitations.
What is somewhat puzzling though is, given how compressively you've wrapped yourself up in this reality excluding bubble, why you seem so reluctant to even acknowledging when your caricature of science is corrected. For example, how many times have you accused science or people here of thinking the universe came from nothing and how many times has this been corrected only to have you repeat it again as if nobody had said anything about it? Why do you seem so scared to acknowledge that science has different ideas if you can just wave them away too as being god hiding the truth?
Pilgrim Soldier
Active Member
Your point doesn't make any sense, so how am I supposed to respond to it
Pilgrim Soldier
Active Member
Well thanks for finally admitting that secular science is based on circular reasoning. You just admitted the evidence has to be interpreted in accordance with circular reasoning or scientific method which are one and the same.
It is now clear to me that secular science is your god